News story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_re_us/bishop_rehab;_ylt=AobW_flMUtQsESJbIZr6ru1H2ocA;_yl) u=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-).

Okay, my initial reaction is this is just once again proof that making this guy bishop (though I am not Anglican) was a mistake. The initial "controversy" was that the Episcopal Church, having no official stance on homosexuality, realized they were in a corner when a man who was openly gay and lived with another man was up for the position of bishop.

Now to my thinking, a spiritual leader like that is supposed to set an exampe for his flock. Nobody is perfect, but these should be high calibur people that are chosen or elected or whatever. Even going by the New Testament (Paul's letter to Timothy) you have the qualifications for a Bishop being stringent to prevent bad leaders being chosen. Bad leaders make bad followers, and are generally an embarrassment, in any circles, secular or religious. It's a common criticism of leaders who are hypocrites after all ("Do as I say, not do as I do"). The people who choose them have even more responsibility to find the best people for the job.

In any case, the initial point that was made was that even if Mr. Robinson was gay and nobody had a problem with that, his "living in sin" was a problem. If you're going to tell people not to have sex outside of marriage, you shouldn't be living in such a relationship state yourself. Whatever. So he gets elected anyway. First openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. It caused a split.

Now it turns out he's had an alcohol problem for years. Was this swept under the rug to avoid appearing homophobic? Was the issue of his sexuality focused on to distract from this issue?

I remember in my youth at our Catholic parish one of our priests was dismissed because he was an alcoholic. He really seemed like a nice guy otherwise, but it was a real problem. So in some cases I think the discernment process has failed, both on the part of the individual and on the part of the Church that's electing these guys. Obviously with the sex scandal in my own church a lot of people have become clergymen who really had no business being there in the first place.

So it seems such a problem exists elsewhere as well. I can only hope that this will lead to reforms in the choosing of clerics in the future.

Perhaps in this case, his supporters, in the rush to get the "first gay bishop" ended up choosing such a poor candidate. I mean, I feel sorry for anyone with problems like his, and I wish him recovery, but I think he's demonstrated he's not bishop material.

Thoughts? I know some of you guys couldn't care less about religion, and still others may secretly feel confirmed that they're not in a church, but other reactions?

I have a feeling that if they didn't tip-toe around this man being gay, they would have rejected him. Instead of choosing someone more qualified, they chose someone because of some 'taboo' so as to appear accepting of all walks of life.

Except:

- He was the old bishop's assistant for years.
- He was elected to take over from the old bishop by the local lay people and clergy.
- No one else had any idea he had an alchohol problem, or knows how long its been going on.

All this implies that he was competent at his job, people appreciated his work, and that his personal life/problems didn't impact on his performance in any way.
So i don't see it as a problem.

If he was incompetent, or messing up his duties due to being gay/drunk then it might be an issue. But as far as i can tell that hasn't happened.

Based on some of the dodgy revelations about a lot of the bishops in several other christian denominations... having a guy who can do his job and decides to combat his personal drink demons seems quite a good choice in comparison.

And as for the "living in sin" part... i'm sure he'd get married if the president would let him.

See there's the thing though. Regardless of what his constituants knew about him (I couldn't recall if the Episcopal bishops were popularly elected or not, thanks for clearing that up) HE knew about his personal drinking problem, so that should have been something he was either more up front about or discerning about when he went into the ministry. Like the problems of certain other christian denominations, this is a problem that was covered up until it was finally admitted, so it's still a problem.

My point is that it seems this guy had a lot of issues going in, but this was all swept under the rug in order to get the "First Gay Bishop." Anyway, we'll see what happens.

As to the living in sin part, the point is, a Bishop can't very well be a moral example to his flock if he's flagrantly breaking the rules is he? If fornication is permitted in the Episcopal church then I'll drop the subject, but if he were a straight man living with a woman at this time, would he be considered bishop material? He should have held off from bringing a lover into his life until such rules were changed. If it's a matter of conscience fine, but you're the BISHOP! You're the guy in charge of enforcing the rules, right? Can't very well do that when you don't respect the law.

This also means that the Episcopal church should have taken a stand on Gay Marriage in favor of it, to allow him to get married, thus he wouldn't be "sinning" and that wouldn't be an issue. Do you see my point? It seems he was a hypocrite from the beginning, hardly bishop material. This is just one more evidence that the guy shouldn't have taken the position. Since we can apply these standards to other types of politicians and leaders I think it's fair. And since as a Christian bishop he has certain even higher standards, I think it's fair. Otherwise we're admitting that their standards have fallen...

