Posted on 06/11/2003 3:16:53 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
It was Henry VIII of England, entitled "Defender of the Faith" by Pope Leo X for his treatise against Luther, who led the Church of England out of the Church of Rome. At issue was the pope's authority to deny Henry a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.
Now, the worldwide Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church of the United States appear about to split again.
In New Hampshire this weekend, Episcopalians elected as bishop an open homosexual, though the choice of Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson must be approved by the national General Convention in Minneapolis in July. "I plan to be a good bishop, not a gay bishop," the Rev. Robinson told the clergy and laity who elected him. In truth, he plans to be both.
Yet, it is impossible to see how the Episcopal Church can endorse Robinson's election and remain true to the tenets of its faith. As late as 1998, the bishops of the Anglican Communion approved a resolution calling homosexual sex "incompatible with Scripture."
Nor is Robinson simply a cleric with a homosexual orientation. In 1986, he divorced his wife, the mother of his two daughters, to take up with his male lover. He describes the divorce thus.
"My wife and I," wrote Rev. Robinson, "returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the Eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows, asked each other's forgiveness, cried a lot, pledged ourselves to the joint raising of our children, and shared the body and blood of Christ." Shorn of Mrs. Robinson, Rev. Robinson moved in with Mark Andrew, a state employee.
The issue the Episcopal Church must confront is this: Can a man be consecrated as bishop who is living in defiance of what the Anglican Communion teaches is the Word of God? Is Rev. Robinson living a moral life with his partner, or a sinful and scandalous one?
If Rev. Robinson becomes Bishop Robinson, the Episcopal Church will be telling the world that Scripture is wrong about homosexual sex and has been wrong for 2,000 years. Or it will be saying that morality changes and the Bible must be reinterpreted in light of the times, which is a pretty good definition of moral relativism.
The positions seem irreconcilable. Either Rev. Robinson is a moral man leading a good life with his lover, or he is openly living in shameful sin, in which case it would be a sacrilege to consecrate him bishop. Which is it?
The Episcopal Church has already split over the issue of women priests, and some of its priests and laity have left and gone over to the Catholic Church. But the issue of homosexual sex and "gay" marriages could permanently disunite the Anglican Communion.
Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of 17 million Anglicans in 80 dioceses, has already "broken communion" – i.e., declared schismatic and excommunicated – Canadian Bishop Michael Ingham, who leads the Anglican diocese of Westminster, B.C. What was Bishop Ingham's offense? In some parishes of his diocese, he authorized clergy to bless homosexual unions.
It will be interesting to see how Archbishop Akinola and Anglican traditionalists react if Rev. Canon Robinson becomes Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire, with Mark Andrew as his lover and housemate in the chancery.
The pope and the Catholic Church have held to tradition on women priests and "gay" sex, but even here there is rising dissent.
When Cardinal Archbishop Arinze of Nigeria spoke to a thousand graduates of Georgetown University last month, he ignited a walkout by calling homosexuality a mockery of the family:
"In many parts of the world," said the Cardinal, "the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography and fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions, and cut in two by divorce."
That powerful restatement of traditional Catholic teaching jolted the Georgetown audience. Theology Professor Teresa Sanders walked off the stage. After Cardinal Arinze departed, a letter was signed by 70 faculty members, protesting his comments.
On hearing his declaration that Catholic morality and doctrine are "non-negotiable," Fr. Ed Ingebretsen, S.J., an English teacher, sent an apology to his e-mail list for the Cardinal's "insensitive remarks."
Anglican or Catholic, these Nigerian prelates, who live in a land where Christians are martyred for their faith, are exhibiting a moral courage in our immoral age that these white wimps in white collars in the Western world would do well to emulate.
Romans 2:17-24
17. Now you, if you call yourself aJewChristian; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
18. if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
19. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
20. an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
21. you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
22. You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23. You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24. As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
But not by me.
He's clearly living immorally, because he's a hypocrite. It is utterly hypocritical to pretend that faggotry is not condemned in the Bible, as are several other sexual practices. Were he an adulterer, a fornicator, or into bestiality, necrophilia or onanism, it would be the same.
