I know it's probably just to avert more problems and division, but really? A ban on consecrating gay bishops in the Anglican Church (otherwise known as Episcopalians on this side of the pond)? That would only help ease things on the surface if at all. And what about all the gay and gay-friendly folks that it would wound in the process?
We posted Stephen Colbert's quick "overview" style interview a week or so ago, about recent udpates in the almost schism in the Anglican Church. For those who haven't really been following the developments, the Church is wrestling with how to deal with homosexuality in its Church, specifically with clergy and even more specifically with out (and partnered) clergy. After consecrating the out and partnered Gene Robinson to Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, more conservative Episcopalian Dioceses have threatened (and some followed through) with leaving the worldwide Anglican Communion and lining up with super conservative Dioceses in Africa. Now the head of the worldwide Anglican Church is recommending to not ordain gay bishops to avoid further upsetting those that can't handle it. I think Colbert said it best:
"Why don't the Anglicans just do what the Catholics do, which is just ordain all
the gay priests you want and then not talk about it? Nothing could possibly go
wrong."
Even if a ban is instituted, do they really think that it will mean no future bishops will be gay?
Photo from Usatoday.com. (Is it me or does Arcbhishop Rowan Williams kind of look like Dumbledore? That would be ironic, because J.K. Rowling recently let slip that the character was gay--incidentally.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment