Comments: Hereford: Church Times report

Mr Reaney knows that it is not 'because I am gay' but because he was open to extramarital sexual relationships, an attitude which would prevent membership, let alone leadership, in orthodox Christian assemblies.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 12:13pm GMT

careful, christopher. you are contradicting a verdict arrived at in court. and as for your view about heterosexual extramarital relationships not existing in church membership or leadership - oh, come on.

Posted by poppy tupper at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 1:15pm GMT

Are you still fighting the case, Christopher?

Posted by Pluralist at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 1:27pm GMT

"Mr Reaney knows that it is not 'because I am gay' but because he was open to extramarital sexual relationships, an attitude which would prevent membership, let alone leadership, in orthodox Christian assemblies."

Yes but the law requires the Bishop to treat people equally. If the Bishop is to call in John for detailed questioning on his intimate sex life, then surely he has no option but to call in every candidate for all leadership positions, gay or straight, and question them in a similar way.

The fact that the Bishop does not routinely do this for straight candidates, but only for gay men in potential leadership positions, would seem to be the point that matters.

Simon


Posted by Simon Dawson at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 1:58pm GMT

“We are now aware that, when making such an appointment, we must make it clear if it is a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage. This is the crux of the matter, not sexual orientation.”

This age old "Catch-22" is what allows discrimination against the LGBT community, is the REAL crux of the matter.

Somebody said that a scoundrel will always hide behind the letter of the law.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 2:17pm GMT

Yes, it is because he is gay, because of the Church's refusal to sanctify any same-sex relationship, and its stated policy to segregate based on the false assumption that such attractions are a willful choice and are pathological.

I can remember a time when being black was considered "pathological" and unscriptural (see the story of Ham in Genesis).

Congratulations to Mr. Reaney.

Justice, 1 Bigotry, 0.

Posted by counterlight at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 2:56pm GMT

NO !

'and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage.'

This totally untrue as Issues in Human Sexuality makes clear,and the Law of the Church which accepts and legislates for the Civil Parners of the clergy. No attempted, purported caveat in an advertisement can subvert this.

This is the position of the C of E --insofar as it has a coherent policy.

Posted by L Roberts at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 7:43pm GMT

Yes

And if they are so worried about confining sexual relations to marriage then why haven't so many dioceses and so many churches fired their pedophilic priests (before the lawsuits)?

Also, just as a reminder from one incest survivor, confining sexual relations to marriage actually means the two signatories on the marriage certificate, and not their dependants or other relatives.

Further, adultery is also a sin.

Jeremiah 8:8 "‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

Posted by Cheryl Va. at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 7:46pm GMT

"a genuine occupational requirement that the post-holder should believe in and uphold the Christian belief and ideal of marriage, and that sexual relationships are confined to marriage."

I, for one, wouldn't have a problem w/ this requirement.

Only if +Priddis (or whoever), then added "...w/ the understanding that 'marriage' excludes civil partnerships, or any other form of union of same-sex couples".

I suppose I shouldn't give him any ideas. :-/

Posted by JCF at Friday, 22 February 2008 at 9:51pm GMT

Hi Poppy-

On what basis do you think that a transient court of one culture at one point in time speaks with *more* authority than the cosmic/supernatural leader you follow?

Secondly, when did I say that such relationships did not exist? You know very well that I didn't. I said something quite different: that they are not considered *good*. If you do not think the killing of innocent Iraqis (for example) is good, does that mean it does not exist? Not existing and not being good are two different things - but you already knew that.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 9:10am GMT

"I said something quite different: that they are not considered *good*. If you do not think the killing of innocent Iraqis (for example) is good, does that mean it does not exist? Not existing and not being good are two different things"

Oh my.
This is a new one.
Now we're going from the slippery-slope-to-bestiality argument to something completely different. Homosexuality is the same thing as Bush Administration war crimes. This will be a big surprise to the boys in Washington DC.
Again, this whole argument is based on completely false assumptions about lgbts and homosexuality that fail all the tests of experience, evidence, reality, and above all justice.

Posted by counterlight at Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 1:05pm GMT

"On what basis do you think that a transient court of one culture at one point in time speaks with *more* authority than the cosmic/supernatural leader you follow?"

The only alternative to the "transient court" you mention here would seem to be theocracy. And I assume you're the one who'll be interpreting for us the voice and will of "the cosmic/supernatural leader." Well, OK, then. I'll just check my brain and heart at the door when I enter your "orthodox Christian assembly."

Posted by Peter of Westminster at Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 1:07pm GMT

"Mr Reaney knows that it is not 'because I am gay' but because he was open to extramarital sexual relationships"

Mr. Shell appears to have psychic abilities. Perhaps an orthodox Christian assembly should gather and determine if it's appropriate to apply Exodus 22:18. I'll gather the faggots, just in case.

Posted by John at Monday, 25 February 2008 at 4:42pm GMT

No psychic abilities, alas. There are in fact two possibilities: either (1) he knows the real reason and is being dishonest; or (2) he is unaware of the press coverage of his case, and has never spoken with the bishop on the matter, and therefore does not know the real reason.

Supposing he was open to extramarital (and apparently even extra-civil partnership) relations in the future, why should he receive special treatment over a heterosexual who in the same circumstances would never have received the job in a million years? If anyone holds the view that this is a 'relatively' minor matter (and thinks that everyone else, without discussion, whould hold the same view), then 'relative' (as in 'culturally relative') is exactly what that person's views are.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 1:10pm GMT

Christopher Shell wrote: "... why should he receive special treatment over a heterosexual who in the same circumstances would never have received the job in a million years?"

You do not k n o w any of this. It's just slanderous.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 8:19am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.