Well, in my opinion, it's a bit disengenuous to argue whether he should be bishop because he's setting a bad moral example because of alcoholism - he's a gay bishop. He apparently didn't have a very good record for morality to begin with. If the controversy over appointing a gay bishop did distract from his alcohol problems, and he was appointed bishop knowing that he had a problem with alcohol, they should fire him, pure and simple. Otherwise, I think the thing to do would be to let him go through the rehab program, and then keep an eye on him...and maybe demote him and appoint a new bishop who isn't so questionable morally.

As far as the Episcopal church recognizing gay marriage so that their bishop wouldn't be sinning, I'm not Episcopalian, so I don't know what kind of role church traditions play in their overall theology, but I think it'd be a better idea if they read the Bible and let that determine what is and isn't moral. Just an idea.

Unfortunately I'm not really an expert on how the Anglican Communion currently views/uses the Bible. To my thinking they painted themselves into a corner by not having an official stance on homosexuality. Their desire to appear more accepting may have blinded them to other issues as well, as jmac said.

Anyway, people should be reminded that every Christian denomination interprets the Bible and its role in informing church decision making differently. It certainly would help to know what their reasoning is (or ought to have been). I guess that's all I've really got for now. Perhaps somebody can shed some light or more information will be forthcoming...

And as for the "living in sin" part... i'm sure he'd get married if the president would let him.

I award you, toms, 5 points for an attempt at a nice jab. I will now be deducting 50 points because married or not, to commit faggotry is to sin. The president, as fun as it is to bash him for every little thing that happens that we don't like, has nothing to do with this fact.

I think that if he was acting openly contrary to his religion's teachings he probably shouldn't have been picked to be bishop, as obviously he wouldn't be teaching that religion's beliefs. If, however, the religion doesn't forbid it (due to lack of direction or otherwise), his actions are not hypocritical and he shouldn't be thought the worse of for them. I do like the fact he's putting himself into rehab; being able to admit to their problems is a good thing for anyone.

I award you, toms, 5 points for an attempt at a nice jab. I will now be deducting 50 points because married or not, to commit faggotry is to sin. The president, as fun as it is to bash him for every little thing that happens that we don't like, has nothing to do with this fact.

Except it obviously isn't in this church - since they don't officialy discriminate on grounds of sexuality.
So saying "its ok to be gay, but not to have relations outside marriage" when there is no option for gay marriage seems like grasping at straws to me.

Fine, if they want to ban him for being gay then go ahead, but to say "well, being gay isn't an issue, but not being married is" just seems to me like a weasly attempt to use a technicality. And a catch 22 situation to boot.
-

Episcopal = Anglican??
Its hard to keep track of all these different christian factions.
-

If he had the drink problem when he was interviewed then he probably should have mentioned it... but who knows if he did. And the thing about drink problems is that people often don't recognise that they DO have a problem.

Seems to me quite likely that being the centre of worldwide controversy and hatred might well be what started the drink problem in the first place.

As I understand it he worked quite happily in his role as assistant to the bishop for years, his work was always up to standard and his local lay people obviously appreciated his work, liked him and didn't consider his homosexuality to be an issue when they elected him. It was only when it went up for higher aproval that it became an international incident.
-

Feel free to argue forever about whether they should have elected someone who was gay - thats up for debate.

But somehow trying to subtly link being gay with having an alchohol problem, or being unable/unfit to carry out your duties seems like a desperate attempt to link two unrelated issues.
"See! He's an alchoholic - i told you they shouldn't have elected that gay guy!".
"See! Al quaida attacked america - i told you we should have invaded iraq!"

Except it obviously isn't in this church - since they don't officialy discriminate on grounds of sexuality.
So saying "its ok to be gay, but not to have relations outside marriage" when there is no option for gay marriage seems like grasping at straws to me.


Not exactly, because there is not a universal understanding that one is required to have sex. In my church for example, the teaching is that orientation is a mental/psychological thing. So you can be attracted to women, and yet not have sex with them. You can be attracted to men and yet choose not to have sex with them, etc. So while we acknowledge that homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. may be an "inborn" condition, these people are called to practice chastity, just like an unmarried heterosexual person would be in our church. If we thought that people were required to have sex, then we'd immediately stop praising the single life and get rid of the celibacy requirement for monks, nuns, priests, etc.


