Rowan celebrates 'secret' gay communion service

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, today presided at a 'secret' eucharist for the Clergy Consultation, as we reported that he would back in September. As we report, he gave a talk on 'present realities and future possibilities for lesbians and gay men in the church.' The venue, originally at St Peter's Eaton Square, was switched to another location in London, All Hallows-by-the-Tower, to avoid media attention after new of the meeting emerged first on the Church Society website. In a speech on ecumenism in Rome last Friday, translated from German for me by Chris Gillibrand, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke of the irrevocable divisions emerging from Anglicanism's present crisis.

The Cardinal said: 'While we in old matters of controversy we try to overcome old divisions, presently in  ethical questions new divisions open up. This applies in particular to the protection of life, to marriage and the family, and issues of human sexuality. The joint public testimony is thereby weakened or impossible. The internal crisis for the churches is most evident in the Anglican community, but not only there.'

Nothing illustrates this better than this secret Eucharist. There can surely be no hope of joint public testimony between Anglicans and Catholics when the leader of the Anglicans cannot testify publicly himself.

Kasper also said: 'In Protestant theology, there is after the Luther Renaissance and the word of God theology Karl Barth from the early years of the theological dialogue, a return to the concerns of liberal theology. The result is often a softening of the Trinitarian and Christological foundation, previously held in common. What we describe as a common heritage, should be understood as the glaciers in the Alps which are here and there melting.'

The Clergy Consultation, which has between 250 and 450 members at any one time, was set up in 1976 by three Anglican priests, Malcolm Johnson, Peter Ellers and Douglas Rhymes. Changing Attitude has an interesting paper setting out a theology of sexual ethics around which members of the consultation work today. Many consultation members are married, one with six children, and are faithful to their partners. The organisation helps them cope with staying faithful to what they regard as a Christian lifestyle while dealing with a sexuality that sometimes does not emerge until later in life. Some members but by no means all are 'out' as openly gay but it is not difficult to understand why, in today's Church, most prefer to remain 'in'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, views his taking part in the meeting and celebrating the eucharist as part of the 'listening process' outlined in Lambeth 1.10. A spokeswoman said: 'The Archbishop of Canterbury is committed to the listening process which was agreed at the Lambeth Conference as part of the discussions on human sexuality. That means listening to and engaging with gay and lesbian clergy in a pastorally sensitive setting. That is what he is doing.'

David Phillips, General Secretary of the Church Society, disagreed. He said: 'This is not something that should be happening. There is obviously serious doubt in our mind about some of the people present and their standing because of being in homosexual relationships. But we do not really have much regard for Rowan Williams anyway. We came to the conclusion a long time ago that he was not really fit to be Archbishop so today does not change anything.'

He wrote to Lambeth Palace after news of the meeting emerged. Chief of Staff Chris Smith replied: 'The Archbishop has asked me to say that unless he has clear evidence to the contrary, he would assume that members of the consultation, whether clergy, ordinands or religious, are in good standing with their diocesan bishops.' Mr Smith continued: 'The group, as described by its co-convenors in response to the Church Society website article and The Times newspaper, is in no sense a campaigning organisation, hence the confidentiality of its meetings. The purpose of the meeting was to listen to the concerns of individuals and to give the Archbishop the opportunity to engage with them from the position of the received mind of the Church.'

The letter went on: 'This engagement with different groups and individuals is constant and helps inform his deliberations on the course of action that he and his fellow primates will need to formulate for the resolution of the Anglican Communion's current divisions.'

The conservatives are also upset that the meeting went ahead. A statement signed jointly by Dr Richard Turnbull, chair of the Church of England Evangelical Council,  Dr Philip Giddings, Convenor of Anglican Mainstream and Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, reads: 'Every occasion for listening pastorally to people is to be welcomed. However, the Holy Communion is a fundamental symbol of fellowship and an expression of our unity in Christ. To offer this to those in gay partnered relationships, contrary to biblical teaching and contrary to the Bishops'  teaching in Issues in Human Sexuality offers false hope rather than enabling transformation. The Bishop as upholder of the Apostolic Faith is held by all Anglicans to provide a focus of unity. Since the Archbishop has apparently proceeded  with this service , this makes it more likely that he will become a focus of division. We endorse the importance of a proper listening process. We trust that the Archbishop will also listen to those who have moved through this stage to frame and fashion  their  own selves and  their  families according to the doctrine of Christ.'

