More sanity from Wales --again !

Maybe the FoCAs will listen to this (non-colonial) voice !

"The real value of the Communion lies in deepening person to person relationships, diocesan partnerships and a sense of mutual affection"

Well, that neatly dismisses minor issues such supporting each other in witnessing to Christ's sacrificial love for a fallen world, and fulfilling His command to make disciples of all nations. Cosy friendship among Bishops will do!

I greatly appreciated the Archbishop's wise and reasoned comments. My wish is that many unreasonable folks on both sides could hear and take to heart what he has said.

The Archbishop appears very even handed in his discussion of Lambeth 2008. He deals with the two moratoria calmly and even mentions the desire to halt 'border crossings'. But it is the case that there will be provision for parishes/diocese/people who find they are unable to live with the position in their part of the Church. A Pastoral Forum will be offered to them. What will be offered to those who are called upon to suffer as a result of their sexuality? Will there be a Pastoral Forum where homosexual men and women will be given the comfort and solace which they deserve. Will they be allowed the receive the ministry of bishops (male and female) who are gay, which is for them a matter of principle? The answer is no. There is in fact NO even handedness. One side is considered to have an integrity which must be protected whilst the 'debate' continues and another side must simply suffer - preferably in silence.

The Rt. Rev'd Bob Duncan has his holding position in the Southern Cone and can thus exercise a sacramental ministry as a bishop. He has his paid employment as an 'adviser' in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, which gives him some financial security. (What wise planning went into that one!) The third of the requested moratoria is subtlely broken.

I cannot understand why the 'listening' and obedient part of the Church should submit to the other two moratoria, when the 3 in 1 package deal is already broken. One party continues to take action and another does not act.

I don't think the moratoria could ever be acceptable, simply because it is an example of institutional homophobia. There really should be no room for this sort of compromise, and if it means a split, then that shouldn't matter.

People who think that preserving a homophobic institution is more important than treating gay and lesbian people equally are the problem. I think all gay people in the CofE should come out and wait for the reaction. They couldn't deal with the outcome, but too many people still seem to love the church and hold back. Goodness knows why - I hold the church in absolute contempt. I'd view it on the same lines as the BNP - an anti-gay, negative social force.

The Church in Wales has moved from one of the most rigorous anti-divorce policies to a most liberal one...and the tiny rump of evangelicals went along with this.

"The Church in Wales has moved from one of the most rigorous anti-divorce policies to a most liberal one...and the tiny rump of evangelicals went along with this."

Of course they did. They are, ostensibly, all heterosexual, and might need to avail of divorce at some point.

Merseymike, the moratoria is the least that TEC and other Provinces should do (provided TEC gives them any reason to do it!).

The trouble is your views, not the Church's. There are plenty of people in the church who experience same-sex attractions. Many have decided to follow the teaching of Christ and the Apostles and not act on these sexual attractions as they understand them to be sinful and against God's created order. Others decide that they think it is ok to be in a partnered relationship, and the church sees an obligation to be welcoming and pastorally caring, but not affirming (officially at least). There is an obligation of the Church to everyone who is seeking God, whatever they have done and whoever they are!

You seem to see this (loving the sinner) as so hateful as to be in the same category at the BNP... I wonder what organisation one could compare your hateful and violent reaction against the church to? It's certainly a disproportionate, phobic reaction!

Don't be too harsh on the Church in Wales, Ford. Many of us are waiting for a more enlightened decision being made on the next Bishop of Bangor. I suppose it all depends on whether the call of God is concomitant with the decision of the Electoral Synod of the Diocese.

Oh! and Ford, do you, like me, find the use of the word 'ostensible' more than intriguing - especially regarding the subject in question? And you are certainly very perceptive on the issue of divorce, not only in Wales, but elsewhere in the Church, where common human rights are obviously less important than personal ones.

"Others decide that they think it is ok to be in a partnered relationship"

Well, others believe the Gospel is calling them to accept gay people and that those who would shut us out are merely using Scripture to bolster their own bigotry, it's all in the point of view, I guess.

"You seem to see this (loving the sinner) as so hateful as to be in the same category at the BNP"

Speaking for myself, I would say that, given the fact that it is obviously a total lie, it's not so much in the same category as the BNP, though it is close. It's certainly self deluding propaganda. I mean, really, who but a conservative actually believes that conservatives "hate the sin, love the sinner"? It's so obviously not true that I'm surprised even conservatives use it any more. I don't mind you hating me, I really don't, I'll even bless you as I am called as Christian to do. But normal up. Not only do you manifestly NOT love me, you even refuse to see how I can say that, and rather than change your ways, you will defend your right to demonstrate your hatred of me while trying to make me believe I am persecuting YOU when I challenge it! It gives me no end of chuckles, actually, between the shouts of frustration. (and the 'you' here refers to conservatives in general, not necessarily you personally).