So if the Episcopal church has no problem with sex outside of marriage then this is a non-issue. But saying that gay marriage is forbidden therefore gays can have sex freely is likewise hypocritical, since you ought to say that straights can have sex outside of marriage too. I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that's the logical counter-point to that. IF they approved gay marriage, then Gene Robinson should have just gotten married to his live-in partner before his appointment (sort of like a couple who is pregnant getting married right before their wedding) to "legitimize" his station in life. Otherwise he's sending the message that "living in sin" is okay, whether you're gay or straight.

Fine, if they want to ban him for being gay then go ahead, but to say "well, being gay isn't an issue, but not being married is" just seems to me like a weasly attempt to use a technicality. And a catch 22 situation to boot.
-

The Church hasn't said gay marriage is right or wrong. They haven't said being gay or having gay sex is right or wrong. Unless I'm mistaken. So they painted themselves into a corner. But I THOUGHT (despite some dissenting opinions like ex-Bishop Spong) that sex outside of marriage (fornication) was forbidden. If it is, then one could use that to say that his relationship was immoral, and therefore he was not a suitable candidate for bishop, even if we didn't know that he was also an alcoholic. It's good that he checked himself into rehab, but perhaps he should have done that before his election. Then again perhaps he was afraid that if it was known he would have been disqualified? Or maybe it would have helped him, who knows.


Episcopal = Anglican??
Its hard to keep track of all these different christian factions.
-

Get used to it, we've had this problem for centuries! Anyway, the Anglican Church (the Church of England) broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century when King Henry the VIII was denied his request to divorce and remarry. So he started a new church with the British monarch as the supreme head instead of the Pope. Over the years some things change, but fast forward to the present, and the Anglican church in America is called the Episcopal Church and I believe is semi-independant, but maintains close relations with the Anglican communion across the pond. I have a basic understanding of it, but I'm no expert of course.


If he had the drink problem when he was interviewed then he probably should have mentioned it... but who knows if he did. And the thing about drink problems is that people often don't recognise that they DO have a problem.


Very true. In the process of personal discernment of a ministry you're encouraged (or supposed to) to figure out your strengths and weaknesses and what could prevent you from fulfilling your calling as a clergyperson, a shepherd of souls. Now some churches may place less emphasis on this spiritual aspect. Perhaps some see it more as "just a job" or others are just less honest with themselves. But there is also the institutional oversight. Did the other church leaders check this guy out? Perhaps they knew about his past and made a judgement call that he'd be able to get over it, but the article made it sound like people were surprised, as if they had been "decieved." It's interesting to me to watch this happen because my own church is going through a period of reform in regards to seminaries (to deal with the sexual abuse scandal which surely points to the falling standards of screening the people who enter our priesthood). Training in ministry also needs to bring these kinds of things to light. As a theology student I encounter many ministry students who are going through this process of self discovery. Obviously I don't know all their innermost deepest darkest secrets, but you know what I'm saying?

It just seems to me either Rev. Robinson misjudged himself and/or his church misjudged him as well.


Seems to me quite likely that being the centre of worldwide controversy and hatred might well be what started the drink problem in the first place.


So you're saying he became an alcoholic because of prejudice against gays? Or because he was the first openly gay bishop? His problem supposedly was going on for "years." He was consecrated in what, 2003? So I guess you'd have to find out if he started drinking before or after his election. I got the impression it was before. But in any case, it's a problem, regardless of if he could blame it on society or not. He's got a job to do, and the church thought he could do it.


As I understand it he worked quite happily in his role as assistant to the bishop for years, his work was always up to standard and his local lay people obviously appreciated his work, liked him and didn't consider his homosexuality to be an issue when they elected him. It was only when it went up for higher aproval that it became an international incident.
-

Fair enough. As I recall homosexuals severed in various capacities in the Episcopal church(es) with no problem, it was just suddenly that a homosexual man became Bishop, the highest clerical office in the church (besides Archbishop of course, which is just a bishop with higher honor and jurisdiction), and not only was he gay, but living in a relationship with another man at the time. It'd be like a Catholic man being elected Bishop with his Mistress by his side. To many people that's a scandal. So many people took it as a purely political move. If he hadn't been gay, would he have been elected?

But somehow trying to subtly link being gay with having an alchohol problem, or being unable/unfit to carry out your duties seems like a desperate attempt to link two unrelated issues.

