Two Episcopal Bishops of Mass. Violate Vows on Front Page of Boston Globe as They Rebuke Catholic Church and Glorify Homosexuality

Eyebrows Raised Among Other Episcopal Leaders

Sidebar: Cowley Brothers Respond with Clarification

By Geraldine A. Hawkins
January 13, 2003

When a Vatican spokesman suggested recently that the Roman Catholic Church has been too easygoing about ordaining homosexuals, the two chief bishops in the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts expressed their personal opinions on the front page of The Boston Globe that this "could lead to hate crimes in the United States."

But the two Episcopalians also raised many eyebrows in their own church by writing: "We reject the exclusion of any person from holy orders on the basis of sexual orientation." This was printed on the op-ed page of The Boston Globe the very next day after the Vatican statement, with a prominent box about it at the top of page one. It was written by the Rt. Revs. M. Thomas Shaw and Bud Cederholm.

What upset the Episcopal bishops was the decision by the Vatican on Dec. 9 to publish a letter by Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez that said: "Ordination to the Diaconate or the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

The bishops commented in their op-ed piece: "We also object to articles that leave unquestioned and even perpetuate the idea that there is a relationship between pedophilia and gay sexual orientation. Suggestions that gays molest children lead to homophobia and create a dangerous atmosphere in which hate crimes flourish. They are irresponsible. The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts has been enriched by the ministry of gay and lesbian priests and deacons, some of whom are celibate and some of whom are committed to faithful relationships."

Wait a Minute!

"Wait a minute," say other Episcopalians. So MassNews questioned James Solheim, press officer for the Episcopal Church Center in New York City, who had been deputized to answer an inquiry MassNews sent to Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of Episcopal Church, USA. "According to Scripture," we asked, "isn't sex appropriate only within the marriage covenant?"

"Yes, but ." answered Solhiem.

"'Yes, but what?'" MassNews replied. "People are asking if Scripture does not set the guidelines for the church, what does? The culture?"

"The culture influences the church's position, of course," answered Solheim. But when MassNews responded that many others say it is the church that should be influencing the culture, Solheim said: "I am not the one to debate this with you."

One who would like to debate it is traditionalist Anglican journalist David Virtue. He tells MassNews. "Scripture gives no authority for non-marital relationships, committed or otherwise," To take the position of Shaw and Cederholm is to jettison "two thousand years of Christian teaching," he says. To practice homosexuality is "to break the fundamental law that God made male and female and never had cause to re-write the sexual matrix. The Church derives its authority from Holy Scripture." The position taken by the Episcopal Bishops of Massachusetts is "incomprehensible."

Retired Bishop Shows that Mass. Bishops Are Tiny Minority

A retired Episcopal Bishop, the Rt. Rev. C. Fitzsimmons Allison, tells MassNews, "The Episcopal Church has not officially changed its position that sexual intimacy is appropriate only within the bonds of man and woman. The Lambeth Conference [a gathering in England of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part] that happens every ten years voted in 1998 by a vote of 540 to 70 to denounce any change that would give approval to homosexuality. Shaw and his suffragen, Barbara Harris [now retired and replaced by another female priest, Gayle Harris, no relation] voted with the 70," Allison said. "Shaw and Cederholm are very much in a minority and misrepresenting the Anglican position, aside from having the presumption and arrogance to chide the Catholic Church. There is nothing honorable or honest about it."

Allison tells MassNews: "Shaw is a member of the Cowley Brothers, and they have changed their vows after over a hundred years from 'poverty, chastity, and obedience' to 'poverty, celibacy, and obedience' - 'celibacy' being interpreted to mean 'not being married,' which is a euphemism for sodomy.

"These two bishops aren't in a position even to begin the repentance that the Vatican is attempting, and it is absolutely outrageous for them to chide the Roman Catholic Church. They are trying to build a firewall between homosexuality and pederasty, but the victims [in the Roman Catholic church scandals] are overwhelmingly adolescent boys!"

Bishop Allison tells MassNews that Shaw and Cederholm "are violating the first promise both of them made when they were ordained as deacons," namely to uphold the faith, doctrine and practice of the church.

Episcopal Court Was Inconclusive

However, according to a 1996 decision of the "Court for the Trial of a Bishop," the Rt. Rev. Walter Righter, retired Episcopal Bishop of Iowa, did not violate church law or "core doctrine" when he ordained a non-celibate homosexual man as a deacon. The court stated that it did not find "sufficient clarity in the church's teaching at the present time concerning the morality of same sex relationships."

A "presentment" had been brought against Bishop Righter by the required one-fourth of the Episcopal House of Bishops, and the case was referred to the ecclesiastical court of nine bishops.

On May 15, 1996, a seven to one majority of these bishops ruled that only "core doctrine" about Christ's resurrection is automatically protected by the canon on teaching false doctrine. Righter's attorney, Michael Rehill, said at the time: "What the court said today is, there is no restraint on the right and power of a bishop to ordain [non-celibate homosexuals]. It's not saying it's okay; it's saying it's not illegal." ("Court Dismisses Charges Against Bishop Walter Righter Over Ordination Of Homosexual," by James H. Thrall, Episcopal News Service, May 24, 1996). The attorney said that the decision cleared the way for more ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals without establishing it as the policy of the Episcopal Church.

"The policy is rather vague," press officer Solheim tells MassNews. "Attempts to write this into canon law have not succeeded," he says. Bishop Allison attributes this ambiguity to "the irresponsibility of the whole House of Bishops."

