It's a bit of a worry

We got a report on Lambeth yesterday, from our two Bishops.

It was, I must say a bit of a worry, about what might now happen.

Archbishop Rowan Williams has asked for three moratoriums

• There be no consecrations of partnered gay people to the episcopate
• That blessing of same-sex relationships cease
• That cross border interventions by Bishops outside their own dioceses cease
  

Our Bishop was obviously pained to explain what the implications of this might be for him and our Diocese, and in a very laboured and careful way sought to explain how he anticipated this might be implemented.

I make two observations on this:

One, that he actually only addressed the first two moratoria. When I questioned what the implications of the third moratoria might be for this Diocese; and asked whether it was really a sop to those who did not like the first two he was rather defensive.

Given that we have already had cross-border incursions in this country, and it does not seem entirely unlikely that they could happen in this Diocese, it is naive to think that it does not or will not apply . There have also been internal cross-border moves which have not been without controversy and indeed pain. My impression is that the Bishop was suggesting that this sort of thing might be OK.

My point? That moratorium number 3 is of a different order from 1&2.

My second observation is that there was a disproportionate focus on the the same-sex moratoria. The bishop, it seemed to me, actually went further than Lambeth which talked about not consecrating bishops who were in same sex relationships. Jeffery seemed to extend this to ordinations to priests.

I am not aware that any bishop in this Diocese has actually knowingly ordained a homosexual person, let alone one living in a committed same-sex relationship. That such have been ordained is evident. By and large the strategy seems to have been to not ask the question on the one hand, or to not answer it on the other.

I was left feeling sad (yet again) about what this meant for any men and women of homosexual orientation in our midst. About how they must feel. When good old Fr Andy got animated and questioned whether we had really taken the responsibility to listen to gay people, the Bishop offered to lend us a couple of books!

Andy said..."Why would the gay community want to talk to us when we want to persecute them?"...was there a tear in his eye? The Bishop looked unknowingly at what this exchange might mean.

I think it means we have certainly not taken seriously the need to listen. We have not even really gone through the motions. And once again we allow a vulnerable minority to bear the suffering of us all!

As I say, it's a bit of a worry isn't it?

After word and clarification

Since I first wrote this the Archbishop has clarified with me the fact that I am mistaken about his having gone further than Lambeth he says to me:

"You suggested that the Lambeth resolution related (only) to ordinations to the
episcopate. This may be what people have focussed on as a result of events
in the US, however the text is “nor ordaining those involved in same gender
unions”. The reference is not simply to the episcopate and I am not (if I
might quote you) going further than Lambeth. "