From the Guardian:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he has "no problem" with gay people being bishops but they must remain celibate.
In his first explicit declaration on the subject since taking office in 2002, Dr Rowan Williams signalled his personal support for the consecration of gay bishops in the Church of England but said he would never endorse gay clergy in relationships because of tradition and historical "standards"
Then what happened with his good friend Jeffrey John when he was chosen for the position of Bishop of Reading? Although John was in a partnered relationship, he stated that he was celibate. I'm confused. Why did Dr Williams ask Jeffrey John to stand down?
He used today's interview to deny that his present stance on gay sex therefore meant he was not being true to himself.
"I think if I were to say my job was not to be true to myself that might suggest that my job required me to be dishonest and if that were the case then I'd be really worried. I'm not elected on a manifesto to further this agenda or that. I have to be someone who holds the reins for the whole debate. To put it very simply, 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." (My emphasis)
The words from Dr Williams' quote which I have bolded make no sense to me. If someone can enlighten me as to their meaning, I'd like that. What is he saying?
Standards! We have standards! But if bishops and clergy hide their gay relationships in the closet, then apparently there's no problem for Dr. williams.
H/T to Leonardo at Eruptions At the Foot of the Volcano.
Don't even get me started....
ReplyDelete"What is he saying?" Nothing.
ReplyDeleteRe the picture. . . Has anyone else noticed that very light "ray," or what appears to me to be a weak lightning bolt coming out of(or going into) the celebrant's head? Any thoughts?
The name of the new bishop of Southwark was supposedly to have been announced around mid-August. Still no announcement. Curious what gives.
ReplyDeleteDoxy, I wish you'd start. Why another post on your blog that you can blame on me might be forthcoming.
ReplyDeleteSusan, Rowan is saying nothing? Well, that's what I take from the the words unless someone out there can help me out.
I had not noticed what appears to be a weak bolt of lightening a-comin' or a-goin' from the head of the celebrant. What it is, is a mystery to me.
Lapin, mysteries abound today.
Episcopal Café has an excellent post by Nicholas Knisely on this, which did get someone started. Knisely quotes at some length from Ruth Gledhill, who states of one of Williams responses that "this is both confusing and rather revolting". Check it out.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that Jeffrey John is about to get Southwark?
He casts himself as a sort of charioteer whereas he's really more like the man with the broom, sweeping up afterwards.
ReplyDeleteThe Lead quotes The Times (which we can't read without paying) as saying that Rowan "confesses that he let down Dr John, who was instead appointed Dean of St Albans."
ReplyDeleteWhat does Rowan's confession mean? Would he act differently today, if he had it to do over again?
I'd like to read Ruth Gledhill's entire commentary (which we also can't read without paying), but on principle, I won't pay.
Is it possible that Jeffrey John is about to get Southwark?
Lapin, it's a thought. It's possible that the reason for the delay in the announcement is that consideration of Jeffrey John for the position is being thrashed out.
Still, I'd be surprised if JJ gets Southwark. If he does, that would answer my question about Rowan and whether he would act differently today.
Tobias, thank you for your instructive and compelling imagery. ;-)
Remember the guy with the broom at the close of Rocky & Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy Tales?
ReplyDeletefrom the Torygraph:But does the Archbishop hope that one day gay bishops can have partners?
ReplyDelete“Pass”.
Yes, he really did say that. Now, you may regard Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality as wrong, amounting to a declaration that it’s OK to be left-handed but not to write with your left hand, but it is at least clear. It’s inconceivable that Benedict XVI would produce the game-show reply “Pass” to a question about sexual morality.
I can enlighten you on his meaning, Mimi:
ReplyDeleteHe is worried.
He has good cause to be worried.
He thinks his job requires him to be dishonest, and that's what he's been doing all along.
And the dishonesty of it all is finally catching up to him.
And that's why he's worried.
In his shoes, I wold have problems sleeping nights also.
Lapin, thanks. :-)
ReplyDeleteIT, are there limits to namby-pambiness? I doubt we've seen Rowan's.
