Yes, there is (almost) no compromise possible, but as to drvinig him out I’d agree if we did that with all public unrepentant sinners.
I hope, when you speak of translation and interpretation, that that your not denying that the Bible does clearly speak about sin.
The way and reason of his divorce are not the main issue. The issue is fornication. He is having sex with a person he’s not married to (unless you deny that fornication is a sin or that the bible condemns. it)
Again I ask, what if instead of living (and having sex) with another guy it would’ve been a large-breasted twenty-year-old, would he still get the same support? would his sexual option be cheered?
If he’d taken a second wife?(and there is no comdemnation in the bible)
Regarding your biblical quotes, Doesn’t loving God require to accept everything He says even if we don’t like it?
If he said this with the intention the quote clearly states, i.e. personal experience is more important than Scripture and Tradition, then nothing else I say mattters. If a Bishop can say that and still be elected/confirmed/consecrated well, the rest does not matter
7)“Judging him by his sex life” sounds harsh but Jesus said you commited adultery even if you only thought about it, so sex life does matter.
a couple of quotes from St. Irenaeus of Lyon which might’ve been written yesterday.
a) “They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures… In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions.” Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.1
b)“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, … For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce…”
Irenaeus, Haer. 3.2.1
c) They have “apostatised in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and maintained that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but they themselves are
purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles.” Irenaeus, Haer. 3.12.12
Homebrew, thanks- the African Anglican leadership is indeed morally obligated to also oppose clitorectomies (I think Scriptural passages on the goodness of female sexuality in the Song of Songs & the hubby’s obligation to ‘delight’ his wife in Deuteronomy support the Universal Truth that clits are good! G) BUT I still think their criticism of the ECUSA is valid here.
Rodrigo, are you celibate? If so, are you prepared to remain celibate for the rest of your life? You see, to my way of thinking, saying that all sex outside of marriage is sin to a homosexuals, for whom marriage is forbidden in American society, is saying that homosexuals must remain celibate. To say that homosexuals are allowed to marry if they marry someone of the opposite sex is, to me, disingenous and makes a greater mockery of marriage than homosexual marriage. To me, one should not marry someone who one is not capable of fully loving, honoring, and desiring.
You’re a bit new around here, so you may have missed some of the endless debates we’ve had on Biblical injunctions against homosexuality. In the same passages which condemn sexual immorality, things such as gossip, malice, and slander are also condemned, not to mention that good old American stand by, adultery, yet these are not similarly condemned, even though the language used to condemn them is far more clear.
On to the situation here in Pittsburgh. In all fairness to Bishop Duncan, he did, in effect, fire a former priest of mine who apparently committed adultery. On the other hand, his handling of this situation led him to take action which had the potential to badly damage that man who was one of the better priests I’ve had. He’s also, apparently, not entirely thrilled with ordaining women. As Polycarp noted, I recently a church which is firmly opposed to his stance on homosexuality. As a result, what I’m hearing is biased and, no, I’ve realized, as I type, I choose not to speak of it because I have no firsthand evidence except for his mishandling of the situation I mentioned earlier, because, if I do, I will be spreading gossip and possibly even committing slander which Christ, Himself condemns as a sin in Matthew 15:19. Since I cannot be objective, I will recuse myself.
My old church, which was quite badly divided when I left, is I think, more typical of what’s going on in the average Episcopal Church. The main reaction to this news was wishing we had more time, and wishing this whole situation would just go away. That church is rather prone to schism and handling things badly, which is the real reason I left it. People on both sides of this issue do not want to leave the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, they don’t know how to resolve this. Ironically, from what I heard when I told people of my decision to leave, it’s leading to some of the same gossip, talking behind people’s backs, and dishonesty in dealing with others that I believe Christ and Paul explicitly condemn and which led to my initial decision to leave over a year ago (I went back).
As for the arguments about ordaining homosexuals going against scripture and tradition, I’d like to point out that those exact same arguments were used against ordaining women, including the infamous line in 1 Timothy (I think), “Women shall be silent in church.”
I am celibate, but as a straight woman, when I find a man with whom I’m willing to share my sexuality and my life with (and who’s willing to share his with me), I am fortunate enough that people will be happy to celebrate with me, and no one will condemn that as an immoral act or tell me I’m contributing to the decline of American society. I hope to see a day when the same applies to my homosexual brothers and sisters. I’m also amused that the other person on this board whose open about her celibacy shares my beliefs about homosexuality.
Homebrew, you’re right that the Anglicans in Africa ought to be working to stamp out female circumcision. There’s no way to defend the practice, or even to defend standing around and allowing it to happen. However, like FriarTed pointed out, that doesn’t make them wrong about homosexuality. And it’s not just Africans – Anglicans from other parts of the world (notably Asia and parts of South America) have also had similar reactions.
Rodrigo, thanks for your quotes at the end of your post. Some things never change!
Siege said:
I’m pretty sure – at least I would hope – that a priest who was openly and unashamedly gossiping, malicious, slanderous or adulterous would not be elevated to Bisphop, if he or she were allowed to remain a priest at all. Certainly priest do these things; and they are expected to recognize it as sin and repent. If a priest were to come out and say “yes, I know I gossip a lot, but I don’t think Jesus condemns me for it and I plan to continue” I don’t think that would fly.
Absolutely not. The Bible speaks quite clearly about what constitutes sin, and quite bluntly, no one is capable of not sinning. Consider, for example, “Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heraven is perfect.” None of us, at all times and in all ways, love Gdod with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. It’s a rare phenomenon to see anyone loving one’s neighbor as oneself. And it is regrettably not the case that most people do unto others always as they would be done unto.
But if you are at all interested, there are grounds for believing that most of the passages which “condemn gay sex” are actually addressing quite different and heinous sins. These can be enumerated if you like.
