Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Rowan Williams: Church ‘wrong’ about homosexuality but Cameron has embarrassed us on gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Kimiko Kotani 8 Sep 2012, 11:48am

    I’d say the Church embarrasses themselves on this matter. They are the ones making a ruckus about God and gays and the sanctity of a marriage between men and women. I’d say if they feel embarrassment, perhaps they should realize it’s because they are doing something to be ashamed of and should correct that rather than point fingers at the person who has pointed out their behaviour.

    1. Embarrassment? After centuries of doing WRONG things like killing millions in the name of their god, inciting hate and wars, saying that women and black people are lesser humans, etc, etc, etc.
      I think they don’t need help in embarrassing themselves.
      Just because someone they thought was their ally tells them the truth, they begin crying.

  2. Oh please. How much harm has the church done by condoning and encouraging negativity against LGBT people, while working deliberately to make our lives harder than they actually have to be, and he ACTUALLY wants to wet his cassock over being “embarrassed.”

    Speechless.

  3. Carl Rowlands 8 Sep 2012, 12:11pm

    He therefore has pleased no one!

  4. How can the Archbishop say that the church is embarrassed when he caved into the bigoted views of many of the African Bishops. He does it to himself by wavering and not taking a firm stand.

  5. Kerry Hollowell 8 Sep 2012, 12:13pm

    he is a pathetic feeble excuse for a man and has questionable morals

  6. So if the church doesn’t want equal marriage then the state can’t have it either – get lost Atkinson.

  7. As a member of the CofE I find it even more embarrassing that it takes the LEADER OF THE TORIES to point out the homophobia and inequalities rife in the institution. Come on Church, that’s when you know you’re doing it wrong.

    I had a lot of respect for Rowan Williams but sadly this whole debate has made me it lose it all. I truly thought he would stand up for us LGBT Christians. Fat chance. If once he comes down to Cambridge he starts preaching on equality I will be even more disgusted… if we only ever fought injustice when there was nothing to lose, the world would be a far worse place than it is.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2012, 12:40pm

    Embarrassed the church? What planet is he living on? What a hypocrite! His church does a damned good job of embarrassing itself almost daily when it’s clergy and followers, some of them at C4M/CI make stupid statements that equalising civil marriage will herald polygamy, incest and whatever, thereby spreading lies and misinformation, hardly christian of them.

    As for his fear of disestablishment of the church over this…well, I’m glad he is afraid, he should be because his irrational rants and those in the majority of his hierarchy could well be the catalyst to bring it to fruition. Bring it on, WIlliams, we’re ready.

  9. So he’s giving up on their past embarrassing bigotry and hoping to backtrack on them because it just makes his CURRENT bigotry seem all the worse?

    This strikes me as “yes I know we’ve been vile bigots over and over and over again – but this time is different. honest!”

  10. Thanks for nothing Williams. Enjoy your retirement. You won’t be missed.

    (On the plus side the anglican cult is now weaker than ever, we need to press on with full separation between church and state in Britain.)

    1. Spanner1960 8 Sep 2012, 4:09pm

      Oooh! There goes that “cult” word again!
      I knew it wouldn’t take long for dAVID to be out on his favourite rant against religion, that is when he isn’t slagging off the Tories or complaining about all the American news…

      1. By definition the CofE and all other religious sects ARE cults.

        Look it up!

        1. Spanner1960 8 Sep 2012, 11:43pm

          “A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.”

          Sinister possibly, but I wouldn’t say they were that small.
          dAVID just likes to drop that word in at every opportunity because he finds it quaintly amusing whilst everybody else just finds it irritatingly puerile and unfunny.

          1. Looks like dAVID is a bit of a cult himself.

          2. And what part of the description you’ve just given does not apply to the Anglican cult, Spanner?

          3. Why did you dig for the most obscure definition?

            Dictionary.com

            cult

            noun
            1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
            2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
            3. the object of such devotion.
            4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
            5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

            Merriam Webster

            CULT
            1: formal religious veneration : worship
            2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
            3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
            4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
            5: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

      2. ‘Cult’ is an accurate description Spanner.

        1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 9:23am

          Yeah, but you just like using it to be divisive and critical.
          You’re just not witty or funny.
          The Anglican church is no more a ‘cult’ than the people on here are a ‘community’.

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2012, 1:00pm

    The fact that he mentions “disestablishment” is quite revealing. At least there is chatter taking place to make him think that people are discussing it up and down the country and cause for concern for his cult. There are many other reasons to discuss it unrelated to equal marriage. I hope this continues and the public comes to realise that state religion is anachronistic, undemocratic, irrelevant and totally unnecessary in a multicultural society such as ours where many aren’t christian let alone believers.

