And the believers in fairy tales continue to squabble over the assumed wishes of a supernatural entity…
I long for the day when “church” becomes as meaningful a phrase as “professional unicorn handler”.
That day could come a bit closer if we in the UK can get Marriage Equality into legislation . . . because the Catholic Church (under the leadership of Vincent Nichols) realizes that if the queers “get away” with winning this one it’ll be one hell of nail in the coffin of Catholicism, forever.
Nichols is expressing the utmost contempt for us gay men and women at this time, although he will not admit it. And I believe the reason for his outrage and his fury is that he knows, as the Vatican knows, that if the UK, a moral beacon to the entire world, enshrines Marriage Equality in law, then it’s downhill all the way for the once-mighty Vatican, all the way, as you put it, to being reduced to the title of “professional unicorn handlers”.
So, Tory MP’s, civil partnerships are exactly the same as a marriage?
Not in the church they’re not.
Absolutely, Eddie! I’ve been saying that all along. This has never been about morality; it’s about power. Power has always been at the centre of their opposition.
All the Catholic Church has even been is about power….let’s face it, it takes a lot of power to be able to get away with claiming to be the ‘successor’ if a Jewish carpenter from Galilee who preached poverty, universal love and not to judge others while sitting on a gold throne commanding hate and bigotry dressed up as some kind of religion……maybe after 2,000 years the Pope-Emperor’s clothes are finally being seen through….
sane reason that they so opposed gays equality in the USA. And got their asses well (what was done to the kiddies) fcuked
what what what? but im a professional unicorn handler, ive an entire herd of them and i can assure they certainly exist! its just you cant see them unless you first eat these nicely prepared mushrooms we have ;)
I don’t agree. Jeffrey John is an outstanding theologian. The quality of his writing and learning is an example to all.
BE careful please – they have to get over the embarrassment of being aginst this sort of thing in the beginning. This is absolutley a step in the right direction
Contrast this with the catholic monster under the Jugend trained leader. The catholic church was the only church in uganda to oppose the death to gays bill
RATZInger must have gotten wind of it and now the bishops are saying their Sixg Hei1 to the pope by supporting it.
(NWM is a ctholic group who have taken on the job of fixing a church – which prob is more impossible then us flying to the moon in a baloon.)
While this is good news, how on earth are they meant to prove that they are still celibate?
They would also have to “repent for active homosexuality in the past” (BBC).
That’s akin to putting yourself back in the closet, surely? “Sorry, God, for acting on my perfectly natural urges, promise not to do it again…”. It’s a nonsense.
They have to wear steel Calvin Kliens with a big lock on the front.
” Church of England must have “no truck with any form of homophobia”
” would allow clergy in civil partnerships to become bishops if they promised to be celibate.”
Don’t go together. Demanding gay bishops be celibate when straight bishops don’t have to be is homophobic, pure and simple.
And what about MARRIED gay bishops?
Call them out on their homophobia, don’t just parrot their speeches and ignore their lies and their hypocrisy. Reporting their speeches on not having anything to do with homophobia while not pointing out their homophobia is ridiculous. What are you, the Church’s PR department?
” . . . if they promised to be celibate.”
Sounded like extraordinary news until I read the catch.
Why the hell should gay men in any occupation (and being a bish is only an occupation) promise not to have sex?
The Catholics tried that and you know what the priest end up doing to the children.
I think celibacy has less to do with child rape than the Vatican’s policy of providing a safe haven for paedophiles.
I quite agree that celibacy doesn’t cause child abuse. However, creating a role with respectability and access to children via trusting parents that requires celibacy would I think become attractive to child abusers. ‘Catholic priest’ fits the bill perfectly – or at least it did – ‘Anglican priest’ not so much. Ironically, the RC church introduced celibacy to stop their wealth leaking out to priests’ wives and children – i.e. out of greed. They’ve now had to pay out billions in compensation because of the clerical abuse scandal….Some kind of cosmic justice there, perhaps, though who would have thought Henry VIII’s promiscuity would have helped keep children safe?………Anyhow, ‘Radix malorum est cupiditas’ as Chaucer said….
what a helpful comment, to suggest that peadophilia comes out of sexual repression shows how much you know about the subject. the evils that have happened in the RC church are no more in quantity than in the rest of society. they are horrific based on the fact that they happen based on the trust of a child and their parents that a priest won’t hurt them and they are ‘men of God’ it is evil and harmful but it isn’t about celibacy.
