Posted on 11/03/2003 11:48:09 AM PST by dead
Kampala
Several Anglicans in Uganda described yesterday as "a day of grief, shame and sorrow" after the consecration of the first openly gay man as a bishop in the United States.
The Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson was consecrated bishop of the Episcopalian diocese of New Hampshire following months of heated debate over whether the Anglican Church should have gay clergy.
Uganda, which has the second highest concentration of Anglicans in the world after Nigeria, was one of several African countries opposed to Robinson's consecration.
In many Anglican churches yesterday, special prayers were said for the continuity of the church and for the "salvation" of Robinson and his supporters.
Dr Jackson Turyagyenda, the secretary of Namirembe Diocese, the seat of the Church of Uganda, described the day as "lamentable".
A visiting American preacher at St Francis Chapel, Makerere University, Ms Edwina Thomas, said it was "a day of grief and shame" and apologised to Christians for carrying greetings from America.
The Rev. Grace Kaiso of the Uganda Joint Christian Council - an umbrella body for mainstream Christian churches - said it was a "sad and outrageous moment" for the church.
He prayed at Kyambogo Christian Fellowship where he said special prayers were dedicated for the events in New Hampshire.
"We were agonising over it," he said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Dr Rowan Williams, the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion and Archbishop of Canterbury, however, was confident that divisions in the church over Robinson's consecration would eventually heal.
But Turyangyenda said the Church of Uganda would maintain an earlier position not to associate with "those who deviate from the known church norms".
"We disassociate; as simple as that," he said yesterday.
The BBC quoted Archbishop Williams as saying that the church was facing a "risky break" but that eventually there would be reconciliation.
The Archbishop believes that Canon Robinson, who has lived with his male partner for 15 years, should not have been elected bishop.
But Robinson said he believed he was now at peace. He said in interviews before the ceremony that the fact that he was gay made him and his ministries unacceptable to many people and the other bishops around the world.
"The other fact is that I'm not welcome now as an openly gay priest in most of those places," he said.
Robinson said he hoped that "before not too long, other denominations will also follow and welcome openly gay and lesbian people into leadership positions".
At least 50 bishops were expected to attend the consecration ceremony but a large number of Christians who are opposed to the ceremony were also expected to make a formal objection just before he took his vows.
The opponents also staged a service across the road from the stadium where the Robinson was consecrated.
On the New Hampshire diocese Web site the consecration was described as a great moment for the church and invited Christians from all over the world to join them celebrate.
The Ugandans have got that one right. A day of supreme hypocrisy.
Anglican Deacons, Priests and Bishops are supposed to be chaste: celibate outside of marriage, faithful within it.
Nope - to the best of my knowledge, the Catholics are the only celibate ones (if you can keep the priests away from the young boys and the nuns away from each other)and that practice does not make sense to me.
POINTED AFFIRMATIONS [John Derbyshire]
Compare and contrast:
(1) From my column titled "The One and the Many," 6/25/03:
"Homosexuality, open and proud, is a subversive force — subversive, that is, of any institution in which it becomes entrenched. The Roman Catholic church has recently learned this. The Anglican church is about to learn it. The Boy Scouts of America would have learned it, but for a lucky break from the judiciary. ... I do believe, with a high degree of certainty, that after a few more appointments of the Canon John / Rev. Robinson kind, my church will cease to be a vehicle for the teaching of Christ’s gospel, and become instead a dating service for homosexuals. Its ethos will no longer be Christian, it will be 'gay'."
(2) From the AP account of Bishop V. Gene Robinson's consecration, 11/2/03. xml
"In a pointed affirmation of the gay cause, Robinson invited Crew, a second homosexual activist and his own partner - as well as his ex-wife and their two daughters - to join those who will ritually present him today. In the long term, Crew predicts, thousands of homosexuals and open-minded heterosexuals will flow into the denomination, whose membership has declined substantially and now stands at 2.3 million."
Not according to my understanding of what "chaste" means, which is "celibate while single, faithful while married." V. Gene Robinson was married, but is not now married. A chaste monogamous relationship does not equal marriage. There are additional aspects that are required.
First, if you look at Scripture, it would appear that Jesus defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, so that would eliminate ever considering a monogamous same-sex relationship as a marriage.
But let's say you don't accept that. Hey, let's say you're not Christian. It seems to me that marriage is not, never has been, and cannot be considered an agreement or compact between the two people involved (I don't even want to get into polygamous marriage). It's also a compact between the couple and society at large. The two people involved pledge to support each other financially, emotionally, spiritually, and physically until death. They also agree to do the same for their children (should there be any) until those children reach their majority and are able to fend for themselves.
This has value for society, as it relieves the load that single people might otherwise place on society at large if they were single and found themselves in a situation that an individual cannot handle. An easy example would be the costs of child care for children whose parents cannot or will not care for them that your tax money currently pays for. But the spiritual and emotional support has value to society at large as well. In return for this value, society grants certain privileges to the married couple, and this is symbolized in the requirement, even in civil marriage, of a public record of the marriage and the need for public witnesses who are not part of the authority sanctioning the marriage.
In the absence of such public committment, in the absence of any societial recognition of a same-sex relationship, such a relationship cannot be considered marriage. That may well change in the future, but right now the case is as I state it.
And I'd wager that if you asked V. Gene Robinson if he was married, he'd say "No." If he says "Yes," I'd ask him what church this marriage took place in. But in the interviews he's given that I've seen, he's never described his relationship with his partner as a marriage. And thus, his relationship by my definition cannot be considered "chaste".
It seems to me that marriage is not, never has been, and cannot be considered solely an agreement or compact between the two people involved ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.