From Ruth Gledhill, at the Times Online in London, via Ann Fontaine at the Episcopal Café.
According to Gledhill, who doesn't always get things right, three teenagers from Oi! magazine conducted an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Mylie Veitch, 18, asked him his views on a gay friend of hers who is considering adopting with his partner.
Dr Williams said: “This is a big one. I have questions as to whether same sex couples can provide the same stability as ‘normal parents’. I have no answers really, just questions.
“Many would argue that we need a balance of men and women to bring a child up. However, I have seen one fantastic example of same sex parenting first hand and I suppose stability is another key consideration.”
Asked about his support for gay clergy, he replied: “I have no problem with gay clergy who aren’t in relationships, although there are savage arguments about the issue you might have heard about. Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible, gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practicing homosexual relationships don’t. This major question doesn’t have a quick fix solution and I imagine will be debated for many years to come.”
Gledhill's final words are:
Many insiders believe that the dispute will move across the Atlantic to Britain next year.
Ruth, a number of us would say that the dispute has already jumped the pond.
The interview will be published on December 16.
UPDATE: A report on the interview from ICWales does not include the longish quote about gay clergy. We'll see. Thanks to Ann in the comments for the tip.
UPDATE 2: Here's a link to what appears to be the full article in a PDF file at Creative Solutions. Thanks to Anonymous in the comments.
UPDATE 3: From Anonymous in the comments:
Anonymous said...
no we did not record the interview and hes words were 'adhere' not 'try to live by' i dont know why it has been changed but a number of other things have been chnaged along the way by varous other sources that i am not too happy with and i shall be adressing.
FWIW. I have asked anonymous if she is one of the interviewers.
[Blasphemous expletives deleted in deference to grandmotherly sensibilities]!!! What an incredibly uninformed and fatuous response from a usually intelligent and articulate man. If those are really his responses, he is rapidly sinking in my estimation toward the George Bush level, even though I know he, unlike Bush, does have brain cells to rub together.
ReplyDeleteCommitted couples aren't living biblically but singles (who presumably are celibate and I can assure you they probably are not) are just fine? Is he that stupid or that hypocritical? And please tell me there is a third option.
I'm sorry. Any respect I had up until this evening for +Rowan Cantuar just flew out the window.
Oh, holy hell.
ReplyDeletePaul, if he did say this, he speaks with unusual clarity in the matter of gay clergy. No innuendo here. Very sad.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't help his good friend, Jeffrey John, that he declared himself to be celibate. That he turned on his friend should have prepared us for much that has followed.
I was taken aback by the "normal parents" reference.
Kirstin, holy hell is right.
I am honestly beginning to wonder if +Rowan is quite well. Everyone keeps talking about how incredibly intelligent he is, but he comes across to me almost as if he's had a stroke of some sort.
ReplyDeleteOne can only imagine how stressful this job has become. I've been, by turns, disappointed, furious, and incredulous. But if Gledhill has reported this accurately (a big "if," I know...), I do believe this is the first time I've felt sorry for him. He just seems to have popped a cog somewhere...
The same-gender couple raising a child are Rowan Williams' neighbors, and the child is one of those impossible-to-place kids with serious medical and behavioral problems, now under control.
ReplyDeleteWhat a twit the ABC is, to say, gay couples raising kids aren't providing stability - and then cite a couple he knows very well who are star parents.
As for his statement about gay priests - it would have been sufficient for him to state that the current policy of the CoE is thus.... After all, there's lots of debate going on among Christians. He can't presume to speak for all of us.
Doxy, I've wondered that myself, if he's well. He personally knows of a same sex couple who have been "fantastic" parents, but he can't answer the question as to whether others should be permitted to adopt.
ReplyDeleteOh, my lying eyes!
NancyP, we cross-posted. The same thing struck you, too. He's seen an example of good parenting by a same-sex couple, but that doesn't count toward helping him to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteThe gay clergy answer will come back to bite him, if it's true.
If Ruth Gledhill has quoted +Rowan correctly (and, as Paul noted, that's a big "if"), then I look upon Rowan's tenure and say, "Oh, for the good old days of Archbishop Carey." At least we knew where Carey stood; at least Carey stood for something. This from Rowan just makes me sick.
ReplyDeleteLisa, if these are his words, it's going to be hard for him to back away from them. He says quite clearly that those in "practicing homosexual relationships" don't adhere to the Bible.
ReplyDeleteDo y'all hate that "practicing homosexuals" terminology as much as I do?
Yeah. My friends have pretty well perfected it, LOL.
ReplyDeleteMost of the homosexuals I know quit practicing a long time ago. By now they know what they're doing.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to hold out the hope that he is misquoted, but it is a very feeble hope. I am somewhat saddened and a whole lot enraged. After denying and suppressing anger for the first half-century of my life I find it very salutary to admit it and use the energy for positive change. I grant that when I am denouncing a bit of acid splashes but calling BS and saying something is wrong is part of the work of truth and justice. Returning to the more charitable viewpoint, speculation of a stroke or something that has shifted a once brilliant and widely compassionate man into this ineffective shadow seems a reasonable straw to grasp for.
Its this bit about having no answers, only more questions. That's not leadership.
ReplyDeletefrom icWales online here is another version of the Oi interview -- will be interesting to see what the real one says when it comes out. Dave Walker onRuth
ReplyDeleteDP, right. It's hard be a leader if you have no answers to so many questions.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ann. The cartoon is hilarious. Dave could be right.
The full interview is here: http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news.aspx?action=view&id=1953
ReplyDeleteIt would help to know if these teenage interviewers recorded the interview, or merely took notes, and how much more was actually said that might not have been included in the piece.
Anonymous, I read the Piece in Inspire Magazine, but it wasn't always clear to me which words were quotes and who was saying what. I'd like to know if there is a recording of the conversation, too. The ABC should have insisted on one, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteWe should be able to trust the word of Times columnist, but it's not always safe to do that.
Oi! Magazine has now uploaded the full interview:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.creativeuksolutions.co.uk/archbishop.pdf
What's curious is that this quotes the ABC as saying:
"Our jobs mean we have to TRY AND
LIVE BY the bible, gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual
preferences do, clergy in practicing homosexual relationships
don’t."
Whereas the piece in the Times and the full interview in Inspire Magazine quote him as saying:
"Our jobs mean we have to ADHERE TO the Bible – gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practicing homosexual relationships don’t."
So which is it? And why the change? When was it changed? Or did the Times/Inspire get it wrong? If so, how? What did the ABC actually say originally? Is there a recorded transcript? Is all the rest correct...?
Anonymous, I don't know why the two quotes differ. Is it "try and live by" the Bible or "adhere to" the Bible? Whatever. The "practicing homosexuals" don't, in his opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, if he is saying that non-celibate gays are distinctly not trying to "live by" or "adhere" to the Bible, he is making a much more far-reaching statement about their place in Christianity than merely in the ordained clergy.
ReplyDeleteIF - and Gledhill is a notorious fiction-writer - he said it, regardless of live by or adhere terminology, he has made it clear that he stands in the homophobic camp, with whinging apologetics to keep TEC money coming in.
Mark, I agree. He has changed his views and become more hostile toward gay clergy since the late eighties, when he wrote sympathetically about them.
ReplyDeleteno we did not record the interview and hes words were 'adhere' not 'try to live by' i dont know why it has been changed but a number of other things have been chnaged along the way by varous other sources that i am not too happy with and i shall be adressing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, are you one of the interviewers?
ReplyDelete