Gay Bishops & Human Rights

Adelphoi,

For your consideration...

Is Ordination within human rights?

There is a general assumption by decent people in the Church of England (who think that active homosexuality is wrong) that if a priest has a homosexual partner, then gives him up, and does not take another casually or long-term, he is eligible as a candidate for preferment to the office of bishop - that is, if he promises to abide by the church's teaching on marriage and sexual relations in his public utterances.

Is this assumption correct?

Let us first assume that there is no heartfelt repentance for the involvement in same-sex activity but there is a clear recognition that it is not appropriate for a priest to be involved. If this man is elevated to the episcopate, we have there a person who does not in his heart and mind accept the teaching of the Bible as understood in the Church of God but who attempts to keep his views to himself, as he tries to commend the Church's teaching.

Let us assume, secondly, that there is genuine repentance for the sexual partnership and there is a fervent desire to live a chaste life and to teach the doctrine and morality of the Church on sexual relations. If he is elevated to the episcopate, he will certainly be able to teach from his heart with his mind and will the doctrine of the Church and may be able to offer specialist counselling to certain of his flock.

Now I comment on the two examples.

With regard to the first person, he is placed in a very odd situation where what he believes he denies publicly. It is surely psychologically bad for the man and pastorally dangerous for his diocese for he may at any time lose control!

With regard to the second man, there is a real possibility of his making a good and sound bishop. Nevertheless, there is the danger of reversal to the previous life-style if he does not live close to the Lord daily, every day!

But, is it wise for holy mother Church to elevate either man from the presbyterate to the episcopate (or earlier from the diaconate to the presbyterate, or from the laity to the diaconate)? In days when human rights have become the language and reference of discussion for morality, this may seem a stupid or inappropriate question. However, in terms of historic moral theology and canon law it is a most appropriate & urgent question!

The Church has always identified persons who are in all ways qualified to be candidates for ordination except for an irregularity. For example, a man before he became a baptized, committed Christian may have committed manslaughter, or a major crime, or he may have lived "in sin" with a man or woman, or he may have presided over a major disaster in a company or school, and so on. And he has paid the penalty of the law and is penitent.

In cases such as these, where there is repentance followed by appropriate penance (e.g., exclusion from Holy Communion for a season), the person may be restored to full fellowship in the Church of God. However, he is not usually considered for ordination since it is judged that his previous failings - though forgiven by God and forgiven by the Christian congregation - create a closed door to that office (which is an office of grace & holiness and not of right). And the reason for this is because of the good name of the church, for the spiritual health of the person himself, and so that he is not the occasion for (later) attacks from outside or inside the church concerning his previous life.

Not too long ago if a priest committed adultery or was involved in sodomy or anything of like nature, he was suspended from the active ministry with no possibility of preferment. Today a so-called "gay relationship" or marital infidelity or divorce (with or without remarriage) seem not to hinder a person's ecclesiastical career. The Chaste Life seems to be a remote ideal today rather than a direct command of the Lord to his presbyters. [In the Early Church if a deaconess married she was suspended from the ministry and from holy communion, as also was her husband! And this for the purity of the Church and her discipline.]

The human rights agenda - so dominant today in the churches - does not understand the traditional type of thinking concerning the closed door, for it is biblical thinking about the spiritual & moral health of the Body of Christ and of the precious value of baptized souls, where the individual person exists in fellowship for the good of the Body and its Head, Christ, and for the glory of God the Father.

Today, with the investigative powers of the media and the ability of that media to publish whatever it sees fit, the obvious dangers for the Church and for the spiritual and moral health of ordaining "gay" priests and bishops is clear. The wisdom of the Church over the centuries in not ordaining otherwise qualified persons can surely be seen - if and only if, the matter is viewed from a traditional biblical perspective and not from the perspective of human rights. Ordination in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church should never be about "a person's right" to that office.

In this highly-sexed era, it is probably wise for the Church to be most discriminating in whom she ordains to any office, not allowing claimed human rights to dictate entry into the sacred ministry. And she must show her tough love in her discriminating concerning ordination both to heterosexual and homosexual/lesbian persons.


The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)