At first sight this is nothing new.

The declarations of separation were made in 2003. Tanzania’s was amongst the most striking and determined statement in that year and as I remember did not discriminate in its anathema between homosexuals and those who were "practicing" homosexuals, I approved.

What is striking is that Tanzania has chosen to make this further declaration on Windsor and TEC in advance of the very Primates meeting that has this on its agenda. This may in fact be a prelude to further resolutions from other GS provinces, in which case this will make things rather problematic for Rowan.

As others point out below Rowan himself has said he is amongst those anathematised and despite repeated requests from conservative groups in the Church of England has refused to “recant”.

Unless there are careful and fruitful negotiations in the next few weeks the Primates meeting will have to be moved or abandoned

This move by Tanzania may prove of great significance.

Well, the only people this gang of Bishops have left off their selectively thought out "black list" are people who don't exist in REAL LIFE...not really, if you want to start getting down to business and being HONEST and talking REALITY, we must admit that GLBT people and Heterosexual Female clergy have "touched" all of our lives (especially financially) at every Province in the Anglican Communion both in and out of the closet and in and out of BED...

GLBT people and our straight families and friends have already "contaminated" ANY/ALL "donor" money everywhere anyway because of our everyday work and economic activity in the REAL WORLD and our loving support for humanity (think taxes those of us who are SINGLE pay so most hetersexual folks can send their offspring to school or get scholorships/grants)...when *we* put money in the "offering" plate to "help others" and "do Gods will"...it's most often anonymously (no need to get a accountant/chancellor to monitor our charitable activities or to play the big "show off"...verdad?).

It's amazing to note what length scriputural segregationists are willing to go to encourage and actively promote difference, fear, hate and NOW "exclusion" of a fellow Christians when our Primates meet.

There is no excuse for this inhospitable and blatant hatefilled grandstanding against Presiding Bishop Katharine and *other* Christians by a selfrighteous circle of hate-mongers (and bigots?).

These "impaired" and "broken" folks are in "constume" as "Windsor Bishops" and unfortunately filled with the prejudice, defiance and scorn that will make them unable to listen to anything other than the sound of their own cowardly and frightened voices.

I’d like to remind those who reference the Windsor Report in their arguments against ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada, that nowhere in the report is there a call for repentance. In Sections D 134 and D 144, the church(es) are “invited to express its (their) regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached…” Just as in D 155, the bishops who continue to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own were called upon to “express their regret for the consequences of their actions.” While ECUSA (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada complied with this request, and did indeed express regret, there has been not a whisper of regret from the interfering bishops.
The Windsor report is two years old. It’s amazing to me how the thing has been raised so quickly in certain circles to the status of a kind of para-scriptural document by which one is presumably supposed to measure Anglican worthiness. “Windsor parishes”, for example. I ask you.

So - given these clauses:

Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate or license them to minister in their dioceses;
Bishops who permit the blessing of same sex unions in their dioceses;

Tanzania has broken communion with both Canterbury and York, and - I'd guess - with every bishop in the Church of England.

I'm sure this statement is co-ordinated directly with the appeal by Reform and Anglican Mainstream: they can now legitimately claim that their communion with the world-wide Anglican family is broken unless they have bishops who meet these standards.

An adequate response would have only been good enough if the Episcopal Church had repudiated the election of +Gene Robinson, punished all who consented to his election and begged forgiveness for not asking permission of the entire Aglican Communion. Tough darts, we have a polity in that differs from many other churches in the communion - there is no supreme authority resting in the hands of one individual, as hard as that is for many to understand. If the Communion wants to kick us out so be it but it will be diminshed in ways it can't imagine and no, it won't be anglican in spite of what it wants us all to believe.

Sounds more like the practice of nation states than sound ecclesiology. Surely our communion as Anglicans is occassioned by our communion with the see of Canterbury and not by separate interprovincial concordats?

I certainly like what Leonardo wrote: "These 'impaired' and 'broken' folks are in 'constume' as 'Windsor Bishops' and unfortunately filled with the prejudice, defiance and scorn that will make them unable to listen to anything other than the sound of their own cowardly and frightened voices."

Leonardo is spot on.