With respect, Lou d, sorry, but Malcolm is quite right to suggest that enforced celibacy has had a considerable role to play in the many documented (and thousands more undocumented) cases of “celibate” priests turning their natural sexual urges upon children, altar boys and choir boys being the easiest targets.
If Catholic priests were allowed to marry and have sex with their partners, they would not need to get up to “tricks” with minors. Fact.
Absolutely, Eddy. Makes total sense.
‘Requiring’ celibacy in a role does not cause paedophilia, but it does make such a role perfect cover for paedophiles, especially if it is a role giving complete, trusting access to families and their children. Of course, in a homophobic culture, such a role is also attractive to many gays who didn’t have to explain why they weren’t married (& why, paradoxically, there are so many gay Catholics, with the added bonus that Catholic teaching methods train people to be very good liars). Ironically, the rule of celibacy was based on the greed of the Church, which resented priests’ wealth being bequeathed to wives and children. Interesting that their greed finally lead to the child-abuse scandal, costing them billions of dollars in compensation…’Radix malorum est cupiditas’ …..
Plus, there have been very few cases of Anglican clergy paedophilia comparatively, hardly any. There is most certainly a correlation between sexual repression and paedophilia. The Roman cult is ample proof of it and it’s not just boys but girls too were molested. Paedophilia is gender and orientation neutral.
The correlation is not between sexual repression and paedophilia, so much as between having a respectable job that makes a virtue of not having normal sexual relationships. This made the role of ‘celibate priest’ a perfect cover for paedophiles, especially as it was a role giving complete, trusting access to families and their children. Of course, in a homophobic culture, such a role was also attractive to many gays who didn’t have to explain why they weren’t married (& why, paradoxically, there are so many gay Catholics). The rule of celibacy was based on the greed of the Church, which resented priests’ wealth being bequeathed to wives and children. Interesting that their greed finally lead to the child-abuse scandal, costing them billions of dollars…’Radix malorum est cupiditas’…
I don’t think it’s the sexual repression that causes the paedophilia, more likely that paedophiles are attracted to jobs that give them a respectable reason for not being married, and which give them free access to children via trusting parents. Until it all hit the fan, the role of Catholic priest fit the bill perfectly, Anglican priest not so much. Ironically, the RC church introduced celibacy to stop their wealth leaking out to priests’ wives and children – i.e. out of greed. They’ve now had to pay out billions in compensation because of the clerical abuse scandal….’Radix malorum est cupiditas’….
Try googling “Anglican child sex abuse”. There have been quite a lot of high-profile cases. Apparently some researchers do think that sexual repression may lead to child molestation in some cases, but I don’t think it is the main cause. The reason the cases involving priests have been so widely reported isn’t because they are very common – I think it’s more because (a) religious leaders claim to be very moral people, (b) parents tend to (or are expected to) trust priests with their children, and (c) the efforts of senior members of the Catholic hierarchy to cover up cases of abuse.
Priestly ‘celibacy’ isn’t forced – its chosen by those who want to become priests.The question is ‘what sort of person chooses ‘celibacy’ (specifically what sort of male chooses not to have sex with females)? I imagine there may well be those with ‘purely religious motives’ though these look odd today. But In a homophobic culture there must be some justification for gay people to make this choice in order to achieve power and respectability while appearing to be making some kind of ‘sacrifice for God’…But of course, most sinisterly, a celibate priesthood offers a perfect cover for paedophiles who also don’t want sexual relationships with (adult) females because their attraction is to children. ‘Enforcing’ celibacy as a part of a respectable profession does not therefore cause paedophilia, so much as enable paedophiles to pass with less suspicion within society in order to abuse children. I assume the Catholics have had more problems with paedophiles for this reason.
It’s probably more accurate to say that if Catholic priests had been allowed to marry, fewer child abusers would have been attracted to the role – which does provide them perfect cover as well as access to children via trusting parents.
I agree it’s not the sexual repression that causes the paedophilia, more likely that paedophiles are attracted to jobs that give them a respectable reason for not being married, and which give them free access to children via trusting parents. Until it all hit the fan, the role of Catholic priest fit the bill perfectly, Anglican priest not so much. Ironically, the RC church introduced celibacy to stop their wealth leaking out to priests’ wives and children – i.e. out of greed. They’ve now had to pay out billions in compensation because of the clerical abuse scandal….’Radix malorum est cupiditas’….
