1st Episcopal Gay Bishop Treated for Alcoholism

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.

Stop the ACLU 

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/386471

Comments

[jez]

I don't know anything about this man, but divorcing your wife is not the same thing as abandoning your children. Divorced fathers often see their children more than faithfully married ones. Also, a home can be broken even with both parents in it. How does one maintain a marriage, when one partner is not even attracted to the gender of the other? The circumstance might make the ideal of a healthy household impossible.

[Aimz]

I applaud him for seeking help for his alcoholism but I'm stumped as to why the church allows priests to practice when they are gay, I'm not trying to bash anyone here but to me, aren't they basically making a mockery out of the bible which says it's an abomination?

[Amy Proctor]

Jez, he did both: divorced his wife and abandoned his children, from what I understand, because he wanted to be with his lover. Would it be more acceptable, as I asked, if his lover were a woman? I think the book would have been thrown at him.

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.

[Amy Proctor]

Aimz, the Episcopal Chruch is in a moral crisis. We know an Episcopal priest/chaplain who works with Johnny and he is ashamed of the libertine secular religion practice in his Church. This church is divided and floundering because of these modern acceptable practices like abortion, homosexual partnerships, etc. If the Church tries to be like the world it crumbles from the inside out. That's what we're seeing here.

[Aimz]

Amy, I can understand what you're saying here, unfortunately it's not just the Episcopal Church that is accepting immoral issues, there are other denominations that are also saying it's all ok, the world needs to get back to the basics of the bible - it's all there in black and white, the trouble is they are making it gray instead.

[Amy Proctor]

Aimz, yep. Many churches are having a moral crisis. I also agree with your comment about applauding him for treating his alcoholism. Everyone has temptations and vulnerabilities, some worse than others but all needing support and care.

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.

[J Rob]

The United Methodist Church has been in a moral crisis for some time as well. It should not have to reach a point that the judcial council has do decide if a bishop is within his/her right to remove an openly gay clergyperson.

[Amy Proctor]

The Evangelical Lutheran Church Association broke from mainstream Lutheranism, which is very traditional and orthodox (both Missouri and Wisconson synods) in the 1980's to start a liberal branch of Lutheranism. Johnny and I mistakenly went there when we were on our trek back to orthodoxy and in our introduction to the ELCA class, we received a rude awakening. They were pro-choice, won't condemn fornication, support gay unions... WITHIN THE CHURCH. Saying that society at large is ignorant and not a part of church law might have been an explanation, but they wanted to be so inclusive that they extended their arms of tolerance (and sin, I might add) to everyone who refused to keep the Law of God and teachings of Christ... as long as they were "loving".

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.

[Mike H.]

I've got news, The Reverend Peter Akinola is going to take over the world! In terms of the Anglican Communion that is. I'm not a member, but I'm rooting for him. He looks as if he's going to shift the balance of power, in the Anglican Church, from England to Nigeria. This shift is a direct response to the election of Robinson. The Archbishop of Canterbury is running scared. Heh. FYI, the largest Anglican Communion is the Nigerian Communion, hence the power play.

[jez]

Being gay and alcoholic is small fry compared to molesting children. However, I don't wish to argue that such behaviour is a systemic product of the Catholic Church... do you have any argument that Robinson's alcoholism and money mismanagement are *systemic* in the Episcopal church?

Akinola's views are hardly endorsed by all African Anglicans. I doubt any power shift is imminent.

[Amy Proctor]

Jez, you're on to something! However, in the Catholic Church, the scandal of priests abusing boys (which is more of a past scandal... it doesn't happen TODAY nearly as often, although one case is too much) is occurring/did occur by GAY MEN. I'll find the report from the Chruch to show you what I mean.

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.

[Chief RZ]

Amy,
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.

[Leticia]

I think it is rather sad that churches are giving into liberalism and tossing out the teachings of the bible. It is very clear what the Word says about alcoholism and such.

But, Jez is also right, molesting is just as bad, and it is most definitely unpardonable.

I find this so disturbing.

[Silke]

Amy,

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.

[jez]

Well, I didn't bring up pedophilia as an invitation to compare the different Churches' morals, but to ask how the financial and alcoholic problems in this case (which Amy called the "fruit" in her article) were causually related to the liberal attitude to homosexuality, any more than the pedophilia is related causually to the conservative attitudes of the Vatican. I don't think either argument has been made.

I haven't looked, but I haven't seen any data which shows homosexuals to be more likely to be pedophiles than straight people.

Silke,

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