This is all you need to know.
In an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams tries to walk the middle of the road and gets run over by a bus.
It is Dr Williams’ comments on gay clergy and bishops which have drawn instant attention from reporters and commentators, however.
He declared: “There’s no problem about a gay person who’s a bishop… It’s about the fact that there are traditionally, historically, standards that the clergy are expected to observe. So there’s always a question about the personal life of the clergy.”
Asked what is wrong with a gay bishop having a partner, the Archbishop replies: “I think because the scriptural and traditional approach to this doesn’t give much ground for being positive about it. The Church at the moment doesn’t quite know what to make of it…”
So he admits that the Church scripturally, historically, and traditionally does not support homosexuality and/or homosexual bishops, but he doesn’t have a problem with it.
Ummm, Dr. Williams, what exactly is the role of a bishop if not to uphold what the Church teaches scripturally, historically, and traditionally?
That said, Williams manages to satisfy no one with his middle of the road answer. To traditional Christians, he freely admits that he has abdicated his role as steward of what the church teaches. To homosexual advocates, he has admitted that he does not have the courage of his own personal convictions (if you can call them that?).
As Mr. Miyagi wisely said “Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later [squish]”
Rowan Williams just went ‘squish.’
September 26, 2010 at 4:18 pm
He has no real authority, and everyone knows it. It's like a three year old who has figured out that Mom or Dad doesn't mean what they say. They go ahead and do it anyway, with no fear and lots of noise.
September 26, 2010 at 4:22 pm
"It" being the Anglican church, as a whole.
September 26, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Wow. Poor Rowan.
The Popes visit and now this.
It's just so painfully clear that he has no authority but he has to act as though he does.
I'm squirming for him.
September 26, 2010 at 4:39 pm
It is the undertaking of a pastor as bishop to care for and shepherd the other souls. In an unblessed relationship neither partner cares for the other’s soul.
In a marital relationship, the couple’s consent to covenant, consummation and unity is witnessed by the church and the state. The greatest joy comes from surrendering oneself for the benefit of the other. It is called sacrifice.
September 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Rowan Williams was very territorial, complimenting Pope Benedict XVI on his pastoral care of Europe while HE was caring for England. As a clergyman, Rowan Williams' ministry encompasses all the souls in his care. Pope Benedict XVI is responsible for all the souls in the whole world.
September 26, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Oh, well, he can start his own Cowboy Church or Truckers' Church or CPAs for Christ or something equally as irrelevant as the C of E.
— Mack
September 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Not only will Anglicanism die, but English along with them. Like I have said before; give them 100 years and they'll be gone as a people.
You have to appreciate the Grand Druid's double-talk though. "The church at the moment doesn't know quite what to make of it…" Meaning, "we haven't come to a consensus, because it's up to us to decide, not God. He doesn't really get a say here."
September 26, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I don't think we Catholics should be so full of schadenfreude. Only last week, R.C. Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, when asked about the possibility in the R.C. church of women 'priests' and homosexual 'marriage' replied, "Who knows?"
September 26, 2010 at 8:36 pm
The key problem in Anglicanism is that in order to keep peace between the Catholic and Protestant branches, all decisions need to be ambiguous. This allowed a third group, the broad church group (aka Cafeteria Anglicans) to grown in the middle which pick and choose what they want to believe from either group. Cafeteria Anglicans evolved into outright liberalism (which includes people who would feel comfortable in the Unitarian Universalist church), and the liberals took advantage of the situation and declare that they are the true Anglican church. Because Anglicanism must be kept ambiguous, neither the Protestant nor the Catholic wings had any way to defend even basic Christian principles. As a result, Anglicanism has devolved and will continue to devolve until it is is indistinguishable from the Unitarian Universalists.
September 26, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Here in England, Rowan Williams comes just after Monty Python and Fawlty Towers as entertainment factor. Even many Anglicans are embarrassed and in fact he succeeds in being disliked even by them.
He is disliked by the liberals Anglicans because he is perceived as fake and hypocritical, which he is; and by the more conservatively oriented (for Anglican standards) because he is perceived as a coward and a traitor, which he is.
M
September 26, 2010 at 10:34 pm
There's a joke that goes like this: A survey taker in Northern Ireland has to go door to door to ask just one question,'Are you Protestant or Catholic?' all goes well until he reaches the last house on his list. He asks the question and instead of the expected reply he hears, 'Atheist'. Taken aback for only a second, he replyes, ' Protestant or Catholic Atheist?'? Poor Rowan! He's neither fish or fowl!
September 27, 2010 at 11:55 am
Just from the exerpt there, I think he's been misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with a same-sex attracted man being a Bishop. But there's no historical, scriptural or traditional basis to appoint a same-sex attrocted man a Bishop if *acts* on those attractions.
September 27, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Felix,
are you talking as an Anglican or as a Catholic?
As a Catholic, a man with deep seated homosexual tendencies cannot even enter the Seminary. The priest must be straight, period.
If this priest should (disgracefully) discover such a perversion in him afterwards (of if he has, in former and more stupid years, been allowed in) he is in no way allowed to *give scandal* by *outing himself*.
This is why, even if no one can exclude that the one or other bishop might have been homosexual (or might be today), the Church doesn't know the kind of "bishop" the Anglicans are actually toying with, the "I am homosexual but chaste and therefore everythign is fine"-kind.
Please also note that Anglican homo vocars and bishops will tend to say that they are *celibate*, not chaste.
This means purely that they aren;t married but doesn't exclude that they are sodomites.
But again, this is Anglicanism for you.
Mundabor.
September 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm
From an Anglican perspective, I doubt that an openly homosexual bishop would have had any chance until not many years ago. I might be wrong though, as I haven't followed their theological gyrations much.
Mundabor
September 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm
In 2003, the Episcopalians ordained an openly homosexual, in a "relationship" bishop named Gene Robinson, followed this spring by Mary Glasspool, ignoring the 1998 Lambeth Conference that confirmed a scriptural, historical, and traditional stance on homosexuality. Of course, the "progressives" marginalized the African, Asian and South American provinces (including one British bishop) that supported the conference, en masse, and made them sound like uneducated, illiterate, and unsophisticated men. They are in the middle of a "listening process" or something else as meaningless.
Squish squash. Flat as a bug.
September 27, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Mundabor – I don't like the thought of a "straight" priest any more than I like the thought of a "gay" one in the Roman Rite. The vow of celibacy means a priest is supposed to be asexual. Sexuality of ANY kind in the Roman Rite priesthood brings scandal (as we have seen ad infinitum recently).
Now, in the Eastern Rite, it goes without saying that priests should always be "straight" since they can enter as married men.
September 27, 2010 at 7:09 pm
"The scriptural and traditional approach" to Sharia Law "doesn’t give much ground for being positive about IT either", but that has not kept RW from endorsing it.
September 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm
mundabor, considering that homosexuality as a concept didn't really exist until the 20th century, I doubt there's much scope for historical justifications of it being an exclusion in *any* community.
Today, as you say, it is grounds for exclusion in the Catholic Church. But as Early Riser says, any sexual practice by your average Latin-rite Catholic priest gives scandal, even (or especially) amongst those who otherwise think continence is evil.
[Do I have to be speaking as a Catholic or as an Anglican? God existing would resolve a contradiction in my understanding of the world, but I know exactly the wrong amount about the Bible to be able to accept it, so I visit sites in the hope that I can learn a little more.]