Isn't that the issue you brought up in fact? That being an oppressed homosexual would drive anyone to drinking? I think you've created a strawman here. I didn't try to link his alcoholism to his sexual orientation (you did), rather I pointed out that he had at least two major barriers to his moral leadership: 1) That he's in an ongoing sexual relationship to another single person. 2) he's got a drinking problem requiring rehabilitation

Notice I'm not even arguing that gay sex is a sin and that's why he can't be bishop. That's a judgement call I'd be making as an outsider, since I'm not Anglican. What does the Anglican church say about such matters? It seems that "gray area" has caused the fuss. So their wishy-washyness on one hand, and their desire to be controversial on the other (or to avoid controversy by denying him the position because of his lifestyle) caused the controversy.


"See! He's an alchoholic - i told you they shouldn't have elected that gay guy!".
"See! Al quaida attacked america - i told you we should have invaded iraq!"

Oh look, a pair of strawmen! ;)

I gave the example of the priest who was dismissed from our parish for alcoholism. From what I know he wasn't gay, and didn't have any sexual problems of any kind. He was celibate. Sex wasn't the issue, but drinking was. He wasn't passing out drunk on the floor during Mass, but apparently it was a problem that necessitated him quitting, and he was sorry he had to go.

But saying that gay marriage is forbidden therefore gays can have sex freely is likewise hypocritical, since you ought to say that straights can have sex outside of marriage too.

But if the laws of marriage don't apply to gay people then why should the laws of unmarriage? If gay marriage doesn't exist then how can gay fornication?
Making the issue "he's not married" rather than "he's gay" just seems to me like a roundbaout way of attacking im for being gay without actually using that argument. Just the way it seems to me.

It just seems to me either Rev. Robinson misjudged himself and/or his church misjudged him as well.

Maybe... but that happens all the time and again has nothing to do with being gay. There have been untold scandals of priests from various churches involving mistresses, child abuse, embezzlement etc.. So i guess you could say misjudgement happened in those cases too. But no-one ever claimed that they were given free passes just because those flaws weren't picked up.

But if a GAY priest turns out to have a flaw then he MUST have had it overlooked because he was gay?

So you're saying he became an alcoholic because of prejudice against gays? Or because he was the first openly gay bishop?

No idea why or when he became an alcoholic.. but what i'm saying is that being the centre of a worldwide controversy and being made a hated figure by some people can't have helped.

He's got a job to do, and the church thought he could do it.
And there is no evidence he can't/hasn't done it. Is there?

Fair enough. As I recall homosexuals severed in various capacities in the Episcopal church(es) with no problem, it was just suddenly that a homosexual man became Bishop, the highest clerical office in the church (besides Archbishop of course, which is just a bishop with higher honor and jurisdiction), and not only was he gay, but living in a relationship with another man at the time. It'd be like a Catholic man being elected Bishop with his Mistress by his side. To many people that's a scandal. So many people took it as a purely political move. If he hadn't been gay, would he have been elected?

If he hadn't been gay he would have been elected without all the fuss. Might still have had the drink problem. Might still have gone to rehab. Again without all the fuss.

I think you've created a strawman here. I didn't try to link his alcoholism to his sexual orientation (you did), ...

Not explicitly.. but the initial post, the news article, the following posts.. all of it implies that there is some sort of link. Almost like an "i told you so".

Neither you nor I am saying that homosexuality is linked to alcoholism. But mentioning the two together implies that there is some common factor.

Oh look, a pair of strawmen! ;)

Maybe... but the approach reminded me of Bush's approach to the war on terror. He was a master of never explictitly linking the war in iraq to the war on terror... but he always mentioned them in the same sentences and created an impression in people's minds that al quaida and saddam were somehow linked.
An impression that a high percentage of americans still hold, even if the administration themselves don't claim it.. and can actually deny they ever said it.

Maybe... but that happens all the time and again has nothing to do with being gay. There have been untold scandals of priests from various churches involving mistresses, child abuse, embezzlement etc.. So i guess you could say misjudgement happened in those cases too. But no-one ever claimed that they were given free passes just because those flaws weren't picked up.

And I didn't say that it happened BECAUSE he was gay. Rather it seems the guy just had problems in general. If they wanted the first gay bishop they should have found a better gay man to be the one I guess.


