First openly gay bishop in America - opinions?

Remove all ads!

There is something else quite odd with this version of the bible.

One of the biggest economical branches of the occident so openly condemend in the bible ? I checked another bible-version of this passage, there is no word of "enslavers".

 

Does anyone on this topic remember the bishop anymore...?

A little bit strange that the bible seems to portray some kinds of love as "evil".

 

You've got it wrong Dreadlocks.

Love is not evil, its the best thing we have.

However, many things called "love" are not that. Think of the man with a wife and kids who "falls in love" with a woman from the health club. Is it right for that emotion, for that great sex to destroy the lives of his kids?

Think of the confused 20 year old girl who finds love ever month or so, gets rejected, drinks some more, finds love again ... and ends up as a used, hurt 30 year old. Were her actions good?

Sex is not love.

Love is much more than sex ... you get the point.

 

What if they didn't had sex? Would it then not destroy the lives of his kids?

It is love, although love is blind and it helped him forget the promise to his wife and kids.

Sex is for me more than getting laid, it is an expression of love towards a person.
Doesn't really matter if that person was same sex or not.

And who are the people to doubt the love between a couple?

 

The broader term of love was meant.
Cheating is rarely love, perhaps even never.

But still, that which looks like frowning upon homosexuality in the Book of Jah, doesn't fit with the fact that, believe it or not, most homosexual couples *do* love eachother.

I'm tolerant to everything, nothing bad said about anything.

[ August 13, 2003, 20:15: Message edited by: Dreadlocks ]

 

No, it just may seem like that sometimes because the Catholic Church is in the public view alot.

 

Well, I don't think that it seems like that, the christ-catholics have had quite a few priests added into their ranks. Next tp a lot of new members. But I think the biggest part still just leaves the catholic church and don't change to thechrist-catholic church. Most of them anyway because of the hugely perceived as bad choices in Bishops appointement, next to the fact, there are not allowed to merry. I mean, they already have a huge employment problem, then having priests leaving because of bishop-choices. How long can the afford that ?

 

If the guy wants to be a bishop, if he's religious and would follow all the rules, let him. There's nothing in the Bible that says "Let no gay man be a bishop". 'Sides, if he's a 'good' Catholic whats the problem?

 

The rules say 'no gay sex', so a guy is not OK with all the rules if he sleeps with men. In Roman Catholic and many Protestant Churches any sex outside marriage is a sin and marriage is of one man and one woman. Ergo: gay sex makes you not OK with all rules.

And there is a passage that says more or less 'let no gay man be a bishop' - just read Mathetais's post above.

If the guy is a good Catholic, let him be a bishop if he's gay, so far as my humble opinion is concerned and I'm pretty sure there are such bishops already. If he keeps having gay sex, which is different from just feeling sexual attraction to men, he is in the state of sin and therefore unsuitable for priestly duties (if he slept with women he would in the state of sin too and thus unsuitable for priestly duties because there's no sex for men who have sworn chastity in the first place).

 

Right, they also say no sex out of wed-lock. But I don't beleive that gay sex was an issue. The point is, if a someone wants to be a Bishop and follows all the rules, why forbid him to do so? If he will follow the commandments and be, like Valkyrie said, a 'good' christian what is the problem?
And just a question, who said he was having sex at all? If the rules say no gay sex and he isnt having gay sex i dont see a violation of the 'rules'. Even if he is/was having sex how was it proven?

 

I said immediately above that having sex is out of question for a Catholic priest, but again, the man is Protestant. If he had slept with a woman instead that might or might not have been a sin in the eyes of his church. When they claim non-marital heterosexual intercourse isn't sinful, it's quite obvious they're going to have a problem with homosexual intercourse. I don't know if he in fact has had any sexual contact with his gay partner, but as he lives with him and that man is his... ekhm... romantic interest, assumptions goes that they're having sex. In Catholic church there's a whole concept of regularity - protecting the dignity of priestly office. Endangering the dignity of office makes a priest suspended in the said office quite quickly. I'm not quite sure if this works for Protestant churches as well, but if it does, Anglican Church is the first church in which this tradition would be preserved.

As for the undertones I sense in your post and posts above, there's no possibility of dispensing with a 'detail' just because the man in question is OK with all other rules. The church can't dispense anyone from divine positive law or natural law, only from ecclesiastic law. No gay sex rule is from natural law, no non-marital sex rule is from divine positive law (where it's kept) rather than natural, but I'm not perfectly sure here. I'm not home, so I can't check this. In any case, there's no special treatment for anyone.

 

So the man is gay. So what? At least he's not a rapist. Let him be a bishop. The salvation of your soul isn't dependent on the bishop. If he's trying to become a bishop doesn't that mean that he's prepared to follow the rules? In my faith, God will grant salvation if your heart is pure and if you ask forgiveness and mean it. Not if you're straight or gay. I don't think it matters.

