So, women still can't be bishops.............

Defies logic doesn't it?

But the gay bishops have to repent of previous homosexual relationships and promise not to have any in future! That seems totally barbaric. Does the C of E. think that being gay is a lifestyle choice or do they believe that their all powerful God created people with a predisposition, (probably genetic) to be Gay?
If you do believe that Gays were created as such by God, how then can you believe that your "loving caring" God then torments them by forbidding them from having sexual relations which he designed them to want? It defies any logic.

I don't understand how a bishop can be gay as it is in the bible I believe, that the church does not acknowledge homosexuality..IMHO we should not judge anyone as it is not our job to do so.

"Judge not that he be not judged" eh? The whole thing is utterly ludicrous. And even if the Bible indicates that homosexuality should not be condoned, surely one has to take into account the culture in which it was written? A long time ago, in a different land..

If it were not so tragic for some people, it would be really amusing. The usual C of E fudge. Reminds me of the US rule for their Armed Forces - don't ask, don't tell. I wonder if gay bishops with a civil partnership are allowed to kiss or cuddle their partner?

The God I believe in is all accepting and all loving. You can't choose who you fall in love with - I have no problem with same sex marriage, gay bishops or female bishops.

The important thing is the message, not the messanger.

They're getting themselves in an almighty tangle now. I just heard a comment on Andrew Marr's programme, that the church is trying to keep in line with other countries. That's the church of England? What's stopping them from keeping in line with what's legal and acceptable to most reasonable people in England, then?

They're not allowed to have any physical contact other than that they would have with a non partner. It's a ridiculous situation brought about by trying to impose archaic rules on a modern society.

It has been argued that the only reason that the Jewish faith and subsequently its Christian offshoot banned homosexuality and female priests was because it was trying to set itself apart from other pagan faiths in which such things were accepted and/or played a role in worship. Think about the relationships between men in Sparta or the role of women in the Thesmorphoria or Haloa.

I hope I won't offend anybody, however the Church of England has always been a strange hybrid. Henry VIII was the 'defender of the faith' and totally opposed to any kind of Reformation. When he split from Rome, it was for money and power, possibly more than for the love of Ann Boleyn - as he was able to take all the riches, the property and the land from the Catholic Church. Which he promptly put in his coffers or re-distributed to his friends to buy loyalty and more.

At school I learnt that the Anglican Church was Protestant, but it was immediately clear to me on arrival in the UK, as it is to any foreign tourist visiting a service at St Paul's or King's college Cambridge, or the many High churches all over the land, that it is nothing of the sort. A Catholic Church without the Pope is a more accurate description.

fully agree Cheelu we must not judge.

The facts are sadly that homosexuals do not have any easy ride, and I firmly believe that it is extremely hard to be born this way. I have no wish to offend anyone. 2 friends of mine have homosexual sons and it is not an easy life for them. One friends husband finds it extremely hard to come to terms with.

We all say as long as our children are happy that is all that matters, but of course I supposed we prefer them to be "normal" whatever that is.

Society and indeed Biology is geared to heterosexual partnerships and I suppose there is a valid reason for that.

It can never be easy to be in the minority.

probalby made pigs ear of this!!

And what sort of a promise will become part of their swearing in ceremony? I'm thinking something along the lines of a cross between the scout promise and marriage vows, like, "I promise on my honour that me and Bri will live together under one roof but will not have it off together for as long as we both shall....."

It's ridiculous!

And how come they talked loads about the women bichops thing but casually slipped this in over the Xmas period? [confuse]

Talk about a right old mish-mash!

I will stop thinking about this now.

Maybe if women sincerely repent that they are women and promise not to behave like women in the future they can be elevated to a Bishopric?

Why does Monty Python come to mind?

What about transgender people?

Granny23

Granny23 you've cracked it! Do write to that synoddy thing. If you do you'd better sign it Grandad23 then they'll take you seriously.

celebgran I would like to think that if a child of mine was gay my biggest worry would be the possibility of what they may suffer from the prejudices of others.

Is there no one out there who can enlighten me about the standard C of E point of view on the issues I raised in my post late on Saturday night.

I genuinely want to know how their doctrine sees this issue.

Nelliemoser I think the current stance the C of E takes is that it sympathises, and welcomes in it's congregation - and now ministry, anyone who is gay. However, they still judge homosexuality to be it sinful. I think the hierarchy would tolerate a church member practising it, but bishops have to be above "sin".

That is not my view. Just how I think the church sees it. From what I can gather.

Ana FGS leave transgender people out of it! It's complicated enough as it is!

Granny23, I think you may have found the answer !

Well, I was just wondering how they'd explain their reasoning in such cases...
Would it depend upon the birth gender determination or the chosen one?