Skip to comments.I Guess It All Depends on What "Celibacy" Means?
Posted on 07/30/2005 6:44:42 PM PDT by sionnsar
The Church of England is trying its best to avoid achieving a clear position on the issue of homosexuality, even for clergy. Yesterday, the church's House of Bishops found itself publicly embarrassed by its own statements, even as it attempted to clarify whether ordained ministers of the Church of England could enter into homosexual "civil partnerships."
The statement instructs ministers who enter into such partnerships to inform their bishop, and warns that they may be asked questions. The Church of England's standing policy often ignored by church authorities, according to conservatives is that homosexual ministers must be sexually celibate. This already complicated matter becomes all the more complicated and obscure when the church seems to be confused about just what constitutes celibacy.
The statement released yesterday includes this passage: The House of Bishops does not regard entering into a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders, provided the person concerned is willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy.
The Guardian [London] commented: Publication of the statement appears to indicate that the church does share the assumption that civil partnerships are likely to be sexual. Its current teaching is that, while lay people may have gay partners, clergy "cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships".
But if the clergy cannot adhere to church teaching the question arises whether they ought to be in Holy Orders.
It is not clear what would happen if a vicar did not tell the bishop about a "civil partnership".
The bishop glowed pink when asked what would constitute a sexually active relationship and whether just kissing would qualify. He said it depended on the circumstances.
This particular form of moral convolution is the inevitable result of any attempt to avoid an honest assessment of homosexuality as a moral question. The alternatives are fairly plain. Either homosexuality is a serious and deadly sin that must be confronted as such, or it is not a serious moral matter at all. On this assessment, homosexual activists and conservative Christians can surely agree. The Church of England's attempt to finesse the issue of homosexuality leaves it in this morally and theologically compromised state. There is good reason for its bishops to be blushing with embarrassment.
Once a biblical position on sexuality is abandoned or accommodated to contemporary mores, confusion and embarrassment will surely follow. Even worse, the church then becomes an agent of moral malpractice, abdicating its responsibility to teach biblical truth.
The House of Bishops statement can be found here.
Bill Klinton is the expert word-mangler. If he can decipher what the meaning of "is" is, then he can probably assist in the matter as well.
Hetero Christians should learn to apply the word "celibacy" to their lives as well..
"Chastity" would be even better. Purity outside marriage (not just abstinence from intercourse) and morality within marriage.
Graceful curtsey and a punch in the air for that, Tax-chick.
Technically, "celibacy" simply means the unmarried state; and we presume it means abstinence from sexual intercourse.
But that is wholly inadequate as a description of "how to live sex right." Single people (whatever their sexual interests, appetites, orientations, or struggles) need to culivate the virtues that make for holy friendships, and that form their character for the possibility of Holy Matrimony.
From a positive point of view, that means you can pursue 1000 ways to enjoy, learn from, have fun with, care and share with, and truly appreciate your friends, co-workers and colleagues, both male and female, without sexual hassles.
The "thou shalt nots" are only there to preserve the integrity of holy friendship: thou shalt not pressure, push, or seduce; thou shalt not try to give the other person a sexual itch by the way you dress or talk or act; thou shalt not pour gasoline on your own sexual heating system by indulging in porn (or, ladies, those stupid romances); thou shalt not mess around.
Do that and you'll have friendships that last, you'll enjoy a measure of inward peace, and you'll become the kind of person who is actually capable of actual marriage.
Georgette Heyer is immoral? I defy you to find anything in her work, which is set in the Regency period of England, that would tittilate my Great Aunt Mary.
I agree with you on other points though.
Excellent post, Mrs. Don-o. I even agree that romance novels can be a problem; even if they aren't sexually explicit, they can lead you to believe there might be a man somewhere who's interested in you.
OK OK. But some people titillate faily easily. For instance ... oh heck, I don't have to reveal everything about my chaotic, fast-access emotional life, do I?
I'll spare you. Hmph. You have no idea what anarchic passions are hidden my placid and matronly exterior. I'm going to go make some soup, and think some edifying thoughts. :o)
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.