By refusing Episcopal Relief and Development donations as 'tainted', and, in fact, denying help to the suffering in Africa, based on their own homophobic biases, those Tanzanian men wearing the purple shirts crucify Christ once again. As 'evangelicals', those bishops have never heard of meeting and serving Christ in the poor and marginalized?

Every day +VG Robinson looks more Christ-like to me, which I can't, in good conscience, say of the disciples of the ego-centred primates following in the footsteps of ++Peter Jasper of Abuja.

Cantuar would be well-advised to cancel the February Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting in Tanzania.

I sit on the USA sidelines as recent announcements seem to indicate that the new conservative Anglican realignment campaign is finally coming home to CoE. (And, by implication, other provinces?)

Of course all prior signs suggested that come home the campaign would; but I suspect that Canterbury could not quite believe that push would indeed come to shove quite so soon. We have not yet finished damning TEC, and now Brits must be set against one another with similarly heightened rhetoric.

The only Anglican balm to this impending worldwide Southern Baptizing of believers might including our taking a step back from the realignment brinks, breathing ever so prayerfully alone and together, perhaps spending a few minutes in walking meditation, and reminding one another that none of this high-handed folderol from the newly conserved (who alone know how to read scripture, pledge to tradition, exercise apostolic authority, or follow Jesus of Nazareth) is essentially and uniformly true of the greater us.

Rowan will either hang separately it seems, or he can hang together with all worldwide believers, except for those willing to ostracize all the varieties of insufficiently conformed Anglicans.

As it happens this target group about to be asked to exit may turn out to be more sizeable than we are properly told in all the rightwing preachments.

So far as CoE goes, this starts off with the queer folk fair enough, but must surely eventually escalate to include women priests, plus all who have found them viable, plus anybody whose views take exception to this or that point of theology which I guess must conform to Reform or FiF or Anglican Main or ??????

Can we agree that certainly anybody who has ever hugged a queer family member or wished them well at work in some difficult project or been brash enough to drop in during that open house last Saturday held by the gay couple living just down the street whose children go to the school your oldest just graduated. Must be shunned? Disinvited? Bad Mouthed?

I sometimes wonder: Why not just go right back to Rome? Conservative believers could offer help in the current shortage of orthodox priests, and surely returning to the Bishop of Rome would bring conservative folks much closer to being sufficiently orthodox in their own right, than remaining inside this broken, dirty thing we used to call Anglican comprehensiveness.

"An adequate response would have only been good enough if the Episcopal Church had repudiated the election of +Gene Robinson, punished all who consented to his election and begged forgiveness for not asking permission of the entire Aglican Communion."

I'm sure that's how many conservatives felt. Not that the WR requests that kind of capitulation from TEC. It doesn't. It merely illustrates the extreme and unreasonable expectations on the right.

While the Tanzanian Bishops believe that they are in impaired communion with me, I welcome them to come to the altar with me here in Panamá. There is always room for them at the Lord's table, whether they want to be with me or not. The Lord's Table is open to all baptized Christians, even those grumpy folks in another land.

Here is just one of the kids who, along with his parents, is probably not going to be welcome in the new, improved, realigned Anglican Communion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmJ34qPdGY4

"Tanzania’s was amongst the most striking and determined statement in that year and as I remember did not discriminate in its anathema between homosexuals and those who were "practicing" homosexuals, I approved."

What? So you would anathematize your gay son or daughter for being gay? Or am I misunderstanding you?

This would appear to confirm my impression that the sticking-point in all this controversy is not sexual ethics but phobia directed toward gay identity as such.

Oops, I see I was misunderstanding you -- you are saying, presumably, that the non-discrimination of these two "categories" shows exactly where the homophobic bishops stand: united not against certain sexual acts but against gay men and women as such.

And in point of fact the Tanzanian bishops did say in 2003:

"nor shall we recognize any *homosexual person* who may be consecrated in future..."

"Because ECUSA has gone ahead and consecrated a *homosexual person* to the episcopate in the Church..."

This is must the most primitive level of homophobia.

I am sure the ABC will have little issue with the position of the Tanzanians - they have been reasonable, patient and consistent and they did not deliberately "tear the fabric of the communion", remember?

If a third of CofE vicars and bishops will join TEC in a realignment.......GREAT, bring it on!
Better to send the money they currently cost to places like Tanzania.