As soon as I can get a comment from someone from the consultation, I'll post it here. I did manage to speak to Martin Reynolds, an openly gay clergyman who has successfully adopted a boy with his partner and was a former neighbour of Dr Williams when the Archbishop was in his previous job in Wales. Dr Reynolds was not at the meeting but said: 'The Clergy Consultation has been of great assistance to many many people over the years. Most gay clergy are married and have children. Most do not have partners. The consultation has given them great support and love in lives devoted to their families. It has performed a wide range of functions for a lot of people. It is hugely beneficial. The only clergyman I know who is in it is extremely grateful for the friendships he has built up through it, and so is his wife.'

I believe this all indicates that Rowan might at last be starting to reclaim his liberal roots. A source tells me that Gene Robinson is definitely coming to Lambeth, accompanied by his partner Mark. Gene will be doing a seminar. He and Mark will have been 'married' in a civil ceremony a few days earlier, on the symbolic 4 July. Lambeth will thus be their 'honeymoon'. Rowan wants to keep sexuality as much off the agenda as he can at Lambeth, to avoid a repetition of 1998. He is trying to make it as prayerful as possible. But I don't rate his chances much, given the joyful presence of the honeymooners. Lambeth is looking as if it will be wonderful for the media. Even in the unlikely event that we'll be invited to any seminars, we won't actually have to attend them. We will be free to make mischief on the highways and byways of Kent University, like we did last time. And the time before that.

I've not been looking forward to Lambeth. But it is looking up. I'm starting to get into the spirit of the thing. Thank you, Mark and Gene. And congratulations.

(Update Friday night: I've been doing something completely different today, stuck on Virgin trains with no wireless for most of it. But Ekklesia has some good and balanced comments from Colin Coward on the service that I really recommend.)

Comments

[CLIFF TAUM]

Parr versus Smith has been a thought provoking debate until lately. You two are starting to stray too far from the issue. In order to refocus why not both go back and re-align, rejuvinate your intellectual efforts at the origin of the this controversy; as stated on the this very forum 01/12/07 by Martin(2 P:m). Then you could both re-join the battle at a more realistic & rellevent juncture. There is nothing to be gained by getting personal except rendering your positions irrellevant, obselete & no longer worthy of carrying further.
Looking forward to some more appropiate; to the point and thought provoking debate.

[David Smith]

George Parr/Hugh Manitas:
'So, David, what are you saying; that the post you have quoted is all invective, or insulting?.. '

What did the part of your previous post that I quoted (just half a dozen words!) say?

[George Parr]

So, David, what are you saying; that the post you have quoted is all invective, or insulting? I genuinely believe it to be offensive for you to marginalise homosexuals as if they are pariahs for not complying with your own bible-based agenda. It is presumptious beyond belief in my view to claim to offer sexual salvation. We have also seen that your views appear gender specific. Your post of 11th December was patronising. You are not specific about your claim regarding periods of unprecendented peace etc etc. I am offended by the claim by faith groups that their versions of reality have guided us all morally, or that those not complying with Christian interpretions of the bible are somewhow to blame for the world 'falling apart' whereas, arguably, it is no worse now than during the 2000 years preceding it. The bloody twentieth century was indeed one of the worst in living memory. Was this your halcyon period? You do not say. Neither do I believe that you have any evidence that there are gods, apart from the voices in your head.

Am I unable to express these views without charges of attacking you? You on the other hand are fully able to rubbish all comers who disagree with you. It is evident that rather than argue points you ignore them in favour of lightweight or patronising insults based on the assumption that you are always right whilst others are sadly wrong.

Moreover, you seem deliberately to re-arrange general points made by contributors, in order to feel personally aggrieved. Throughout many threads you appear to hijack the discussion, making it appear to revolve around you. You are fooling no-one. The reason is simple and clear for all to see; in order to insist upon your own position you often ignore the arguments of others as you think fit, by claiming personal attack.

