What is a Bishop? (Homo/Heterosexual/Fema

   PLEASE TAKE A BIT TO RESEARCH THE BACKGROUND IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THE ISSUES!

Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Aug-2007 at 02:43

As I view it (and as I feel the particular 2-3 passages in question--Lev, possibly another Lev, and Rom--state it) that is the way of it. Acting upon homosexuality, according to the traditional interpretation of scripture is a sin, much like many other sins. I, myself, am a sinner, for instance ;).

Thanks for you take on the issue Akolouthos, you obviously went to alot of effort to give it indepth scrutiny. Your answer has raised another question which someone not so well acquainted with Church teachings as myself has difficulty answering. What if the bishop is repentant of being a homosexual and does not encourage or endorse homosexuality, nor does he/she engage in homosexual practices? Would they then still be considered unqualified to be a minister of the Church?

I believe to be accurate it is not a case of the Episcopalian church nearing schism from the rest of the Anglican community, but of the US Episcopalian church itself being split, with a considerable part of it (I don't remember) agreeing with the more general community.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I believe to be accurate it is not a case of the Episcopalian church nearing schism from the rest of the Anglican community, but of the US Episcopalian church itself being split, with a considerable part of it (I don't remember) agreeing with the more general community.   The issue is referred to in an interesting story in The Times today (though it is more directly concerned with the similar problem of the election of a female bishop)  Cartoon and all it is at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2233424.html

I think both internal schism (within the Episcopal Church) and schism between the progressive wing of the Episcopal Church and certain parts of the global Anglican communion are both definite possibilities.

For instance certain parishes of the Episcopal church have sought oversight from bishops in Africa. In a normal situation this would go against several ancient, and universally accepted canons dating back to Nicaea, which state that bishops are not to interfere outside of their dioceses. Under most precedents of Canon Law this foreign oversight would, thus, be clearly prohibited.

The issue is whether or not the Episcopal Church is in (or is in the process of developing into) open schism with the rest of the global communion, as well as with certain "orthodox" elements in America. In this case, there is a long standing canonical precedent in the Western tradition for external  episcopal oversight (for instance the Latins, shortly after the schism of 1054, began appointing bishops in the territory of the Eastern Patriarchs). There is also a more recent precedent in the East (which is less relevant to the Anglicans, who are products of the Western school of Canon Law), where the Patriarchs have finally appointed Bishops in communion with them. Uncharted waters, while not being an entirely correct designation, is partially applicable as a description. The Episcopalians, and the global Anglican communion, must decide two things:

1) In what sense can the Episcopal Church be considered a canonical ecclesiastical body?
2) To what degree is the communion impaired, and at what point can it be considered broken?

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 21-Jun-2006 at 11:50

I think the Anglican communion has evolved, or rather has been forced to evolve, since its foundation. The old cuius regio, eius religio idea was always generally more applicable to the Reformation princes in Germany, but a broader interpretation of it would seem to lend itself to the church under Henry VIII. Still, after a bit of infighting, a brief Catholic resurgence, and a development of religious semi-tolerance in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, The idea that the religion of the people must corresponded to that of the sovereign fell out of favor. It continued to be accepted in the H.R.E. for a time, as it was the result of a treaty between Charles V (who headed the empire) and the princes (who actually ruled the separate parts of the empire).

According to what the Church is practicing (and not preaching) homosexuality it NOT an abomination.

Every Priest, Bishop, Archbishop and Patriarch wants to be just like David, his king.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." 1Samuel 18:1, 3-4

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." 2 Samuel 1:26

Originally posted by Epikoureios According to what the Church is practicing (and not preaching) homosexuality it NOT an abomination. Every Priest, Bishop, Archbishop and Patriarch wants to be just like David, his king. "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." 1Samuel 18:1, 3-4 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." 2 Samuel 1:26

Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Jan-2007 at 03:24

Personally, on the subject of homosexuality and women's ordination in the Anglican church I see this more of a political move than a theological one. The Anglican's are trying to become more "protestant". Therefore I think that the theological issues of homosexuality and women's ordination is a moot point to many officials of the church (no offense meant to any Anglicans here).

Women's ordination is quickly countered theologically by the reasoning that God chose to select only men as his apostles and that God chose to create a patriarchal mindset in his church. As I heard someone say once, "Women can no more be priests than men can be mothers."

Homosexuality though is a bit more difficult to discuss. The fact is is that homosexuality is a sin, much related to lust as Akolouthos pointed out. Therefore a bishop who openly stated that he would engage in homosexual acts is like a bishop who would openly state he would visit brothels and have relations with prostitutes. If you wouldn't want the latter representing your church why would you want the former.

That sexual urges to the same sex are natural and should be accepted is debatable. Sure all humans are born with sinful urges and these are natural, but to act upon these urges is a sin against the laws of God, and shouldn't be accepted in any church that promotes these ideals.

On the issue of a bishop being a "closet homosexual". Since bishops (I' not sure about the anglican communion?) are celibate the issue of their sexual identity should have no bearing on their role as shepherd. However this was explained to me like this a few years ago. A bishop shouldn't be a homosexual because they aren't giving up anything. A heterosexual bishop has the oppurtunity before his ordination as a priest to enter into marriage with a woman. Therefore he sacrifices this option to become closer to God and to bring others closer to God. A homosexual doesn't have this option because in the church he can't marry another man so he isn't sacrificing anything to be closer to God, which would make the act less genuine.

Personally something like ordination shouldn't be taken lightly or used for political means. It is a personal experience that comes with huge responsibility as your not only entrusted with your own salvation but the salvation of others. I hope that the Anglican communities take this thought one more step and together decide whether the choices they make are for the betterment of Christianity or the worsening of it.