Gay bishop attacks Catholic stand

Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire has recently spoken of the need for the Catholic church to reform it's attitudes towards the ordination of homosexuals. In a speech given in London he described Rome's current stance as 'vile'.



This issue is obviously one that will just not go away for the Church. 'Schism' is a word that has been frequently used in relation to the attitudes adopted by the various factions within the Anglican faith, yet a full scale breakdown has yet to occur.

Personally, I think it is good that such a dialogue is being encouraged. After all, we live in the modern world and it is high time the 'Church' reformed it's archaic attitudes and accepted that we are all truly 'human' and are therefore fallible.

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 8-11-2005 by asala]

I agree. Priests should be free to marry which ever sex they prefer. This archaic view on celibacy should have been over a long time ago.

Even Jesus had carnal knowledge according to history...Enough. This beleif in celibacy is whats bringing the church down.
As far as pedophiles, put em all in jail now.

I don't honestly believe that the thoughts of an Anglican Bishop hold any weight with the Catholic Church, so aside from this Bishop making a social statement, this action is irrelevant.

I would also point out that this bishop has caused quite a rift in his own church, so I'm not so sure he represents the Anglican church either.

Of course, the bottom line is, the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, and if you don't like it you don't have to belong to it. It's really not pertinent who agrees with them, no one is forced to be one of them.

Maybe we can talk the Church into seeing if they can violate some of the physical laws that God created, too, huh? I'm sure God won't mind that, aren't you?

I don't honestly believe that the thoughts of an Anglican Bishop hold any weight with the Catholic Church, so aside from this Bishop making a social statement, this action is irrelevant.

Not when you look at it through his eyes. He's a homosexual bishop in his own church, so why shouldn't every church have one, too?

Let's not mention the hypocrisy here. The fact that he is a bishop shows remarkable tolerance by the Anglican church. The fact that he demands the same behavior from another church shows remakable intolerance from him.

from dgI agree. Priests should be free to marry which ever sex they prefer. This archaic view on celibacy should have been over a long time ago.

Wow, dg. You want to change the attitude of the Catholic Church toward two major tenets in one fell swoop? Celibacy and homosexuality? That would take at least a century to change both, IMO.
Edit typo


[edit on 6-11-2005 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not when you look at it through his eyes. He's a homosexual bishop in his own church, so why shouldn't every church have one, too?

- What makes you imagine they don't?

Let's not mention the hypocrisy here. The fact that he is a bishop shows remarkable tolerance by the Anglican church. The fact that he demands the same behavior from another church shows remakable intolerance from him.

- I don't see him "demanding" anything other than a reasonable dialogue about the issue.

Wow, dg.

You want to change the attitude of the Catholic Church toward two major tenets in one fell swoop? Celibacy and homosexuality? That would take at least a century to change both, IMO.

- there may be truth in that but I can't see why the dialogue can't begin now.

The fact is that outside of the more hard-line 3rd world Anglicans and Roman Catholics are having severe problem recruiting clergy and parishoners (not to mention the obvious sex scandels).

Within the context of these religions, celibacy is a pure construct and human invention, there is no Biblical requirement for it.

The traditional anti-homosexuality stance is, IMO, a grossly selective 'pick' of which old Testament bit to go nuts over.

When was there such a fuss over the abomination of eating shell fish?
Lev 11.10

Who gets so excited about putting people who work on the 7th day to death as demanded by Ex 35.2?

and so on, there are many more if one looks.


[edit on 8-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Im Roman Catholic.

If this Gay "Bishop" does not like the way the Archdiocese runs the church, he is free to leave and join another religion.

Maximu§

As a former Catholic Seminarian (5 years, simple vows) and now as a practising Episcopalian in Massachusetts (next to New Hampshire), I have to say that all the hub-bub about Bishop Gene is mostly from people who aren't really involved with him- notably the conservative West African Bishops. They have their own sheep to care for- and other than religious orthodoxy, their doing a pretty crappy job as shepherds.

