I agree with you about the moral bankruptcy of traditional closeted A-C life (which often goes along with plenty of misogyny of course). That was actually the point I was trying to make as I thought you were saying something else, i.e. that that system was actually gay-positive, rather than that their bigger issue was about women.

I completely agree with you when you say: “To my eyes, the overt condemnation yet “covert” practice of homosexuality is a greater breach of the Gospel ethos as it undercuts the rest of the moral teaching of the Church. That is to say, if we know the clergy say one thing and do another in this particular case, it’s logical to assume it happens in other cases –if not all cases–as well… ”

A literal interpretation of certain parts of Scripture and much of tradition does result in homophobia–and, again, misogyny. But I think a better interpretation of more crucial parts of both results in challenging these sins, as in your point about reclaiming virtue ethics. This is what I was trying to get at with the majuscule and miniscule “t’s” recalling Yves Congar’s distinction of Tradition and tradition(s). Clearly I didn’t do that very well. The same thing goes for my expansive language breviary, which I consider deeply in line with classical theology and the heart of the Tradition though very different from much of tradition…..

Yes, traditional A-C life has always had plenty of closeted male gays. And you’re right that this stance doesn’t reject the teachings of Scripture and Tradition (and in saying so are on the same page entirely with the Young Fogey who’s often argued the same thing).

But neither does hypocrisy conform to the Gospel.

To my eyes, the overt condemnation yet “covert” practice of homosexuality is a greater breach of the Gospel ethos as it undercuts the rest of the moral teaching of the Church. That is to say, if we know the clergy say one thing and do another in this particular case, it’s logical to assume it happens in other cases –if not all cases–as well…

As I’ve argued elsewhere here, I’d rather change the Tradition in this respect to move back towards an equally Traditional understanding of virtue ethics than to uphold this form of institutional hypocrisy.

I’m sick of hearing how great the pastoral and ritual care of gay people in TEC is. I live in one of the most liberal dioceses in this church and frankly it has only been in the last year that this diocese has gotten explicit about what that means. Mostly in TEC it means we’ll let you have a place in the pew, we’ll say a nice welcome statement, take your money and talent, and feel good about ourselves, but don’t ask for anything concrete.

At least with the conservatives there’s no pretending that they’re going to treat me as they would wish to be treated or they will disagree with me civilly depending on the type of conservative. Adrian Thatcher got it right that we’re a pawn in everyone else’s theopolitics.

Also, wouldn’t San Joaquin and other dioceses on the verge of leaving themselves cite growing tolerance of homosexuality (or, as they would probably put it, sodomy) as a major reason for their departure? And don’t they deserve for their words to be taken seriously?

Traditional A-C life had plenty of powerful closeted male gays and sometimes this functioned as an “open secret” to some folks and in some contexts. But that’s a very different thing from explicitly re-visiting interpretation of Scripture and Tradition and rejecting much of tradition’s teaching and policies on homosexuality as contrary to the Gospel and the heart of Tradition.

Philosophically, I think your MTTN could be “entirely institutionally accepting” but I don’t think this fits what we’ve seen. There are axes being ground on the right, no doubt—but they’re there on the left as well.

The problem is that the Movers-Towards-The-New (hereinafter MTTN) are entirely institutionally accepting of the Keepers-Of-The-Old (hereinafter KOTO). The MTTMs have been consistently been accepting of the presence of KOTOs, however much they disagree. But KOTOs don’t want to be in any way associated with the MTTMs.

And, on the pastoral level, a compromise on the part of the KOTOs would merely mean that they would have to hold their theological noses a bit, while a compromise on the part of MTTNs would mean serious pastoral/emotional/physical damage and harm to actual living and breathing LGBT human beings. One is highly objective and theoretical, the other very subjective and practical.

Finally, the MTTNs are not in any way demanding that the KOTOs agree with them or be forced against their wills/consciences to ordain LGBTs or bless SSMs. All they are asking is, “Allow us to….”

It is not a case of balancing “a” against “b” - there is no equivalence between the two demands. One (KTTO) thinks “all must”; the other (MTTN) thinks “some may”, and the difference between “must” and “may” is not just rhetorical, it is of the essence.

Where one party believes in the inerrant nature and perspecuity of Scripture, rejecting out of hand that Tradition is required to read it and thereby and therefore asserting that “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” and that “The Sacraments are not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about…”

and where the other has full truck with the invocation of Saints, the adoration of relics and Solemn Benediction?

Perhaps not…

There are a lot of groups in the Episcopal Church and I imagine that a number of them hold genuinely incompatible positions from one another. My point here is that this debate, while theological in nature, is driven by personalities in conflict as well as theologies.

The two sides as currently constructed will neither reconcile nor back down. And I’m not convinced it had to be that way.

should they be if their positions are genuinely incompatible? Just asking…

We have “both sides” because a joint decision was made that there should be two sides and that they should fall along these lines. This decision has been reinforced by a skillful adoption of certain patterns of rhetoric. Of course there are many sides—but selecting and promoting terms like “reappraiser” and “reasserter” make sure that they are simplified into two…

It has nothing to do with Anglican latitude as far as I can tell–it has to do with purple shirts: who wants ‘em, who’s got ‘em, and who wants to be in whose club.

Not that any of this is new…

Reconciliation takes two willing parties; are either side in this dust-up willing?