[David Smith]

George Parr/Hugh Manitas:
' ..half-baked invective lightly sprinkled with insults.. '

Example:

Posted by: George Parr/Hugh Manitas | 11 Dec 2007 18:22:58

David Smith is a man on rails, whose voice becomes weaker as he hurtles backwards into the cave. As usual gender-specificity within his own dubious, male-oriented worldview is not even thinly disguised. This self-styled interferer in human sexuality and champion of one-way morals has absolutely no chance when loudly announcing to the world that he understands any meaningful definition of humanism.

What 'authority outside of himself' is an agreed reality for 'man'? David Smith? Gods? What evidence do you have to say that most of us are guided by 'common Christian absolutes'? What tangible evidence do you have of gods?

When was the halcyon period of unprecedented peace, order and stability you refer to? Was this before during or after bloody colonizations, massacres, slavery, feudalism, bullying western class distinction or failure to replace terrible wars with diplomacy in which millions died? Or was it during the rigid post-war decade or so when everyone did as they were told within a quasi-absolutist state?

When exactly did the 'falling apart' begin - the day you decided about it, exercising your own humanist right to believe in anything you like? Who agrees with you that all is lost, apart from other gloomy Christians, mourning the days of pious superiority?

And what consistent and dreadful role has 'religion' in a generic sense played in the 'fragmentation of society'? You are not seriously claiming none in the light of Northern Ireland, bloody fundamentalism, the Middle East and the godfearing 'peace lovers' of evangelical America castigating weaker nations for their 'otherness'?

Fortunately Mr Smith, you are unable to impose your own appalling dogma on those of us who do not share your one-dimensional version of reality. Common moral absolutes? What right have religious groups to prescribe codes of behaviour or forms of probity, or to seek to impose them on others in this maelstrom of hypocrisy? Who is Hugh Manitas?

[George Parr]

So what debate are you actually engaging in then David Smith? A high proportion of your posts seem to consist of defending your own partial or unorthodox views, blindly endorsing the more articulate posts of others, or playing ping-pong with half-baked invective lightly sprinkled with insults.

[George Parr]

No Mr Holden, there is not a single place where secular humanism runs any form of project. As Erwin Panovsky put it in 1940 it is more of an attitude. I think that most people today would agree that the Renaissance definition, with its religious tolerance or ecclesiastical cultural derivatives is not what we are talking about.

[David Smith]

George Parr/Hugh Manitas:
'David Smith is...*!*!*!*!*!...this maelstrom of hypocrisy?'

My goodness you needed that!! Great emotional therapy! I hope you feel considerably better now.

Succint, select, calm, rational, incisive, probing debating from Andrew Holden.

Garrulous, random, heated, emotional, blunt-edged, accusing scatter-gun from George Parr/Hugh Manitas!

[andrew holden]

"On a world scale humanism is basically a rational attitude which leans towards stability, whereas 'religion' varies from quiet piety to mania."

Two things. Where humanism isn't a rational attitude leading towards stability secular humanists tend to deny that it is humanism - but deny the same slight of hand to the religious.

Furthermore, humanism has its spring, and at least a partial continuing stream, as a religious idea.

By the way, is there a single place where secular humanism is responsible for running its own project - just so we can judge whether it really does what you claim?

[George Parr]

David Smith is a man on rails, whose voice becomes weaker as he hurtles backwards into the cave. As usual gender-specificity within his own dubious, male-oriented worldview is not even thinly disguised. This self-styled interferer in human sexuality and champion of one-way morals has absolutely no chance when loudly announcing to the world that he understands any meaningful definition of humanism.

What 'authority outside of himself' is an agreed reality for 'man'? David Smith? Gods? What evidence do you have to say that most of us are guided by 'common Christian absolutes'? What tangible evidence do you have of gods?

When was the halcyon period of unprecedented peace, order and stability you refer to? Was this before during or after bloody colonizations, massacres, slavery, feudalism, bullying western class distinction or failure to replace terrible wars with diplomacy in which millions died? Or was it during the rigid post-war decade or so when everyone did as they were told within a quasi-absolutist state?

When exactly did the 'falling apart' begin - the day you decided about it, exercising your own humanist right to believe in anything you like? Who agrees with you that all is lost, apart from other gloomy Christians, mourning the days of pious superiority?

And what consistent and dreadful role has 'religion' in a generic sense played in the 'fragmentation of society'? You are not seriously claiming none in the light of Northern Ireland, bloody fundamentalism, the Middle East and the godfearing 'peace lovers' of evangelical America castigating weaker nations for their 'otherness'?