‘Requiring’ celibacy in a role does not cause paedophilia, but but it does make such a role perfect cover for paedophiles, especially if it is a role giving complete, trusting access to families and their children. Of course, in a homophobic culture, such a role is also attractive to many gays who didn’t have to explain why they weren’t married (& why, paradoxically, there are so many gay Catholics, with the added bonus that Catholic teaching methods train people to be very good liars). Ironically, the rule of celibacy was based on the greed of the Church, which resented priests’ wealth being bequeathed to wives and children. Interesting that their greed finally lead to the child-abuse scandal, costing them billions of dollars in compensation…’Radix malorum est cupiditas’ …..
‘Requiring’ celibacy in a role does not cause paedophilia, but but it does make such a role perfect cover for paedophiles, especially if it is a role giving complete, trusting access to families and their children. Of course, in a homophobic culture, such a role is also attractive to many gays who didn’t have to explain why they weren’t married (& why, paradoxically, there are so many gay Catholics, with the added bonus that Catholic teaching methods train people to be very good liars). Ironically, the rule of celibacy was based on the greed of the Church, which resented priests’ wealth being bequeathed to wives and children. Interesting that their greed finally lead to the child-abuse scandal, costing them billions of dollars in compensation…’Radix malorum est cupiditas’ …..The Anglicans don’t provide the same cover for child-abusers, of course. Quite a few kids might be grateful to Henry VIII, strangely….
Only an idiot would want to be a member of that bigoted religion.
‘God’ is not real you know.
So you can be gay, but just not express yourself sexually. Whereas if you are heterosexual, you can be a bishop and go at it like rabbits with your wife. It’s still homophobic. It doesn’t really change anything. You have to wonder how much self loathing and disgust a gay person would have to feel to want to be a bishop under these conditions.
Shock horror, Gay Bishops! But hang on there have always been Gay Bishops and I for one know of several past Anglican Bishops widely known to be Gay, many clustered in the south of England.
Hypocites the lot of them!
I think this is the CoE’s way of trying to look “progressive” amidst their recent refusal of female bishops and the quadruple lock against marriage equality.
This is even more reprehensible than the call of the Catholic church. This is homophobia at it worst. While hetrosexual Bishops can go at it like rabbits the gay Bishops have to refrain from having sex. What a BIGOTED attitude . Do they really think anyone with a grain of sence will listen to this BS.
What’s one more lie and fantasy going to make a difference in an organization born out of and built upon lies and fantasy.
It’s worked out brilliantly for the Catholic Church.
The churches are behavng like a drowning man who refuses to let go of the bag of gold he has salvaged from the sinking ship. Knowing full well it will mean his death but the thought of loosing the material booty is enough for him to risk it all.
This reminds me of something my father said. A man is confronted by a robber who says, “Your money or your life!” The man says, “Take my life, I need my money for my old age.” The priest thinks he can keep the money and power and that these will allow him to still have the sex on the side, as long as he lies about it. Do these people believe in a God? Hard to tell. Maybe they believe they can buy Him/Her/It off (God the father, God the mother, God the legal guardian).
Funny some well meaning Abolishenists thought it would be ok for blackmen and women to be free, just as long as they did not procreate, even went as far as proposing sterilization. I wonder how long it will be before one of these COE Bishops or Catholic Bishops comes up with this proposal. To solve the issue of gay priests in the church.
Another reason to justify the quadruple lock. Does the CoE really believe that clergy in civil partnerships are celibate? Not even a lot of catholic clergy can live up to such an abnormal expectation.
The CoE is becoming like it’s sister Roman cult, absurd by the day. I hope many gay Anglican clergy summon the courage and good sense to depart altogether and join a more accepting denomination such as the Unitarians or start their own Episcopalian branch.
Seems like a well timed “SEE!!! we don’t hate the gays!” to me.
Has anyone else besides myself ever wondered why God ommitted the one thing that might have saved the human race since the ten commandments were first issued. Having just rescued his people from 400 years of slavery he forgot to include in the ten commandments the words THO SHALL NOT KEEP OTHER HUMANS IN CAPTIVITY.. Certainly convinces me that the ten commandments are neither God written nor God inspired.
And how would they know? CCTV in the bedroom?
Or maybe electronic tagging to monitor the number visits to public conveniences.
Well, they’d also have to make sure that hetero clergy aren’t engaging in oral or anal sex either which do not fit the CoE’s narrow interpretation of what sexual relations are all about. Tit for tat. There is no way they could enforce celibacy, absolutely none and I can’t believe that any gay Anglican clergy in a CP would even comply with it. Its against nature, basic human instincts, unnatural just like celibacy itself. Anyone could say they would take a vow of celibacy, but we all know it means nothing behind closed doors. The hierarchy are morons if they believe it doesn’t happen. They have only to look to the Roman cult for first hand evidence.
