as the actor said to the bishop...

[peaceandlovebunny]

'you can look, but don't touch!'

anyone else annoyed by the c of e's 'hey guys, be gay, be a bishop but don't have any sex!' line? i know its not new - they tried to tell us our local married/cp'd vic was not doing it with his husband - but its so hypocritical.
i am c of e, i would support the churches in most things, including being allowed to decide who they marry and who they don't, but this is just ridiculous. ridiculous.

i don't suppose anyone else cares.

My father was a CofE vicar, there were plenty of gay vicars, I never knew 'the rules'...are they not allowed to consummate their union?

I'm atheist btw step up from Satanist back in the 90's. Ahhh sweet rebellion

I'm a practising Christian (of no specific denomination). I tend to think that if God has a problem with what's going on between 2 consenting adults, he's big and powerful enough to sort it out himself without any of us mere mortals sticking our oars in.

Yes, it annoys me too. But quite a lot of the CofE doesn't hold this position. My own vicar (who is a man married to a woman, FWIW) says he doesn't and I've met plenty of other clerics who feel the same.

I think the explanation is that you can't help being gay, but you can choose to be celibate outside of marriage, as all clergy are supposed to be.

But, to me, that's a reason for allowing same-sex marriage - then you'd have a level playing field and could judge everyone's behaviour in the same way.

Its the same as the US "Don't ask, don't tell policy" in the armed services.

A policy that has just been got rid of for being outdated and unacceptable.

So the C of E in introducing policies similar to those that have only just been got rid of for being outdated are simply reinforcing the idea that they are living in the past and hugely out of touch.

And they are introducing it, whilst at the same time trying to say they are listening and being somehow progressive.

In short they are fuckwits who are probably only trying to cover their arses legally anyway.

Well said, amum.

FWIW this isn't some new policy, it has been the CofE position for 20+ years. It's just that they have now made specific statements about gay bishops - this has always been the official position about all gay clergy. No sex outside of (heterosexual) marriage.

Well .... yes, but I'm not sure the C of E has 'official positions' in the same way as, say, the Catholic Church. It has what the Archibishop says, but he is first among equals, rather than an infallible leader. And it has what most people accept, but again, that's only a majority vote.

The C of E has a long tradition (going back right to when it started) of accepting that people do often have different views, and often dissent from the majority or approved opinion.

I find it quite worrying that I think it is a recent thing, to be as insistent as some commentators are about what is 'the' C of E position. This concern that it is potentially schismatic that some churches cannot accept homosexuals while others would like to see them treated as equals, seems really odd to me. We're meant to be all getting along and accepting each other's bigotries differences.

seeing as how you're not supposed to have sex outside of marriage then what other 'official line' can they take really. I'm sure there's a more understanding attitude on the ground. But any formalisation of that would throw the church into more chaos. not that that isn't long overdue.

most priests are straight but can't have sex. i know that's different as it's 1) a different religion, 2) they're not married! but at the same time the principle is the same, if you're not married and you CHOSE the church .... then play the game get on with it.

you can choose to be celibate outside of marriage, as all clergy are supposed to be
as, indeed, we are all supposed to be, if we are Christian.
i know its not new, but there was some publicity about it at lunchtime and i just thought 'who do they think they're kidding?' a lot of people in a relationship, put in that position, would think 'i'll do what i like and not tell', which puts them in the wrong for sharing a full relationship which is a natural thing to do, and somewhere there will be some anguished bishop, in love with the bloke of his dreams, who never expresses his love because of a ridiculous rule.
i'm not against celibacy. its a good and for some a healthy way of life. its good for the committed believer devoted to God. read ivan illich on celibacy if you want to understand. but i think the c of e is behaving very badly at the moment.

I don't get it mulberry. You mean Catholic priests not C of E priests or Orthodox priests or any of the other Christian priests?

I agree with amum that the other 'official line' would be the (logicial!) one of marrying gay people.

And I am with peace in that I think if celibacy works for you, great! Some people just are celibate, religious or not. But I think enforcing celibacy on loving couples is not right.

LRD - the CofE does have official positions for its clergy though - not so much for the laity, but clergy, who are representatives of the church and usually paid by it are expected to meet certain rules and regulations, the "Canons", and can be disciplined for not following the rules.

As above, I think they should change the rule, as it is patently unfair to say same sex clergy couples cannot have sex because they are not married, while also saying that they can't get married because they are the same sex, oh but it's totally ifne to have homosexual feelings as long as you don't actually act on them.

Celibacy is great for those who choose it or feel called to it, but the rest of us are sexual beings, who happen to be gay or straight, so celibacy shouldn't be imposed on one group but not the other.

But the Cof E can and does have rules.

'simply reinforcing the idea that they are living in the past and hugely out of touch'

but the word of god should be the word of god and not change to fit in with society's prevailing moral values.

I do accept that there is canon law, but there is also a long tradition of challenging canon law. It's not like the Catholic Church, where you're really not supposed to tell the Pope you think he's wrong.

I think we are basically agreeing, so excuse me for making what may be a minor point - I just think it is such a shame that the C of E has become, as I see it, much more keen to lay down the law in an age where, in general, people are more laissez-faire about differences of 'morality' than they were in the past.

Why, socharlotte?

hmm. the word of God. is every word in the Bible 'the word of God'? literally? fundamentally?

i have a problem with that point of view. my problem is called 'Jesus'. the one who thinks its better to feed your friends or to heal someone than to keep the strict law about the Sabbath.

ask yourself that horrible question i was taught at sunday school in 1960 - 'what would Jesus do?' would Jesus be looking behind people's bedroom doors? or looking at the love they shared with each other and with the world?
i can't speak for Jesus. i don't know what He would do. but i know what i think he would do.

Oh I think they're making themselves look stupid and out of touch, and completely ridiculous. And I think the result will be disestablishment within the next 10 to 20 years, unless they get their act together and start to be about religion again, in it's best sense rather than the stupid reactionary "keeping people in their place" and "maintaining Victorian values" sense that they currently exemplify.

They need to wake up and realise that issues like homosexuality and women are not negotiable in the modern Western world, and that they are kidding themselves if they think its ok to have anything other than full equality.

I agree peace.

I hope you're wrong, amum, but I can completely see why you may not be.

It is really damaging.

socharlotte Fri 04-Jan-13 18:50:51
but the word of god should be the word of god and not change to fit in with society's prevailing moral values.

So are you seriously telling me that society's prevailing moral values haven't shaped religion in the last couple of thousand years?

'The word of god' has ALWAYS been dictated by the values of those who pass on the message to the next generation, in a fashion not disimilar to chinese whispers.

Well, and also, the 'Word of God' is pretty ambiguous. We can't even get 'tone' on the internet right all the time so it should hardly come as a galloping shock to find we have to keep working out again what we think we're meant to be doing with Christianity.

I never understand why some people think that human morality is somehow invalid as a means of judging what's right. Surely if God was made human, that suggests a certain faith in human abilities to evolve and learn and get better at understanding what is morally right and what is not? I think if we keep reinterpreting Christianity in the light of contemporary ideologies, that's all to the good.

I'm a practising Christian (of no specific denomination). I tend to think that if God has a problem with what's going on between 2 consenting adults, he's big and powerful enough to sort it out himself without any of us mere mortals sticking our oars in.

If God had a problem with X he'd be sorting it out.
Now that's what I call religion.