Posted on 06/25/2003 2:51:12 PM PDT by nickcarraway
So now the Episcopal church has an "openly gay" (i.e. proselytizing homosexual) bishop. The Rev. V. Gene Robinson, 56, was elected bishop of New Hampshire on June 7, in a vote by clergy and church activists. Robinson abandoned his wife and two infant daughters in 1986 to pursue his "lifestyle."
The Episcopal church belongs to the Anglican communion, in which the Church of England is first among equals. That church is itself close to schism over the issue of homosexual clergy. The bishop who presides over the diocese of Oxford, which covers some 600 parishes in the southwest midlands of England, has declared his intention to appoint as suffragan bishop — that is, a sort of assistant bishop, under his authority — a man who is openly homosexual. The appointment has been loudly opposed by scores of churches in the diocese and has given rise to a slightly farcical "dueling bishops" spectacle. Nine bishops signed an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury protesting the appointment; eight other bishops then sent a letter supporting it.
All this is taking place in the context of ructions within the worldwide Anglican communion over this same issue — openly homosexual clergy. Anglicanism is very strong in the third world, especially in Africa. Out there they stick close to Scripture and are socially conservative, and they feel strongly that homosexuality in the clergy is contrary to church teaching and tradition. The bishop of Nigeria, whose diocese is believed to be the fastest-growing in the Anglican communion, is one of those who protested the appointment of Canon John.
And all that is taking place against the background of the recent scandals involving Roman Catholic priests in the U.S. Those scandals revolve around the issue of homosexuality in the clergy. It is very politically incorrect to say that, but anyone who has been involved in the matter, or in reporting it, will tell you it frankly and angrily, and it comes loud and clear from Michael Rose's book Goodbye, Good Men.
Now, of course, homosexual clergy are nothing new, certainly not in the Church of England. The queer vicar was a staple of schoolboy jokes in my own childhood, long before "gay liberation" was heard of. It has probably always been the case that the Roman Catholic and Anglican clergy include a disproportionate number of homosexuals. Quite aside from the "glamour" element of priesthood in these churches — the colored vestments, delicate altar furnishings, chants, bossing about of altar boys, and so on — priests belong, after all, to the "caring professions," to which homosexual men are disproportionately attracted. My mother was a professional nurse all her life until she retired in the 1970s. In those years there were very few male nurses; but every one of them, according to my mother, was assumed to be homosexual unless he presented convincing evidence to the contrary. A high proportion of those who work as servants to the British royal family are homosexual. (One of George V's footmen was arrested for sexual assaults on young boys. His majesty, on being told, said: "Good grief! I thought chaps like that shot themselves.") Teachers in boys'-only schools likewise; Evelyn Waugh remarks on this somewhere, and so do I.
Not only are homosexuals attracted to the caring professions, they are usually good at them. A. N. Wilson's fascinating piece in the Daily Telegraph makes it plain that a lot of the homosexual Anglican clergy he writes about are, in fact, so far as the carrying out of their pastoral duties is concerned, excellent priests. In my oblique way, I made the same point about that schoolmaster of mine, in the column I linked to above. At the boys' school I attended, the repressed pederasts were far and away the best teachers. (Please don't send me e-mails arguing that pederasty has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality. I don't believe it.)
So... what's the fuss about? Isn't a homosexual just as entitled to be a schoolmaster, a nurse, a footman, or even a priest, as anyone else? Wouldn't it be unjust, not to mention unkind, to deny a job of this kind — they are mostly thankless and ill-paid jobs — to a person who, as I have just said, is likely to do it well? In the priesthood, of course, the issue of church teaching comes up: homosexual acts are proscribed in the Bible. However, Canon Jeffrey John, the priest at the center of the Oxford fuss, tells the world that the 27-year relationship with his partner (also an Anglican clergyman) ceased to be physical in the 1990s. He can therefore claim that he is not violating church teaching at all. Why deny him a promotion? Why would so many of us want to deny him? Why do I want to? Isn't this just "homophobia" — blind unreasoning prejudice?
For a clue to the answers, I refer you to Mrs. Leona Helmsley, a person perhaps not as well known out there beyond the Hudson as she is in New York City. Mrs. Helmsley is an 82-year-old lady who owns a number of swank hotels in Manhattan. She was in the local newspapers back in January because of a court case: An ex-employee, name of Charles Bell, was suing her for discrimination, claiming that Mrs. Helmsley had fired him for being homosexual. There were some gray areas in the testimony, but the following at least became clear:
Bell had been hired by Helmsley's Chief Operating Officer at the Park Lane Hotel, who was also homosexual.
His résumé was a work of fiction.
He handed out blocks of rooms, at deep discounts, to members of a leather-fetishist group his boyfriend belonged to.
