Are you sure? It's true what you wrote about Mahoney, but does the Church truly want to invite the kind of schism that just this sort of action provoked in the worldwide Anglican Church?
"...does the Church truly want to invite the kind of schism that just this sort of action provoked in the worldwide Anglican Church?"
But, you see, I think they think they'll manage it, because everybody is supposed to be celibate too! Not like the Anglican/Episcopals who actually get married, or "whatever". Now, obviously this is not working already, but since when is that a good reason not to try a plan over, and over, and over?
Sadly, I think it's true - I've read this elsewhere in the last couple of weeks.
The theory is that since priests are supposed to be celibate, it doesn't matter what their inclination is. Personally, I think it does matter - there have probably been homosexuals throughout the history of the Church, but they all knew this was not the ideal. Now they're being told it's all cool and groovy, they just have to stay away from the teenage boys. Otherwise, they're fine.
The Anglican church schism was caused by the approval of buggery. This, if true, would merely be about accepting celebate homophiles into the priesthood. But I doubt it is true. The problem is that the American church has been ordaining known homophiles for a long, long time.
Well, I certainly hope not! I cannot speak for the intentions of the men who are currently running the Church. All I am doing is responding to their actions, and to the reports of people like Thavis and Allen. I appreciate the work of Robert Mauro, without whose effort we might not know much of this, as the "media" would never print an article like this one.