Fortunately Mr Smith, you are unable to impose your own appalling dogma on those of us who do not share your one-dimensional version of reality. Common moral absolutes? What right have religious groups to prescribe codes of behaviour or forms of probity, or to seek to impose them on others in this maelstrom of hypocrisy? Who is Hugh Manitas?

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'All kinds and conditions of men (and women too), religious and irreligious, are an unfortunate mixture of good and bad.'

This, of course, is the sensible, balanced view.

Whilst singling out and denigrating all those who do not share his world-view and philosophy for apparently personally abusing eachother, George Parr/Hugh Manitas is, all the while... simply doing the same himself!

[David Smith]

George Parr/Hugh Manitas:
'On a world scale humanism is basically a rational attitude which leans towards stability.. '

The basic tenet of humanism is that every man should be able believe and to do what HE sees (from his, of course, highly subjective point of view) as being right in any given set of circumstances. No authority outside himself should give him any common moral absolutes to live by. He is God.

Given how much one individual varies from another, I cannnot think of a better recipe for the rapid fragmenatation of society that we see all around us.

Whilst common Christian absolutes and moral values guided most of us, this country, while far from perfect, enjoyed an unprecedented level of peace, order, coherence, and stability. Now that they do not, it is literally falling apart.

In my view, and it is only my view of course, the truth is exactly the opposite of what you say.

[George Parr]

Dear Mr Holden

The wider point is that whilst Mr Smith and others tar 'secularists' with the same brush, the diverse and rancorous views expressed here offer little cohesion. Arguing and abuse abounds, not least on this thread and some others where the vitriole really hits the fan. On a world scale humnanism is basically a rational attitude which leans towards stability, whereas 'religion' varies from quiet piety to mania. The journey along the dubious spectrum is where the trouble starts.

[andrew holden]

"One look at the vicious 'religious' scribblings contained within these posts..."

Errr, actually, George such are really rather rare, even in this thread where the worst excesses on either side start to show a strange similarity to each other. Anyway, in a plural society people are entitled to express all sorts of wacky ideas, both secular and religious. The trick is to get other people to vote for them - and generally the wackiest don't succeed.

Your failing to discriminate again. All kinds and conditions of men (and women too), religious and irreligious, are an unfortunate mixture of good and bad. Trying to tar them all with the same brush is not likely to help goodness win.

[George Parr]

David Smith is of course possibly astounded to discover that humanists are consensual in their rational approach to social and moral issues. One look at the vicious 'religious' scribblings contained within these posts explains the reason why. Much has ben made of the inability of those with a more secular attitude to solve problems or to unify society. Witness the various levels of piety; the political posturing from the perceived anathema of liberalism expressed by some, to those claiming forms of pompous conservatism, right the way through to the wacky factionalism which is tearing some worldviews apart. No-one could possibly deduce any form of overall rationale from these people and no workable social policy could ever be agreed.
The appalling and rigid positions adopted in the name of faith are there for all to see, as one heap of opprobrium threatens to overwhelm another. Is this the recipe for love peace and world unification? I might argue that no sane person would think so. At least these extreme and belligerent views are a testimony to personal reason by those who pursue a peaceful faith and find the prospect of a positive approach to life attractive.

[andrew holden]

Well then, Rick, at least you are consistent. No doubt you also don't eat shellfish or wear clothes made of mixed fibres. Most modern churches have moved beyond such a literalistic application of scripture but I'm pleased you've found a church that fits your approach.

God bless you too!

[Rick Beekman]

Andrew Holden;
As A matter of Fact Our Church Does Not Allow Divorce and Re-Marriage Once Somebody Gets in The Church. They could have Married 10 Times before They Repented of Their Sinful Life. After That They can Separate Or Divorce But The Bible Teaches They can Reconcile to One Another Only. Andrew I am Qualified to Read And Understand The Scriptures Thank You Very Much...Have A Great Day And May The Lord Richly Bless You Sir.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The Parker-Bowles marriage has not been annulled....as all royal related annullments of Catholic interest have to be investigated by the Holy See.

[David Smith]

George Parr:
'It is difficult to imagine that such de-humanisng rigidity in the name of religion pertains... etc. etc.'

