Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[jollytiddlywink]

It depends on the observable first principles that you start with.

1. Man has free will, that is he has an intellect sufficient to recognise his internal desires and inclinations and decide whether to satisfy them. Free will is an intrinsically good quality.
2. Man is also able to recognise that other individuals have a similar free will and that their will does not necessarily accord with his own.
3. Man is able to appreciate that just he wishes to exercise their will freely and fully, so too will another.
4. For an individual to exercise his free will in full knowledge that it restricts another to exercise theirs is therefore wrong.

Point 1. I have free will. My internal desires and inclinations are towards other men. I have decided to satisfy them. This is an intrinsically good quality.
2. You have free well and, surprise surprise, it doesn't accord with mine.
3. You do your thing, I'll do mine... assuming that you appreciate that I wish to exercise my will freely and fully.
4. You make a fuss about that, you're wrong. And you just said so yourself.

[jollytiddlywink]

You are perfectly willing to defend the church position... it is your ability to do so that I doubt. Consider the above summary of our last discussion. Just because you try to defend something does not mean it is defensible. Custer's men at Little Bighorn tried to defend their position, but it was still indefensible.

Custer and his men died and failed. I and the Church's position have not been altered by criticism.

Certain crazies who hold every word in the bible to be literally true consider the world to be flat because the bible refers to the 'four corners of the earth.' They have not altered their position simply because it is utterly untrue.
More seriously, Holocaust deniers do not allow their denial to be deterred by the evidence--overwhelmingly voluminous evidence. In 2007, an archive of German records of concentration camp victims and forced labourers was opened to the public. The documents occupy 26km of shelving. And there are all the eye-witnesses, the trials after the war at which some of the guilty confessed their guilt, and the guilt of those who did not confess was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Yet, in a triumph of blind continuance in the face of reality, denial continues.

This is not to suggest that you are a crazy, nor a Holocaust denier, but rather to indicate that failure to alter your position in the face of criticism is markedly different from being correct.

Granted homosexuals are from a family and part of one and may be part of extended family as aunts or uncles. However the infertile and single sex nature of such unions means that no children are produced and any adopted have an impoverished upbringing lacking either male or female nurture.

Adopted children raised by same-sex parents do not have an impoverished upbringing. Rather, such children are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex parents. I refer you to any of the numerous books and articles written by Professor Michael Lamb, head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at the
University of Cambridge. I presume you will not attempt to assert that you are better qualified than he to pronounce on such matters.

Right, that said, please do take the time to consider the awkward fact: the 6th ecumenical council (an organ deemed infallible) declared Honorius (a pope deemed infallible) to have erred on a matter of faith. One of them is in error. Infallibility falls.
Or do you wish to defend the indefensible a bit more?

Once again you are misunderstanding the nature of infallibility of the Church and the Pope. An encyclical letter, which Pope Honorius I's letter to a Monothelite could at most be considered an early example of. However encyclical letter despite their being addressed to all the faithful are not intrinsically infallible, because they do not contain an ex cathedral statement. I fail to see any evidence to say that Honorius I made any ex cathedral statements whatsoever during his reign. This being the case he never said anything infallible. So the Council was correct in labelling him a heretic if he actually held those views.

Even if he made an ex cathedral statement, it would only be a problem if that statement was disputed, a Pope can still be a heretic and make infallible statements. There has not been an instance where Papally defined doctrine on faith or morals has been rejected by a subsequent Council of the Church.

First, you're meant to be the catholic here, so please get your own terms right. It is an ex cathedra statement, not an ex cathedral statement.

How can a heretic, who is by definition wrong on matters of faith, be deemed to teach infallibly on matters of faith?
At this point I must, in all seriousness, ask whether reality impinges on you in any way whatsoever.

Pius XII, in Humani Generis, deemed papal encyclicals to be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a given subject. You've got yourself tangled up with another pope now. Presumably you think his thoughts on the weight accorded to encyclicals are more valid than your own.
More seriously, we confront the fact that not only was a pope, Honorius, declared a heretic, but he was anathematized (a particularly severe ex-communication) by the 3rd council of Constantinople in 680, because he "followed [the Monothelites] in all things," and "in all respects confirmed [their] impious doctrines." That sounds to me like a fairly sweeping and all-encompassing condemnation of every part of Honorius' beliefs.
Leo II later confirmed the anathematization of Honorius, "who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." And now you're tangled up with a third pope.
And, as a point that might interest you, the Catholic Encyclopaedia ( a set of "full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine") notes that "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact."

[malcolm166]

right up until about 20 posts and onwards ago, I couldn't quite put my finger on why it was I had walked away in some degree of utter confusion when faced with the "angels on the head of a pin" diatribes that seem to fascinate some folk. And I don't mean here - I mean over the past two or three centuries of writings and trying to make sense of them. I'm sure there has to be better forms of five finger exercise. In fact, I know there are better forms of five finger exercise.

Incidentally, can anyone shed any light on why it is that we are all getting excitable about the various rantings sayings and pontifications of various Roman Catholic Church worthies through the ages on a thread directed at the views of a Bishop - but who happens to be a Bishop in the Church of England?????

[RedCelt69]

Incidentally, can anyone shed any light on why it is that we are all getting excitable about the various rantings sayings and pontifications of various Roman Catholic Church worthies through the ages on a thread directed at the views of a Bishop - but who happens to be a Bishop in the Church of England?????

Have you ever been in a restaurant and seen/heard a couple burst into an argument? Usually, it's got something to do with a longer association than what's been happening since they sat down at the table. It's kinda like that... a long-lasting disagreement over something.

The more interesting question viz-a-viz Catholicism and the Church of England is that a minister of the Church has views which are being defended by a Catholic Apologist.

<offers Macgamer a wee treat from the Dessert menu>
You know you want to, Macgamer... "Naughty but nice"... it isn't serving the Natural Law. You've eaten enough to live another day... but go on, that cream bun wants to be eaten.

[malcolm166]

.............The more interesting question viz-a-viz Catholicism and the Church of England is that a minister of the Church has views which are being defended by a Catholic Apologist....................

aye - and see ....that's where I have the most difficulty with all the argument over this. Because I honestly don't feel that he does have views that are either in line with the Roman Church or in themselves anti-gay.

The question that he was led into answering was - "So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?"
and his answer was "Correct. That is consonant with what I've said and written elsewhere."

put his answer to that question another way and I basically read it as him saying "correct...it is absolutely correct to say that the scriptures say one cannot approve of homosexual conduct. And that is something I have pointed out during debates and discussion elsewhere. That the scriptures do not approve of it."

"Consonant" does not mean the same as "consistent". He is not saying that he has consistently agreed with the Scriptures on the matter but only that Paul at least makes that argument.

But he then goes on to say that societies through the ages since Plato have never actually completely defined "homosexual conduct" - you know as well as I do that the word "homosexual" itself only appeared about 100 years ago anyway - and that basically it is only Paul - as a mere mortal, who passed something on down the line to us.

That way - what is "homosexual conduct" Is it when two men walk down the street arm in arm - just like women do? And if so is it "homosexual conduct" when two 8 year old boys do it? And if it is why does no-one disapprove of it and stop it then? Is it when footballers celebrate scoring a goal with hugs. Or when soldiers celebrate gaining another 4 inches of territory during a war? Is it only when sex is involved? Should we ban wrestling and boxing because of what it might cause. Should we worry about public school boys? That kind of thing.

And he alludes to all of that as part of the difficulty of definition basically.

And he then goes on to point out that the Church of England - unlike the Roman Church as he points out - is a democratic Church in which every single member of every congregation has a right to voice their opinion and is not a single autonomous autocratic edifice hanging on the word of a single individual for guidance. They all reserve the right to have an opinion on any matter. Including this one. And that they are in the process of doing just that and debating whether or not they do actually accept Paul's definition - as a mere mortal like themselves - of it in this day and age - and will know themselves that neither their God or Christ have made any statement on it. And that because he is on the Committee receiving views and opinions it would not be proper for him to influence any of it by making his opinion known.