Allison tells MassNews that the pro-homosexual faction within the Episcopal Church claims that St. Paul "didn't know about genetics. They maintain that he is not talking about true homosexuals, but about heterosexuals committing homosexual acts." Allison says this theory is "exploded" in The Bible and Homosexuality: Text and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon (Abingdon Press, 2001), which Allison cites as "the definitive treatment of the subject."

David Virtue, whose internet newspaper "Virtuosity" chronicles controversies in the Anglican Communion, maintains that in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, the Apostle Paul is referring to "lifestyles, behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness and greater watchfulness -- with God's help -- against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, who believed that for Christians there was not great harm in them.

"These habits are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lie at their heart.

"Those who claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection. Paul's phrase, 'men who practice homosexuality' covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, 'arsenokoitai,' means literally 'male-bedders,' which seems clear enough. The second, 'malakoi, is used in many connections to mean 'unmanly,' 'womanish,' and 'effeminate,' and here refers to males matching the woman's part of physical sex.

"In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behavior, which has more recently been called 'acting out.' His point is that Christians need to resist these areas, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence.

"Paul is saying that those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do, find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience, acceptance with God, and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience. As a preacher friend of mine declared to his congregation, 'I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer.' Thus he testified to receiving strength from God."

The second contention of the pro-gay contingent, according to Bishop Allison, is that "it was made clear to Peter in a dream that all things are clean," a reference to Acts 10: 10-16. "It makes a kind of diabolical sense," says Allison.

Bishops Claim that Priests Were Not Homosexuals

"Please note that the primary message of our article was that pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality," Kenneth Arnold, Director of Media Relations for the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, tells MassNews. "In other words, our message was intended to clarify the difference between a disease [pedophilia] and sexual orientation. That is what matters most, that people not be stigmatized by prejudice."

But Dr. Timothy Dailey of the Family Research Council writes, "There remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners."

To which Arnold replies: "Well, there is no question that some homosexual men are attracted to young, underage men, and have sexual relations with them, just as there are some heterosexual men who have the same problem. Men who molest male children (under the age of ten, for example) are often heterosexual in their adult relationships, according to many studies. This is a disease that is not related to sexual preference, although one might find both hetero- and homosexual people molesting children.

"To reject gays as priests is to confuse the issue, and I have only to point to our own church to make the case: the Episcopal Church has a LOT of gay and lesbian priests but we have virtually NO problem with pedophilia or homosexual men engaged in sex with adolescent boys. We do have a lot of heterosexual misconduct between clergy and adult parishioners. Should we not ordain heterosexual men?"

Bishop Cederholm, who is married (unlike Bishop Shaw, who is a Cowley Brother), refused to answer inquiries by MassNews, instead using Arnold as his amanuensis.

Arnold tells MassNews: "Our concern here is that we not make judgments about people as a group as potential criminals based on their personal characteristics or preferences when the evidence to support such judgments is not there. That would be wrong."

Arnold referred to a December 17, 2002 broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor" in which Bishop Steven Charleston, president of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, was interviewed about the op-ed piece and "made the strong case that the issue is abuse of power," says Arnold. "And even O'Reilly agreed that the church should not make gays a scapegoat, even though he asserted without proof that homosexuals in the Roman Catholic Church are the cause of pedophilia - and he was irresponsible in doing that."

Bishop Allison cites a June 17, 2002 essay in The Weekly Standard entitled "The Elephant in the Sacristy" by Mary Eberstadt, which outlines the attempt by the mainstream press and liberals in the church to deny the obvious by claiming that the scandals are about everything but homosexuality.

To illustrate what he finds especially disturbing, Allison quoted French philosopher Michel Foucault to the effect that "sodomy used to be an aberration; now, it is a species."

"To tell a 16-year-old boy that he is a 'third thing,' and that it is unchangeable, is a wicked, sinister, cruel thing," Allison tells MassNews. "I've lived a good deal of my life in England, where the public [preparatory] schools, such as Eton and Harrow, are notorious for what they call 'buggery,' but then the boys graduate and leave that behind. The idea that once you've had a homosexual experience, you've somehow discovered 'who you are' is absolutely wicked, sinister and cruel."

Sidebar:
Cowley Brothers Respond with Clarification

The Cowley Brothers responded to a query with this letter. Before you read it, you may want to know the dictionary definitions of "chaste" and "celibate."

Chaste: Not indulging in unlawful sexual activity; virtuous: said especially of women.
Celibate: A person who has taken a vow to remain unmarried. One who is sexually abstinent.

Dear Ms. Hawkins:

Thank you for contacting us for a clarification about our own life and vows. We live as a community of brothers, a number of whom are ordained. (The title "Cowley Father" was dropped about 16 years ago and since then, irrespective of our ordination status, we are addressed as brothers.) Approximately thirty years ago the community elected to change the vow of "chastity" to the vow of "celibacy." The community understood, and understands, that those who live under the vows of marriage or in dedicated partnership live under a vow of chastity, i.e., faithfulness to this one other. Our understanding of celibacy is rigorous. In our Rule of Life three chapters are given over to this vow. (The three chapters are reproduced below.) It saddens us to hear the interpretation of the retired bishop whom you quote; this is certainly not our understanding of the integrity and discipline of this vow.

If we may be of further help, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,
Curtis Almquist, SSJE
Superior