 

I don't know why people are not listening to Chevalier -- homosexual behaviour is prohibited in the Catholic faith. In fact, ANY sexual activity is denied to priests. This is not news to anyone. If a person is not willing to follow these rules, he should not be a priest -- it's like me saying "I don't agree with the speed limit -- i'm going to go at whatever speed I want." What a load of stupidity.
[Edit] Oh, but he is Protestant? Well, in that case, I believe it is up to the congregation or hierarchy of his particular denomination if they are willing to accept a homosexual. If the church as a group is not so willing, he should shut up and go find a denomination that will accept his behaviour -- the United Church here in Canada would welcome him with open arms.

 

Once again Chevalier makes all the excellent points only to be mostly ignored by well. . . almost everyone -- Though I would like to thank Gavin for explaining the Episcopalian veiw. See, I'm Catholic so I know the Catholic veiw -- basically everything Chevalier said: Being homesexual isn't wrong, it's practicing homosexual sex. And for a preist, sex in general isn't allowed -- because they're married to God and sex outside of marriage is considered wrong. And for a pastor/leader of a church, one would assume that leaving one's family to have an affair would be. . . wrong (to say the least.) And I knew some of the Protestant and Baptist veiws but I wasn't sure on the Episcopalian.

So here's what I don't get and it's been pointed out before: The Episcopalian Leaders (equivalent to the Pope and stuff in the Catholic church) decided that practiicng homosexuality is wrong. So how could there be a practicing (and we know he's practicing homosexuality because he left his family to be with his "partner" and he wouldn't do that if he just "loved" his lover because there would be no need to leave his family and one would assume/hope he loves his kids) homosexual elected as a bishop? As far as I can tell by the Episcopalian's own beliefs, he is defying their own code of rules and beliefs.

And it's like Chevalier pointed out, would it be moral to elect him as a bishop if he was having an affair with a woman and then decided to leave his wife and kids to go live with that woman (but not get married with her, just continue having sex and live with her) would that be ok??? Especially then to elect him as a moral compass?? (Which is supposed to be part of a bishop's job) I have to think no. It's immoral. And maybe the bishop is a good guy in other ways and does help to contribute to the community and brings people closer to God, but I find it odd that he would be elected if he doens't even follow the Episcoplian's own code of beliefs.

Which brings up another point, Gavin and those who think practicing homosexuality is not a big deal and there are other much bigger and important issues out there have begun a schism -- whether they intended to and realized it or not. And as pointed out, this is why there are many sects of Christianity; they have all schismed off of Catholicism when they had moral and/or theological differences with the Church; this is how new sects are born. So go schism, just stop lying to yourselves and calling yourselves Episcopalian when you're technically not anymore. It's irritating. That also brings up the point about interpreting the bible differently; the Church has split many times because of that -- people interpret the bible differently. (And that is why in this day and age you should pick which church you agree with. And if you don't, then go to a different one or create your own.)

So there's my two cents worth.

See, there's a fine line between standing for what you believe in and trying to force everyone else to believe it too. So if the Episcopalians believe that practicing homosexuality is ok and they want to elect a bishop of their own who does that well then, ok. I don't agree with it, but it's their religion. But when they don't approve of it. . . Yeah so basically I think this whole thing is political. The individual Episcopalians electing him probably don't recognize it but it is. They want to seem accepting and yeah... politics. That's def. one thing that's for certain. Politics shouldn't be involved in the chuch. That is what has caused the majority of the Papal scandals of the past two thousand years. . . and no good has EVER come of it. Ever.

 

Yeah, that's the unavoidable outcome. Shism. It's in the nature of things, that shism happen. Blame Gutenberg, Luther and Calvin, but shism will continue to happen. As the position versus gay-bishops is weak, because the translation is questionable, shism is unaviodable. And why do you think, that the people are not aware that a shism is coming ? Do you think they do not understand what's happening ?

Politics and church by the way, are one and the same.

 

Don't blame Luther! Luther rocks!

 

If I offer myself as your spiritual advisor, will this mean that I will go by your faith and morals - and even more so: lead the way for you?

Please, be serious.

By the way, I'm not going to post here any more until something new is said. I'm tired of people asking questions to answers already provided. I'm also tired of 'let him if he wants' argumentation, but one at least has every right to such opinions no matter how they seem to me.

 

Well, if I followed the Bible blindly, I wouldn't have any enjoyment in my life, as I think of marriage as an complete idiocy and am aware that it'll be just gwtting laid for me.

But I am just a little atheist bisexual, who doesn't like Christianity, so I think it's okay. But don't you dare to call me a sinner.

And whoever said that they should be lucky that the guy isn't a rapist, is right. I better have a gay bishop, who has gay sex with a willing partner, then a priest/whoever, who uses UNWILLING little boys.

And the rumor really has some truth to it.

Everybody isn't born to be a kid-machine.

 

Chevy wrote:

Coming from the Zwingli-city and a land ruled in the name god the almighty, I didn't mean that funny. I was serious.

 

How so?