The tear the fabric of decency and mutual understanding between human beings, in a way that can be put down to ignorance, and they tear the fabric of the Gospel by their biblical fundamentalism, so in that sense I suppose they tear the fabric of the communion as much as anyone else is accused of doing. Mutual forgiveness all round and great tolerance all round -- not rigid alleged orthodoxies -- are what keeps the fabric of Christian communities intact. Unless you prefer petrification, that is, an enduring fabric based on conformity and death.

That’s fine with me. From now on, I’ll earmark all my donations to Episcopal Relief and Development “for South Africa only.”

I'm so confused -- I thought the argument was that "traditional African cultures" did not believe that there was such a thing as a same sex orientation -- hence that there is no such thing as a "homosexual person" in the first place.

I just can't keep up.

Insiders at Church House assure me that the current ABC has knowingly ordained at least three closeted gay men to the episcopate -- if I know that much, surely the bishops of Tanzania do as well.

Can ++Rowan really persuade the host church that the meetings of the primates occur "extra-provincially" (or something)? Or is he not welcome either?

So much for waiting until Lambeth to see how things play out...

Prior - TEC has not set an example of waiting and cooperating - we cannot let a small, radical group destroy the communion

My former home parish (of 38 yrs) has a gay celibate member who has said homosexuality is a sin. The parish is a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Network. They fully accept and allow this member and even allow him every week to take communion to the shut ins, as long as he isn't a practicing homosexual. The rector, a woman, admitted to me that this member is and will always be homosexual in orientation but they accept the member since the member has renounced the lifestyle and living a godly life. What bothers me most is that even some conservatives admit that homosexuality can be unchangeable and there needs to be a ministering to them. Isn't that something like saying "being mentally retarded isn't unchangeable yet allowing a MR person to find love, marry, have children shouldn't be allowed since they can't function independently in society?"

"I am sure the ABC will have little issue with the position of the Tanzanians - they have been reasonable, patient and consistent and they did not deliberately "tear the fabric of the communion", remember?"

Excluding classes of God's children because of who they are and who they ordain and who they associate with does not strike me as maintaining a fabric, but of rending it violently.

How can I learn to love my neighbor if he or she refuses to come to Christ's table with me? How can I see that other person as fully loved by God if I do not see that person partaking along with me of the One Bread?

There are people in the congregation who I am sure disapprove of my being gay, of my being an ordained woman, but there is only one cranky and sad angry older man who refuses to take communion from me when I celebrate or am Eucharistic minister. There are people in that church whose views on race or politics I would likely deplore, but I would never stay away from the Table because they were beside me.

Cynthia
-the Tanzanians are not imposing their personal views in order to exclude anyone;

-they are not deliberately tearing the fabric of the communion despite calls not to do so from all over the world - including Canterbury;

-they are simply objecting to those who have been deliberately tearing the fabric of the communion and causing chaos and division around the world.

Contrary to some assertions here, the Tanzanians have just torn the fabric of the Communion, and I am afraid they have torn it beyond repair.

What the Tanzanian bishops have done is foreclosed on the possibility of an Anglican Covenant.

They have decided on their own that they cannot be in Communion with any province that allows gay or lesbian persons to be ordained.

They have asserted their jurisdiction over the American Church, though no Communion structures are in place which allow them to do so of right.

They have done these things just before a meeting of the Primates scheduled to take place in their country, for maximum impact.

If the Primates of the Anglican Communion are now limited to those Primates the Tanzanians are willing to accept, it is not clear whether ++Rowan Williams will be among their number. Certainly there are quite a few of the "Old Anglican" Primates who will not be admitted to the councils of Dar es Salaam. Anyone who thinks this is a problem for the American and Canadian Churches only is quite mistaken.

Thus, the decision of the Tanzanian Primates has made any further talk of an Anglican Covenant superfluous. They have split the Communion rather than participate in the Covenant process. The Covenant is as dead as the Windsor Report.

So lets forget about the utterly ridiculous covenant and split - its the only thing which makes sense. I think a new Communion without conservatives would be preferable in every way

"the Tanzanians are not imposing their personal views in order to exclude anyone"

Out here, NP, it's AD 2006, going on AD 2007. In your (and the Tanzanian bishops') world, it seems it's always "1984". :-/

NP --
I have no idea why your comment was addressed to me -- perhaps my reference to "waiting" but that had nothing to do with the pace of change in the church but the fact the Lambeth might clarify issues -- Lambeth seems to have been forestalled -- in fact, the Primates' Meeting seems to have been forestalled, since the President of the meeting has himself unquestionably liscensed gay clergy (not Martin Reynolds' point that Tanzania does not distinguish between orientation and practice -- "gayness" is anathematized).

