tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post14812393819345034..comments2024-03-19T08:14:09.776+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: 'Collegiality' on sexualityAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-37793155247886778872012-03-16T12:35:04.156+01:002012-03-16T12:35:04.156+01:00Great post, what you said is really helpful to me....Great post, what you said is really helpful to me. I can't agree with you anymore. I have been talking with my friend about, he though it is really interesting as well.steroids shophttp://www.massroids.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-80969779778301919882012-02-21T17:50:59.560+01:002012-02-21T17:50:59.560+01:00Hi John
The extract is from the Presidential Addr...Hi John<br /><br />The extract is from the Presidential Address and you can see all of it here: <br />http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/whos-who/bishops/the-bishop-of-salisbury<br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-44002752429436538422012-02-21T14:44:48.995+01:002012-02-21T14:44:48.995+01:00John, clearly you were correct to raise this issue...John, clearly you were correct to raise this issue, and you did so in an appropriate and responsible manner. <br /><br />I note Canon Godsall in a series of posts strongly suggested that you were not entitled to raise the issue, and that you were (for reasons unclear) precluded from raising the issue publicly until you had first raised it with +Holtam privately. These arguments were obviously untenable - the initial report was public, and the onus lay on +Holtam to publicly refute it, if in fact it was incorrect. <br /><br />The implications of this issue go far beyond English shores - it was noticed here in Australia also, and no doubt in myriad other places that have Anglican bishops.<br /><br />The issue has now been defused in the only way that it could have been defused: By +Holtam publicly clarifying that he will conform to the practice of the Church of England.MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-22835598949230882872012-02-21T13:14:29.125+01:002012-02-21T13:14:29.125+01:00Sorry - Andrew, I am searcing the Salisbury websit...Sorry - Andrew, I am searcing the Salisbury website for that announcement and cannot find it. Do you have a link and could you copy it here please? The previous link I provided was to a different and earlier statement.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34735783119803979192012-02-21T13:01:26.550+01:002012-02-21T13:01:26.550+01:00Thanks Andrew, I knew a statement was coming, but ...Thanks Andrew, I knew a statement was coming, but it wasn't up yesterday.<br /><br />I'm not sure if this should be read as collegiality restored, or collegiality never broken, but it looks a lot like 'Article XX' collegiality nevertheless.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-83884144524291551362012-02-21T12:32:20.381+01:002012-02-21T12:32:20.381+01:00P.S Not sure when the folllowing appeared on the D...P.S Not sure when the folllowing appeared on the Diocese of Salisbury website but it might answer a lot of your question John: <br /><br />The Bishop of Salisbury Presidential Address, 18 Feb 2012<br />I am sorry my comments about same sex relationships got such elevated treatment by The Times, when reporting a small part of a wider interview. I hope I got the tone and content clearer in the subsequent interview for BBC Radio 4’s Sunday Programme. When Civil Partnerships were introduced in 2005, I thought their distinction from heterosexual marriage was helpful. They are an important support to faithful love, and faithful love is a distinctive mark of Christianity because it reflects God’s love of us.<br /><br />Because the quality and nature of some Civil Partnerships is similar, possibly the same as for married couples, I have come to see that the rapidly adopted name “gay marriage” may be appropriate. As we know, the Government begins its consultation about this next month and that they have already explicitly exempted religious communities from being forced to accept the conduct of homosexual marriage in addition to heterosexual marriage.<br /><br />In saying what I did, I am trying to create the space for an honest conversation. We have no option but to recognise our context is changing and that we are talking about people, some of whom are within the life of the Church; that we are talking about ‘us’, not ‘them’. <br /><br />For the avoidance of doubt, the position of the Church of England, House of Bishops and Diocese of Salisbury has not changed. There are no authorised services of blessing for same sex partnerships and it is not possible for Civil Partnerships to take place in Church of England churches. I will, of course, keep to the Church’s discipline whilst hoping that we find opportunity to explore the issues which divide us.<br /><br />Last Tuesday I met with the Bishop of Sherborne, the Archdeacon of Dorset and 10 clergy who had written expressing their concerns about my reported comments and a short note of that meeting is being drawn up and I will put a statement on the Diocesan web site.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-60392082504349350462012-02-21T12:08:46.013+01:002012-02-21T12:08:46.013+01:00Thanks John...I am glad you spotted that and I am ...Thanks John...I am glad you spotted that and I am smiling whilst drinking my coffee!