And that's about all I get. He's talking also around about 2004/05 when the Church is split almost to the point of schism as it is on matters like AIDs and homosexuality and women Bishops. American Church members have differing views on it among themselves. And then there's the opinion of African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern congregations that play a part as well. So pushing forward and forcing a vote - which was the issue then - before all opinion had been taken in and considered was probably the wrong thing to do.

And after all that, that's only about "homosexual conduct" There's no mention of the ordination of gay Bishops which is a different matter entirely - as in whether or not, "disapproving" of someone's private sex life should have any bearing on how effective a Bishop he might be. Just as in any other walk of life. My main objection and why I get hacked off with it is the way in which something like this is picked up by someone with a real personal axe to grind and the internal arguments that we outsiders probably don't know too much about, are used to pull the necessary bells and indignation to do nothing more really than score points over a rival.

[RedCelt69]

His views on homosexuals is a little harsher than you portray:-

Gay bishop’s row ‘like Iraq war’

And, as I already pointed out, scripture (after the OT) is not anti-gay.

[macgamer]

This is not to suggest that you are a crazy, nor a Holocaust denier, but rather to indicate that failure to alter your position in the face of criticism is markedly different from being correct.

Grant, but the examples that you used have but single interpretations: the holocaust occurred and the world approximates a sphere orbiting around the sun.

Adopted children raised by same-sex parents do not have an impoverished upbringing. Rather, such children are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex parents.

Not having the time to research them at this juncture I cannot comment on his research. However given that same-sex adoption has only been taking place for a limited amount of time, the number of subjects cannot be huge. I'm open minded to the idea that same-sex couples can raise children 'successfully'. However, as always it seems here, I object to the principle of the concept. Children come from a mother and a father, therefore they have a right to be brought up by a mother and father, preferably their biological parents.

Pope Honorius I dispute:
I did state that he wasn't a heretic. Given the evidence that remains available to us and the Council may have had more, the anathema would seem reasonable.

What I do dispute strongly is that he ever made an ex cathedra statement at all, or indeed a pronouncement such as an encyclical that contains teaching considered definitive and authoritative. Until there is evidence that Pope Honorius did this, he never sought to act infallibly. Indeed I know of no instances where a Pope suddenly decided on a whim to come up with a new doctrine. In all the instances I know there has been consultation with the Magisterium.

3. If you truly believe your (4) then shut the fuck up about gay people being gay.

Yes I do. Let's be clear about the term homophobia. Its etymology gives its intrinsic mean of fearing homosexuals. Current usage extends this to a hatred. To clarify I neither fear nor hate homosexuals because of their attraction or lifestyle. I believe that they should be free to practice homosexuality if they so wish. However I am still entitled to discuss homosexuality and the morality of its practice. Neither have I ever encouraged hatred towards homosexuals.

[Al]

I'm open minded to the idea that same-sex couples can raise children 'successfully'. However, as always it seems here, I object to the principle of the concept.

In other words, you admit that gay people can make fine parents but they just shouldn't be allowed to have or adopt children. After all, they may pass on their gayness just as gay people throughout history have learned their homosexuality from their heterosexual parents.

Children...have a right to be brought up by a mother and father, preferably their biological parents.

I can't see how you've reached that conclusion. Children undoubtedly have the right to be brought up in a safe environment but that is quite different to giving them rights as to the number or gender of their parents.

Let's be clear about the term homophobia. Its etymology gives its intrinsic mean of fearing homosexuals.

Hasn't this already been explained to you once? A phobia is not simply a fear. It's an irrational fear or aversion and, by extension, a dislike or hatred.

To clarify I neither fear nor hate homosexuals because of their attraction or lifestyle.

So why do you fear or hate them?

I believe that they should be free to practice homosexuality if they so wish. However I am still entitled to discuss homosexuality and the morality of its practice.