But if a GAY priest turns out to have a flaw then he MUST have had it overlooked because he was gay?

No, but during a time when the Gay Rights movement is in the spotlight and has never had more support politically, wouldn't you be a little nervous about rejecting a gay celebrity, for fear that you'd be labelled homophobic? That's what I'm getting at. Plus you could accuse the Episcopal Church of tokenism. By hiring a Gay Bishop they can say "hey, join our church, look at how tolerate we are of people with different sexual orientations." Sort of like hiring a black guy just so you can say you have a black guy on your staff, not because he really brought anything to the company. I'm sure Rev. Robinson was happy to get the job, and I'm sure he worked for it. A lot of the people unfit for office have otherwise great records except for some weakness.
Anyway...


No idea why or when he became an alcoholic.. but what i'm saying is that being the centre of a worldwide controversy and being made a hated figure by some people can't have helped.

Hence I would think there'd be an investigation, unless they don't care about having alcoholic bishops. It's sort of like how people (apparently) were upset at the thought of having an alcoholic president or a cocaine addict for president/mayor. Others dismissed this as a smear campaign. What you're saying is that we should excuse his drinking problem because it's obviously something he had to resort to from all the gay-bashing he was experiencing.

Sort of like saying a black leader turned to cocaine because of all the racism he was facing. I suppose, but does that really excuse the action if it's going to interfere with his duties and his life?


And there is no evidence he can't/hasn't done it. Is there?


That's why we should watch the story. If he checked himself into rehab that seems to indicate he's the one who noticed the problem. Of course perhaps he was told to do so or something worse would have happened. Or somebody else convinced him. Who knows. If rehab was felt to be necessary then it must have been a serious problem. People don't go to rehab just for fun. Despite the time and expense, it would also reveal to the world that you had a drinking problem, which could stigmatize you with a lot of people. And if he's already stigmatized for being openly gay, then it's even worse for him, right?


If he hadn't been gay he would have been elected without all the fuss. Might still have had the drink problem. Might still have gone to rehab. Again without all the fuss.

If he was a heterosexual man living with a woman, no, he wouldn't have. I think his being openly gay may have actually helped his cause, since it drew world attention to it, meaning he'd get the support of gay activists and sympathizers. It also meant that those afraid of being accused of homophobia would be less likely to attack him for that. Also the focus on his sexuality would draw attention away from other personal issues. And why couldn't he have gotten "married" someplace and then used that argument to his opponents? He could just say "hey, I made it official but the law here won' recognize it, but as far as I'm concerned I did everything I could." Did he do that? A lot of heterosexuals have physical relationships without getting married and there's little stopping them from tying the knot, so it's not a given that just because he could, he would.


Not explicitly.. but the initial post, the news article, the following posts.. all of it implies that there is some sort of link. Almost like an "i told you so".


Hey, I don't think it's a good idea to hire a hypocrite as a moral leader. It's not a good idea. It turns out on top of that he also was hiding an alcohol addiction. It only gets worse! If the official teaching of the Episcopal church is that extramarrital sex is fine, then he wasn't hypocritical, of course.


Neither you nor I am saying that homosexuality is linked to alcoholism. But mentioning the two together implies that there is some common factor.


Glad you see that. But that's why it's good that I clarified I'm not making a connection. See what I mean about the homophobia thing? It's possible that whatever else one may criticize the man for, it will be forever linked in some manner to his being gay. So I've clarified my position, I'm glad it helps.


Maybe... but the approach reminded me of Bush's approach to the war on terror. He was a master of never explictitly linking the war in iraq to the war on terror... but he always mentioned them in the same sentences and created an impression in people's minds that al quaida and saddam were somehow linked.

So it's a red herring. Sort of like suddenly saying "OH YEAH? What about Enron and Haliburten, huh??"

Anyway, Bush actually did link the War in Iraq to the War on Terror many many times. He went out of his way to do so. Of course it turns out his ties were based on fabrications and outright falsehoods ("bad intelligence" whatever). Now the ties don't seem so strong. But I took it as an attempt to change the subject into something you were more comfortable debating. A distraction! Anyway... ;)

Btw, kind of like Global Warming and Intelligent Design theory, huh??? Yeah, I thought so!

Yeah, well Abortion, gun rights, Patriot Act!!!

See? It's silly. Are you trying to send me a message? Don't do that. ;)

If you're going to make comparisons, try to use something that isn't another hot-button political debate issue.