<br /><br />But surely it's much more a point about integrity. We can't argue for collegiality on one topic whilst completely ignoring it on another. That said, we all have our 'hobby horses' and I'm no better or worse in that regard. <br />I'm happy to disagree collegially with you......and thanks, as ever, for your collegiality in allowing me to comment. <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-35160569593408110602012-02-21T12:01:59.647+01:002012-02-21T12:01:59.647+01:00Rather amusingly, regarding the above comment of m...Rather amusingly, regarding the above comment of mine, I think my first point about Andrew's first point is itself a 'tu quoque' argument like Andrew's second point! (Suckered!)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-23826503429056242982012-02-21T11:40:43.030+01:002012-02-21T11:40:43.030+01:00Andrew, your first point may or may not be true, b...Andrew, your first point may or may not be true, but certainly Bishop Holtam did not contact his clergy before saying what he did to The Times.<br /><br />Your last point would be a <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html" rel="nofollow">'tu quoque'</a> argument.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-4581582845376846352012-02-21T11:33:07.881+01:002012-02-21T11:33:07.881+01:00No one seems to have had the courtesy to write to ...No one seems to have had the courtesy to write to Bishop Ncholas about this do they..... <br />So - is it the case that we just need to be collegial about sexuality, but are free to disregard collegality concerning other matters - especially those about which the 39 Articles are pretty clear?<br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterAndrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-20696549855501053232012-02-21T11:26:21.535+01:002012-02-21T11:26:21.535+01:00Andrew, in answer to your last question, both bish...Andrew, in answer to your last question, both bishops have spoken publicly. Moreover, Bishop Kings <i>was</i> <a href="http://www.davidould.net/index.php?/blog/comments/bishops_breaking_collegiality_what_could_cause_the_rift" rel="nofollow">approached directly</a> on just this topic, and has answered the direct question put to him. I did not think my repeating the same question would elicit any different response. I do know that others are in more direct contact with him, but again I do not think anything I could say in that regard would alter the significance of the matters of fact in the public domain.<br /><br />That is why I am raising this issue without first writing to those directly concerned.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-12350313465219137192012-02-21T10:53:28.445+01:002012-02-21T10:53:28.445+01:00John there is no need to be defensive. The discuss...John there is no need to be defensive. The discussion is about collegiality - surely you can't just be collegial about sexuality but disregard it when it comes to other things? <br />I suspect that you have no powers in regard to collegiality on sexuality do you? <br />Your unwillingness to answer speaks volumes, yet at least one of my questions remains even on your over-narrowly defined topic : why are you raising this issue without first writing to those directly concerned? <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterCanon Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-43113132784749931962012-02-21T10:42:29.483+01:002012-02-21T10:42:29.483+01:00Andrew, the topic is "Collegiality on sexuali...Andrew, the topic is "Collegiality on sexuality", as per the header. The reason for 'starting again' on a new thread was precisely to focus down on this area. Further, you asked me 'what I would do', not 'what should be done'. I have no powers in this regard.<br /><br />The topic is what it says at the top - no more and no less (others please note). We can't keep going off on a tangent. If you wish to start a different discussion, you will have to blog for yourself, I'm afraid.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-3411706331676287222012-02-21T10:33:56.779+01:002012-02-21T10:33:56.779+01:00It is on topic John. It's an issue of collegia...It is on topic John. It's an issue of collegiality. And I'm still trying to discern why you think you can raise this issue without first writing to the people concerned - which in itself is also about collegiality. <br />The articles are very clear about the matter of Benediction, yet bishops clearly have a variety of practice and teaching about it. Does collegiality only really matter when it has to do with sexuality? <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, Exeter <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterCanon Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-17293568503374060372012-02-21T10:27:15.117+01:002012-02-21T10:27:15.117+01:00Andrew, please stay on topic. If I ruled the world...Andrew, please stay on topic. If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring. But I don't.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-16334304406988607972012-02-21T10:09:59.126+01:002012-02-21T10:09:59.126+01:00John - what would you do about bishops who officia...John - what would you do about bishops who officiate at services of Benediction, and those who allow such servcies in their dioceses? <br /><br />Andrew Godsall, ExeterCanon Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.com