Yes, but you haven't given any reasons for you think it immoral. Well, none of your own.

[Senethro]

its unatchrul innit

[Humphrey]

macgamer, are you married? Have you ever had sex? Have you ever masturbated?

Usually this is between me and my confessor, but to satisfy your curiosity and demonstrate that I'm happy to have this discussion:

1) No
2) No
3) Yes

Interesting, what with the bible being very clear about (3); but I guess that a Hail Mary is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

Actually it ain't and polemics against wanking are nearly impossible to find in the ancient Jewish tradition. This was because the sin of Onan, when read in its original context by the rabbis, was for his refusal to procreate in defiance of his creator. Being the lovable bloke he is , the OT God killed Onan's older brother Er and then ordered him to have sex with Er's widow in order to bring forth heirs. However Onan performed 'coitus interruptus' and spilt his seed on the ground; thus displeasing God and forcing him to smite him (this is probably a symbolic story about the lineage of a paticular clan).

Some commentators, attempting to find a condemnation have pointed to the pronouncement by Rabbi Eliezer (Eliezer ben Hurcanus) that ‘anyone who holds his penis while he urinates is as though he brought the flood into the world’, which looks like a rebuke against the wastage of semen which might otherwise be used for purposes of procreation.

It becomes a bigger deal in Medieval theology, but a very peripehiral one and its more part of a move to overcome sexuality entirely; the monastic escape from intercourse. Raymond of Penafort for example, warned married men against touching themselves, but only because arousal would make them want to copulate more with their wives.

Jerking off becomes a REALLY big deal only during the enlightenment when a doctor and part time pornographer called John Martyn published a phenominally popular work called 'Onania' which argued that masturbation caused the wasting away of the body and eventual death. Samuel Auguste David Tissot, the famous physican then argued that those that performed masturbation, and would therefore ejaculate excessively, would suffer a cloudiness of ideas, a decay of their bodily power, be afflicted with pains in their head and pimples on their face, eventually even losing the ‘power of generation’. Females who indulged would suffer hysterical fits, cramps, ulceration of the matrix and uterine tremors. One man, according to Tissot, was so addicted to self-abuse that his brain dried out and could be heard rattling in his head. These ideas then passed on into popular culture via people like Kant and Rosseau.

Speaking ex-cathedra and taking a literal reading, I think that so long as MacGamer doesn't spill his seed in definace of God's direct orders he should be O.K.

[Humphrey]

Thomas Aquinas apparently believed he could fly. No real point to this information but I only learned it recently and it seems worth consideration when discussing the strength of his mental faculties.

I dunno if he believed he could fly. There was a legend which emerged after his death that he had levitated in the Chapel of St Nicholas in Naples and various other stories that were even more bizzare. There was one where he walked into a church and saw a levitating nun. Looking up he exclaimed 'I didn't know nuns wore such big boots'. The weirdest thing that happened was that after he died his body was rumoured to cause miracles so various factions fought over it, chopped off the head and a number of fingers and boiled the flesh from the bones. There wasn't a lot left at the end of that.

He was certainly one smart cookie, though you might say he has been dead since 1274 so is perhaps a little dated.

[elyettoner]

For instance, amongst the long list of sexual taboos... not a mention of Paedophelia. Want to have sex with a child? Looks upward and sees a huge Yahweh-shaped thumbs-up amongst the clouds... God says "do it".

There is always Matthew 18:6?

[RedCelt69]

For instance, amongst the long list of sexual taboos... not a mention of Paedophelia. Want to have sex with a child? Looks upward and sees a huge Yahweh-shaped thumbs-up amongst the clouds... God says "do it".

There is always Matthew 18:6?

Well. Firstly, I was referring to Yahweh and the social mores attributed to the new kingdom (specifically the sexual restrictions listed in Leviticus). None of which mentioned sex with minors.

The Matthew verse came much later.

