No Room For Gays
 

it seems there is no place for a gay person in the Anglican church.

source: BBC

Gay priest 'forced to resign'

Canon Jeffrey John says he is now celibate
Friends of the gay priest who resigned from the post of Bishop-elect of Reading, say he was forced to step down.

Canon Jeffrey John announced on Sunday he would be withdrawing his acceptance of the post following the row within the Anglican Church about his appointment.

He said he made the decision because of the "damage" his consecration might cause to the "unity of the Church".

But his colleague the Dean of Southwark Colin Slee said Dr John would never have stepped down under his own initiative.

He said he had seen the priest after a six-hour meeting at Lambeth Palace when Dr John had told him he would withdraw his acceptance if asked to.

Mr Slee said Dr John's departure was a "devastating blow" for Anglicans who wanted a more progressive and inclusive Church, according to BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott.

He said the Church and liberals must now organise to fight for a more inclusive Church.

Tribute paid

Earlier the Archbishop of Canterbury called for reflection as he paid tribute to the "dignity and forbearance" Dr John had shown "often under the most intrusive and distasteful personal scrutiny".

But he acknowledged there would have been an "obvious problem with the consecration of a bishop whose ministry would not be readily received by a significant proportion of Christians in England and elsewhere."


Dr Williams praised the priest for his "dignity"
The row had been expected to dominate this week's meeting of the General Synod, the Church's parliament.

Dr Williams, who had not objected to Dr John's appointment, made it clear homosexuals "are full and welcome members of the Church".

"This has been a time of open and painful confrontation, in which some of our bonds of mutual trust have been severely strained".

But he said some of the opposition to the appointment had been "very unsavoury indeed" and showed the level of "foolish and hurtful prejudice in our society is still uncomfortably high".

A number of letters had displayed "a shocking level of ignorance and hatred towards homosexual people" he said.

Dr John had been due to be consecrated in October.

He has been in a relationship with a man for 27 years, but says he is now celibate.

Opinion divided

Joel Edwards, of The Evangelical Alliance, welcomed the news saying this was "definitely in the interests of the church."

But gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell warned: "Having scored this victory, anti-gay evangelists are looking to step up their campaign against gay people in the church."

Robert Pigott said the victory for traditionalists within the Anglican Church might only be short-lived as the United States may make the blessing gay relationships official policy within the next few weeks and confirm the election of an actively homosexual bishop.

Dr John's announcement came after the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, said he had ordained two bishops he "suspected" were gay in the 1990s but he had "never knowingly ordained a practising homosexual".

homophobia of society reflected in the church

Bah. At least, the guy will have more fun stuff to do. The agnostic in me likes it every time this kind of thing happens. :D

And don't take this message seriously. I'm not in the mood.

lol seer, you have a very good point, maybe this is his 'calling' to give up his ghey occupation ;)

I agree, I personally enjoy watching the hateful and ridiculous tendencies of the Bible and Church exposed.

Hmmmm!
 

This may sound strange... but IPissPeopleOff is right!

But this not to say that the Bible and Religion don't have other aspects in them besides bigotry and intolerance. It's just amazing how many people claim to read their Bible everyday and never seems to arrive at the "Judge not lest ye be judged" part.

On the other hand, if you want an open, progressive, gay-positive place to worship, why not just become a Unitarian?

Its more the people andhow they "interpret" the "teachigns and advise" found in the bible.
just like spiderbaby1958 said alot of people choose to ignore
"Judge not lest ye be judged" but not all peopel are this way,
i am a Christian and have no problem with gay people wanting to serve God, from what i can see he didnt hurt anyone,
he was only following his religious calling and not following his "fleshly erges"
If people are so ready to threten his position for how he feels,
i wish they where this gungho about the perverts who rape lil boys and girls ( they get off extremly easy if u ask me)

I think that the way many Christians treat homosexuallity is wrong. However, there are just as many if not more Christians who think differntly. I am a Christian and I absolutely do not respect the Catholic or Anglican (since it might as well be Catholic) Churches. The Catholic Church is so full of hypocrisy, it should have burst centuries ago.

I think the biggest problem I see here is intellectual oppression. This is a fundamental component of political correctness, to presume that the views you hold are correct, and that everyone else is evil, bigoted, intolerant, etc. When in fact, it is political correctness that is intolerant of anyone with a diverse viewpoint.

You see no problem with homosexuality. Fine. Should everyone else be bullied into the same viewpoint?

Some university professors speak out in favor of adult / child sex, and lowering or doing away with the age of consent. Let's say this becomes a popular viewpoint, as it is in Amsterdam (where the age of consent was lowered to 12). Does this make this viewpoint correct?

If you are going to be a LEADER in an organization, it is only REASONABLE that you believe in the fundamental tenants expressed by that organization. If you know that an organization opposes homosexuality, and you are a homosexual or support homosexuality, then seek leadership in a different organization! Would an atheist group be expected to hire a leader that held more of an agnostic viewpoint, that there might be a god and that the atheist position is too dogmatic on this point? What if such a leader were forced to step down as leader of the atheist organization?? Would there be this big outcry that the atheists are bigoted and intolerant of agnosticism?

Would NOW hire a leader who thought that abortion was wrong in some circumstances? Probably not. If a NOW leader adopted such a viewpoint, would they be asked to resign? Probably! Isn't this bigoted and intolerant of them, to fire someone just because of their viewpoint on abortion? Doesn't NOW stand for much more than abortion rights?

