flourish, ‘What now the future of the Society/Forward in Faith? Facilitated convergence with Affirming Catholicism?’ What an unfortunate irony? Affirming Catholicismbegan as


Pro-gay and pro-matrimony I


share with Stephen Keeble his desire for clear teaching on ‘marriage and sexuality’ [ND May], but am worried by his own confusions. He ended his article with this rhetorical


a small group of liberal theologians grouped around Rowan Williams, Jeffrey John, Richard Holloway. It has never achieved wide support among the laity. But big gains among male clergy came in the mid-Nineties thanks to FiF’s perceived homophobia. As one who was working in Greater London at that time, I


believe that FiF all but created AC as an significant grouping, by its failure to give any clear


support to gay clergy. It is not so much that it said anything wrong; rather, it allowed an impression to be shared (through the pages of ND, for example) that it agreed with the much harder line of the conservative evangelicals. I truly believe that FiF’s implicit (unintentional?)


Nicholas Turner was disturbed by Stephen Keeble’s article and continues to support the Bishops of The Society


am not sure. I accept that liberals are obsessed with sex, and much of value has come from that, but I am not sure the rest of us have to be. Maybe it’s ’cos I’m old, but what people do under the duvet, whether they be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or heterosexual, is of no real interest; it is certainly not a top concern. Our real concern should be for Holy Matrimony, in full


accord with Canon B 30. A proper church wedding is a wonderful evangelistic tool. As a means of bringing non- churched young people to the Gosel, it is more valuable than almost anything else; and this is because of, not despite, its weight, tradition and seriousness. In this regard, yes, there is a huge difference between ourselves and the liberals. So let us continue to insist on the


being anti-gay does absolutely nothing to support the traditional Christian understanding of marriage


homophobia alienated many priests who might otherwise have stayed faithful to the tradition in those uncertain years. I fear that Fr Keeble’s article may only repeat that process.


Provocative Te Society’s bishops’ statement, which he so objects to, gave


clear support to ‘the Scriptures and tradition of the Church’ and upheld ‘the Christian doctrine of marriage as set out in the liturgy and canons of the Church of England’. As a brief, holding statement, what else should it have said? Fr Keeble’s long quotation from the Catechism of the


Catholic Church was both provocative and disingenuous. Provocative, because it introduced an apparent condemnation of homosexual acivity that has no direct relevance to the current debates about marriage and blessings. Disingenuous, because it implicitly confused two very different approaches to moral theology. Te Catholic Catechism is a logically constructed complete


whole (as those who entered the Ordinariate were required to acknowledge). Te part he cited cannot be understood without proper reference to other asects of Catholic sexual teaching. Te Church of England’s moral theology is easier to quote from, being based on the Anglo-Saxon empirical model. Tere are advantages and disadvantages to both, but to quote from the former as though it were like the later was simply wrong; it was certainly deceiving, being unfair both to the Catholic Church and to sexually acive homosexuals.


Our real concern Te Piling Report on human sexuality needs to be studied,


and this will take time. How far that study should extend, I June 2014 ■ newdirections ■ 29


traditional understanding and importance of matrimony. And then, at the same time, let us be generous to any same-sex couples, clergy or laity, who wish to avail


themselves of what the state now offers. No, it is not ‘real’ marriage (even the Mariage Act acknowledges that!) but, if you can remember only a decade ago, it looks remarkably like what the Christian peers were asking for when civil partnerships were first debated in the Lords.


Full support I hope that our bishops will continue to uphold Scripture,


tradition and marriage, as they have declared they will. I also hope that, carefully and irenically, they will allow, and support, clergy same-sex couples to enter an equal civil marriage (note: this is not the ‘same-sex marriage’ referred to in the rather confusing House of Bishops’ Statement). Why does this mater? Because the so-called gay issue is a


totem of our time. Do nothing, and it will be presumed that our support for the Christian understanding of marriage means we are anti-gay. Why does this mater to me? Because the Anglo-Catholic tradition relied, and still relies, on a disproportionate number of gay priests (pracising or non- pracising? not interested). I would not be who I am without the commitment and sacrifice of gay colleagues. Tey deserve full support if and when they wish to take up their rights under law. Full support.


An honourable position Being anti-gay does absolutely nothing to support the


traditional Christian understanding of marriage. If liberals are (I exaggerate a litle) pro-gay and anti-matrimony; if conservative evangelicals are anti-gay and pro-matrimony; why cannot we, as Anglo-Catholics, be pro-gay and pro- matrimony? To me, this is the most honourable Christian position.


ND


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36