That last led to one of the best courtroom exchanges. Mrs. Helmsley's attorney asked Bell about an incident when the lady walked into an elevator at the Park Lane and found herself face to face with Bell's boyfriend, all decked out in leather-fetish regalia and with a shaven head. From the New York Post courtroom report: "'He was dressed completely in black leather?' [the attorney] asked. 'Not completely,' Bell snapped."
I tell this sad little tale to make a point. The point is that open homosexuality is — not necessarily, but all too often — an infiltrating, exclusivist, corruptive, and destructive force. It seems unlikely that anyone can help being homosexual in nature, and no one should be subject to acts of unkindness or unjust discrimination on account of something he cannot help. On the other hand, an 82-year-old lady of accomplishment should not be confronted with outrageously dressed freaks paying discount rates when stepping into the elevator of a hotel she owns.
Here is another case, this one from Michael Rose's book. Joseph Kellenyi is talking about his time as a student at Mundelein Seminary near Chicago, a training school for Roman Catholic clergy.
"The issue was never one of my suitability for ordination. Rather it was that the gay clique had been given power over who got ordained in Chicago. Furthermore, the faculty members in question were not willing to settle for tolerance from me, which I could give. What they wanted was affirmation and my respect, which I could not give. It must be noted too that at no time had it ever been suggested that I had a problem dealing with gay men, or was 'homophobic.' The issue was that they had a problem dealing with me. And the rector even admitted again that gay men don't like people like me. This of course raises the question of 'heterophobia.' I have heard time and again that the sexual orientation of priests and seminarians does not matter, as long as they are celibate. Yet when gays come into positions of authority they knowingly and consistently appoint gay men to important key positions."
(My italics.) So it will always be. Homosexuality, open and proud, is a subversive force — subversive, that is, of any institution in which it becomes entrenched. The Roman Catholic church has recently learned this. The Anglican church is about to learn it. The Boy Scouts of America would have learned it, but for a lucky break from the judiciary.
There is no reason why an individual homosexual might not be a good and honorable person, any more than there is any reason why an individual heterosexual might not be a liar and a thief. In matters social and organizational, though, the sum is often greater than the parts, and it is not the one we should focus on, but the many. This, unfortunately, is a very difficult thing to get people to do in a highly individualistic culture like ours. "What about Joe? He's homosexual, but a finer human being you could never wish to meet." Sure, we all know Joe; but his case tells us nothing about the probable behavior of an organization whose higher levels are 30, or 50, or 60 percent homosexual.
I do believe, with a high degree of certainty, that after a few more appointments of the Canon John/Rev. Robinson kind, my church will cease to be a vehicle for the teaching of Christ's gospel, and become instead a dating service for homosexuals. Its ethos will no longer be Christian, it will be "gay," like the ethos at that Chicago seminary (and many others Michael Rose reports on).
Long-time readers of National Review may recall Robert Conquest's three laws of politics, of which the second was: "Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing." (Conquest actually offered the Church of England as an example of this law in action.) I should like to hypothesize a fourth law, which I am going to call Derbyshire's Law.
DERBYSHIRE'S LAW
Any organization that admits frank and open homosexuals into its higher levels will sooner or later abandon its original purpose and give itself over to propagating and celebrating the homosexualist ethos, and to excluding heterosexuals and denigrating heterosexuality.
The key phrase there is "frank and open." These things I am talking about are new in the world. Catholic seminaries of 50 years ago were not, to judge at any rate from the novels of J. F. Powers, plagued with the kinds of issues detailed in Michael Rose's book, though there must have been lots of homosexuals in them.
In this sense, the problem is not homosexuals or homosexuality. I am sure that God loves homosexuals and has a purpose for them. (I even think that their prowess in the "caring professions" offers some clue as to what that purpose might be.) The problem is the sexual revolution. The problem is hedonism. The problem is the preening vanity and selfishness of "coming out," of parading private inclinations, of a kind that repel normal people, as if those inclinations were, all by themselves, marks of authenticity and virtue, of suffering and oppression. A large part of the problem, too, is "heterophobia" — the dislike, mistrust, and contempt which many homosexuals feel towards normal people.
My own reaction to all this is, well, reactionary. I rather liked the old order I grew up in, where everyone knew that the local vicar or the Latin master was a bit of an iron,* but that he kept his hands to himself and his private life private, and did a first-class job of work in his chosen line. Such a one could be a respected and admired member of the community. That homosexual schoolmaster in my National Review piece was known and liked throughout our town — a substantial place, pop. 100,000 — and widely mourned when he died.
The Rev. Robinson, with his selfish betrayal of two little babes, and Canon John, with his self-important announcements about his "lifestyle" and his bedroom activities, will never have that kind of respect and admiration, certainly not from me.** The church that they and their friends are busily colonizing will soon be one that ordinary Christian families will stay away from in droves.
