Some months ago, the Anglican Church’s announcement that they would allow women as bishops brought voices of a new schism in this church (the allowance of gay bishops had already begun this crisis in 2003). Interestingly enough is the fact that those priests threatening with leaving the Anglican Church would go to –and be gladly welcome by- the Catholic Church, from which Anglicanism split almost 500 years ago.
We would like to hear your opinion about all this. Why do you think the allowance of female and gay bishops can bring about so much annoyance? Why would discontented Anglicans join Catholicism?
Here are a few articles on this topic that you can browse if you want to:
10 comments:
It’s an issue of great controversy. However, my opinion wouldn’t count at all as I haven’t been attending the Church regularly since I was 12 or 14 and used to go there just to play soccer or run races. Anyway, this debate seems to follow the next lines. The orthodox and traditional point of view of the Church towards the acceptance of gay Bishops has been that of rejection. In this sense, the Church seems to account for its posture having as pretext the same Bible, sacred and saint book which seems to condemn homosexuality for instance in (levitico 20: 13). On the other hand, there are gay groups who have been claiming for years on inclusion and no discrimination on the different spheres of our society. In this sense, the claim of gays is acceptable as they are fighting for their rights of integration. The controversy seems to arise in that the Episcopate rejects any form of gay behaviour and they have a good pretext for doing so, The Bible. So what we have here is a clash of believes. On the one hand, the Church attached to its traditional and dogmatical precepts precepts of The Bible. On the other hand, gay Bishops believing as any other ordinary person in their acceptance on some societal institutions, like the Church for instance. To my regret, I witnessed a situation of rejection towards an homosexual while being in my girlfriend's house some years ago and I felt pity not for the gay boy, but for the so narrow-minded mind of my brother in law, who had refused to eat a portion of cake that this boy had prepared to share with all of us as it was his birthday and had no relatives to whom celebrate with.
In my opinion, if you believe in The Holy Bible, you think it is true. If you practise a religion, you try to live your life according to its rules.
Now, it is difficult for me to think that practising Anglicans or Christians who are gays want to be bishops. Perhaps they create their new version of The Holy Bible or they omit what it says about homosexuality. Otherwise, I don’t understand how someone can preach about something that is opposite to everything he or she believes in.
In my opinion, although changes have been done, sexual disgregation is still present in many institutions nowadays. Religions are a clear example of this assertion. I am a Roman Catholic, though not very connected with the Church because of this reason mainly. While I respect sacraments and I believe in the existence of God I disagree with the secondary role always given to women and the idea of being so arcaic in the acceptance of changes in society. The main role of a woman is that of being a devote housewife growing up many children or homosexuals are still condemned. I do not agree with the idea of being one step behind a man or not having a religious election just for a sexual condition. So, I am on the opinion that any change related to inclusion or acceptance, not only in religion but also in any other aspect of life, is always welcome.
I strongly believe that what we are discussing here, it is the concept of possibility. Homosexual people are fighting to have the same rights as heterosexual people.I agree with Ruth when she says that she doesn´t think that practising Catholics or Anglicans who are gay want to become bishops. However, most of straight people wouldn´t consider the idea of being a bishop either, but they still have the chance of doing it.
Changes in Religion: a new form of belief, but no longer the same view.
From its origins, religion in any of its forms and beliefs has been a subject beyond criticism. Historically, the voice of the Curch has not admitted any criticism and its principles have rejected any kind of disgreement punishing those who differed with any of its principles with excommunication. Thus, dissenters who split from a certain religious belief - in this case from the Anglican Church - are in some way excommunicating themselves and necessarily stating the foundations of a different belief , as did Martin Luther when he created Protestantism. Thus, an provided that a branch of the Anglican Church accepts women and gay priests , it will no longer be Anglican but something different from the traditional Anglican Church- a new vision of a more liberal belief.
Hi, Cristina. Your comment is very interesting and very intelligent. However, the concept of liberal belief is ambiguous. In a primary sense, I agree with you that if the Anglican Church were to accept women and homosexuals, it will probably hold a new vision of a more liberal belief. In a secondary sense, religion, generally, has nothing to do with the liberalism of the mind in certain aspects. Imagine that if religion were to adopt a liberal mind, then certain behaviours could be naturalized like for instance adultery, condemned not only by the bible but penalized by law. In this sense, supposing a wife has a liberal, open-minded mind, as it is often called, so she decides to cheat her loyal husband, and viceversa. This is a type of behaviour proper of a liberal mind. Frankly speaking, I don't see the Church, whether Anglican or catholic, as accepting such things. Anyway, I understand that you referred of liberal belief in the sense of no discrimination. Bye. Nestor
If we look through the window history provides, we will notice that if there has been a reticent institution that would be the church - just as Cristina states. Consistency? Stubbornness? Call it they way your beliefs lead you to name it. We may widely differ on that. But I think most of us agree that, judging by precedents, if the church is to modify its principles, it would take - at least - a subdivision. And considering the alteration in question a mere subdivision seems rather implausible...
Check this.
OMG! That's something terrible, isn't it?! He's clearly out of his mind if he's even considering the idea of 'gayness warning' tattoos... Most probably heterosexual people is also evaluating of subdivisions right now...
I am an atheist so I have a different position about the possibility of being a priest because I think there are a lot of persons in church that are homosexuals and they have to hidden their sexual identity,to remain in the comunity. Some of them had commited sexual crimes using the name of their God, and they are still accepted. So church has to review the problem of sexuality in their staff. I think a good or bad person is not measured in the correct way only for his or her sexuality.
Post a Comment