Actually, “fornication” is not precisely sex outside marriage, but sex for self-gratification on a casual basis, without a commitment between the partners. It is that commitment, not whether church or state place their stamp of approval on the union, that constitutes a true marriage. And to condemn a couple who are not permitted legal marriage for not legalizing their marital union reminds me of the apocryphal story of Lizzie Borden throwing herself on the mercy of the court because she was an orphan. You produce a classic Catch-22 situation.
May he marry her? If so, why has he not? Would be the questions that would occur to me. Under the laws of New Hampshire, he may not marry Mark Arthur, and while it has nowhere been stated, I have very little doubt that they did in fact covenant with each other and seek the church’s blessing on their union. If you seek to choose to compare apples and oranges, you’re entitled to do so, but be sure your question addresses all fruit, and not just pomes or citrus fruits.
And I have a distinct and very strongly felt objection to people reducing marriage to “a means of licitly having sexual relations.” Any stable married couple is very well aware that there is a great deal more to it than that.
Cajun Man and Dr Matrix are married, in their own eyes and in the eyes of God, regardless of what the state statutes and the canon laws of any randomly selected church have to say about it. Scott evil and jeremy evil are planning a marriage, in church, and unde the laws of the Province of Quebec. Sex no doubt plays a part in their decision – but it is by no means the entirety of it, or even the greater part. There is in any marriage a desire to want to spend the entire remainder of their lives together, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer…
Certainly. But if you will pardon my saying so, neither the Pope, the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robinson, nor any of the translators of the Bible are God – though occasionally it appears to confuse even them as to whether they are or not.
Note a distinction between what Robinson said and what you quoted him as saying. In your version, he denies something is (necessarily) made wrong by going against tradition/church teaching/scripture. What he actually said was "Just simply to say…
And this goes directly to my point above. Your views or mine of what God may or may not have deemed licit and proper or sinful and forbidden don’t count. What matters is what He expects.
And we belong to a church that believes that the Holy Spirit is given at baptism, renewed for the making of mature decisions in confirmation, and empowering the clergy in a special way in holy orders. If the Holy Spirit chooses to convict Gene Robinson of sinful behavior, then by our beliefs He has plenty of opportunity to do so. And it is not my job to convict others of sin, but His.
Yes, he said that – though I’d note that the core of adultery is not the having of sexual relations but the breaking of the vow to remain chaste within marriage ("…forsking all others…"). However, at approximately the time He taught this, He was called on to judge the case of a woman who had in fact committed adultery. You may recall His judgment on her.
Episcopalians are sinners, saved by the grace of God, and clearly aware of their ongoing tendency to sin. Accordingly, we avoid casting the first stone.
Nice quotes from Irenaeus. Of course, you presuppose that what you count as sin is in fact sin, and that your reading of Scripture is the sole and proper way to read it.
But allow me to quote from my patron and board-namesake, who was Irenaeus’s teacher: “He who has love is far from all sin.” (Polycarp to the Philippians 3:3 [3:5 in some renderings])
Well, I’m married and have got 3 kids so I’m not on the celibate side. The fact the same-sex marriage is forbidden in America (like inmost of the world) is not important in the end, since civil law doesn’t affect God’s laws. I did not say that homosexuals should marry people of the opposite sex and I agree with you on the love and honour thing.
As to remaining celibate the rest of my life. If I were, God forbid, to become a widower I would remain celibate until I married again, although I can’t picture myself with any other woman. If my wife decided, God forbid, to leave or divorce me, I’d remain celibate even longer (until she died) because our marriage would still exists regardless of the civil divorce. I practise NFP, so sexual abstinence even in marriage is not alien to me.
I may be knew HERE, but I’ve already been on many a discussion on the meaning of the biblical injunctions against homosexuality and still remain unconvinced that making them reflect only prostitution or rape or loveless sex.
Agreed on that it isn’t only homosexual sex which is condemned.
Agreed that many of the same argument have been made regarding the ordination of women, but since I’m a Catholic I’m consistent, I’m against (because the Bible’s against) both. I complete disagree with you on that the Bible contains infamous lines; if it is God’s word, what you say is impossible.
Polycarp
Agreed on that we cannot help but sin.
As I said I think that interpreting those passages as anything else than speaking (against other things) against homosexuality is trying to force modern mores into the text.
You said ** Actually, “fornication” is not precisely sex outside marriage, but sex for self-gratification on a casual basis, without a commitment between the partners**, yes but still sex outside marriage is always adulterous.
The whole Bible is full of passages that clearly reflect that sex is for people of the opposite sex.
Let’s say he didn’t marry, being able to do it, the woman, what would you say? Should a Bishop be the one pushing the limits?
Of course marriage is much more that licitly having sex, you don’t have to tell me, still sex is one of the “perks”. I disagree on your view that marriage is basically between the spouses and determined only by them. Marriage is a divine institution that requires public and communal blessing. I don’t care about the laws of Quebec or in my country, I put God’s laws first and man’s laws second. We shouldn’t let civil laws determine religious activities (as far as it goes, of course, a church must be built following the building code, but we should build a church even if it is illegal if that’s what the people need).
Like you, many remain unconvinced of the biblical injunctions against homosexuality, some even say “it’s only seven passages”. What if Jesus had said “homosexual sex is always under all circumstances wrong, not matter what the two men or women think or say or feel or what the culture they live in decided, it is wrong and it cannot be made right now and in the future, it is always a sin against God”, would you still support homosexual sex? (I would it He’d said the opposite).
You said ** Your views or mine of what God may or may not have deemed licit and proper or sinful and forbidden don’t count. What matters is what He expects.** it looks like each decided morality, that’s not my view. We have a church. You take a personal view of sin but sin is more communal.