This is simply not worthy of debate. Let these pitiful people get in with their dancing in the head of a pin. They only matter if we let them.
For “in” read “on”. I so wish there was an edit facility.
Oh absolutely. I pity those who are gay and actually CARE about what any church thinks about their relationship. Has anyone actually been into a church recently? I did, and was amazed to find that about half of the space inside had been turned into a cafe and social meeting space. Surely it’s only a matter of time before Christianity becomes redundant. The reason Islam is flourishing is that the religious tenets are aggressively enforced and the downtrodden people are scared of possible consequences. This used to be the case in the Christian church, but it isn’t now, so we are all slowly drifting away, safe in the knowledge that it’s all a load of b********cks!
Of course, Jeffrey John was planning to sue to COE over the issue.
How pathetic. Get your minds out of people’s bedrooms, C of E, and stop obessing about sex. I bet they know that celibacy would be hard for any CP’d clergy so just use this as a way to make them feel guilty and hating themselves.
“Conservative evangelical Anglicans…have warned they would be willing to bring in bishops from overseas to avoid serving under a gay bishop.”
Idiots. They’ve probably served under one or more before and just didn’t know. This is an excuse to promote bigotry and hate. Shameful.
It’s bad enough there’s a bishop Sentamu of York, more extreme than most. I can just see those crotchety conservative xenophobic Anglicans((of the Tory back bench ilk) balking at the notion of a growing number of African hierarchy running the CoE. Now that would really polarize the CoE into permanent isolation, quadruple lock notwithstanding. I’m hoping there will be fewer straight male vocations than ever.
What you actually mean is that OPENLY gay clergy can now become bishops if they are celibate. The closeted ones can presumably carry on as they do now.
Cue snoopers, gossip, telephoto lenses, dodgy pictures, blackmail, screaming headlines: ‘A source close to the appointed gay bishop says…’
And there’s enough opposition to any gay bishop, in a civil partnership, to make the above a possibility.
It’s a blackmailer’s charter if you ask me.
Gosh, what fun religion is. What is celibate? I get that penetrative sex, including oral, probably isn’t celibacy. What about mutual masturbation? What about masturbation if you’re in the same room but not touching each other? What about touching skin? Or kissing? It thinking about sex with your partner? Where are the parameters: we should be told, ideally with CoE-endorsed PowerPoint slides. That show I would pay to see!
I love this comment sooo much!
They are shooting themselves in the foot at every turn. By viewing Civil Partnerships as a non sexual contract they are defining the reason why Cps are inadequate for loving couples. Further, to recognise that two people have made a commitment to each other and then to demand that there is no normal expression of that love is simply twisted and prurient.
They are losing and they know it.
Gay bishops should not play into their hands by lying about their love lives. And as for repenting former homosexual acts – who in the world is going to do that for a promotion?
Breaking News—- The Church of England has announced that left handed people may be considered for appointment as Bishops, provided that they repent of any past left hand dominant behaviour and undertake not to indulge in any left hand dominant behaviour in the future.
the left handed biz comes from it being the mark of the devil
Just another nut case BS used by the catholci and evangelicals to terrorize people into submission.
From the catholic church which in so many ways is the devil incarnate
I really do not understand how two people can be in love, and living together in a partnership, but that just because they do not engage in anal sex this is somehow completely different to any other gay relationship. Are they allowed to kiss, or hold hands? What if they have “carnal thoughts” about one another – or, heaven forbid, about other people of the same gender? Jesus is supposed to have said that to look at a woman lustfully is just the same as having had sex with her, so I assume that this would also apply to same sex attraction as well. How does this fit in with their ridiculous rules? At least they are now taking a step in the right direction, but how come they can make this ruling, but not decide that women bishops are acceptable?
There is always an ‘if’ with the church! Why can’t it just damn well move into the 21st Century?
The church cannot control a persons desires, be it sexual or whatever, the church simply cannot control that.
Churches and the religious should NOT be exempt from discriminatory laws, nor should they be exempt from taxation.
Surely a ploy? On the one hand we have them viciously opposed to equal marriage but now, on the other…… “but we can’t be homophobic, as you see, we have allowed homosexualites to become bishops”…….. Therefore allowing their bigoted opposition to continue under a “non discriminatory” banner!