Speaking of which:-

1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


The reference to a child is, to me (although I'm no theologian) an analogy. Those who convert to Jesus's teachings adopt the humility of a child... and it is those (his followers) who are being mentioned not, specifically (or, rather, exclusively), children.

Either way, that is the new covenant, not the original Levitician mindset.

[malcolm166]

His views on homosexuals is a little harsher than you portray:-

Gay bishop’s row ‘like Iraq war’

And, as I already pointed out, scripture (after the OT) is not anti-gay.

aye - I know that the Scripture isn't anti- gay - that's what I meant when I said that they (the congregations of the Church) will know that and take it into consideration during the debate. And contrast it presumably with the Pauline view and which should take greater precedence. It was to be part of the all-embracing nature of the debate and what view they should take on it now in the 21st century.

And I'm honestly not being stubborn or difficult just for the sake of it - but the allusion to the Iraq War he used is reasonable in the context. But it doesn't infer at all that he is speaking for the so-called Conservative side of the issue or suggesting that "I hope you realise this means war!"

It's just as reasonable to see it as similar to a pronouncement from the Secretary General of the UN after the war began. That you - the American part of the Church - just like every other part of the community - were cajoled/advised not to go it alone and not take other views into consideration but you have now stirred it up and made it worse by acting unilaterally and now you been and gone and done it and it will have repercussions - like schism and divide just like I've been warning about for the past five years. There's no implication in any of that to say, he was intent on leading these repercussions - just an observation that they will inevitably happen now.

Like I said back there "So pushing forward and forcing a vote - which was the issue then - before all opinion had been taken in and considered was probably the wrong thing to do."

[RedCelt69]

Interesting, what with the bible being very clear about (3); but I guess that a Hail Mary is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

Actually it ain't and polemics against wanking are nearly impossible to find in the ancient Jewish tradition.

Hmmm. OK. There are, nonetheless, an awful lot of Christians who think that there are. I'm basing the words of many against the words of one (you) but (given that your knowledge of the bible is almost certainly better than mine) I'm happy to pencil-in the notion that wanking isn't biblically frowned-upon. Metaphorically, I pencil-in thoughts and later make them more permanent with pen when I'm as sure about the facts as I can be. Dogmatism is less likely with a pencil.

[Humphrey]

Hmmm. OK. There are, nonetheless, an awful lot of Christians who think that there are. I'm basing the words of many against the words of one

Well the many need to get a clue then and re-read the text they are citing. There is plenty of extra-biblical stuff against mastrubation but it tends to be part of the general revulsion against human sexuality that occured in Late Antiquity and made it's way into the tradition. But don't take my word on it, google Thomas Laqueur (aka professor wank) who - to my knowledge - is the only recognised expert on the cultural history of taking Captain Picard to warp speed.

[Anon.]

Isn't it fairly nonsensical to treat the Old Testament God as somehow different to the New Testament God? Didn't the love-thy-neighbour-turn-the-other-cheek Jesus of the New Testament claim to be the Son of the very same fire-and-brimstone-on-those-whose-socks-are-made-from-more-than-one-cloth God of the Old Testament?

Surely if God is unchanging, what was sinful at the time of the Law will always be sinful? Whether or not God incarnate may have walked the earth in the meantime wouldn't change the absolutes.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Isn't it fairly nonsensical to treat the Old Testament God as somehow different to the New Testament God? Didn't the love-thy-neighbour-turn-the-other-cheek Jesus of the New Testament claim to be the Son of the very same fire-and-brimstone-on-those-whose-socks-are-made-from-more-than-one-cloth God of the Old Testament?

Surely if God is unchanging, what was sinful at the time of the Law will always be sinful? Whether or not God incarnate may have walked the earth in the meantime wouldn't change the absolutes.

It's not that it isn't sinful anymore. It's rather that God, or rather Jesus, realised that humans could never successfully avoid sin and therefore a new mechanism for salvation was introduced and the old Law was stripped down to the most important parts: Love God, Love Thyself, Love Thy Neighbour.

