[quote=Cherub]Remember that no magisterium or code can prevent anyone from any sort of sinful behavior. There are no sinless bishops. So what is the difference in ordaining an openly gay bishop and one who “identifies himself” as same-sex attracted but claims to be celibate (which is how Rome chooses to handle it, by the way)?
If a bishop can be a liar, a blasphemer, a thief, or an adulterer/fornicator, then it would seem that banishing someone from God’s service for any one other sin is hypocritical. I believe this is the position of the ECUSA at least. But to say that the gay man who feels he has been called to God’s service should not be allowed to serve because of his sin is to say that no one can serve.
Cherub - this act of allowing an openly gay bishop opens doors the many other things within the Episcopal church…like I said, this man has already taken a FIRM stand on Choice…says what he loves about the church is that it actually trusts adults to be adults…duh? aren’t most abortions performed on very young girls? Then compared his story of “coming out of the closet” so to speak, to the Passover story!
There are many many ways that God can call you to service…but I think Gene Robinson has a personal agenda and is using his position as Bishop for personal gain…not to serve God. IMO!
Then you must ask…okay…if Gene Robinson was just living with a woman…had children by her (thus making obvious they are having sexual relations) would the Episcopal Church allow him to be Bishop then? I would think not, because the Episcopal chuch believes in the sacrament of marriage between a man and woman…but it is okay for him to be “openly” gay? Is this not the same thing?
Yes, sin is sin. But knowly and openly letting everyone know that you are living a life of sin and then adminster the sacraments anyway…