1st Episcopal Gay Bishop Treated for Alcoholism
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 02:01PM V. Gene Robinson became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop and his 2003 ordination in the diocese of New Hampshire split the Episcopal Church around the world. The Church’s official web site bio describes Bishop Robinson:
Gene enjoys entertaining and cooking, gardening, music and running. He is the father of two grown daughters and the proud, new grandfather of little Morgan Isabella. He lives with his partner, Mark Andrew, who is employed by the State of New Hampshire’s Department of Safety.
In April of 2005, Robinson met with Planned Parenthood and said in this interview:
Little has been written about your stance on reproductive rights. Are you pro-choice?
Bishop: Absolutely. The reason I love the Episcopal Church is that it actually trusts us to be adults. In a world where everyone tries to paint things as black or white, Episcopalians feel pretty comfortable in the gray areas.
There’s some great Church policy. The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism gave this critical report about Bishop Robinson’s leadership:
Increasingly, in one diocese after another, the word is out that many are facing serious financial problems. Not surprisingly, most of them are revisionist, and the cracks and fissures are widening as moderate and revisionist bishops realize that the Episcopal Church’s pansexual agenda is causing a major dropoff in monies as orthodox parishioners flee to safer spiritual havens.
V. Gene Robinson’s consecration is coming home to roost, and if the Windsor Report is snubbed and ignored at the next General Convention, then the spiritual pain and loss of monies will only increase.
Consider the following:
The DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA has a shortfall of between $500,000 and $950,000, and the diocese can barely raise $300,000 from its parishes. Officials will dip into unrestricted net assets again to keep the diocese afloat. And the standing committee wants Bishop Bennison’s head on a platter for his unrestrained spending habits (not his theological utterances), which may have depleted the UNA from $4 million to zero. They will need an audit to know for sure.
Now, Bishop Robinson has more problems. He has admitted that he is an alcoholic and is getting treatment. He gave this statment:
“I am writing to you from an alcohol treatment center where on Feb. 1, with the encouragement and support of my partner, daughters and colleagues, I checked myself in to deal with my increasing dependence on alcohol.”
The President of the Standing Committee of New Hampshire posted this letter of support on the Episcopal diocese web site:
The Episcopal Church, through its General Convention, has long recognized alcoholism as a treatable human disease, not a failure of character or will.
The members of the Standing Committee fully support and stand with our bishop and his family as he confronts the effects of alcohol on his life, and we commend him for his courageous example to us all, as we pray daily for him and for his ministry among us.
The Bishop’s alcoholism isn’t the real problem; everyone has “issues”. However, his alcoholism is yet another nail in the coffin of “progressive Episcopalianism”. Divorce. Cohabitation with his gay lover; dividing the Church; sending the financial status of the Church into disarray; being an alcoholic; these are Bishop Robinson’s accomplishments. Not only he is responsible for screwing up the Church he was installed to serve, but also those within the Church who supported his installation.
This disaster is the result of “moral progression”; that is, thinking that Jesus was just a man of his time, limited by social and scientific advancement, and that now we know better, we’re now a modern religion. Truth and moral absolutes are timeless. Of this religious progressive movement, arrogance is the root, “spiritual progression” is the tree and divorce, adultery, abortion, broken homes, alcoholism and division are the fruit. What a terrible thing to happen in the name of God.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/386471
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (81)
You are right that a broken home, by insinuation (not cultural definition), can have both parents in it. When one is called to the "ministry" as Bishop Robinson thinks himself to be, you must surrender ALL for a higher calling, something bigger than your own sexual and romantic desires. If a Bishop is not willing to do this, he frankly isn't worthy of the office. Jesus said that unless one is willing to leave father, mother, husband or wife for the kingdom of God, he is not worthy to be His disciple. He wasn't suggesting He would ever ask a husband to leave a wife, but that there are priorities to be set...... the "Bishop" clearly didn't keep basic Christian 101 standards. His ministerial life has been a big scandal.
