Bishops’ line on gays

by
08 June 2011

iStock

From Professor James H. Grayson

Sir, — I was disappointed that Canon Giles Fraser (Comment, 3 June) uses the term “homophobia” to discredit those people who, on well-attested Christian moral grounds, object to homosexual behaviour. A word such as this says immediately that the person who holds these views is “so obviously” wrong. Objections to homosexuality are made the equivalent of race hatred.

My objection is to behaviour for which we are morally responsible, and these objections would apply if the actions were promiscuity or adultery. It is behaviour, not people as such, that is criticised.

JAMES H. GRAYSON
School of East Asian Studies
The University of Sheffield
6/8 Shearwood Road
Sheffield S10 2TD

From the Revd Robert W. Norwood

Sir, — If it is really true that the House of Bishops’ current policy is that aspirant bishops should be required to repent of earlier specified sexual “indiscretions” (News, 27 May), does that mean that our bishops do not recognise the efficacy of sacramental absolution (Visitation of the Sick, Book of Common Prayer)?

One might assume that most of these would-be bishops have received absolution on one or many occasions. Further­more, how does this scenario fit in with many saints, such as Augustine of Hippo, who were reformed sinners?

ROBERT W. NORWOOD
11A Hermon Hill, London E11 2AR

Church Times: about us

Latest Cartoon

The Church Times Podcast

Interviews and news analysis from the Church Times team. Listen to this week’s episode online

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read twelve articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)