Neither here nor there

Allow me to come out of the closet. I am a member of Forward in Faith, an Anglican society the founding purpose of which was to ensure the continuance of the apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons in the Anglican Communion. To this end, FiF has opposed the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate. Now, as it happens, I am not at all sure that women can't or shouldn't be ordained priests and bishops, but I am sure that the convictions of those opposed to such an innovation must be respected and allowed for.

This means (at the very least) that it must be possible for such Anglicans to have - by absolute right - a male bishop consecrated in a direct line from the apostles by an unbroken succession of male bishops. This was solemnly promised by the General Synod of the Church of England some years ago, and thus, to my mind, the abrupt termination in that Church of the so-called Period of Reception in favour of the innovators has been both dishonest and unjust - and much, much too soon. Hence my decision to join those who are now probably just tilting at windmills - at least where Anglicanism in the western world is concerned. But lost causes often have a fine air of tragic inevitability about them.

However, as my copies of New Directions have arrived regularly from FiF headquarters in London, I have begun to suspect that the business of ensuring the apostolic succession against an unacceptable degree of uncertainty is perhaps a stalking horse for another set of aims as well. And so it has proved with the response of the leadership of FiF to Pope Benedict's generous offer of water-wings to those Anglo-Catholics who are now dipping their disaffected toes in the dangerous waters of the Tiber.

This response has been little short of ecstatic. From the Bishop of Fulham (the chairman) on down, editorialists, writers of articles and contributors to the letters column have been falling over themselves to express their gratitude to the Holy Father for his wonderful, gracious, timely, generous (etc.) invitation to bend their knees in the House of Rimmon. (I know, I know, that's just a little extreme, and on mature deliberation I may delete it. Or not.)

For some years now FiF has been straying into areas whose connections with the ordination (or otherwise) of women are not immediately apparent. This is particularly so where the little matter of homosexuality is concerned. Astonishingly enough, they claim they are not for it. Indeed, like the Holy Father himself they are determinedly, almost hysterically opposed to it. On the face of it, their vehemence is somewhat surprising. FiF is almost entirely Anglo-Catholic rather than evangelical. And Anglo-Catholicism - particularly Anglo-Papalism - is somewhat gay. In fact it is very gay indeed. I was trained at St Stephen's House in the mid 1970's and a curate at All Saints' Margaret Street in the early 1980's and I know whereof I speak. And I doubt if things have changed very much since then.

In order to displease almost everyone I have wilfully adopted views on this subject with which few others agree. I have thought that same-sex relationships can be pleasing to God if the intention is that they be lifelong and faithful. Like heterosexual unions, I believe they should be publicly formalised, and hope that one day this will be possible in Church. But although for gay people such a relationship would be the equivalent of marriage, I wouldn't rush to institutionalise such a conclusion just yet. And I would certainly not try to compel the consciences of the faithful by imposing on them priests (let alone bishops) who are in such relationships. And finally, I would not agree that even those in a totally committed relationship have the right to adopt children - but then I don't think anybody has such a right, gay or straight, although its one they can obviously be given.

(At a later date, I will give you a little tour of adelphopoiia, which I believe has a considerable bearing on these matters. It will be something for you to look forward to in an increasingly bleak and desperate time.)

In my years in England I had a good many discussions with gay Anglo-Papalists about homosexuality and found (all too often) that they would not attempt anything like a truly personal same-sex union simply because the Holy Father forbade it. As a consequence they were often quite remarkably (and very impersonally) promiscuous instead. I found it a bewildering combination, but I have learnt since that such is often the case in these matters. Perhaps the present moral crisis of Roman Catholic clergy and religious is of the same order. Be that as it may, I believe Anglo-Papalism to be essentially untruthful, and I'm sorry to say that the members of this faction seem to be calling the shots in the Catholic movement at the present time - at least in the Church of England. But if you accept the papal claims as they were set out in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, and if you consider the pages of The Catechism of the Catholic Church to contain the very truth of the Faith, then - in my opinion - it's time to recite the Creed of Pius IV (as amended) and put on those water-wings.