How do you 'conform' to a mystery?
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 08, 2010
So it seems Dr. Jeffrey John will not become an Anglican bishop after all. While conservatives in the Church of England are relieved that they will not have their first avowedly homosexual bishop, Dr. John's supporters are understandably disappointed.
The case is admittedly a confusing one:
John, although united in a civil partnership with his long-term partner, has declared he is celibate, conforming to Anglican teaching.
Still we have a few questions:
- What is Anglican teaching on the morality of homosexual acts?
- Does the teaching at St. Alban's cathedral differ from that in the dioceses of Reading and Southwark? As radically as the teaching in Africa differs from that in the US?
- If the Anglican communion can tolerate an active homosexual as a bishop in New Hampshire, but cannot accept a celibate homosexual as Bishop of Southwark, what can we deduce?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jul. 09, 2010 10:03 AM ET USA
Thanks ColmCille for the dictionary reference. However, by analogy, such a definition - based on attraction, compulsion, desire or emotional or glandular impetus - would make me and many other men who are actively and persistently faithful to their wives and observe a chaste marital relationship in conformity with 2,000 years of Christian teaching, despite their inclinations, "polygamists."
Posted by: Christopher_Johnson -
Jul. 08, 2010 11:51 PM ET USA
(1) Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di. what is this "Anglican teaching" to which you refer? (2)Uh...yeah. Is this a trick question? (3)That trying to deduce anything at all from Anglicanism, never mind coherency, is a fool's errand these days.
Posted by: ColmCille -
Jul. 08, 2010 9:53 PM ET USA
It seems current Anglican teaching on the morality of homosexual acts is "some feel it is OK, others not, and that's fine" or "it's all relative, man!" mjarman: Homosexual adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. n. A homosexual person... [American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition] If one accepts the above definition, it's sexual orientation, regardless of sexual activity. As for "gay," I reject the word in that context.
Posted by: -
Jul. 08, 2010 4:29 PM ET USA
It is not just the "Anglican teaching on the morality of homosexual acts" that is a mystery, it's how the gay community and the press defines what it MEANS to be a homosexual. In my mind, someone who is not having sex and who is committed to refrain from having sex is neither "homosexual" not "heterosexual" but is "celebate."