Perhaps we should have a thread entitled: 'Hugh Manitas Posts Secretly On Geldhill Blog.'

I wonder what Rowan Williams' effort and yours might have in common?

Fear of past unpopularity catching up, and of consequent persecution, come to mind first!

[David Smith]

Titus:
'There wouldn't be gay and lesbian priests if God would quit calling them to serve.'

No one should be treating you like rubbish. That's entirely wrong, and I'm truly sorry about that.

We are all sinners in our own different ways, and God is no doubt calling both men and women with a homosexual orientation to serve Him in many different ways. But this does not mean that He is not at the same time calling them to get free of such an orientation. Service and growing in holiness can and should go hand in hand.

[David Smith]

Dave:
' ..those who wish to continue in their hatred should take their hatred elsewhere.'

Congratulations!

You become the latest in a long line of posters here to perpetuate the malicious but strategically convenient myth that everyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong hates homosexuals.

Argue your case by all means. But please do it honestly.

[Dave]

This was not a 'secret' Eucharist. It was intended for faithful clergy who happen to be gay, many of them afraid to be honest and open because of the nasty, smug, Evangelicals who condem them. What I find most encouraging is that society has moved on. Being gay isn't a big issue any more. The Church of England will need to accept this and those who wish to continue in their hatred should take their hatred elsewhere. If not the CofE is finished.

[Andrew Holden]

Rick, hardly 'case closed' unless you are talking about adultery and you worship in a church which does not allow divorce and remarriage in any circumstance. As for the rest, well there is a long way to go between merely quoting scripture, ad nauseam, and truly understanding it based on proper translation and exegesis.

[British Patriot]

So the Subversion of Western civilisation continues then.
http://bfbwwiii.blogspot.com/2007/10/frankfurt-subversion.html

[Titus]

FACT: If all the gay and lesbian priests were deprived of their jobs the C of E would barely function, yet the bishops, archdeacons, etc continue to treat us like rubbish. I can't keep my job and have the legal/financial protection of civil partnership, although my partner and I have been together ten years and he is the only support I have in my vocation. I am serving in a parish that advertised for over three years as NO ONE was willing to serve here. To all you bible-bashers, could you bury crack baby after crack baby, have the drunks throw up on you because you stopped to help, and generally try to proclaim Christ's love day after day to a world that so needs to hear it but couldn't care less? There wouldn't be gay and lesbian priests if God would quit calling them to serve.

[SAM]

Dear Co-Bloggers,

December 10th is the International Day dedicated to Human Rights and this is why I am forwarding you an invitation, to take part of this worldwide activity.

Leave your mark on that day, and help us show all that we are all One World, One Life.

I know you have your own concerns in this matter, and this is why I want to make people aware of it.

I am inviting you to go to www.phoenixadaeternum.blogspot.com and see how you could be a member of this network that holds for one cause: the cause of humanity, the cause of Human Rights.
Thank you,

Sam

[Rick Beekman]

...Let Me see Here; "Secret Church Service For Gays"..Hmmm!
Old Testament; Leviticus 18 Verse 22 (KJV) "Thou shalt not Lie with Mankind As With Womankind it is an Abomination."
New Testament; 1Corinthians 6 Verses 9&10 "Know Ye not that the Unrighteous SHALL not Inherit The Kingdom Of God? BE NOT DECEIVED Neither Fornicators Nor Idolaters Nor Adulterers NOR EFFEMINATE nor Abusers of Themseves with Mankind Nor Theives nor Drunkards Nor Revilers Nor Extortioners Shall Inherit The Kingdom Of God". Case Closed!!!

[Martin]

"the Duchess of Cornwall according to the law of the Church is still married to Commander Parker Bowles."

a) he's a Brigadier, not a Commander

b) I thought that the Parker Bowles marriage had been annulled, as he has also subsequently remarried and he is a Catholic.