Hypocracy, by any reasonable definition of morality, is immoral.
Being a "bishop" in a supposedly Christian church and "gay" are obviously incompatible.
But then I guess that's what Pat's trying to point out.
Here's the deal - while the Episcopal church is a "top down" organization, the national church doesn't have a whole lot of control over individual priests in a diocese.
But the national church DOES have to approve the bishop of a diocese. So when the "reverend"'s name goes up to General Convention in July, it's going to be a watershed event. Either GC approves the man, or it rejects him. If it approves him, that will be a decisive vote on the issue of homosexual clergy and "marriages".
Up until now, GC has managed to avoid the homosexual issue by appointing "study committees" and tabling both motions to approve homosexual priests and motions to declare homosexual conduct sinful. But this is a vote that will HAVE to be taken - they can't leave the bishop in limbo. (hmmmm . . . interesting concept).
I think my husband's "line in the sand" is just about here -- he's been saying for about 3 years that if the General Convention approves homosexual unions we're heading over to the Catholics. I'm a cradle (3rd generation) Episcopalian of the high-and-crazy persuasion, he's a converted Methodist with a Catholic mom, so it won't be too much of a wrench. Although I'm going to miss the music . . .
The next pope may be from Africa, and a schism may occur because African Catholics largely lack the philosophical pollution of the postmodern, materialistic theology affecting Europe and the U.S.
The Holy Spirit will guide the Church. What an interesting time to be alive.
Catholics are doing this stuff, too. They just aren't as in-your-face about it because of appearances and scandal. Hidden or open, I fail to see any difference.
I sure would appreciate some facts/links/authorities on this.
Sure there are gay priests in the Catholic church just like the Episcopal church (I'm thinking of one absolute flamer - a caricature of the femme in "La Cage aux Folles" - who is rector of a metro Atlanta Catholic church.) And I wouldn't be surprised if some local loon has attempted to bless a "marriage". No church -- Catholic, Episcopal, Nazarene, Free Will Baptist, or What's-Happenin'-Now -- has ever been able to prevent sin, misconduct, or bad shepherds on the local level.
The difference is that the Vatican has issued absolute statements that homosexual conduct is intrinsically sinful, while it looks like the highest authority of the Episcopal church in America is about to APPROVE of it.
Certainly the American Catholic church has been allowed way too much rope since Vatican II. I think the policy of allowing the Americans a good deal of leeway has backfired in a serious way. But recent indications such as the recall and forced retirement of certain archbishops show that this is changing and will continue to change.
I checked the LCMS website, and fortunately Atlanta has a lot of LCMS churches. Several are quite large (which is necessary if you're going to have a top notch music program - only way to afford a good organist-choirmaster).
You can't beat Bach, that's for sure, and I already speak pretty fluent German so singing it won't be a problem. Question, though: do Lutherans acknowledge the Real Presence in the Bread and Wine?
I don't have any. There have been reports here on fr from time to time. It's just one of my evil generalizations.
Yes, officially the church condemns homosexuality, but in practice things are far different. My mother's friend was catholic and her granddaughter changed to lesbian, adopted kids, and got a priest to bless their union, probably not during Sunday mass. Anything can be had if you know the right people.
Maybe the catholic church is evil to condemn it. Anybody with half a brain doesn't believe in the bible stories any more, so why should we believe homosexuality is evil? That's where the catholic church got the proscription against homosexuality, from the bible.
In the catholic church you will find a lot of hypocricy and I don't know how you will deal with it. There seem to be a lot of homosexual priests who are sexually active, but due to the secrecy involved, the ordinary person can't know one way or the other. You don't know who they are unless they have gotten busted cruising a park or rest stop on the interstate.
The best any church can do is have a clear policy, and bust anybody caught violating the policy. The problem in the Episcopal church is that they apparently are about to give up and say "what the heck" and approve consecration of a flagrantly homosexual bishop. Of course, at that point the church is doing much WORSE than possible hypocrisy - it's rejecting its basic beliefs.
I DO hope your riff on the Bible and homosexuality is heavy sarcasm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.