Another interesting point: keep in mind that we are talking within the confines of Christian theology and doctrine, since this is the Christian Church we're talking about here. To divorce is terrible. God hates divorce, says Christ. But... to remarry is sin. Christian marriage is a permanent covenant broken only by death in the eyes of God and the Church, according to Christian teaching. (If Robinson wants to be something other than a Christian, let him be, but these are the standards of Christian conduct). St. Paul discusses this in I Corin. 7 when he talks about a couple living apart, but only being free to marry if the other spouse dies. Hard sayings indeed, but this is the Christian Church. Go elsewhere if it's too hard to abide by its' definitions or you are not able/willing to submit to it. Don't bring the whole Church down with you.
I disagree however with the Episcopals stance that "alcoholism as a treatable human disease, not a failure of character or will."
Treatable? Yes, but common sense and human experience tell me it has a LOT to do with failure of character and or will.
This church flounders today as well. People don't go to church for comfort, or they shouldn't, they go to church for the truth. Watered down Christianity is a failure.
The Christian Church has been totally opposed to abortion until the mid-50's (most way longer than that). With the developing of various birth controls in the early 1900's, some in the Church began to reexamine that issue. The next reasonable issue to follow would be other issues of morality relating to sexuality, like fornication, adultery, abortion and divorce. Still, these are all fully contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Church.
Bishop Robinson's attitude toward abortion, that the church allows us to be "grown ups" is a dangerous position to take. Grown ups still have an obligation to do the right thing and obey basic moral teachings of the Church.
The homosexual movement for mainstream acceptance in the Church is being nipped in the bud in many churches, but Episcopals think they are too progressive to be moral. They apparently believe they know better than Jesus, the disciples and apostles, the Magisterium, which has upheld these moral truths for 2000 years. They should just begin another religion because what they are practicing is NOT Christianity.
Akinola's views are hardly endorsed by all African Anglicans. I doubt any power shift is imminent.
It isn't systemic* of the Catholic Church. The large majority of priests are faithful in spirit and action to Christ.
Robinson's drinking isn't systemic of the Episcopal church per se.... what is is that an OPENLY GAY PRO-CHOICE BISHOP WHO DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND LEFT HIS CHILDREN TO LIVE WITH HIS LOVER is *systemic* of the libertine congregation. The financial failures aren't directly, from what I understand, Robinson's fault.... the church was so torn at the lay level by his ordination that it literally split the church. That's the reason for the financial problems: people opposed to this fled the church and those remaining were left to deal with the fall out, which included a financial hole. Those people took their money with them.
Pope Benedict has enforced the Church's refusal to admit gay seminarians into the Catholic priesthood. It's clearly and historically too problematic. In the 70's (and I know, I lived through it) there was a huge liberal backlash from the changes of the Council of Vatican II in the mid-60's. The changes were not doctrinal, but practical and of custom. But a slew of hippie seminarians entered religious life and have been trying to screw up the Church ever since. I suspect the same dynamics are true of the Episcopal Church.
It is liberal ideology and practice that is to blame for the mess in churches today.
We have had our problems in the PCA Presbyterian Church also. *All have fallen short of the glory of God.* We dealt with it, basically telling an Elder -- Bishop -- Session that his adultery required his leaving the church. We exercised Church discipline as the Word requires. Here, an admitted sinner refused to admit his sin, and worse, said that he will continue to sin. He basically was saying that the Word was and is incorrect or can be interpreted; is not inerrant.
When I visit some PCUSA Churches I look at the provided Bibles and notice that they have changed the words and meaning and printed a Bible that they can live with, specifically, Timothy I and II.
But, Jez is also right, molesting is just as bad, and it is most definitely unpardonable.
I find this so disturbing.
A homosexual and a pedophile are two VERY different things. Pedophiles have no interest in having sex with an adult, regardless of the gender. You cannot possibly compare the two. The Catholic Church’s problem is not that they tacitly accepted gay priests – the problem is they protected accused pedophiles and ignored the victims. For a Church with such a long and rich history I would not call a scandal within the last 5-10 years in the “past.” In fact last October the Archdiocese of Los Angeles was under scrutiny for sex abuse claims against 126 priests. The sexual abuse by priests seems far more serious to me than an openly homosexual Bishop trying to recover from a very serious condition.