Damien Thompson's column concludes with these words:
What will it take, I wonder, for my liberal Catholic friends to recognise that – irrespective of your views on this matter – Rowan Williams emerges from this debate neither as a radical prophet nor a defender of biblical morality, but as a source of confusion and anxiety? (My emphasis)
I find that I'm in complete agreement with Thompson's words in bold type.
To pick up again on RW's analogy to holding the reins -- I don't think he imagines (if he does he's mad) that he is steering the carriage; I think he thinks he is merely trying to keep it from falling off the cliff. I don't think he is any happier with that than anyone else. But that is where his weakness as a leader lies -- he lacks the will actually to steer the carriage in a direction he thinks right himself -- whatever that way may be.
ReplyDeletePaul (A.), I admit it's difficult to put any other spin on Rowan's meaning. He never recovered from the Jeffrey John debacle. To use Tobias' analogy, Rowan could have steered the carriage in another direction, but he didn't.
ReplyDeleteTobias, if Rowan is trying to keep the carriage from going off the cliff, then he must believe that, in some way, he's still steering.
What I mean is that I think he thinks he is keeping the carriage from going on the sidewalk or off the cliff, but it isn't taking the turns he wants. He's keeping the horses from running completely wild, but they are still not going where he would like. And that it isn't his job to do so.
ReplyDeleteAs I say, I think that's what he thinks. I think he has misunderstood his role, and wasted precious opportunity. And I'm not sure he's kept things from going off the rails. Several passengers have fallen off or jumped off with their luggage already, and the coach continues to reel from side to side...
Yes, I see what you mean, Tobias.
ReplyDeleteCarrying on with the carriage, it appears to me that the carriage itself may be starting to disintegrate, with parts of the carriage falling off.
That reminds me of another image: the old western where they burn up the contents of the train to keep it running... will there be any train left by the time it reaches the station.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, in spite of it all, I'm still hopeful. Maybe I'm crazy? But it seems to me that if even half-hearted statements like this drive a few more bigots from the church or the communion (taking luggage with them or not), there's a chance that the rest of us might muddle through....
I have to say, in spite of it all, I'm still hopeful. Maybe I'm crazy?
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true optimist. No, I don't think you're crazy, Tobias. I hope you're right.
What has driven me absolutely crazy from the very beginning with this man is that he did what he knew was morally wrong and continued to do it. He hurt his GLBT brothers and sisters, world-wide, actually putting many of them in mortal danger, for political expediency. He could have been a force for moral good, stated the truth from day one, consecrated Jeffrey John, and called the bigots what they are—bigots. I feel he had a moral duty to do that as the head of the church. If he had done so, they would have backed down like the schoolyard bullies they are. Instead, he went all mealy-mouthed and let the bigots get the upper hand. For one brief, shining moment the man had power but didn’t seem to know he had it our how to use it. He blew it all away. How could I ever consider him any kind of moral authority worthy of consideration as a leader? I cannot.
ReplyDeleteBooCat, nor do I look to Rowan for moral leadership. If we muddle through, it will be in spite of, not because of, Rowan. Although, I am not as hopeful as Tobias that the Communion will hang together, the members left in the Communion will likely carry on as the churches they are, without following Rowan's dream of forming an Anglican Church. And perhaps more bigots will leave, because Rowan's statements drive them as crazy as his words drive us.
ReplyDeleteLet's focus on the good news---he says he's RETIRING EARLY!!! TBTG!
ReplyDeleteJCF, Rowan is only 60 years old.
ReplyDeletePlease don't say that, Mimi. I'm 60 myself, and I haven't yet managed to cripple the moral authority of the Anglican Communion to the extent that Rowan has.
ReplyDeleteWhere have I gone wrong?
Where have I gone wrong?
ReplyDeletePaul (A.), you haven't, yet. Have you given thought to retiring early? - you know, just to be sure that you depart from your working life with a clean record. ;-)
re: ABC retiring, which means if the pattern follows, the next ABC will be an evangelical in the likes of George Carey.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, quoting Belloc, "Always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse".
ReplyDeleteCaminante and Lapin, yes. I don't put my hopes in the next ABC.
ReplyDelete