Extrapolating how one is supposed to behave based on those precepts was too messy for the Hellenes and the Romans, so Paul had to come along and do their thinking for them to 'sell' the faith to the wider world. I believe his thinking was sloppy and often missed the point of Jesus' ministry, but that's just me and certainly *not* a mainstream opinion.

Once the Church became... well, a church... and gained political power in the Roman Empire, it became obsessed with maintaining order (as those with political power always do) and started picking and choosing from the old Law rules that would help it enforce homogeneity and augment the hierarchy's power. Of course, making things up - like women bearing the eternal shame of Eve - was also useful and may be traced to several of the prominent individuals who helped solve other major problems in the early Church (like Augustine and Origen) also being deeply misogynist.

And the old problem is still there, Jesus' ministry is too simple, straightforward, and sparse to support something as grand as a religion. "Forgive people; love them; love God; don't hate yourself; don't judge others" is not very helpful at telling people who don't want to think for themselves how to live their lives. And frankly, for all its simplicity, it's incredibly HARD - especially that bit about not judging: it goes against human nature. The natural temptation is to go back to the original lesson plan and try to make some sort of easier sense by cherry-picking from the much more straightforward Old Testament, besides which, that justifies experts (priests, pastors, theologians) who want a job with no heavy lifting and lots of social respectability. By Jesus' own admission, the old Law (the Old Testament) is defunct... which means it shouldn't ever be used by Christian's as a rulebook for 'Christian' behaviour, and should only ever be taught or quoted as 'historical legacy' by them... but since when have people ever willingly given up a tool for condemning others and feeling superior?

[LonelyPilgrim]

I wrote this for somewhere else, but as it applies to the above...

Christianity vs Homosexuality

[massive post redacted for brevity]

P.P.S. None of any of the above applies to women. It seems like God would like to watch. Which, if nothing else, proves that God is male.

RedCelt, we don't agree on much, and I do tend to be very critical of you, but I must applaud this post (belatedly since I haven't been on The Sinner lately) and say that I find no point with which to disagree with it and, in fact, couldn't have stated the case better.

I might add, though (as a possible point of interest for you), that I have been told that there are some elements of Torah scholarship who hold that the original prohibition against homosexuality among men, correctly understood, is that it is an abomination to have gay sex in the bed you share with your wife. I have absolutely no idea how orthodox or controversial that view is, I would assume its very controversial, but if it's a correct interpretation it would actually mean there is no absolute prohibition against homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. Admittedly, I was told that by one person and have done no follow up investigation whatsoever, since I consider the Old Testament pretty irrelevant anyway to my interpretation of Christianity.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Actually it ain't and polemics against wanking are nearly impossible to find in the ancient Jewish tradition.

Hmmm. OK. There are, nonetheless, an awful lot of Christians who think that there are. I'm basing the words of many against the words of one (you) but (given that your knowledge of the bible is almost certainly better than mine) I'm happy to pencil-in the notion that wanking isn't biblically frowned-upon. Metaphorically, I pencil-in thoughts and later make them more permanent with pen when I'm as sure about the facts as I can be. Dogmatism is less likely with a pencil.

As I recall, the only part of the OT that can be interpreted as anti-masturbation... at least it's the usual go-to section... is the bit where God strikes Onan down for using the withdrawal method with his dead brother's wife and 'spilling his seed on the ground.' But it was never clear to me from reading the section whether the Sin of Onan for which he was struck down was for wasting his seed (the justification for opposing masturbation) or if it was for not fulfilling his duty to father a child on his late brother's wife to give his brother an heir. And if we're really going to get free-wheeling about it, why has the traditional interpretation been anti-masturbation and not anti-withdrawal method or, more generally, anti-contraception methods? Or, for that matter, since so many of the prohibitions in the Old Testament seem to be linked to sanitation concerns how are we supposed to know he wasn't struck down for just ejaculating wherever and not using a tissue?

And honestly, it just reads like the guy over-exerted himself and had a heart attack or stroke... he wasn't exactly young, IIRC.