There's great hypocrisy here in that the sexual attitudes of Africans tend to be considerably more permissive than Western attitudes reagarding heterosexual sex. As a result, 13 million heterosexual Africans are now infected with AIDS.


Thomas Crowne says:

"Maybe we can talk the Church into seeing if they can violate some of the physical laws that God created, too, huh? I'm sure God won't mind that, aren't you? "[sic]

One of religion's great failings is that man is always telling us what God says, in man's image- Jesus never mentions a word about homosexuality, but he is very clear about divorce, the love of material goods, and how to treat your neighbor and enemy.

Thomas Crowne, like millions of others, conveniently seems to ignore that fact. The priesthood didn't even exist until the 3rd century, and Deacons and bishops (including Peter) were women, gays, and married. Required celibacy was not put in force until the 9th Century,, and that was a political move by Rome to stop priests from passing down their lands to their children (given by noblemen for their service to the Manor). No marriage, no legitimate children or heirs.

The early Church had Elders (elected), Prophets, and Teachers. Elders became bishops, but the other two charisms died out as Church became Imperialized by ROME. The Reformation attempted to reform some of the decadence that defined the face of the Church.

Relentless says:
"Of course, the bottom line is, the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, and if you don't like it you don't have to belong to it. It's really not pertinent who agrees with them, no one is forced to be one of them."

In reality, as reinforced by Vatican II, the Catholic (Universal) Church is the people of God, not just the hierarchy. The distortion of Imperial Roman influence changed that only in the eyes of the clergy who "Hold" power, and of the "servile" who are too weak to examine the complexities of the Life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Much easier to say "The Church teaches it, so it must be so," than to use your own God-given intellect and conscience to come to a truly Gospel-centered faith. Vatican II affirms that the first and foremost responsibility of a Catholic is the "Primacy of Informed Conscience." That still terrifies those Catholics who don't want to search for faith as adults.


This whole "Gay" thing is a scape-goating, fear-mongering charade. The most homophobic clergy in my community- and it was a large one- were the biggest "closet cases" who couldn't face their own sexuality.

Rob

Religion doesnt change to fit your lifestyle, and make your sins accepted.

You, change your lifestyle, and leave behind your sinful ways behind, and find religion.

You dont get it both ways.


Unless of course you want to create your own twisted religion, The satanists did it, so the gays can do it to.

This man can be the leader.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by C0le]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not when you look at it through his eyes. He's a homosexual bishop in his own church, so why shouldn't every church have one, too?

- What makes you imagine they don't?

They may, and probably do, but not openly.

Let's not mention the hypocrisy here. The fact that he is a bishop shows remarkable tolerance by the Anglican church. The fact that he demands the same behavior from another church shows remakable intolerance from him.

- I don't see him "demanding" anything other than a reasonable dialogue about the issue.

He should keep his reasonable dialogue within his own flock. The Anglican Church is split over his appointment.

He has no business telling Catholics what to dialogue over. He is merely pushing his own agenda.

Wow, dg.

You want to change the attitude of the Catholic Church toward two major tenets in one fell swoop? Celibacy and homosexuality? That would take at least a century to change both, IMO.

-

there may be truth in that but I can't see why the dialogue can't begin now.

The time is not right, IMO.

The fact is that outside of the more hard-line 3rd world Anglicans and Roman Catholics are having severe problem recruiting clergy and parishoners (not to mention the obvious sex scandels).

Within the context of these religions, celibacy is a pure construct and human invention, there is no Biblical requirement for it.

The traditional anti-homosexuality stance is, IMO, a grossly selective 'pick' of which old Testament bit to go nuts over.

Homosexuality is not the primary reason that the Catholic church is losing membership and leadership.

Forgetting for a moment the pedophilia issues, there are two other issue that immediately come to mind:

Birth control
Women priests

Originally posted by jsobecky
They may, and probably do, but not openly.