Although some may have regarded Wales to be more gay-friendly than others, it is the first church, post-Lambeth, to enforce not just one, but two moratoria:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1060319/Vicar-rapped-church-lesbian-marriage-blessing.html

'In his report on the global gathering of bishops for the summer’s Lambeth Conference, he (Dr. Morgan, Archbishop of Wales) said:

“The fundamental question in all of this is whether homosexuality is a matter of choice or not because that should make a difference to the way it is regarded.” '

And herein lies the root of the present discord in the Church; that homosexuality should be so heavily censured - by those who believe that gays have a 'choice'; whether to accept their sexual orientation as a 'given', or to make an effort to change to the more acceptable stance of the more common heterosexual lifestyle.

Anyone who has had to deal with the spiritual and psychological implications of someone trying to brainwash a truly homosexual person into the belief that he/she only needs to summon up the will-power (and the 'power of prayer') to change, will probably concede that this is an impossible task -if not an inherently dangerous procedure to counsel. Neither traditional medical nor psycho-logical (certainly not psychiatric) treatment has ever demonstrated any reliable evidence of any 'cure' for this 'problem'.

Anyone who claims to have been 'gay' and to have been 'changed' in their basic sexual orientation and 'preference' is either lying, or mistakern as to their primary sexual orientation.

There has been much damage caused by well-meaning 'therapists' who claim that they can alter the sexual orientation of a homosexual person - even though the person concerned may truly want to change. The question raised on this important issue is; who would want to resist the possibility of such a re-orientation if it were at all possible - especially when one considers the social convenience and acceptability of such a course.

It really is time the Church got out of its cosy institutional homophobia and actually listened to the stories of committed Christians who are also part of the largely unseen LGBT community, but who have been reluctant to put their heads above the parapet for fear of further abuse and disbelief of their authenticity as fellow human beings with this ghettoised 'peculiarity' ? Until this happens, in an unthreatening way, there can be no resolution of this problem.

Father Ron

“The fundamental question in all of this is whether homosexuality is a matter of choice or not because that should make a difference to the way it is regarded.”

I don't agree with this statement at all, because it would make all bisexuals who find love with a member of the same sex immoral.

The only question is whether there is any form of loving, faithful and stable relationship between equal adults that has to be considered immoral.
Once you no longer consider committed relationships as immoral, it no longer matters what sex the respective partners are and whether there was an element of choice or not.

Erika,

I hasten to agree with you that, in the case of a bi-sexual orientation, the person is no more able to 'deny' their bisexuality, than is the exclusively homosexual person able to deny their 'gay' orientation.

The moral question, in both instances, is whether or not a committed relationship between same-sex partners is within the compass of a 'desirable' authentification by the Church - whether the couple claim to be of the Christian faith or not. What is most important, I think in the Christian context, is the intention of a loving, committed relationship.

Unfortunately, the present situation within the Church, would seem to encourage either: the practice of serial relationships, which can reasonably be kept hidden and undisclosed - or hypocrisy on the part of a committed couple, when faced with ecclesial discrimination. Whereas an upfront, monmogamouis, committed relationship would be much healthier from both a social and a moral standpoint - not only for the couple, but for the avoidance of an enforced climate of hypocrisy within the Church.

LGTB Christians have enough problems to deal with as it is, without being pilloried by the Church.

"Many have decided to follow the teaching of Christ and the Apostles and not act on these sexual attractions as they understand them to be sinful and against God's created order."

davidwh - repeating this at every opportunity doesn't make it true, especially regarding the non-existent 'teaching of Christ and the Apostles' on this. If (as evidence suggests) homosexuality is a 'given' and so is part of God's created order, would you change your mind then?

Dawid Wh
"Many have decided to follow the teaching of Christ and the Apostles and not act on these sexual attractions as they understand them to be sinful and against God's created order."

Quite. And we don't understand them to be sinful and against God's created order.

That's it, really.

"Quite. And we don't understand them to be sinful and against God's created order."

But, you see, Erika, you have been taught this by faithless heathens who are trying to destroy the Gospel. You have been lied to and led astray from the True Faith by people who do not love you enough to cast you and your friends into jail for five years so as to make sure you bribe the judge to let you off with your crimes after you die. Now, I find it interesting that attitudes towards sexuality are an integral part of the True Faith, but things like Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence are not. To me, the latter are far more significant, speaking as they do about how we become Christians, what it means to be a Christian, and how God intervenes in His Creation to grant us Grace, but what do I know? I'm only a follower of the "traditions of men".