As to the changes in TEC & the ACofC (& de fecto in Scotland & Wales & the CofE, etc.) -- what happened was that we took Lambeth seriously and for a quarter of a century listened to the experience of gays and lesbians & were persuaded. Certainly we would have no planned to proceed in the messy way things worked out, but New Hampshire had an election & the bishops & deputies at General Convention had to do what they believed was right.

As I have been saying for quite some time, the Global South (excluding South Africa) will set up their own alternative communion based somewhere in the southern hemisphere. The Network folks in the US will follow them. They may or may not remain in communion with Canterbury.

The rest of us (including Canada, TEC, England, the rest of Europe, South Africa and maybe others) will continue to be in communion with each other and continue to preach the gospel of reconciliation.

I’d say it is uncertain who will end up with the “Anglican Communion” name, but my guess is that the more progressive one will because that will be the one still centered in England.

And if anyone thinks England will go with the Global South, I would say they are just kidding themselves. The CoE is almost as liberal as TEC is. The big difference is that the CoE is just not as open about what they are doing.

NP said, “we cannot let a small, radical group destroy the communion”

Canada and Scotland are as liberal as TEC. England and South Africa are almost as liberal but not as open about what they are doing. These five are not a “small, radical group.” And they are, by the way, the best educated Anglican churches in the world.

If the Network and the Global South (excluding South Africa) want to team up and form their own southern hemisphere based communion, then by all means, proceed. But you should look for a name other than “Anglican” because it will not be centered around England.

In much of Africa "homosexual" is automatically understood to include sexual activity; if not transvestism and prostitution. This was documented in an article in either Anglican Theological Review or Anglican and Episcopal History shortly after Lambeth 1998. I can't lay my hands on the issue at present, but it did go far to explain some of the tension, at least. Perhaps someone else will recall the article and post the information.

"In much of Africa "homosexual" is automatically understood to include sexual activity...." Tobias G Haller

How sensible the Africans are.

Wade says"Canada and Scotland are as liberal as TEC. England and South Africa are almost as liberal but not as open about what they are doing. These five are not a “small, radical group.” And they are, by the way, the best educated Anglican churches in the world. "

Wade (and JCF) - will you stop patronising the global south please?

Wade - I am a Cambridge graduate and my central London church is full of "well educated" people - many better educated than you, I do not doubt.....our out-dated, unsophisticated beliefs led to nearly a thousand people being in our CofE church on Sunday night and they will be back next week - they were not Tanzanians but modern Brits!

Actually, you can partonise us all if you want - we are too busy to notice or care but I am sorry to say your prejudice stinks.

`The bishops also declared that ACT “shall not knowingly accept financial and material aid from dioceses, parishes, Bishops, priests, individuals and institutions in the Episcopal Church (USA) that condone homosexual practice or bless same-sex unions.”'

When you think to what end such money might have been used, my response is that such people as these alleged "bishops" should not be entrusted with financial responsibility.

What is 'the Global South'?
Where is 'the Global South' ?

Fr. O'Leary commented, "This would appear to confirm my impression that the sticking-point in all this controversy is not sexual ethics but phobia directed toward gay identity as such."

Of course. But then again, this has *always* been about a vile & base prejudice, whether cloaked in flowery religious language or not. Nothing new here at all.

Mr Huff - nope it is about what the OT and NT actually say

Brother Causticus checks in on "Tanzanian Bishops issue statement" with COMMUNION BREAKING News:

Anathema! Anathema! Oops...Never Mind

http://titusoneten.blogspot.com/

Africans sensibly see the word homosexual and immediately understand gay sexual activity.

Equally sensibly those in the West see "mega-church leader" and instantly jump to the same conclusion.

Tim wrote: "When you think to what end such money might have been used, my response is that such people as these alleged "bishops" should not be entrusted with financial responsibility." This is an illegitmate argument, a red herring if you will. Nothing prevents ERD or TEC or anyone else from supporting poor Africans in Tanzania or Uganda or anywhere else. The bishops in Tanzania and Uganda have simply said we don't choose to partner with you in mission work. If TEC takes that as license to ignore the poor in Tanzania, for example, that is on its head, not the AB. There are plenty of other providers with whom TEC can "partner" in those countries.