Have any of these COE bishops or clergy ever given a thought to the reasons the COE came to be in the first place. Wasn`t it a corrupt Monacrh who wished to have sex with someone other than his wife at the time. Correct me if i`m wrong but isn`t that about it. Where do they get off now reaching for the moral high ground. This is hypocracy of the highest order.Not to mention total homophobia and clear bigotry.
What a stupid non sense. Have a civil partnership but promise that you’ll never have sex with your partner or you will never be bishop. Do we order the heterosexual candidate to be celibate in the protestant faiths? no so why on earth this limitation exist for gay priest???? Non sense, absolutely stupid.
The churches have now reached a height of bigotry and hate. not seen since the Spanish Inquisition and we know where that lead them . How is it they cannot see the writing on the wall.How is it whith such learned men they cannot see that they will go the way of the DoDo with such thinking in the face of the public.Are all our leaders as unhinged as these.Separated from reality as if they were living on another planet.
Any othere employer of the nation would be brought before a commision of human rights for proposing such draconian measures.Is there noone with a set in England ready to do just that.How is it the churches are allowed to violate basic human rights of employment which no other employer in the land would even dream of proposing let alone .Uttering these words in public.Have we become so complicit and degrading that we can allow this travesty to continue with out raising our collective voice in opposition. In the places of democratic assemblance.
Its like to allow ‘black’ people live in the ‘white’ area as long they have white mask on the face. You can be gay and bishop, but must live in ‘celibacy’? Translation: homosexuality still is very bad thing for us, but we accept the reality of 2013.
They’ve actually admitted that CPs are not predicated on the intention to engage in sexual relations because they’re not marriages. Well, that’s even more reason to allow access to civil marriage for gay couples.
They’re now in the process of spending the next 10 yrs defining what constitues “celibacy” in a same sex relationship.
How they love to talk about the forbidden sex they don’t engage in. If they weren’t clergy they’d probably be called a bunch of perverts.
Forbidden sex? I’d find it hard to believe that straight Anglican clergy haven’t engaged in sexual practices other than vaginal intercourse.
Ludicrous that the Anglicans should be encouraging people to be either deceitful or sexually frustrated, particularly when they should have realised that not imposing celibacy on their priesthood has saved them from the child-abuse plague the Catholics brought on themselves. ‘Requiring’ celibacy in a role does not cause paedophilia, but but it does make such a role perfect cover for paedophiles, especially if it is a role giving complete, trusting access to families and their children. Ironically, the rule of celibacy was based on the greed of the Church, which resented priests’ wealth being bequeathed to wives and children. Interesting that their greed finally lead to the child abuse scandal for which they’ve had to pay out billions in compensation…’Radix malorum est cupiditas indeed….
It was not until 1946 that homosexual was first used in a translation of the Bible.
There was no such word until about 1890, but people still knew what sodomy was, and it’s condemned in the Bible.
The ‘sin of Sodom’ that is described and condemned in the Bible is the rape of guests who have been offered hospitality…There is no mention whatsoever of condemning sex between men in a loving monogamous relationship…And the injunction ‘not to lie with a man as with a woman’ is easily complied with – just keep out of the way of your boyfriend’s vagina:-)..
Yet another idiot christian that has no idea about his own religion.
COE dosen’t want marriage equality so saying gay bishops can’t have sex because there not married is basically saying no homos please we don’t want you.
Civil partnership is not a marriage yes because COE don’t want gay people getting married !
for all you homophobe’s me and my boyfreind extend a sincerly heart felt fuck you
As a (almost out) gay member of the CofE this is another deeply depressing move towards alienation and disestablishment.
The two most important tasks for the Church are to spread, and make accessible, the ‘Good News’ and to promote the most important of all human features: love. The CofE, and much of the Christian Church, seems to be failing miserably at both.
I became a member of the CofE because I agreed with many messages and beliefs, and I loved my local church. I remain a member not despite 7 years of self-hate – despising my own homosexual feelings while I still believed them to be sinful – but because of that experience: I want to be part of the fight to stop other young people suffering like that. The Bible really isn’t anti-LGBT, and I wish out-of-date homophobic members of the Church would accept that or hold their tongues.
Gay and Lesbians have no place in the house of God.
Another devastating comment from a frightened little christian.
I never said that.
No-one has a place in the house of God as it’s an entirely fictional concept, conceived in the heads of dominant males aeons ago and ever since then has been used to subjugate other citizens in one way or the other. May the house of god fade into history much as other extinct religions have, the sooner the better. God? Don’t be ridiculous!
Neither do hetero adulterers and single heteros having sex outside marriage then, dumb arse.
