A Testing Ground
2 September 2008 - 3 אלול 5768 by Huw
UTH ASKS “Is Wales ready for a gay bishop?” She also reposts the entirety of her 2003 Interview with Jeffrey John. Is Dr John up for the Bishop of Bangor? And WHY are the American Conservatives in a snit?
He is emphatic that issues of sexuality should not become a main plank of his ministry. He is far more interested in mission and church growth. “I have never campaigned about homosexuality. But I have never lied about it or tried to hide it. I have never gone out of my way to talk about it. It is simply there. People gradually catch on. Often people sort of know about it, but they do not want to name it.” Dr John and his partner have never lived together, apart from a brief period when he was moving house, because their separate lives have made that impossible. His confessors and canonical superiors have always known about him, and he has always obeyed their direction. He has also said he will abide by the bishops’ teaching, set out in the controversial 1991 document Issues in Human Sexuality, that gay clergy must be celibate but lay people can have gay relationships.
So, naturally, I ask him when the relationship ended and why, curious to know whether the lover was sacrificed for the mitre. “It has not ended,” he protests.
This is an astonishing revelation. Dr John goes on to explain: “It is perfectly clear that the relationship is going to last. It is a permanent thing. That must not be denied.
“The relationship is the kind of relationship I have talked about and written about. Therefore it is for life. We have been together for 27 years and we will remain together. But the relationship has not been sexually expressed for years.
This is a test for the so-called conservatives. Here is a man who claims to be living out the conservative Christian model for relationships: celibate. If the conservatives get upset about this - based only on the whole gay thing - then they hand yet another victory to the gay activists: for they make it clear that “Gay” is a gestalt. It’s not just sex - which this man isn’t having - but a thing. But they also make clear that they do not simply want gay Christians to be celibate: the conservatives do not want gay Christians to be. Full Stop.
In other words what they’ve been whining and complaining about in the upper levels of Anglicanism would be proven a great lie.
And I hope - for the sake of those of us on the liberal side who support their continued inclusion in the halls of Anglicanism - that such is not the case.
Rome has already went down this path: turning gayness itself into a sin. They have couched it in unproved, non-scientific and pseudo psychological language, but at heart the Romans have admitted that “Teh Gay” exists - celibate or not - and that it is so gravely wrong as to be a bar to holy orders, ranking up there with attempting to ordain women.
Therein we find the greatest truth.
I have met Fr Jeffrey John several times, though he probably won’t remember me! He is a humble, unassuming and kind man, and an outstanding priest of the Catholic tradition within the Anglican Church. He accepts the rules and Magisterium of the Church as a willing obedience.
I would have no problem with any celibate gay man becoming an Anglican or an Orthodox priest or a bishop, neither would any of my Anglican and Orthodox friends.
Just as we would have no problem with a celibate heterosexual man becoming a priest or a Bishop.
Just wouldn’t expect a single clergyman of any rank to be having a sexual relationship of any description.
Huw, you know I love you … but your last paragraph is grossly inaccurate. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2357-9 for a brief statement of the Roman Catholic position.
First, Rome does not teach that “gayness itself” is a sin. Quite the opposite. Rome teaches that same-sex genital acts are gravely sinful. But she does not teach that the orientation is, in and of itself, sinful.
Second, Rome is not committed to any particular theory, whether scientific or pseudo-scientific, about the origins of the orientation.
Third, Rome has admitted that “Teh Gay” exists, and she also teaches that those with this orientation are to be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and they are not to be subject to any sort of “unjust discrimination.”
And fourth, there is no similarity between Rome’s understanding of the (attempted) ordination of women and the ordination of gay men. The first is a purely ontological issue, and the second is a purely disciplinary issue. The media likes to talk about a “ban” on women’s ordination. There is no ban here, because WO is an ontological impossibility. But there is now a true “ban” on the ordination of men with “deep seated homosexual tendencies” (whatever that actually means … there is much internal debate). Gay men can still be validly ordained, but currently it would be illicit due to the ban.
Anyhow, I’m not here to argue one way or the other for Rome’s position, but I do think it’s good to be accurate!
Ben - I know you love me. And I read that in your constant posts to correct me :-)
I know it’s my political bent - so I admit my bias:
In the idea that gays can not even attend seminary, or enter religious orders… there is something more than the official catechism of the RC teaches. Not even celibate gays. They have to be cured (no, Rome never uses that word) before they can be admitted. And I suggest that in the idea that they can be cured (no, Rome never uses the word) they are espousing pseudo-scientific ideas about orientation.
I see the *difference* between WO and GO. (There’s 60s doo-wop song there!)
Given the feminist/queer theory that hatred of gay is just another form of hatred of feminine… I think the “ontologial impossibility” of WO runs a very close parallel to the moral impossibility of GO. Just that the one can be fixed if you butch it up a bit. (don’t ask which one :-))
Sorry, Huw, I certainly don’t mean to be a jerk about it … I just think it’s important to portray an opposing view in the most accurate way possible.
No jerkiness seen, felt or heard! And when I use political short hand without explaining or trying to make sense of it, you have a right to call me on it: lest I assume everyone agrees with me by their silence!
I’m trying to explain my place too. Especially the “get cured or don’t get ordained” part that leads me to wonder at the science. As to the term “cured” (which is my term - not theirs) I think it’s a valid word to use since the orientation is “objectively disordered” (”sick”) and they want it to be fixed or absent before one presents oneself for Orders. So… it sounds like “cure” - I am making sense, right?
The latest document about barring gays from seminary and religious orders is, I think, not easy to interpret. A bit of Googling will reveal that there are several different takes on the precise meaning of some of the jargon (Vatican-ese?). And perhaps it is because of the science underlying it, as you say.
My (totally superficial and amateurish) reading of the most recent seminary document is that those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (whatever that means, scientifically or psychologically) are not eligible for ordination. The “curing” bit comes in for instances of SSA which are not “deep-seated” (the document mentions “situational homosexuality” or SSA as a holdover from adolescent confusion or experimentation).
So, I’m not sure that the RCC completely, officially, buys into all of the “ex-gay” stuff. The Catechism seems to suggest that those “deep-seated” SSA can’t really be “cured” (made straight) and so they are called to a life of chastity.
Anyway, I am far from an expert on the RCC’s views on homosexuality, and so I guess I’ll leave it at that!