In his recent New Directions article Michael Scott-Joynt referred to the previous articles of Nicholas Turner in that magazine. Here are the links to those articles which have reported on the progress of this legislation. It is clear that Mr Turner doesn’t like it:
June 2004 An Unholy Alliance
July 2004 Strange bedfellows
September2004 The confusion deepens
December 2004 Marital discord
February 2005 Deliberate confusion?
And yet, the official Forward in Faith response to the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement was less critical than most.
Some of us might suggest that Forward in Faith should think very carefully indeed before making any comment on any gay-related matter!
To explain further… I wish to raise a serious point, I think it deserves consideration. Why, in these sort of cases, does self-hatred and the pressure of the closet cause men to behave in such a way which discriminates against those like them? I think members of Forward in Faith may want to give this serious consideration. That organisation is well known to be stuffed to the gills with gay priests who are far from celibate, yet sit on their hands and leave it to others to do the work, whilst keeping up the pretence of an officially negative stance.… Read more »
Dear Merseymike,
You have made a serious allegation of lying and/or hypocrisy against the group ‘Forward in Faith’. I don’t know anything about this group except that they are traditionalist priests in the Church of England, but don’t you think you should substantiate your claim (‘That organisation is well known to be stuffed to the gills with gay priests who are far from celibate’) or withdraw it? Without evidence this sounds just like innuendo or worse.
Thank you.
Mark Beaton
No, Mark, I won’t withdraw it. I’m not in the business of ‘outing’ people, which is what you are asking me to do, but I know many people who are members of Forward in Faith who are actively gay.
Do you wish me to name names? It’s not my preference, Mark, I would prefer people to be honest.
What is more interesting is FiF’s failure to face up to this.
Merseymike writes: “Some of us might suggest that Forward in Faith should think very carefully indeed before making any comment on any gay-related matter!” And what makes Mike think that FiF has NOT thought very carefully? I’m an ordinary, rank-and-file member of FiF, not part of its leadership, but it seems to me its “line” has been pretty clear throughout. As might be expected of a body recruiting largely from the Catholic wing of the Anglican spectrum, it upholds the long-standing teaching of the Church regarding homosexuality. At the same time, it has no enthusiasm for the queer-bashing of some… Read more »
Well, Alan, I’m not asking for the same line, actually, but some consistency. That is, if they truly believe the traditional catholic line, that they stop having multiple casual sexual encounters, and follow the path of celibacy, which is the ideal priestly state for catholic priests in any case. I don’t actually favour that sort of casual sexual encounter. I think it sits very uneasily with Christian values and ethics, and does often mask lack of self-acceptance and low self-esteem. I fully agree that it is a matter for one’s conscience. But I find it harder to believe that anyone’s… Read more »
Alan
Could you explain please your point about:
Its only criticism of Dr John was precisely that, after many years in which he had courageously and consistently advocated the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, he had announced his willingness, in exchange for a pointy hat, to adhere to “Issues in Human Sexuality”.
What was FiF complaining about? That he DID agree to adhere to IHS? Does FiF think he should NOT have done that? I’m confused.
Do you have a citation on this?
Responding quickly to points from Merseymike and Simon (on a difficult day where my mind is mainly on issues of my security – or insecurity – of employment!): Mike, I think that the point you make about casual sex versus committed relationships assumes the legitimacy of the latter. While that is your position, it is not the position of “traditionalists” (not a helpful term, in my view, but one I find myself using as shorthand). Casual sex might be seen, not as hypocrisy, but as struggling with temptation, not always successfully. Responding to Simon, my source was an article in… Read more »
Try this:
Getting it Straight
Geoffrey Kirk tries to summarize some recent events in the Church of England
http://trushare.com/0111AUG04/AU04STRA.htm
[comment edited to provide URL rather than full text]
[Editor’s Note: this article dates only from August 2004.]
Alan ; to be frank, I think thats a total cop-out from those priests. I think that its absolute nonsense to say that you can’t physically stay celibate IF you believe that to be right. It may not be easy, but then if you are a catholic priest and that’s what you sincerely believe….To pretend that these poor flowers are so weak that they succumb to every temptation is nonsense. Would it be acceptable for a Roman priest who fancied women to do the same? Come on, Alan. You must have met plenty of FiF priests who are only too… Read more »