  12. And getting embaressed over something they did is as bad as someone pushing for you to be denied equality?

    Cry me a river.

  13. So.. After all the hullabaloo it was nothing to do with their scripture or what their god tells them.

    It was all to do with his CofE club standing back and allowing inequality and their upset at being shown up for being totally unchristian bigots by the government.

    Well. Boo-Hoo bish.

    No don’t let the door hit your cowardly @rse on the way to your gold plated index linked retirement.

    Hypocritical coward.

  14. Robin Ellwood 8 Sep 2012, 1:21pm

    Keep on embarrassing away I’d say!

  15. The C of E is utterly irrelevant, like all religion. All it does is promote hatred and abuse its power over vulnerable people.

    1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 9:27am

      I think that is a very generalised, untrue and spiteful statement.
      The church provides a lot of support both physical, spiritual and financial to people, and who are you to deprive them of that?

      I admit they are stuck in a rut, and in many ways should keep their noses out of other people’s affairs, but people should be allowed to believe in what they want, even if it is ultimately pointless in many people’s opinion.

  16. “We’ve been assured that there will be no pressure on the Church to perform marriages, but of course as things stand, every citizen has the right to be married in Church. That’s alright, so long as the State’s definition of marriage and the Church’s definition are the same. If the State’s definition shifts … then we have a tangle.”

    What?

    1. Bill (Scotland) 8 Sep 2012, 2:15pm

      It’s not so very long ago that divorcees could not be remarried in church – they carried on like that for decades and the Catholic church still does. Indeed we had a monarch not so very long ago who had to resign (‘abdicate’) because He wanted to marry a divorced person, but just a few years ago the current Heir to the Throne got remarried – OK his first wife was dead, but they had both admitted to adultery during their marriage and his new wife is herself a divorcee. Williams’ arguments are devoid of logic and he needs to be told this in no uncertain terms.

      No church should, or will, be forced to consecrate a same-sex marriage if they don’t want to, but at the same time religious denominations which are happy to carry them out should be permitted to do it. It seems so simple and uncontroversial to me.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2012, 4:30pm

        Further proof of the hypocrisy of the CoE.

  17. Bill (Scotland) 8 Sep 2012, 2:08pm

    Poor old Rowan Williams – way behind as usual. He belatedly admits the CoE was ‘wrong’ about CPs, but if they had never been legislated for I bet you any money you like that he and his church would still think it wrong to introduce them.

    He talks about being ‘embarrassed’ by Cameron, well he and his church deserve to be embarrassed and as another has mentioned they are in fact an embarrassment, which I suppose is better than being ‘disgusting’, which is the only word to apply to that other crowd of sky-fairy bigots, the Catholic church.

    The sooner the CoE is disestablished the better – we are a secular country, but there is too much blurring of the lines and there should certainly not be any House of Lords members there solely because of their religious affiliation, a travesty of democracy if ever there was one.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2012, 4:29pm

      We’re technically a theocracy, state religion, a monarch who heads it, her name and or image on the currency and postage stamps and Anglican clergy getting to vote against civil rights in the unelected House of Tosser Bigots! How much more undemocratic does it get? It is high time for the disestablishment discussion to start a national debate about abolishing it. There are many reasons to do it other than for equal marriage which predate it. The problem is the vast majority of the dumb electorate don’t have a clue or bother to take a closer look at it’s sinister interference in civil matters and the fact that tax payers have to contribute to church run schools, not just Anglican but Catholic schools too. There is something intrinsically wrong with that and with our system of government.

      1. Robert I don’t disagree with most of what you say, but we’re not technically a theocracy really. The queen isn’t the monarch by virtue of being the governor of the CoE, rather the other way round.

        theocracy: a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god (OED online)

        1. Well, if we’re talking the theoretical basis, the Royal Coat of Arms still bears the line

          Dieu et mon droit

          which looks a lot like rule in the name of God to me.

        2. And the Prince of Wales’s has Ich dien “I serve”, which is about as grounded in today’s reality as the other. There’s also the small matter of Magna Carta, isn’t there? Not to mention the democratically elected executive, the … Archbishop? No, Prime Minister.

  18. The church are embarrassing themselves with their persistent dishonesty more than anything. For example: “of course as things stand, every citizen has the right to be married in Church. That’s alright, so long as the State’s definition of marriage and the Church’s definition are the same.” The state’s and the church’s definition of marriage are not the same: the government allows divorcees to remarry, for example. He is surely aware of this, but the facts get in the way of his bigotry.

  19. The Arch Hypocrite of Canterbury should learn something about honesty and leadership. He clearly knows nothing about either. How convenient as he is about to resign he is prepared to support gay equality. Williams must take the blame and the responsibility for continued homophobia in the church not least because he was too cowardly to support gay equality in public while demonstrating his hypocrisy by claiming to support it it “private” correspondence.

  20. Just go away, now, Rowan. Seriously. It is hard to imagine anything you say now being of any real interest. Your being the chief Shaman of the Official Royally-Appointed Cult has inflicted your vapid drivel on us all for long enough. It is said that politics is show business for ugly people. The CofE is plainly a megaphone for terminal bores.

  21. Rowan Williams has been such a disappointment. When he was appointed, many people had very high hopes. He seems simply not to have been up to the job, more interested in appeasing bigots in and out of the Church than in leading the Church to become a beacon of human rights, perhaps the one way the Church could have been revitalized as a 21st century institution. I think now it is too late: the Church of England will soon be simply a relic of the past. Whether it will actually be disestablished is a different question.

  22. Craig Nelson 8 Sep 2012, 3:13pm

    So sorry Rowan, you’re embarrassing yourself. The PM can’t really add to that, sadly.

  23. Pavlos Prince of Greece 8 Sep 2012, 4:10pm

    Good by, ‘liberal’ looser. Winter of York comes.

  24. Embarressed by Cameron?

    Don’t make me laugh Rowan!

    Take responsibility for yourself and stop blaming others!

    You’re an embarressment to yourself… and the Anglican Church!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2012, 5:50pm

      Criticising an out of touch cult for being non-inclusive and non supportive now means an embarrassment? Wow, he really needs a reality check. The only embarrassment is the CoE. To this day, it still has not issued an apology for the serious harm and promotion of homophobia it has caused throughout the centuries. I think we’ll have a long wait. Proof they’re not christians, in name only but that’s where the similarity ends.

  25. Williams has a second career in US politics, if he wants it. He could be a Republican: They blocked everything Obama attempted to do, and now they point and claim that Obama has “failed.”

    Seems like he’s using the same logic.

  26. Stephen Kay 8 Sep 2012, 5:04pm

    Rot in hell Williams and we will see you there according to your church.

  27. Dangermouse 8 Sep 2012, 5:52pm

    The man’s a FOOL !

  28. Sundancer 8 Sep 2012, 6:08pm

    Sadly Rowan your comments show your own lack of leadership. You were in a position to drive this issue. If you feel the church is embarrassed it’s because your own footsteps failed to even keep pace with the Tories.

  29. Pavlos- When you say ‘winter of york is coming’- you sureley dont mean Semtanu? Coming to rescue the good old CofE? Maybe he will appoint a ‘fixer’ to eradicate any outbreak of gay bishops`/

    1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 9 Sep 2012, 3:54pm

      Who know. Maybe he itself have a very secret homosexual feelings? Anyway, his strong silence about homophobia in his native Uganda is shameful. He must condemn it, regardless how difficult it is. He must find right words – as Archbishop Tutu has did in South Africa. Its not about gay marriage, its about human dignity.

      1. roderious 9 Sep 2012, 7:31pm

        you seem to think he opposes homophobia in Uganda but is afraid to condemn it, given everything we know about the man it seems far more likely that he supports them to the hilt, but is biting his tongue until he gets the top job.

        1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 9 Sep 2012, 7:53pm

          Yes, I agree.

  30. The Church has never had a problem embarrassing itself in the past –

    Look up the word Equality you outdated dealer of superstition -

  31. This would be funny if it wasn’t so bloody serious.

  32. Uhh, you embarrassed yourself. Who could have said a couple of years ago you would be backpedalling on the very same nasty anachronism (unequivocal opposition to homosexuality and civil partnerships) in the CofE that you defended? If you meant what you said, then I want a formal retraction of this from you:
    http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/homosexuality.aspx

    Actually who could have said a few months ago you would pretend to backpedal on civil partnerships when you introduced a blanket ban on blessing same sex relationships very recently?

    How is your “friend” Jeffrey John btw? Is he still a leper in your quarters after you decided all of a sudden that his relationship was unworthy? Are you happy you humiliated him and destroyed his career after he trusted you for years? For a Christian, you seem to be taking the guilt awfully well.

  33. “not exactly been on the forefront of pressing for civic equality for homosexual people, and we were wrong about that.”

    And you had nine years to change that. It’s not that you tried and failed. You did nothing, in nine years. That’s embarrassing. In fact, you were an active participant. Don’t try to blame traditionalists for your own actions.

    “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
    - Matthew 7:5

  34. Robert Brown 8 Sep 2012, 8:22pm

    As someone who was abused by the Minister of the Church I attended and with the subsequent stories coming out with regards to sexual and physical violence by members of the ‘clergy’, I feel that the Rowan really needs to look at other priorities within his religious organisations.