I haven't looked, but I haven't seen any data which shows homosexuals to be more likely to be pedophiles than straight people.
I'm not saying all homosexuals are pedophiles! I'm saying that in the Catholic Church the abuse scandal had to do with abusing boys... by gay priests..... so this particular set of pedophiles were homosexual, and this set of homosexuals were pediphiles. The US Council of Catholic Bishops on Feb. 27, 2004 reported:
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/johnjayreport.pdf
pg. 80:
"As noted above, the overwhelming majority of reported acts of sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy victimized boys. Accordingly, the current crisis cannot be addressed without consideration of issues relating to homosexuality.....That 81% of reported victims of child abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior."
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that pedophiles have "no interest in having sex with an adult". I have heard many cases in which the pedophile was a married man with an active marital sex life. You said, "The Catholic Church’s problem is not that they tacitly accepted gay priests – the problem is they protected accused pedophiles and ignored the victims." How can the two be distinguished without the other? If the Church had not accepted gays into seminaries, the majority of the abuse cases would never have happened. So you're saying that if the church had not, after the fact, protected the crime, that they never would have occurred in the first place?
You are mistaken. Cases in the Catholic church go back to the 50's and earlier, but if indeed the numbers have increased, it's because of the acceptance of gay seminarians into the priesthood. Period.
This is from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm#_ednref4
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]
Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[viii]
Part of what makes this so complicated is that what happens in the confessional, stays in the confessional. A priest is obligated to never disclose the confession he hears. I suspect that, rather than a cover up, most of the cases involve the heart wrenching secrecy involved in the confession of offending priests. It really is not the fault of the priest who hears confession and keeps his vows, but the one who manipulates the system to avoid penalty. He is worthy of hell. The vow of the confessional was meant to be a safe guard against the individual, like a patient/client confidentiality; it was never intended to protect child abusers.
Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to a Vatican document regarding policy rejecting homosexual men for admittance into the Catholic priesthood. Furthermore, homosexual men will not be accepted into seminaries. The official statement form the Vatican and the Pope on the issue is:
"Homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.
Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood."
This is not a change; Catholic teachings explicitly states that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained into the priesthood, although this teachings has been ignored throughout the 70's and 80's.
Finally, you said: "The sexual abuse by priests seems far more serious to me than an openly homosexual Bishop trying to recover from a very serious condition." I was not comparing sins. The Catholic scandal is proof that homosexuals should NOT be priests, and as we've seen in the Episcopal church, it has led to denigration of a moral compass and credibility... but I coupled it with the other issues like being pro-choice and so on. The Episcopal crisis is one of overall liberalism.
hmm I'm not sure about that, what about the pedophiles that offend against young girls? I'm sure there are many men out there who go for both boys and girls...
"Go forth and tell the world that it is quite all right the way it is now" sustains no one - not even those who believe it to be true. Hence Bishop Robinson's current predicament. How can he find sustinance if he turns up his nose at the Bread of Life as not being suitable for "grown ups"?
Also, in the CAtholic Church, if over 80% of the child abuse cases are by gay priests, this squares with the other data found about pediphilia and homosexuality.
No agenda here, I'm just trying to do research and see what the stats seem to indicate. I'll post the findings in individual replies to keep them separate.
Here's this disgusting story I found about the homosexual infultration of the Boy Scouts in America... Elton John, of all people! And I really like some of his songs.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17268
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population =(5) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11) =(11) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254
* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8) =(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA
* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7) *(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19) =(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9) =(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
* The Kinsey study of 1948, which homosexuals often cite to say that 10% of the population is homosexual, actually says that only 4% of the population is EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. This study involved a disproportionate number of people who had been in jail for sex crimes (hardly a random sample of the population). Kinsey also did perverse studies involving young boys and pedophiles. Information on Kinsey
* Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range (15,23,26,28). Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above.
Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls.
An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24 percent of all boys.
Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested per homosexual adult male.
Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under 18.
1) sexualising a physically mature teenager, while possibly illegal (states and countries have different rules), is totally different from kiddy-fiddling as it is normally understood. It is entirely normal for adults to be attracted to teenagers a little under 18; it's not normal to go after 8-year-olds. It is disappointing that these statistics put them in the same category.
