This might well make your day.
There’s an Episcopalian soi-disant bishop in Long Island who has decided to, erm, take a moral stand. Therefore, whilst he has up to now allowed that his homosexual soi-disant priests lived together in sodomitic “luuv” without blinking an eye, now that the State of New York has decided that unrepentant sodomites may, erm,” marry” he will not tolerate it anymore and….. will require them to “marry”, too.
This funny episode is truly indicative of the confusion of these circus articles, now completely delivered to secular thinking. It is already beyond every stretch of Christian logic how two homosexuals would be ever allowed to live together in an official, “under the sun” sodomitic convivence and for this to be fine according to their bishop; it is even more delirious to accept this when one of the two is a supposed mickey mouse “priest” of this cartton bishop. But it truly represents a new and unheard-of stage of confusion to demand that, now that a secular instance has created a purely secular legal instrument, it be a religious requirement that a religious comply with it.
In other words, this mickey mouse “bishop” is saying that he had no qualms, from a religious point of view, with two poofs living in “luuuv” Sodom-style; but that the very same behaviour he was fine with before is not fine now, when a purely secular instance has created a purely secular and purely optional legal instrument. This man is desperately trying to take a “moral stance”, looking for his morals everywhere but in Christianity.
This is the same as if the Church would say that drinking tea is perfectly fine, but as the law now gives one the legal possibility of drinking his tea with absynth, then tea-drinking Catholic priests must put the absynth in their tea.
Drinking tea (or sodomy) is either a sin, or it isn’t. It can’t be fine today, and a sin tomorrow according to what a bunch of
prostitutes politicians in Albany say. Last time I looked, Christianity didn’t allow any secular authority to decide what behaviour constitute a sin. Of course you must respect the laws, and of course to disobey to a law can often – and not even always – be a sin. But the New York State hasn’t given anything else than an option to (oh, that word!) “marry”, so the bishop is desperately running after some form of politically correct “respectability” for something he doesn’t even condemn as a sin! Blimey!
Tellingly, Mouseton’s bishop gives his sodomite priests nine months (the time to make a baby; funny, that…) to decide what to do. He recognises, namely, that these people might be together only for the sake of each other’s perverted sexual gratification and not really having any long-term “luuuv” project. But that they lived together until yesterday, with that he was fine.
Oh well, I imagine the bishop of Mouseton isn’t bothered by these stupid Christian details….