It is no surprise that while the US Supreme Court is debating same sex marriage my post Hypocrisy and Gay Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, from nearly a year ago, has been attracting readers. Kurt Willems has also pointed readers to an old post of his making a similar point in an even more attention-grabbing way: Sign My Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Divorce!

I’m not sure what to add now, except that I agree with Joel Watts that

individual morality is not an issue the State should decide… If two consenting adults wish to engage in a commitment to one another … then so be it.

Meanwhile a friend of mine who was in a same sex marriage is hurting because she and her wife have ended their relationship. I hope she can find divorce equality if she needs it.

A very different post from my last one, but again about a Cardinal. This is intended to be the first of a series, which I may be able to continue tomorrow if we have the forecast snow but don’t lose power.

The Departure of a Cardinal

In response to the resignation of Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the BBC asks, Is it even possible to live a celibate life? On 22nd February Cardinal O’Brien raised this question, in the context of the celibacy required of Roman Catholic priests, in a BBC interview:

I realise that many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy as they lived out their priesthood and felt the need of a companion, of a woman, to whom they could get married and raise a family of their own.

It was the very next day, 23rd February, that accusations of “inappropriate acts” by O’Brien, with three priests and a former priest, were made public and reported in The Observer. Two days later O’Brien was forced to resign. He later admitted that

there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.

Now this raises questions of what dirty tricks might have been behind the timing of these allegations, forcing O’Brien out days before he was due to vote in the election for a new Pope, and so soon after he had hinted at what kind of candidate he might prefer. But my point here is not to discuss that, but to consider what the story might have to teach us about a Christian attitude towards sex and sexual orientation.

Is Keith O’Brien Gay?

A more significant question raised by these events concerns Cardinal O’Brien’s sexual orientation, if that is a meaningful concept. Is he in fact sexually attracted to primarily to men? To put it bluntly, is he gay? Has he tried to suppress this, but without complete success? Does he think it would have been easier to suppress this sexual preference if he had been married?

According to Wikipedia, O’Brien was at one time “regarded as “liberal” on the issue of homosexuality”. But by 2012 he was in the public eye as an outspoken opponent of same sex marriage, and the gay rights group Stonewall gave him their “Bigot of the Year” award. If the Cardinal is in fact gay, then I am sure such groups would also consider him for a hypocrite of the year award. But it would need a careful look at what he actually said before deciding if such an award would be fair.

Alternatively, the Cardinal may not actually be gay at all. Maybe he is attracted primarily to women, and could have been genuinely happy as a husband and father. But as a young man confined in an all male seminary and forbidden even to masturbate, he might have been driven by testosterone to inappropriate acts towards the only people who were available, his male students. If so, it would seem that enforced celibacy led him into what his church considers a greater sin than marriage, or masturbation: homosexual activity.

Whatever his natural sexual inclinations, surely the young priest quickly regretted those inappropriate acts. Very likely he came to hate them, and fear them being revealed, and that might well have fuelled a more general negative attitude towards same sex attraction and marriage.

Anyway, unless O’Brien chooses to reveal more himself, it is unlikely that we will ever know his true sexual preferences. And that is probably for the best. I would just say that it is sad that his distinguished career ended in this way, and wish him a long and happy retirement from public life.

Celibacy and Gay Bishops

While the Roman Catholic Church requires celibacy of its priests, with a very few exceptions, the Church of England can be said to require celibacy only of those who are homosexual. …

To be continued.

Daniel Kirk (no relation) writes an interesting post Regarding Amendment 1in North Carolina. It is interesting not only to people in North Carolina, or who consider it home, but to Christians worldwide, and especially here in the UK where moves to legalise same sex marriage are under consideration. This is because the core of the proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment is as follows:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

Daniel’s response to this is simple:

You don’t have to vote for Amendment 1, even if you don’t think God approves of homosexual behavior.

And this is the basis of his reasoning:

We have a responsibility to guard the morality of the church in a way that God has not given us responsibility to guard the morality of the entire world. …

When we hold positions for reasons that are clearly and fundamentally religious positions, we must take extra care not to impose these on our non-Christian neighbors–if, in fact, we would love them with our religious convictions in the same way we would have them love us with theirs.

In other words, as Christians we should not be seeking to impose our own moral standards on the world. If we try to do so, we are not showing Christian love to our unbelieving neighbours.

I agree. In fact I would take this a little further than Daniel does explicitly. If we seek to impose our moral standards on outsiders, we give them the impression that the Christian faith is a matter of obeying rules. That is a complete denial of the gospel proclamation to unbelievers, which should be that God loves them and gives them his grace even while they are still living sinful lives. As Craig Groeschel writes today for the Huffington Post, Rules Create Toxic Religion. And the sin of a homosexual relationship is no worse in God’s eyes than the sin of showing self-righteousness and of misrepresenting the gospel.

The issues here in the UK are rather different from those in North Carolina. Here we already have civil partnerships for same sex couples, and there is no question of abolishing them. So the human rights argument Daniel presents is not really applicable here. The pressure for allowing full same sex marriage seems to be coming more from the political correctness lobby than from the gay and lesbian community. So I will not come out in support of the government’s same sex marriage proposals. But I think Daniel has also given me good reasons not to oppose them.

