Comments: further press coverage on Southwark

Surely the AP headline should read

ANOTHER gay bishop !

We have more than one working in the C of E at the moment as Suffragan / Diocesans

Why can't they speak out backed by good, true and brave heterosexual bishops ?

(Surely, there must be Some ?)

Posted by Pantycelyn at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 10:02am BST

Pantycelyn: I think the problem lies in trying to use the words "brave" and "bishop" in the same sentence.

Posted by Dennis at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 1:42pm BST

Some years back, someone at the ACO told me that the ABC had consecrated (or ordained) nine (closeted) gay bishops -- it has been implied that during the 17th century all of the ABCs were gay (at least none of them participated in the [semi-]) sacrament of marriage)

Posted by Prior Aelred at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 3:03pm BST

Re the AP story's quotation from Andrew Brown:

"If he wins, he will have shot the rapids and the Church of England will finally emerge from the turbulence of the last 30 years with a fairly clear and fairly coherent doctrine about sex."

Clear and coherent? Well, only if that doctrine is that gay/lesbian people can be in Holy Orders only if celibate -- which is not at all the doctrine I would hope to see.

Or does Mr. Brown mean something else? His words make sense to me only if he means that "celibacy makes all the difference" -- but I would be delighted if he means something else.

Posted by David da Silva Cornell at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 4:06pm BST

OK, so, the meeting to designate a candidate or two (according to some reports) for Bishop of Southwark was yesterday or the day before.

When will they announce the results?

Posted by jnwall at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 4:36pm BST

The UK Supreme Court is the latest body to throw itself behind modern understanding of human sexuality and to reject a distinction between homosexual orientation and practice.

In HJ v Home Secretary, Lord Hope says: "...unlike a person’s religion or political opinion, it [i.e. “sexual orientation or sexuality”] is incapable of being changed. To pretend that it does not exist, or that the behaviour by which it manifests itself can be suppressed, is to deny the members of this group their fundamental right to be what they are."

He also condemns "the rampant homophobic teaching that right-wing evangelical Christian churches indulge in throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa".

As Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, he is one of the most distinguished and influential judges in the nation. The judgment can be seen at:

Posted by badman at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 5:19pm BST

"When will they announce the results?"

Someone on Episcopal Cafe said mid-August or so, since they have to do the background checks.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do the background checks earlier in the process? I think the way the Diocese of Virginia did it was to do thorough background checks on the finalists before releasing their names and starting the walkabout process leading up to voting.

Some years ago, when background checks were less thorough, we had to drop one of the two people we'd chosen for suffragan because past scandal caught up with one of the men we'd elected.

No proces is perfect, but you'd think thorough and early, before names were leaked or made public, would be better.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 6:08pm BST

Someone commented the other day that "what goes on in committee stays in committee". Well, the committee's leaking like a sieve and reliable sources inform me that the ABC 'lost it' in the meeting, has vetoed Jeffrey John's nomination and Nick Holtam is not on the list either.

Posted by Colander Boy at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 8:52pm BST

"ANOTHER gay bishop !

We have more than one working in the C of E at the moment as Suffragan / Diocesans

Why can't they speak out backed by good, true and brave heterosexual bishops ?"

Fear and/or lack of personal integrity I would guess. Isn't it time Mr. Tatchell outed the lot of them?

Posted by Laurence at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 9:33pm BST

There's a Face Book entry by Ruth Gledhill saying something that Jeffrey Johns was NOT selected.!/ruth.gledhill

Posted by evensongjunkie at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 10:03pm BST

Well, no, says Jonathan Wynne-Jones, John will not be Bp of Southwark.

The bullies win again.

The ABC reveals yet again he is a politician, a creature about which the American poet e. e. cummings once said was an ass upon which everyone has sat except a man.

Posted by jnwall at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 10:11pm BST

There has been a comment from the Diocese of Southwark to the effect that it might not be until October that the result is confirmed. Does that mean that the Church at large has to wait until that time and does it include time that will be taken by the Dioceses to agree to the election - as would be the case in N.Z.? The process needs to be clarified.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 11:57pm BST

Very significant judgment in the Supreme Court. Thank you badman.

I am sure that the project aimed at stopping insurance companies offering professional indemnity to those peddling "cures" for homosexuality will be much helped by this.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 12:23am BST

So now we know. Jeffrey John has been by-passed yet again! This is proof conclusive that Rowan values unity ahead of integrity. Victory for the Fundys, & a further defeat for the Gospel of Truth & Justice.
Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 12:48am BST

I am not surprised at any of this.
The English Church is in disarray.

While my money has always been on Holtham (and I had thought JJ's nomination a flight of journalistic fancy) - If the Prime Minister HAS said he wants two names and he now gets a name or names he was not expecting he can say

"No to (all) the above."
To make his point publicly.

It has happened before.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 1:00am BST

It will be interesting to see to what degree the clergy and laity in York confront the Archbishop of Canterbury for his spineless behavior regarding the undignified treatment of Jeffrey Johns. Coupled with the amendments Rowan and the Archbishop of York have proposed for women bishops, this could be quite a defining moment for The Church of England. I hope the clergy and laity at least make Rowan squirm.

Posted by Chris Smith at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 3:44am BST

Fear and/or lack of personal integrity I would guess. Isn't it time Mr. Tatchell outed the lot of them?
Posted by: Laurence on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 9:33pm BST

Believe me, I am sorely tempted to give the names of the ones I know.

But they do need the support of non-gay bishops to do it. Not come out one by one, and be picked off.

Posted by Pantycelyn at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 9:13am BST

Being a Guardian sort, from across the pond, I find this whole business distasteful and silly, past any common sense point. If scapegoating and assaulting queer folks' leadership and gifts and callings is always going to be the grouch that wins every day, why bother?

At the passing moment, this reads/decodes as yet another indication that RW and the CoE powers that be are dead set - and I use the word, dead, advisedly - dead set on NOT having a global big tent when it comes to reforming Anglicanism. Clearly, RW prizes the old-fashioned Anglican closet too dearly. RW just can't quite see past its closed doors, ethically, theologically? So prejudice and closet Anglican rubrics affect even the keenest Anglican minds, the most reputedly reasonable Anglican hearts?

Bullying from the right is apparently the order that wins the day. Don't hold your breath about women, then. We may just turn bilious green, right soon thanks to the outcome of the pending Synod votes. CoE is in for a great time of deep suffering as all the clocks spin backwards to premodern beliefs, views, opinions about women and queer folks. Who wudda thunk it?

Posted by drdanfee at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 6:32pm BST

What amazes me is that any "thinking" Anglican could have thought that Dean John had a chance. Even a heterosexual like Dean Slee has no chance either. On Episcopal appointments, Anglican Mainstream have won the day!

Posted by Robert ian williams at Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 8:11pm BST

Yes, Robart the thought of gay bishops or other ministers in the C of E is as unthinkable as way -well -

the end of Apartheid, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of capital punishment, peace in Ireland --

or at the level of popular culture

as unthinkable as transexual and gay characters on Coronation Street, Emmerdale or East Enders...

No - you're right t'will never happen !

(and never has ?)

Posted by Pantycelyn at Friday, 9 July 2010 at 1:35pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.