Skip to comments.Ireland: Gay humanists call Archbishop spineless
Posted on 03/22/2006 11:59:24 AM PST by sionnsar
Because of cowardice or self-interest, the Archbishop of Canterbury has put the survival of his Church before the safety and well-being of gay people, says the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association.
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a Guardian interview on Tuesday, "I think the question I find myself asking of myself is, 'Will a pronouncement here or a statement there actually move things on, or is it something that makes me feel better and other people feel better, but doesn't necessarily contribute very much?'"
"In a polarised and deeply divided church it's particularly important, I think, not to be someone pursuing an agenda that isn't the agenda of the whole," said Williams. "I suppose what I'm saying is if the church moves on this, it must be because the church moves, not because, rather like getting rid of Clause 4, a figure of leadership says, 'Right -- this is where we go.'"
"I think the situation in Central Africa is dismal and deeply problematic," said Williams in reference to the conservative Archbishops Bernard Malango of Central Africa and Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who have threatened schism over the ordination of gay bishops. "I wish I knew how to resolve it."
Commenting on the interview, GALHA's secretary George Broadhead said, "It is now clear that whatever Rowan Williams thinks personally about homosexuality, he is refusing to come to the defence of gay people who are under vicious attack from extremists in the Anglican Communion and from religionists everywhere."
"When asked in the interview about the extreme homophobic views of Rev Peter Akinola of Nigeria, the Archbishop refused to condemn him or to take the side of those innocent gay people who this terrible bigot is persecuting," said Broadhead.
"Dr Williams is not being diplomatic, he is being spineless. He is more concerned that the Anglican Communion survives than he is with the injustices being done to gay people by members of his own religion," said Broadhead.
They usually deny that.
One response would be "Go to Hell!" perhaps they ought to mind their own business and stay out of ecclesiastical affairs.
I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as "The Boneless Wonder". My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye and I have waited fifty years, to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.
Homosexual death cult.
I'd say he put the salvation of the many before the queer, suicidal indulgences of the few.
Why would a Humanist association give two hoots about what a church thinks, anyway?
My goodness. Are we to believe that Anglicans are suddenly persecuting homosexuals and inflicting injustices upon them? That seems out of character.
I wonder what this Broadhead fellow considers to be persecution. Are we talking about physical beatings, starvation, perhaps an occasional burning at the stake? Or maybe homosexuals are being deprived of the right to work, to speak, vote, or associate?
Or perhaps Mr. Broadhead is just another drama queen.
I understand now. Failure to affirm and celebrate = "vicious attacks" and "persecution". Not allowing them to profane the church and holy matrimony = "threatening their safety and well-being".
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.