[andrew holden]

Ruth, you are far too modest about the influence of your own blog. If it was down to the readership of the Church Society website then I doubt many people would have heard about it. You repeated their slur that it was a secret service when in fact it was the attendance list that was confidential to protect the identity of those who fear persecution for their sexuality or beliefs.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"With regard to comment by Geoffrey Smith, etc."
- Stephen Clark, 30 NOV 2007, 21:55:16

Mr Clark, the whole point and purpose of attending Mass is primarily to obey Our Lord's injunction: "Take, eat; this is my body" (Matt. 26:26-28). Secondarily, we obtain God's grace, having previously received forgiveness for our sins. Unrepentant gays have not sought such forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance, and cannot therefore receive Communion, not being in a state of grace (1 Cor. 11:27-29). That is what I mean when I say that the service is null and void: its beneficial effect is withdrawn from those impenitent gays, and any attendance at the Mass is, for them, a complete waste of time, not to say blasphemous.
I use the word 'bozo' in the sense of 'fellow' (O.E.D.), albeit pejoratively, to describe the grossly cack-handed Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. I refer you to the post from Robert Ian Williams above for further examples of M-O's ineptitude.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Response to John F saddened by comments about Cardinal.

Should you not be more concerned about the profanation of the Lord's Body and blood?

[stephen clark]

I mean this really is a "beat-up" isn't it?
This 'secret service' has been known about for months. There are many occasions where sectional interests celebrate the Eucharist together, I went to one such last night, it was a retreat run by Affirming Catholicism in Adelaide, South Australia.
The world went blissfully unaware that we were breaking bread behind closed doors.
With regard to comment by Geoffrey Smith, I don't think that calling the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster a 'bozo' is fair comment, however much you disagree with him.
Anglicans will recognise that his comment about services being "null and void" (presumably because he regards the regards recipients to be sinful)is well dealt with in the XXXIX Articles...on the unworthiness of ministers.
For goodness sake...there would be no validity anywhere for anything if our sinfulness were the measure of validity.

[Bill Carr]

I sincerely Hope that our Archbishop will also engage in listening to those with a homosexual orientation who have chosen to struggle against it and regard it as sin. If not, his listening will be woefully one sided.

[andrew holden]

There is no need for a secret service for people engaging in adultery. The CofE decide some time ago that such people could now get remarried in Church with God's blessing and it is many, many years since such folk were refused admission to Holy Communion.

As this demonstrates how the Church can change it's views for pragmatic and compassionate reasons perhaps it also suggests that there is hope for gay Christians who also wish to seek God's blessing upon a 'sinful' partnership.

[andrew holden]

Ruth, it certainly wasn't a secret - you blew it's confidential nature wide open several weeks ago.

(rg writes: actually, I think the Church Society was the first to put it online. Whoever told them about it was the person who 'blew' its confidentiality.)

[John-F]

I am saddened by the vitriolic and un-Christian comments about the Cardinal. RC's should remember that 'secret' Masses were held in penal times to avoid retribution by the state. The situation may be different, but the need remains where some people are likely to resond violently.

[George Parr]

It is difficult to imagine that such de-humanisng rigidity in the name of religion pertains. Who the hell do these people think they are? Homosexuals are human beings first and marginalisation on this scale is spectacularly offensive.

'Religion's' deleterious impact on society, on this and other issues, cannot be underestimated - a homage to the stifling of personal freedoms on the one hand and an attempt to impose regimes bordering on totalitarianism on the other. 'Singing from the same humanitarian hymn sheet' continues to remain a foreign concept. What would these fractious people do if they were unable to disagree over every conceivable approach to the varying ideologies they claim to represent? And how do they present as emissaries for their messages of faith - tolerant, warm, and considerate? I don't think so.

Human rights should never be buried or swept away by diehards claiming exemption by hiding behind their faith. Some of these people are clearly obsessed with sexuality or have outmoded, stereotypical attitudes to women. In seeking to treat others as either less worthy than themselves or as pariahs, they throw themselves into stark relief as the wholly unacceptable face of the worldview they embrace.

[John-F]

I would have been delighted if the Archbishop had come to Romford! Sadly ...

The only reason the venue for the Eucharist was not publicised was because of the potential for disruption. The Eucharist was hardly a secret. As there are those who hate the presence of LGBT people in the church it is a pity that they forced an otherwise normal gathering to have to be held in 'secret'.

[Oliver]

Once again the superstitious come out (ho ho) contorted with the paroxysmic effort of moral condemnation, warning of slippery slopes and the end of the world as we know it. Why, oh why, are you tormented so by the thought of other people's sexualities? Cease and desist!

[andrewdb]

Since when do we have "secret services?" This smacks of the masonic rituals, just for the "ingroup" of initiates.