Seriously, I just heard this on the BBC news and I laughed out loud in amazement at the pretzel-like shapes the C of E heirarchy are twisting themselves into to accomodate both the social conservatives and the liberal wing of the church….
Symantec’s and double talk to paint the same picture with different perimeters!
When CoE allow married vicars and canons to have wives (and obvious relations which result in offspring) but say gay bishops must allow themselves to be celibate in a relationship…Homophobia and hypocrisy can’t be disguised.
This is all very creepy! The Catholic Church doesn’t allow its priests to be married but allows relationships with children as long as the priests lie about them. But then again it allows married priests as long as they have defected from the CofE. Now what is their position on divorce now? The CofE allows priests to marry and they can be men or women. It also allows bishops to marry as long as they are men. Women are not allowed to be bishops at all, but men are allowed to be married bishops. But if they are gay they have to vow to never have sex, and admit that they have been sinners for years by having sex with other men. Of course they can’t ever marry other men because this would be contrary to scripture. Now let’s hold it right there because the real problem seems to be that they are all using scripture for their own benefit, even though I can’t see that anyone benefits at all in any sense of the word and many people are harmed in all sense of the word. More.
All this to keep a bunch of bigoted reactionaries from leaving the church who aren’t doing the church any good at all. Actually I think the church’s ideas are cracked styarting with the idea that people need to be saved from something and this salvation can only come from Jesus, and that faith in Jesus will save you from death. Add to that the idea that the Bible is the word of God and is never wrong. The Apostle’s Creed in the CofE is a long statement of assinine ideas where it is hard to find a sensible line out of the whole thing. On the other hand there are some wonderful ideas too in the church, just not many of them. The trouble is the lunatics have taken over the assylum.
This church is like a liar who has been caught out – making up ever more complicated plots to attempt to protect themselves.
However, everyone can see straight through it.
You have it in one.
I can see them flapping their arms as they slowly descend into the quicksand of their own making.
How is the Church of England going to make sure that these Bishops stay celibate? Install CCTV cameras in their bedrooms?
How can the celibacy be guaranteed unless the C of E sends its agents into the bishops’ bedrooms?
How ludicrous! How is their celibacy going to be monitored?
I suppose the Anglicans are trying their best (or some of them), but this does potentially put gay Bishops in quite a uniquely difficult position, being the subject of speculation whether or not they’re ‘really’ being celibate. Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but one might imagine them being open to blackmail if a relationship they were in failed and the ex decided to ‘kiss-and-tell’….
So one can’t have sex outside of marriage, except if you are gay, when you mustn’t have it inside marriage if you want to be a Bishop.
How totally up their own arses these people are.
Anyhow, how are they going to prove otherwise?
I don’t get the attraction of the church for any gay people. Its like black people fighting to be members of the bnp or the kkk. Start your own church if you feel that strongly. Start a gay church
But there is already a “Gay” church called the Metropolitan Community Church with branches here in the UK. Alternatively you could become a Quaker or join the Unitarian Church both of them Gay friendly. That said, become Jewish and go to a Liberal Judaism or Reform Synagogue again both Gay friendly. I attended a Liberal Jewish Synagogue in Leicester a few years back and found them really lovely and caring.
This gets even more absurd. According to The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement’s Reverend Sharon Ferguson, she points out that both straight and gay men have been expected to be celibate while acting as a bishop, it is just no one believes a gay man would remain celibate.
I find this very strange. Does she mean that single straight men must also remain celibate while acting as a bishop. Further clarification is needed on that one.
I’m quite confused as to which branch of Christianity says who should do what with their genitalia, but do Anglicans also forbid sex outside marriage? That would mean single straight bishops must keep themselves celibate……Another interesting question is whether an Anglican bishop who decided to get married (when it becomes legal) by a Unitarian minister or somesuch would get sacked……At least the Anglicans just look like they’re confused, as opposed to the Catholics who tend to seem just nasty and spiteful….
Details of yesterday’s TV news reporting of this story can be found here http://goo.gl/vNwL3
Can hetero Anglo Bishops continue have anal sex with their wives or girl friends? Or can their wives use dildos on the dear Bishops?
This is making the Church of England the Church of total madness.
Perhaps the next Vicar of Dibley could have a fun episode on this matter. The old Farmer could go the big fat Bishop!
Yes, anal is HUGE in the heterosexual world community. Time for a few sermons from the ‘pullpit’ on all those millions of heterosexual sodomites. The Church is a nonsense and a complete farce.
The Church of England is already an acceptable joke.