2) I would also try to distinguish a molestor who is only interested in young boys from one who is attracted to adult men as well. When I talk about a molestor being or not being gay, it is his attraction to adults of the same sex I am talking about.
Also, I noticed one stat (concerning the median life expentancy) which we've discussed before and I am satisfied is misleading.
Do you know what a "median" is? Put simply, it's the middle value. It takes no account of how many people die at age 7 and how many die at 97. If there is at least one person who dies at each age, the median age of death is therefore half the age of the oldest living person...
So the median age of death for a heterosexual is gonna be mid-50s too, since the oldest man ever lived to about 110.
A mean would be more like what you're after, but I don't think you're going to find a reputable source of statistics which will give you what you're after.
I know you already graciously responded to this comment on <a href="http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2291">blog</a> this was cross-posted at. However, I wanted to post it here so that people can get their facts straight.
Gene Robinson did not leave his wife, nor desert his family.
Their divorce was a joint decision and one that included a church service where they asked for each other’s forgiveness and both pledged to raise their daughters together. After his wife remarried, he met his current partner, Mark, while on vacation. Furthermore, both his ex-wife and his daughter Ella gave full support to his consecration as a bishop. His other daughter couldn’t be there because she was giving birth. Whether or not they would still be married today given his homosexual orientation is debatable, but it is important to note that this joint divorce seems to have been initiated by his wife instead of him. (<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/131/15.0.html">Christianity Today article</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3208586.stm">BBC article</a>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1074456,00.html">Guardian article</a>, <a href="http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/030706/letters/index.html#VGRchronology">Anglicans Online article</a>)
Furthermore, I would like to note that their is a difference between embracing divorce and embracing divorcees. While divorce is always a sad thing, far from God's intentions, it does occur. The ECUSA acknowledges this, but doesn't "embrace" or "encourage" it. Rather, the ECUSA embraces those who have been hurt by divorce, extending the grace and redemption of Christ.
Original comment: http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2291
Christianity Today article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/131/15.0.html
BBC News article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3208586.stm
Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1074456,00.html
Anglicans online article: http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/030706/letters/index.html#VGRchronology
Sorry again. Thanks.
I remember when the story originally came out; I remember reading in news reports that Robinson divorced his wife BECAUSE of his lover. I'm finding conflicting reports and want to get to the bottom of it.
Thanks for comemnting.
Examples.
Being a White, single, heterosexual, male makes you more likely to be a serial killer.
Being a man is makes you more likely to commit rape.
Being in your 20's makes you more likely to commit murder.
Being a woman makes you more likely to apply makeup while driving.
When over 80% of all abuse cases in the Catholic Church are commited by gay men, that is problematic and symptomatic of gay related issues.
When roughly 32% of sexual abuse cases are committed by gays, yet they only make up about 2% of the population, you cannot deny those implications.
...unless you want to appear tolerant to be PC and are willing to ignore these findings.
Jez, I went to a funeral a few years back of a family friend, a gay man, who was in his early 20's. He was murdered outside of a gay bar. This contributes to the "median" age (YES, I know what a that means, come on, Jez). We also had a friend who died of AIDS.... we knew lots of people like this. The gay lifestyle is anything but. It's full of risk. I'm not twisting these stats, Jez.
I wish everyone long, happy life. I'm only pointing to what statstics bear out.
But I think your numbers may have some serious problems. In evaluating the numbers that 32% of molestations are committed on boys by men, what percentage of the 32% are violations by repeat offenders wasn’t accounted for. Hypothetically all 32% could be committed by very few offenders who had many many victims. I used to do work in this area and my unscientific observations were that almost all pedophiles had large numbers of victims, and almost all were by men on little girls.
But even if all this weren't true, I still think it's inappropriate to say being gay is wrong because a small percentage (even if we assume it's a larger percentage than the heterosexual population) of gay men molest little boys. It's never right to judge a group based on a small percentage of that group.
