C of E loses plot on gay bishops

The man in the tea cloth is at it again – this time in relation to whether or not gay men can be ordained as bishops!

Apparently it is OK  – but only if they are celibate. Now it’s obvious that the Church doesn’t really want gays at all, but the problem is the Equality Act means employers cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation, but provides for a “genuine occupational requirement” to be imposed.

This effectively allows the Church to exclude someone in a sexually active civil partnership, or to impose a requirement relating to sexual orientation to “avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers”.
How convenient!
Unfortunately this effectively means that if the person in question conceals his sexuality and just carries on on the quiet, he can be ordained – basically because he is lying. If, on the other hand, he is open and honest and enters into a civil partnership then he is excluded.
And in any case, how exactly is the Church going to establish celibacy. After all, the Catholics take a solemnly binding vow with God and it doesn’t stop them!
Seems to me that stable, loving relationships should be encouraged regardless of the sex of the persons concerned. The law has moved on and it seems a shame the Church cannot.
The CoE has clearly lost it’s moral compass on this one…
(You can read more about this story in the Express by clicking here)

8 responses to “C of E loses plot on gay bishops

  1. Celibacy is a choice that is deliberately taken when a Priest is ordained a Bishop. In the Orthodox and Protestant Church Deacons and Priests are expected to marry ( as in a heterosexual relationship ) and have famillies as a pratical means of intergrating with their congregation. A Bishop is different and celibacy is expected as is obedience to the scriptures.The law in the U.K. is in no way ahead of the Christian faith, it is BASED upon the Christian faith, it is where the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt and the intent of the accused originate from. If you had ever read any of the teachings of Christ, you might have come to the conclusion that he preached tolerence, compassion and respect for others and not the rabid inflexible intolerence that lies behind the latest manisfestation of supposed progressive law that insults the liberty of free minded people.

  2. I have read the teachings of Christ and find them increasingly irrelevant to the modern world. You might argue that this is the fault of the modern world and I would not disagree totally, but my point here is that you can always get away with it if you tell lies and that this policy encourages that approach.

  3. "Seems to me that stable, loving relationships should be encouraged regardless of the sex of the persons concerned".Except for the conflict of interests. How about the Brinks Mat robbers placed in charge of fiscal proberty?Let's be fair about this, the Bible being the backbone of Christian teaching is pretty specific in its views on homosexuality, so what gives a bunch of arseholes in Whitehall any more right than the church to dictate who can or can't be employed?I should have the right to employ anyone I see fit or not to employ them for whatever reason I so choose as it's me paying the wages.

  4. So when out and about one day you are set upon by a bunch of amoral thugs and kicked to death you will in your last moments of concious thought willingly accept this behaviour as modern? it is hardly that, in the country I live in the legal system is nothing like the U.K. system but it takes into account the failings of human nature and has laws fashioned accordingly, e.g. if a citizen deliberatly leaves another to the ravages of attack by assailents and makes no attempt to help in any way, should the victim die, the person who refused to go to his assistance is deemed AS CULPABLE in his death as the attackers and if discovered will serve a substantial jail sentence. Social union is also encouraged and taught although the latest generation is showing a higher percentage of anti social behaviour than in the last 200 years, this is worrying the govt. enough for them to at least acknowlege the situation rather than ignore it. Blaming the so called scientificlly enlightened modern world for becoming de-humanised is no reason to think that the teachings of Christ are irrelevent.

  5. I totaly agree, Budvar. You should have the absolute right to decide who you can and can't employ. As you quite rightly say, it's your money.I got pissed off many years back being able to turn away white males who applied for jobs without giving any reason but having to go through the motions and jump through hoops if the applicant was black or female.There's no such thing as positive discrimination. Discrimination in favour of one person is discrimination against another!

  6. Johnnyrvf : I have never been one for standing by and watching (see my post http://dioclese.blogspot.com/2010/05/sense-of-community.html) Having said that, I am not going to wade in single handed to tackle 6 guys with knives! To be held culpable in those circumstances is ludicrous.Is something irrelevant because everyone choses to ignore it? Good question!

  7. Johnnyrvf, where you live, are citizens allowed to carry, and use, baseball bats or projectile weapons? If not, then such a requirement, under law, is that you are either another victim or guilty of the original assault.Lose,lose.

  8. This is surely angels on the head of a pin territory. There is little moral difference between desiring to have gay sex and actually doing it. So let's have gay bishops – why not? What they do in private is nobody's business but theirs – at least they will be less hypocritical acting upon their desires than pretending to be celibate.