If a priest is celibate, what reason is their to block his election to bishophood?

[sp1814]

I'm no expert, but I believe the only strictures in the Bible are against sodomy...the act, rather than gays/lesbians specifically.

So if the Rev Jeffrey John is in a committed, but celibate civil partnership, on what basis can the church block his election to higher office?

http://www.dailymail....n-Dean-St-Albans.html

Shouldn't it be 'best man for the job'?

[jackthehat]

Perhaps they are worried that one night when he's dropped one too many 'E's' at G.A.Y, he'll climb into bed with his partner and they'll no longer be a celibate couple?

Who knows what goes on in the small minds of those people terrified of homosexuals?

[Old_Geezer]

I guess they only have his word that he is not committing the act of abomination before the Lord. And if he did then he'd hardly be the best man for the job ?

[d9f1c7]

I suspect the rules exclude those who are in a relationship, full stop. I can't see them letting a non Gay married priest progress on the basis that he says his relationship is celibate either. Not sure about non civil partnership/marrage situations but I'd imagine the existance of some sort of relationship is an excluding factor.

[naomi24]

The article doesn't actually give a reason - it just says he was rejected - so we don't know whether his sexual orientation influenced the decision or not. It could be that he's not considered to be the right man for the job. It seems the DM has used the word 'blocked' - but the outcome of any legal process should be interesting.

[sp1814]

Old_Geezer - too true, but at some point, you have to take people's word...and I reckon I'd take a priest at his word.

naomi24 - the strange thing is he was appointed the Bishop of Reading in 2003, but had to stand down after complaints from some Anglican leaders.

It's a difficult one, but the Church is either going to have to say, "We will openly discriminate against gays, even if they're celibate" or bite the bullet and open its doors.

I would hate to be the Archbishop Of Canterbury right now.

[Postdog]

Priests don't actually do sodomy? Hmmm, from what I've read in the papers over the years I don't think that is universal.

[jomifl]

I wouldn't take a priest at his word, there is only one 'truth' they understand and even this has a dubious provenance.

[B00]

".and I reckon I'd take a priest at his word. "

You HAVE to be kidding....right?

[seadogg]

Human nature being what it is, there is bound to be some sniggering and sniping which could undermine his role as a bishop. For all we know the "blockers" might be trying to protect him and the office from this type of attack.

[naomi24]

SP, It seems the church has clarified its legal position since then.

http://www.telegraph....penly-gay-bishop.html

[sp1814]

naomi24

Ah but that link suggests that the fact that the Rev Jeffrey John's sexuality should be no bar to his bishopric!

Will be interesting to see if the church finds another way of blocking his ascension.

[dzug2]

He can't be the 'right man for the job' if his appointment is unacceptable to a considerable part of the church

[naomi24]

SP, //but that link suggests that the fact that the Rev Jeffrey John's sexuality should be no bar to his bishopric! //

Exactly - which is why rather than making assumptions we should wait for a reason to be given.

[sandyRoe]

Is there an element of church politics involved? Are the sophisticates in the UK trying to placate their more bigoted colleagues in Africa?

[RATTER15]

The Bible says gays should be stoned to death.

[andy-hughes]

From what I can gather, a clergyman wishing to be a bishop is required to formally aplogise for his previous activities if he is gay - which is somewhat rich given that Christian clergy are responsible for some of the most reprehensible behaviour known to mankind!

I find it hard to understand why any gay man - or woman - would want to be involved in any way with such a bigotted reactionary closed-minded self-righteous predjudiced and deeply unpleasant organisation as the hierarchy of organised religion.

To cow-tow to this notion of apologising to anyone for being what you are in order to be rewarded with a higher position makes a mockery of the freedom of expression and equality in society that gay people have fought long and hard for.

I would have admiration Rev. John if he told the hierarchy that God accepts him for who and what he is - and if they cannot, then he can no longer be a member of their church.

[naomi24]

I don't know the answer, but it seems rather ironic to me that usually when someone links to a story in the Daily Mail, people say it can't be believed - and yet if the report suits their purpose, they have no hesitation in taking it as 'gospel'. Just a thought.

[sp1814]

RATTER15

No, I don't think that's right - doesn't the Bible condemn sodomites?

You know that sodomite and gays are actually synonyms?

[sp1814]

naomi24

Oh I know what you mean - the Daily Mail generally spins stories with the energy of the Labour party in the 90s!

However, I've checked this story out on a gay news site and found that the Mail have pretty much reported this one accurately (always best to get verification whenever the Mail publishes a story about Muslims, gays or things that can give you cancer...which is everything apparently).

[naomi24]

SP, when you say the gay news site confirms this story is reported accurately, I assume they've said that, like the Daily Mail, they don't know the reason the church turned this man down for the job.