I wonder if this is the article Tobias was thinking of...

Same-sex relations in Africa and the debate on homosexuality in East African Anglicanism,
Anglican Theological Review, Winter 2002 by Kevin Ward

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200201/ai_n9042012

Another interesting article...

Episcopalians, Homosexuality, and World Mission,
Anglican Theological Review, Spring 2004 by Willis Jenkins

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200404/ai_n9345544

Never fails to amaze me how some Christians set so much store by the ipsissima verba of the Bible when it doesn't cost them anything to do so, but seem so remarkably able to come up with exclusion clauses when the message gets uncomfortably close to the bone. At least I (and people like me) are consistent in asking the question, "to what extent is this story/teaching/saying a product of its time and to what existent is it a product of eternity/"

The ease with which ConsEv Christians can ignore both Scriptural condemnation of wealth and the frequent identification of wealth with moral dubiousness doesn't seem ever to disturb ConsEv radar. Yet (as I have said before) of the four big ConsEv parishes around here, three are in very wealthy areas, and the one in the UPA struggles like everyone else.

Of course, there'll be some really good reasons why 'wealth' doesn't mean that in the Bible.... Just like divorce is OK because it wasn't a 'Christian marriage' which is ended in the courts. Pah.

Give me a break, NP: I mentioned *only the bishops* of *one Anglican church* (so I could hardly be patronizing the entire "global south"! :-0)

The point is, the Tanzanian bishops (w/ your endorsement, NP) ARE "imposing their personal views in order to exclude."

If you don't like that reality, CHANGE IT. Don't blame the messenger.

NP wrote: “Mr Huff - nope it is about what the OT and NT actually say”

Problem is, dear NP, the OT and NT actually don’t say what you suggest.

It was your Nobel Prize standard chums at Cambridge University that ”translated” the French 1955 Bible de Jérusalem in 1966, reversing the “moral” teaching of a Millennium of Academics from anti Heterosex (no Spilling of Semen/Masturbation, but Chastity for all, Abstinence for the few and Mandatory celibacy for the ordained) into anti-gay.

The little word "malakós" gives the game away...

Martin Reynolds quoted: “Africans sensibly see the word homosexual and immediately understand gay sexual activity.”

And wrote: “Equally sensibly those in the West see "mega-church leader" and instantly jump to the same conclusion.”

You mean Money, Co-dependency and Sexual activity.

mynster - I do not ignore the sins you say some evos do - I do not agree with those heresies (the "prosperity" heresy is not commonly found in Anglican evos to my knowledge)

the "prosperity" heresy is not commonly found in Anglican evos to my knowledge

I think in the UK we often get a weakened form of US theological viruses. But I'm still intrigued by an apparent demography of flourishing ConsEv parishes tending to be found in wealthy areas. And I recall a study of Tyneside parishes which revealed that in real terms (ie the degree to which the giving was sacrificial) the giving of Jesmond's ConsEv shrine was lower than that of the riverside UPA's.

If that is still the case, and if we can extrapolate that statistical finding to the wider community, the inevitable conclusion would be that ConsEv churches give a greater amount of money because they are made up of wealthier people, not because they are more committed to the faith.

There would then be cause for concern that a less virulent form of the 'prosperity gospel' virus has crossed the Atlantic and may be infecting ConsEv parishes. It's worth remembering that for John Milton, Pride was the great sin which caused Satan to fall.....

Ahhh..."NP," I was about to respond to that old canard about "what the OT & NT actually say," but I see Göran has already beat me to it. I'm sure he'd be willing to expound on that, if you'd like - and he is certainly much more qualified to do so than I. But the point is, it isn't at *all* about "what the OT & NT actually say," but about using a poor understanding of that to prop up a thoroughly modern form of bigotry held by some socio-political conservatives under the guise of religion.

And if you don't see a lot of the odious "prosperity gospel" in your local Anglican parishes, then good for you. It's absolutely rampant in all stripes of the fundamentalist / neo-conservative churches here in the U.S.

Mr Huff - do you and Goran realise that you convince very few people - believers or not? Seems not, sadly.