Organized Christianity began as a religion for women and slaves. It looks set fair to end, at least in the Western world, as a religion for homosexuals. The only thing that might turn the tide would be a determined missionary effort by the diocese of Nigeria.
* Working-class English rhyming slang. "Iron" = "iron hoof" = "poof" = "homosexual."
** It seems that Canon John has in fact been less than honest about these matters. In an interview with the London Times, the canon said that he and his partner had never lived together. Some days later, it emerged that in fact the two of them jointly own an apartment in London, and give frequent dinner parties there.
The first sentence is wrong, and it goes downhill from there.
The person mentioned is not a ECUSA Bishop. True, his diocese elected him bishop. But, he does not actually accede to the position until he's approved by the ECUSA. In this particular instance (and a few others), the ECUSA is having it's triennial General Convention within 120 days of his election. Therefore, before this many can become a bishop, he must be approved by a vote of both the House of Bishops (just what you'd think) and the House of Delegates (50% lay and Deacons, 50% Priests, from all the Dioceses). Until each house approves him, he's not a Bishop. And I wouldn't count on his getting approval. The threat of schism is powerful enough that he might miss in at least one house.
"[W]hen Jesus called on his followers to die in order to live, he created a tidal wave of joy and hope on which they have ridden for two thousand years. The gospel of progress represents the exact antithesis. It plays the Crucifixion backwards, as it were; in the beginning was the flesh, and the flesh became Word. In the light of this Logos in reverse, the quest for hope is the ultimate hopelessness; the pursuit of happiness, the certitude of despair; the lust for life, the embrace of death.
"The liberal assault on Christianity has been undertaken with a fury and fervour which today, when the battle seems to have been conclusively won, is difficult to comprehend. [...]
"It is, indeed, among Christians themselves that the final decisive assault on Christianity has been mounted; led by the Protestant churches, but with Roman Catholics eagerly, if belatedly, joining in the fray. All they had to show was that when Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world, He meant that it was. Then, moving on from there, to stand the other basic Christian propositions similarly on their heads. As, that to be carnally minded is life; that it is essential to lay up treasure on earth in the shape of a constantly expanding Gross National Product; that the flesh lusts with the spirit and the spirit with the flesh, so that we can do whatever we have a mind to; that he that loveth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. [...]
"As for the congregations -- not surprisingly, they are dwindling fast. Situational ethics prepares the way for situational worship -- a state of affairs not remedied by introducing pop groups, folk singers, and I daresay in time LSD and striptease to enlighten divine service. The new enlightened clergy positively revel in the decline in church attendance, gleefully recommending selling off redundant churches and their contents, and looking forward to the time when institutional Christianity, like the State in Marxist mythology, will have withered away. In this aspiration, at any rate, they are unlikely to be dissappointed."
-- Malcolm Muggeridge
24
"Sex is the only mysticism materialism offers, and so to sex the pursuers of happiness address themselves with an avidity and dedication seldom, if ever, surpassed. Who among posterity will ever be able to reconstruct the resultant scene? Who for that matter can convey it today? The vast, obsessive outpouring of erotica in every shape and form; in book and film and play and entertainment, in body and word and deed, so that there is no escape for anyone. The lame and the halt, the doddering and the infirm, equally called upon somehow to squeeze out of their frail flesh the requisite response. It is the flesh the quickeneth, the spirit profiteth nothing; copulo ergo sum, I screw, therefore I am -- the new version of Descartes' famous axiom."
-- Muggeridge, again
So... what's the fuss about? Isn't a homosexual just as entitled to be a schoolmaster, a nurse, a footman, or even a priest, as anyone else? Wouldn't it be unjust, not to mention unkind, to deny a job of this kind — they are mostly thankless and ill-paid jobs — to a person who, as I have just said, is likely to do it well?
If a Priest/Teacher/Nurse commits pedophilia, they are not a "good" Priest/Teacher/Nurse. Period.
Ridiculous. Homosexuals can change, and many have. Quite simply, God wants them to change. It may take a seasoned counselor and a greta deal of prayer, but it can happen.
Homosexuals do not belong in any kind of pastoral role. They should be the ones being pastored to, not the ones attempting to lead a flock.
That's quite an awesome bit of rehab that NR's done on Leona. Last I heard, she was a convicted criminal and arrogant jerk, who tried to proclaim her innocence by saying that "taxes are for the little people". After her jail term, she tried to avoid the community service portion of her sentence by paying someone to do it for her (got caught, though, and sentenced to an additional 150 hours). She richly deserved the jail time she served, and is hardly an appropriate example of an innocent victim.
"Mistah Kurtz, he dead." Unfortunately. And he became a Roman Catholic in his last days. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I have seen two straw votes (of bishops) that show Vicky sailing to confirmation easily. My bishop (Tennessee) is a solid "No" however.
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.