ANGLICANS SHOULD AIR SECRET STUDY ON GAYS

    "Where are the bishops?" This was an odd heading for an editorialin the Anglican Church of Canada's national monthly, The Anglican Journal.But it has current relevance.
    
   The piece (December, 1994) addressed the topic of t he wherethe hierarchy really stands on the contentious matter of homosexuality,particularly in regard to mandatory celibacy for gay and lesbian priests.The Journal said that while Anglicans have been discussing homosexualityfor almost 20 years - with wide-spread congregational study since the lastGeneral Synod in 1992 - the bishops have not include the church at largein their own wrestlings. For example, over the past two years, the Journalsays, homosexuality has taken up more agenda time at the house of bishopsmeetings than any other matter. Yet, every session was held "in camera."The media, including the Journal, were kept outside. "The loss in all ofthis is to the church," the paper sid. "By working in isolation, the bishopshave cut themselves off from a significant part of the debate going on inthe rest of the church....
      At a time when public participation is so heavilystressed, it is unfortunate the bishops have not felt able to share any oftheir thoughts on this major issue with other Anglicans." The official"guidelines" of the bishops were set out in a 1979 edict which became front-pagenews four years ago when the Bishop's Court trial of Toronto priest Rev.Jim Ferry resulted in his being fired from his parish. Ferry had made themistake of admitting to Rt. Rev. Terence Finlay, Bishop of Toronto, thathe was in a homosexual relationship.
    The ruling, under which he was charged and fired, saidthat gays and lesbians can be ordained but must stay celibate. It's well-knownthat a significant member of Anglican clergy are homosexual. Not all of theseobserve the ruling. Some have come out openly to certain bishops whom theytrust. Some live in rear. Many no doubt stay in line. Where are the bishops?Right now they're in Ottawa (June 1 to 9), together with the 400 clergy andlay delegates to the church's General Synod (it meets every three years todecide policies). Where they are on homosexuality and the clergy may becomeclearer tomorrow night when the task Force on Homosexuality and HomosexualRelations makes it report. But, don't count on it. This report is mostlya mild proposal to go on discussing and studying the matter for another threeyears. One positive motion will be presented: "That this General Synod affirmsthe presence and contributions of gay and lesbian Christians in the lifeof the church and condemns bigotry, violence and hatred directed towardsany due to their sexual orientation." But that will only make news if, bysome bizarre twist, it's defeated. One expects 'Christians to be againstbigotry, hatred or exclusions. It would be enormously helpful, as the Journalhas argued, if the bishops were to share with their people and the generalpublic the reality of their own divisions over this matter and explain thereasons why. It's known that many of them are unhappy with the 1979 rulingon the grounds that there is a double standard applied. Heterosexual priestscan marry and express their full sexuality. Homosexual clergy have to denyor repress theirs or else live a charade.

   What's not well-known is that for 18 years a 132-page documenton the subject, with some daring recommendation for the bishops, has beenkept secret. Called the "Primate's Commission on Sexuality: A Study onHomosexuality" and marked "Confidential - for the house of bishops only,"it's one of the most thoroughgoing looks at all aspects of homosexualityand religion I have yet seen.
  The 1976 commission was composed of theologians, including abishop and top Roman Catholic scholar. The report (1977) explicitly takesa stand directly opposite the position later taken in 1979. It says: "Werecommend that the house of bishops accept homosexual men and women forordination subject to the same ethical criteria for sexual behavior appliedto heterosexual ordinands. In order to implement this non-discriminatoryethical stance, we further recommend that he house of bishops either publiclyor privately give a clear statement on sexual standards for ordination."
    The bishops should dust off a copy of this report because it'sreinventing the wheel to begin more study while this one lies unread by all.It would help the dialogue if they'd make it public and say where they nowstand on its call to treat homosexual and heterosexual clergy alike. Youcan't condemn discrimination and keep practicing it yourself.

Tom Harpur      Toronto Sunday Star on June 4/95