- Well I think it is pretty clear they do by now and the lack of openness is part of the problem, hypocrisy isn't too appealing when it comes to religion, no?

He should keep his reasonable dialogue within his own flock. The Anglican Church is split over his appointment.

- Yes but there is 'split' and there is 'split'.
The western world's community is not anything like as bothered about this as the '3rd world' communion.

I can assure you that there very definitely is a dialogue about this going on within the C of E/Anglican community.

He has no business telling Catholics what to dialogue over. He is merely pushing his own agenda.

- I disagree.
There is a long established ecumenical movement recognising the shared heritage and roots between the Anglicans and Roman Catholic Churches (and the other 'Catholic' Churches).
It has long been recognised that the viewpoint of 'the other(s)' is worth hearing, if not always acting upon.

Like they have done on many other tricky issues there is every 'right' for this matter to be debated between the churches (do you really think this issue is going to go away from the RC church if they stop this pesky Anglican bothering them about it?).
It is unquestionably a serious matter for both.

Since when was the issue of homosexuality and the Church(es) a matter of one single man's own 'agenda' (Bishop or not)?

Much as people love to attempt to personalise this kind of thing (they did the same with the first wave of Anglican women Priests.....in fact more than a few of the arguements seem similar) it is hardly the real point.

The time is not right, IMO.

- Fair enough, your view and all that....but do you ever see it being right?

.....and if it isn't the right time, as a church that has maintained the Apostolic succession since Peter begins to invest gay men as Bishops, when is it ever going to be?

Homosexuality is not the primary reason that the Catholic church is losing membership and leadership.

- No it isn't and I did not say it was, it is however, IMO, indicative and symptomatic of the RC Churches' refusal to confront the difficult issues.

A proper and sane approach to normal supposedly God-given human sexuality is a key component of any turn around, I think.
The paedophilia scandels - whilst of course not universal - are very numerous and widespread and illustrate the unhealthy perversity of the current situation.

I also think it fairly clear that the Churches' inclination (in several countries) to lie, deny and cover-up this scandel indicate the degree to which certain senior 'traditionalist' figures in the Church have left reality behind.

They preferred silence (and certainly none of the standard sermon about 'abomination' etc etc reserved for gay people) and the damaged and in cases completely wrecked lives of those affected to be ignored and denied for decades, in some cases.

Forgetting for a moment the pedophilia issues, there are two other issue that immediately come to mind:

Birth control
Women priests

- Quite so. I completely agree.

......and the traditionalists answer is much the same on those too.
If you don't like it get lost.

Good job the Church does not actually 'belong' just to that crowd otherwise nothing would have changed ever.

As has been said earlier the entire issue of who decides and picks which bits of the Bible to focus on go nuts about is central here.

Some people can't get enough of 'authority' and 'tradition' (and have little interest that almost all of this stuff was invented by men at some point or another for purely political, not religious, ends), unfortunately for those people, as the Church become less and less relevant they are, IMO, going to have to look again at these matters no matter what any traditionalist might insist.

In Europe (even in Ireland!) the numbers coming forward to the clergy is in huge decline and it is a lack of relevance and an unwillingness to recognise the people and world as it is that is at fault.


[edit on 9-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Relentless
Of course, the bottom line is, the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, and if you don't like it you don't have to belong to it. It's really not pertinent who agrees with them, no one is forced to be one of them.

Exactly. If you don't like it ... take a hike down the
road and join some other church.

Actually, I don't know why he is blathering about the Catholic
Church. First of all - he isn't Catholic so it's none of his darn business
what the Catholic church decides is sin and what it doesn't. Second
of all if he wants acceptance as a homosexual he should work on his
own church first - it still mostly doesn't accept homosexuality. Third,
if he wants all Christians to accept homosexual pastors then he has
to go back and rewrite the bible - specifically ROMANS.

hey.. maybe he can get his ex wife to help him out with all that.
You know .. the one that he committed adultry against and that
he abandoned to go live with his gay lover for ...