But the research behind the figure is flawed, I'm sorry, but the method has been shot down on this blog to my knowledge. A fella called Paul Cameron derived the number by collating obituary data from gay community papers. That's just not good enough... it's hardly a random sampling of gay deaths. Would I get a reasonable snapshot of republicans by reading obituaries from republican circulars? Or is the set of people featured in those papers self-selecting?
What's next adultry is ok? How about killing... oh wait that is legal as long as the life is still in the womb!
"Most things in life are black and white..."
Just friggin' hilarious. Is that what your kindergarten teacher told you?
Is it wrong to steal?
Is it wrong to steal food?
Is it wrong to steal food if your family is starving?
Meg makes a very good point. How many of the molestations were committed by repeat offenders? That makes a big difference.
>If the Church had not accepted gays into seminaries, the majority of the abuse cases would never have happened. So you're saying that if the church had not, after the fact, protected the crime, that they never would have occurred in the first place?
As Meg demonstrated, your logic is flawed but even if you do make the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia it is because they shuffled the offenders around for so many years instead of removing them from the Church (as they should have) that allowed for repeat offenders to continue.
I’m glad you changed your post after Jared pointed out that Gene Robinson did not leave his wife or desert his family. I wonder which reports are you referring to that support your first assumption?
Finally, I don’t think divorce, cohabitation with a gay lover or financial incompetence are particularly “liberal” qualities. I guess you could make the argument that given the Republican Party’s stance on gay marriage most tend to vote Democratic, but certainly the other two qualities are not exclusively “liberal.” I’m sure there are people who voted for President Bush who do many of those things. By your circular logic, though, they are by definition “liberal.”
There has been a depressing (if not disturbing) theme running throughout this thread. Robinson got divorced and went to live with his gay lover. That's ditching your wife and family, and the fact that she went along with it does not make it any less wrong.
Robinson had a choice. He could have remained loyal to his bride (as Christ remained loyal to His bride, the Church). Instead, he listened to the siren call of homosexuality. His subsequent ten-thumbed handling of the duties of bishop is not surprising. How could it have been otherwise?
Satan spares no one when it comes to sexual temptation (whether the feelings are homosexual, heterosexual, or pedophilia). It's one of his oldest and most reliable weapons.
I am a man who, while never having been tempted to homosexuality, has lived with a woman I was not married to. Although we had planned to get married, it ended badly. I regret having listened to the lies Satan told me through popular culture (it's just a trial run, it's just like being married, you are going to get married anyway so no problem). I confessed my sin to God and was forgiven. But it does not change the fact that I had a choice and I blew it.
I was refering to the news reports I heard back in '03 at the time of Robinson's election for Bishop. It was a very big deal. Although the ex-wife was amicable enough, it was widely reported that the reason for the divorce was a gay lover. But I should not have printed something I was not 100% sure of.
Mwalimu Daudi, fasinating comments. Thank you so much!
Just friggin' hilarious. Is that what your kindergarten teacher told you?
Is it wrong to steal?
Is it wrong to steal food?
Is it wrong to steal food if your family is starving?"
Yes, yes and yes. Go work, go ask someone for help, pray for God to guide you, forage out in the fields. You make a choice to steal and you are choosing to do wrong, period.
OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgID: RIPE
Address: P.O. Box 10096
City: Amsterdam
StateProv:
PostalCode: 1001EB
Country: NL
You guys make a great case for why Communism sucks.
Hi Radar,
Even if we assume homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, at the very best there is correlation rather than causation. And LOTS of groups correlate with some unfavorable things. For example, men are more likely to perpetrate rape than women are. But we don't say all me must be treated like rapists.
If we are going to stereotype or discriminate against a group, let's at least do so based on a trait that the majority of the group has.
P.S. As to your second post, if you make the choice to kill is that wrong, period?
It's so hard to know what God wants, but I think we all are going to have a lot to answer for.
I think I've shown that there's more than a small connection between pediphilia and homosexuality, factoring in the % of the population that is homosexual with the number of pediphilia crimes committed by gays.
You are right, Meg, that stereotying is dangerous. Stereotypes exist for practical reasons; because there are patterns of behavior that accompany certain groups. That's just a fact. It is important, though, to distinguish between the greater community at large being stereotyped and the members who do not fall into that category.