In a post Leftist Ideology and Heterophobia in Biblical Studies Jim West writes:

I find it passing curious that leftist ideologues who regularly smear anyone and everyone who raises legitimate questions about the theological propriety of homosexuality are not themselves treated to the same campaign. …

Furthermore, what’s even more interesting here is the fact that the constant demonization of the views of others by the use of derogatory labels is part and parcel of an awful lot of discussions these days.  …

It’s easy to call someone a homophobe; it’s not quite so easy to show, from a biblical and theological point of view, that homosexuality is a legitimate demonstration of being human.

Well said, Jim. As I wrote in my post How to Ask Churches to Accept Homosexuality as Normal,

the only way for the gay community to win over evangelical churches is by convincing them with biblical arguments,

and name calling is counter-productive as well as wrong.

There has been quite a lot in the news today about an advertisement which Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust proposed to run on London buses:

Cranmer gives a detailed report, and notes, with a reference to David Cameron’s Easter message, that

these plucky Christians are merely doing what the Prime Minister exhorted them to do: ‘ fight back’.

But Cranmer has not as yet reported the latest development, for news of which I thank Stuart James. He writes that

Transport of London have just Tweeted:

Anglican Mainstream ad just brought to our attention and will not run on London’s bus or transport networks

And:

We don’t believe these ads reflect TfL’s commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London

It seems that Boris Johnson, who is campaigning for re-election as Mayor of London, spoke out against the ad – as did his two main opponents in the election, according to the gay news service Pink News. It is not clear whether it was this intervention that led Transport for London to drop the ad. Johnson is reported as saying:

London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.

Well, Mr Johnson, your language points out the problem: London is tolerant of anything except what it labels as “intolerance”. The proposed ad says nothing intolerant of gays. It certainly does not “suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from”. But the gay lobby sees its very existence threatened by the suggestion that people might be able to change their sexual orientation. So it tries to silence the voices making this suggestion by making entirely spurious accusations that they are anti-gay and so intolerant, which means that London has to be intolerant of them.

Yes, Mr Johnson, this is an issue of tolerance. It is one of refusing to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You are slandering and discriminating against people who identify themselves as previously gay and now straight. You are breaking the rules in your own authority’s Code of Conduct, which explicitly apply to you as Mayor:

Respect for Others

You should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their … sexual orientation …

Now I don’t want to be seen as promoting the post-gay cause. I don’t know if the controversial treatment to turn gay people straight actually works. I’m not sure that the strategy of Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust is a good one. But I want to defend the right of people to identify themselves as post-gay and publicise their existence, just as I defend the right of people to identify themselves as gay and publicise their existence.

It seems to be politically correct to attempt to change one’s gender by hormone therapy and “gender reassignment surgery”, and ethical for doctors to offer these treatments for people who want them. Why is it considered so politically incorrect to attempt to change one’s sexual orientation, and unethical for doctors to offer therapy which might cause such a change?

There has been quite a lot in the news today about an advertisement which Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust proposed to run on London buses:

Cranmer gives a detailed report, and notes, with a reference to David Cameron’s Easter message, that

these plucky Christians are merely doing what the Prime Minister exhorted them to do: ‘ fight back’.

But Cranmer has not as yet reported the latest development, for news of which I thank Stuart James. He writes that

Transport of London have just Tweeted:

Anglican Mainstream ad just brought to our attention and will not run on London’s bus or transport networks

And:

We don’t believe these ads reflect TfL’s commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London

It seems that Boris Johnson, who is campaigning for re-election as Mayor of London, spoke out against the ad – as did his two main opponents in the election, according to the gay news service Pink News. It is not clear whether it was this intervention that led Transport for London to drop the ad. Johnson is reported as saying:

London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.

Well, Mr Johnson, your language points out the problem: London is tolerant of anything except what it labels as “intolerance”. The proposed ad says nothing intolerant of gays. It certainly does not “suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from”. But the gay lobby sees its very existence threatened by the suggestion that people might be able to change their sexual orientation. So it tries to silence the voices making this suggestion by making entirely spurious accusations that they are anti-gay and so intolerant, which means that London has to be intolerant of them.

Yes, Mr Johnson, this is an issue of tolerance. It is one of refusing to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You are slandering and discriminating against people who identify themselves as previously gay and now straight. You are breaking the rules in your own authority’s Code of Conduct, which explicitly apply to you as Mayor:

Respect for Others

You should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their … sexual orientation …

Now I don’t want to be seen as promoting the post-gay cause. I don’t know if the controversial treatment to turn gay people straight actually works. I’m not sure that the strategy of Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust is a good one. But I want to defend the right of people to identify themselves as post-gay and publicise their existence, just as I defend the right of people to identify themselves as gay and publicise their existence.

It seems to be politically correct to attempt to change one’s gender by hormone therapy and “gender reassignment surgery”, and ethical for doctors to offer these treatments for people who want them. Why is it considered so politically incorrect to attempt to change one’s sexual orientation, and unethical for doctors to offer therapy which might cause such a change?