Posted by: Fr. George | 29 Nov 2007 18:49:34

Fr. George, I believe the church holds "secret services" when there is a risk of persecution.

[Julia]

"I believe this all indicates that Rowan might at last be starting to reclaim his liberal roots. A source tells me that Gene Robinson is definitely coming to Lambeth, accompanied by his partner Mark. Gene will be doing a seminar. He and Mark will have been 'married' in a civil ceremony a few days earlier, on the symbolic 4 July. Lambeth will thus be their 'honeymoon'. "

This is a joke, right? A spoof, maybe?

If not, how do we go from the ABC meeting privately with a homosexual group and leading them in worship to Lambeth being a honeymoon destination for Mr. Robinson, who will be leading a Lambeth seminar? Sorry, but I'm not following this "secret" meeting as a signpost for +++Rowan's coming out of the liberal closet and celebrating his, uh, affinity with all "new things."

[MargaretG]

Dr Reynolds said "Most gay clergy are married and have children. Most do not have partners."

Ruth, do you understand what he meant by this? Did he mean married in the sense of civil unioned to a gay partner -- in which case what does he mean that most do not have partners?

Or does he mean married as in legally wed to a spouse of the opposite sex .... in which case what does he mean both by gay -- and by do not have partners?

I ended up totally confused.

(rg writes: my understanding was that he meant they were in heterosexual marriages and did not have gay partners. )

[David Palmer]

Very droll Ruth.

Maybe as you say the man has given up on trying to hold the ship together.

Has any previous ABC been so loathed by so many in his own church, or am I too far away to judge such a thing?

The comments by David Phillips, if they are representative of the evangelical side, seem to indicate a complete breakdown in relationship.

I also can see why Anglo Catholics, might have longing eyes for Rome.

I have strong contacts into Sydney Diocese. All these goings on are a million miles from where the thriving, bustling, even burgeoning Sydney is.

[Dave]

Fellowshipping with sinners? I'm sure Jesus would never approve.

[rob roy]

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." 1 Cor 11:27-29. I think of all the times I approached the altar rail, thinking about everything but the present miracle. However, I have never approached the altar rail an unrepentant adulterer or the like. Unfortunately, scripture is quite clear that homosexuality is sinful. I do not believe these people are repentant, thus St. Paul states they are bringing judgment on themselves. For Rowan to participate in this, it is clearly wrong, and he brings judgment upon himself.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The analogy with the Catholic "gay Mass" in Westminster is interesting. Westminster Archdiocese pretend that the Mass is for non-practising homosexuals and a standard leter is sent to concerned persons. They tell Rome that it is the case.The ABW goes nowhere near it and the practising gay group Quest involved in the Mass are banned form the Catholic Directory.

This is the same Archdiocese who prostitute their Cathedral for the filming of an anti-Catholic film, Elizabeth the Golden Age.

Furthermore this is the same ABW who congratulated Prince Charles when he married his Mistress.,,the Duchess of Cornwall according to the law of the Church is still married to Commander Parker Bowles.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Why on earth should they object to a service for gay people - even RC churches do them".
- Mark, 29 NOV 2007, 18:59:50

You mean they try to do them. If by 'gays' you mean homosexuals who are committed to a lifestyle involving sexual practices, the services held for them are null and void, and the reception of Communion at these services is sacrilegious.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor allows such a blasphemous performance at a church in the Westminster diocese.
Thanks be to God, this bozo is about to be replaced.

[The Reverend Susan Russell]

I guess I'm not clear what "gay communion" means. Rowan Williams presiding at a celebration of Holy Communion with a congregation that included gay folk makes sense to me ... in fact, I count it a good thing. But "gay communion" eludes me. Perhaps I missed a liturgy class in seminary. Perhaps Ms. Gledhill can clarify?

[Robert Ian Williams]

And this is the same Archbishop thousands of so -called traditionalists are fighting legal battles to say they are still in communion with!

[Mike Homfray]

The conservatives seem confused. It is definitively not the policy of the CofE to refuse the Eucharist to gay people in relationships. They appear to be confusing the CofE with the churches they will soon be part of in Africa.

[Ellie in T.O.]

"When will there be a secret service for those embracing adultery or pornography as a lifestyle?"

Answer: as soon as the secular culture says it's OK.