NP:
please, please address the argument. 'You're not fooling anyone you know' is the line used in Python's Holy Grail when someone refuses to do as he's told and be dead....

To date we're still waiting for a list of heretical bishops (according to the Nicene Creed, etc, not the CU basis of membership or the Westminster Confession), for a response on a possible correlation between wealth and ConsEv strongholds, for a spot of thoughtful exegesis of John's 'I am the Way' passage....

Dave writes: "This is an illegitimate argument, a red herring if you will."

Just in case you're unaware, Tobias has answered this nicely at http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2006/12/trouble-in-tanzania.html

>>>Mr Huff - do you and Goran realise that you convince very few people - believers or not? Seems not, sadly.

One could very easily say the same of your relentlessly negative contributions to this forum, NP.

David Rowett is right to remind us of John Milton's assessment of the deadliest of SINS, to wit: "It's worth remembering that for John Milton, Pride was the great sin which caused Satan to fall....."

The late ++Michael Ramsey, in his Nashotah House lectures, reminded his students that it is impossible to enforce the holiness of the church by rejecting people who do not conform to certain moral canons. That has often been tried in the history of the church, most notably by the Puritans. When one says that the church is meant to be holy and, therefore, we will exclude those who are not holy, the inevitable happens. You can turn out the fornicators, the gays, the adulerers and sinners of ever kind, but you cannot turn out the SIN OF PRIDE. When you start purging the church of the sinful, including the prideful, you have to turn everybody out.

It is significant that members of the Republican establishment, VP Cheney and Attorney General Gonzels, are members of the seccessionist parishes in Virgina, seeking refuge under ++Peter Japer Akinola, who supports violating the civil rights of gays and lesbians in Nigeria. Neither Cheney nor Gonzales have a stellar record of supporting the civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. They support George W's imperial presidency that is above all laws, and may wiretap U.S citizens' phone calls without judicial review. Also, they support the torture of suspected enemy combattants. For them such violations of human rights are meritorious--not sinful!

"One could very easily say the same of your relentlessly negative contributions to this forum, NP." JPM

I'm ONE, I'll say it!

NP, You are relentless negative contributor to this forum!

Leonardo and JPM - would love to be positive but I require some biblical basis in views which claim to be "Christian" to be positive on them.....

...willing to change my mind if strong biblical arguments are made but not for weak rhetoric about exclusion, rights, nothing having a clear meaning etc etc etc .........

this is where TEC has gone wrong in the AC - they never won the theoogical arguments but thought nobody would dare object if they just did what they wanted to do anyway......but if they want a positive response, they need to make convincing arguments for their positions......I know you are going to say "but nobody is "listening"" - but that is because all we hear is victim-mentality stuff and not a convincing biblical justification for TEC actions...

"They never won the theoogical arguments" writes NP. So that's what it's all about. In my naivety, I thought it was something to do with our feeble attempts to follow Jesus in his way of love and self-offering. But no, it appears it's about winning theological arguments.

Ten metres from where I am sitting, one of the Edwardine bishops was burned at the stake. I guess he lost the theological argument. I don't greatly admire what I know of his personality or his opinions, but no-one deserves that fate for losing a theological argument. As the early 19th century poet Winthrop Mackworth Praed observes about a village parson:
And when religious sects ran mad,
He held, in spite of all his learning,
That if a man's belief is bad
It will not be improved by burning.

But then he must have been a wimpish, unbelieving proto-liberal, I suppose.

Is there any hope at all that we might get back to bearing one another's burdens, and thus fulfilling the law of Christ? Which does of course mean forbearing to say that this burden is too filthy for me to touch and that one is beyond the bounds of othodoxy.

Well, I for one have never even wispered the word "rights"...

And if I can remember, I have off and on hinted at what 2nd Millennium Academia has done with the terror texts (invented them out of thin air).

"they never won the theo(l)ogical arguments" (fixed your typo)

Really? I didn't know it was about "winning"

What many peopel don't seem to understand is that most of the advocates for full inclusion of gays & lesbians in the life of the Church are people who used to oppose the same, but who were persuaded to reevaluate their position.

It is not a gmae of winning & losing -- it is about being a listening Church & being open to what the Spirit is saying -- the Spirit is not invasive but persuasive (if you open your heart).