This guy is unbelievable!

[edit on 11/9/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Birth control - Women priests

If the Catholic church is losing people over these issues, then so be it.
These teachings are in the 'can't ever change' category. They are not
disciplines that can change with the mood of the pope. They are laws
of the church and no pope has the authority to change them. If teaching
them means that the Catholic church will get smaller and die
... then it does. Eventually all people and things die.

Just about half the priesthood is gay.

Then you have good old Ratzinger SHELVING the cases concerning child abuse.

That's what happens when you have celibacy. In fact, one time it was said that Rome had the most prostitutes because it had the most celibates. Go figure.

I don't care for Catholicism. And I can't see how they claim to be Christian when they go against Christ's teachings.

Originally posted by Amethyst
Just about half the priesthood is gay.

You have some hard data to back this up or do you make it up as you go?

Maximu§

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
You have some hard data to back this up or do you make it up as you go?

I agree with Max, I think it's more like 75% are gay.

Does anyone know if there's ever been a gay pope?

Peace

Originally posted by Relentless
Of course, the bottom line is, the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, and if you don't like it you don't have to belong to it. It's really not pertinent who agrees with them, no one is forced to be one of them.

Exactly

they are free to make their own rulings and interpertate the Bible in their own way, no one is forced to join. If you disagree join another church

Originally posted by Amethyst
Just about half the priesthood is gay.
That's what happens when you have celibacy. In fact, one time it was said that Rome had the most prostitutes because it had the most celibates. Go figure.

Emphasis mine

Congratulations, Amethyst. You've just ended the debate over whether being gay is a choice. According to that statement you made, it is possible to "go gay". So, it is a choice, eh?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by jsobecky
They may, and probably do, but not openly.

They
- Well I think it is pretty clear they do by now and the lack of openness is part of the problem, hypocrisy isn't too appealing when it comes to religion, no?

There is no hypocrisy here.

The Anglican church is welcoming gay members.

That's different than what the bishop wants to do - he wants to push for gay bishops in the CC. That's where it becomes nunya.

He should keep his reasonable dialogue within his own flock. The

He has no business telling Catholics what to dialogue over. He is merely pushing his own agenda.

- I disagree.
There is a long established ecumenical movement recognising the shared heritage and roots between the Anglicans and Roman Catholic Churches (and the other 'Catholic' Churches).
It has long been recognised that the viewpoint of 'the other(s)' is worth hearing, if not always acting upon.

Like they have done on many other tricky issues there is every 'right' for this matter to be debated between the churches (do you really think this issue is going to go away from the RC church if they stop this pesky Anglican bothering them about it?).

I would like to see the CC be more inclusive, and to stop excluding gay members. It may happen in the future, it may not.

It is unquestionably a serious matter for both.

Moreso for the gays that want to join the church.

Since when was the issue of homosexuality and the Church(es) a matter of one single man's own 'agenda' (Bishop or not)?

Since I believe his ultimate goal is to form an Association of Gay Bishops, with him at the head seat. It would go a long way toward validating the choice he has made.

The time is not right, IMO.

- Fair enough, your view and all that....but do you ever see it being right?

.....and if it isn't the right time, as a church that has maintained the Apostolic succession since Peter begins to invest gay men as Bishops, when is it ever going to be?

If it is to be it will be. In time.

Forgetting for a moment the pedophilia issues..

......and the traditionalists answer is much the same on those too.
If you don't like it get lost.

Good job the Church does not actually 'belong' just to that crowd otherwise nothing would have changed ever.

I said earlier that I didn't wan to talk about those issues in this thread. They distract. Start a new thread if you think that homosexuality and pedophilia are related.

Hey I just realized Amuk is back! Welcome back, Amuk!