It seems that tolerance gives everyone the right to believe whatever they want, and uphold whatever standards they want, unless the group is religious. Then they are bigoted and intolerant. It sounds like what is really going on is that many people are just religiphobic! They are blatantly bigoted, intolerant, and biased against religion, or at least certain religions, which adhere to beliefs that they do not approve. They are hypercritical when the religious groups do things to uphold their standards, but when other non-religious groups do precisely the same things to uphold their standards, they have no problem.

Just because you do not like a standard does not mean that you can impose your beliefs on everyone. This is highly intolerant!

1- *note to self NEVER take my future children to Amsterdam* :eek:
i wonder who felt that was a great idea O_o... :weird:
thats far to young to know what yer doing really and why,
yer still learning about the world oraund u, and unless yer mature enough to face the possibility of having a child by this, u don't have enough maturity to be "of age of consent"
but thats just my view on that..

2-
No, but u can be clear on how u feel about something and not join in.
Now if u ever hit on the subject of caring for yer family, if u "feel something is wrong for them" like children who are still learning about the world and dealing with it, then u by all means protect them and keap them away from potentially bad thing and impose your rules to teach them, keap them informed ofcourse because they WILL hit an age where they "have" to choose for themselvs, till then they are your responsibility.

duet maxwell, I totally agree.

1. I think this is largely adult men who wanted a chance to get their hands (and other body parts) on 12 year old girls.

2. You definitely should share your standards with your children, and the reason for your standards. What I was addressing are all of those politically correct people who are critical of groups that have different standards than they hold, as thought groups had no right to their own viewpoint and identity. And who fail to see how hypocritical that they are being for labeling a group biased and intolerant, when the very act of labeling such a group shows bias and intolerance on their part toward that group.

ah, ok i understand now :)

<edit>
yeah theres groups like that.. and trully churches have well over their shair of people like that.
Not to mention some family members of mine.. :hang:

Sooo...it's intolerant to say that the church is intolerant and wrong about persecuting a gay priest and making him resign...ooookaythen.

By that reasoning -

Being prejudiced against blacks/jews/etc should be accepted, as saying it's wrong is being intolerant.

Institutions/schools/clubs/etc originally founded for men or whites or etc should be allowed to continue to discriminate because not allowing them to have their beliefs and founding principles is intolerant.

Where do we draw the line at tolerance and intolerance?

Are we being intolerant when we try to stamp out terrorist groups? We're not letting them follow their religious beliefs.

Churches should have no more a right to be prejudiced than anyone else.

And think for a moment. He's gay and he was being promoted within the church. So...others were intolerant of the people who wanted to promote him and their views that he'd make a good Bishop.

I don't know. For myself, I think I was expressing my opinion. I wouldn't begin to know how to enforce my opinion on the Presbyterian church, even if I wanted to. I have to get ready for work right now, but later on I'll try to reread this thread and see if I can figure out what the age of consent in Amsterdam has to do with any of this.

I just had to coment on one of mmontgomery's examples thats all.
And anyways..alot of issues are interlaced with main subject, if u think about it long enough.

Constantine had to achieve a leadership position in order to spread Christianity to the world. what i'm saying is don't tell this priest guy to go to an organization that more suits his way of life. if he feels strongly about something then he should express it (as long as it brings harm to no one).

no one will listen to a grunt...but a leader...one might take interest in the beliefs of a superior rather than those of an inferior.

My point is that the politically correct groups calling other groups "intolerant" is all about gaining the moral high ground. EVERY group that stands for ANYTHING is intolerant about something.

Politically correct groups are intolerant of Christianity in general, regardless of what a particular groups might do. In this specific case, I think it is VERY REASONABLE for any group, including the catholic church, to specify that anyone in a leadership position MUST adhere to the basic beliefs of the group.

Would you expect someone from the Flat Earth Society to be promoted to leadership in a prestigous astrophysics groups? Would you consider it intolerant to exclude such an individual from leadership?

Would you expect a theist to rise to leadership in a humanist organization? Would you consider it intolerant to exclude such an individual from leadership?

In each case, it is only REASONABLE that such people be excluded from leadership, since they do not adhere to the basic tenets of the group.

In the case of the priest, it is his BEHAVIOR that excludes him from leadership. Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy. A priest that is attracted to women is not excluded from leadership. A priest who acts on that attaction is. A priest who is attracted to men is not excluded from leadership. A priest who acts on it is.

This is not persecuting someone just because they are gay. This is excluding someone for violating their vows to remain celebate, whether they are hetrosexual or homosexual.

He already knew the standards before he chose to become a catholic priest. If he did not want to adhere to those standards, he should not have become a catholic priest to begin with. If he wants to be a practicing homosexual, he needs to seek leadership in a group which permits this behavior.

Thank you mmontgomery for your rational argument.

If this guy really wants to be a practicing homosexual and a priest or a preacher then I'm sure he'll be able to find a position in a unitarian church.

Decent argument except for one thing; the Anglican church allows it's vicars to marry and have sex, it was his homosexuality they seemed to have a problem with. There is no vow of chastity that he broke.

:up: yup makes the church itself look very silly with their decision, maybe alot of those other guys should follow his example and never have sex again cause for some reason the child abuse is high with them..