    As an SGI Nichiren Buddhist I am lucky in that our teachings are non discriminatory and we have been hosting same sex ceremonies for many many years . . . unfortunately, due to the laws of the UK, we still can’t host civil partnerships / same sex marriages within our religious institutions . . . shame on the church and other religions to dictate on how other religions should conduct their affairs based on their teachings.

    Robert
    http://www.rainbow-citizen.com

  35. “Although Dr Williams admitted that the Church of England has “not exactly been on the forefront of pressing for civic equality for homosexual people, and we were wrong about that.”

    So Cameron told you you were wrong; you admit you were wrong – but Cameron was wrong to have pointed that out??

    What planet is Rowan Williams living on? He’s embarrassing himself, and he doesn’t need Cameron’s or anyone else’s help to do so. He should have led his church not appeased bigots.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Sep 2012, 11:15am

      Quite, Iris. Hell will freeze over before the Anglican cult proffers a sincere apology for the centuries of homophobia and fomenting hatred, intolernace, and spreading lies (bearing false witness) which in some cases has brought about the deaths of LGBT people. Nothing has changed and it won’t change. Rowan Williams and the rottweiler in the Vatican should be held accountable.

  36. The church has embarrassed itself by whinnying on about the possibility of having to marry same sex couples. What could be so problematic about that? Of course, I forgot. The church holds onto age-old values and traditions….

  37. Just GO AWAY!

    You’ve established your legacy that will last for ETERNITY. You will forever be remembered along with all of the other religious leaders who stood in the way of human and civil rights. There’s nothing you can do about that now. Nothing you say now will change your place in history. Live with it and feel the rightful shame.

  38. Dave North 9 Sep 2012, 4:20am

    Dear Mr Williams.

    As manager of your nonsense cult you have failed beyond belief.

    You allowed your stupid Christian faith to poison the developing countries.

    And you did nothing.

    You dithered with woman bishops.

    And I agree. Your stupid book see woman as dirt. Not worthy.

    People loving each other. NOPE. Your silly 2000 yea old book disallow

    Having read

  39. The church brought it on themselves for ‘not doing enough for gays or supporting equal marriage’. By blaming David Cameron – it takes one to recognise one. Both of you are wishy washy.

  40. The church’s definition of marriage has never had to mirror that of the state. I don’t care how the church defines marriage. I’m not CofE nor catholic or whatever so why should I care what they think marriage is. This is an awful attempt at trying to be nice. I as a citizen will never have the right to marry in a CofE church to the person I love. He is talking about straight people only!

  41. Cardinal Capone 9 Sep 2012, 12:58pm

    Be fair, he just wants to ensure that homophobic vicars aren’t put in the position of allowing same sex marriages in their churches because of the national right to get married in your local c of e church ( who knew this right even existed until this blew up?). The Scandinavians sorted it out with no problem though, by allowing an opt out personal to the vicar. It’s not rocket science, if equality is extended to religious marriages, to limit it to those that want to conduct them.

    1. No.

      That is is like allowing, in law, a shop keeper to say “I’ll serve you as long as you are not (“insert bigotry here”) .”

      There are many religions that do not have any issues with same sex marriage.

      Why should this particular cult deny them that.

      Their is no “be fair” about it.

      Either I am an EQUAL righted citizen of this country or not. There is no BE FAIR.

      Ans as to “OPT OUTS”. Forget it.

      Can I OPT out of paying my taxes because its against my religion.

      NO.

  42. Its shameful to the church to have to point this out, but they already got an exemption from the “duty to marry anyone” rule in respect of people of transsexual history, so his argument is a bare-faced lie. Well, unless he doesn’t count us a people, which is possible, but then he could do the same with LBG too…

    And PN is dead wrong in the intro to the story. He definitely did not say the church was wrong on equality. Equality would include marriage. He referred to being unwelcoming to homosexual people – a big difference. Care is really needed in reporting these issues.

  43. Oh Mr Williams, you have been embarrassing yourself and the church all these years that you did not show a strong leadership.You could make the African and Latin American churches change their views on homosexuality but you were too lukewarm. Same-sex marriage is a right for all, it is not an exclusive Christian institution, otherwise atheist could not get married. Civil marriage for all regardless of their sexual orientation is a step to the future. You are stuck in the past.

  44. I’m sorry Archbishop but you have embarrassed yourself with you refusal to allow marriage in church. As many, you speak up for changes but when time comes you fall back and look for more discussion about the issue, more time to have everyone on your side. You’re a liar as most of your colleague from any denomination

  45. The Church has admitted they were wrong? I thought I’d never see the day.

    That being said I think you’ll find you’re the ones who are embarrassing over you stance on marriage equality.

  46. rene lopez 5 Mar 2013, 2:06am

    Do not worry, the same Bible that condems homosexuality also tells us that Gays will get everything that they want, believe it or don’t.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all