Lambeth decision `slap in the face' for homosexuals

Reaction in Ireland to the Lambeth conference vote on homosexuality might best be summarised by that now well-worn phrase: it hasn't gone away, you know.

Chris Robson of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) said he was "resigned and disappointed" following the vote. "It is another slap in the face from an institution which is not particularly caring despite its protestations in favour of anti-discrimination," he said.

The decision, he felt, owed most to a traditional theology which was influenced by 19thcentury morality. While noting the remarks to conference of Bishop John Neill, about listening to gay and lesbian people, he expressed disappointment at the apparent stance of the Irish bishops on the issue. In particular he was surprised that the primate of all-Ireland, Dr Eames, who chaired the debate, wasn't more forthright.

He recalled how forceful Dr Eames had been in a letter to him in 1992 on the issue of equal treatment before the law of homosexuals. While making the point that homosexual practice was sinful, Dr Eames was "extremely powerful" in his view that the same law should apply to all.

The letter was very influential, Mr Robson said. He passed it on to the then minister for justice, Mrs Maire Geoghegan Quinn, while she was preparing legislation banning discrimination against homosexuals and establishing the same age of consent for them as for heterosexuals. For such reasons, he felt it ironic the Church of Ireland was not more supportive of homosexuals at Lambeth.

What had happened was disgraceful and a real step backwards from a biblical scholarship which had finally begun to dissolve Leviticus (which lists homosexuality as an abomination alongside worsted cloth and shellfish). "The church seems to have taken a fairly massive step back," he felt. He gets increasingly angry at being told how much he, as a gay man, is loved "by churches which have done so much harm to us down the centuries". Now "when I hear the word `compassion' I get quite ill". Lambeth was almost as fierce a denunciation of something which makes life meaningful for people as the Vatican view "which says our lives are objectively morally evil".

Senator David Norris said that as a regular church-goer he did not feel excluded by the decision at Lambeth. However, he thought it "rather sad". He had noticed over the years that a number of homosexual people, disillusioned with the Vatican's similar line on the issue, had felt more at ease with the Church of Ireland position. "I hope they won't be estranged," he said.

He was impressed by the "very thoughtful careful exposition of Bishop Neill" on the issue. He would not have thought Bishop Neill was sympathetic to gay rights. Then he reflected that the bishop had at one time been opposed to the idea of women priests, but changed his mind. "He is a highly intelligent man," Mr Norris said. He had found his contribution to the Lambeth debate moving.

However, and although he has the greatest respect for the gay Christian movement, Senator Norris thought that elements within it had become shrill. As an example he referred to Peter Tatchell's recent taking over of Archbishop Carey's pulpit during a service. "That was shocking to some people. It is not a course of action I've ever taken or wanted to. It is almost as if they have a desire to create martyrs," he said. Overall, he thought the debate and vote at Lambeth was "part of the painful movement forward" and he noted that 30 years ago bishops would not even discuss the issue. Though what had taken place was hurtful and distasteful, he was not downhearted.

Archdeacon Gordon Linney, of the Dublin Archdiocese, believed that despite Lambeth, homosexuality as an issue was not going to go away. What had happened was "a reflection of the pain and fear many feel when addressing the issue". As a heterosexual who can't begin to understand homosexuality he believed that as a priest and pastor he had to listen, be compassionate towards, and try to understand the feelings of people who are gay.

No matter what was or was not decided at Lambeth, clergy in parishes would still have to struggle with the issue of who is my neighbour, remembering that that (category) included homosexuals. Such were the day-to-day pastoral realities. "We have to listen, and remember that in the past when things were swept under the carpet people were very badly treated."

He felt that the generally extreme stance of Third World bishops on the issue was possibly related to their more pressing concerns of debt and poverty, as well as the surrounding pressures of a fundamentalist Muslim world.

Dean Maurice Sirr of Limerick felt the bishops at Lambeth "had a particularly difficult task". As with the ordination of women, they had been asked to take on board "something quite revolutionary. It was particularly challenging where our understanding of sexuality, the family, and family life was concerned".

He believed the issue "will take time. Like the ordination of women it will have to be thought through. It will not go away." However, he would advise homosexuals to be less demanding in presenting their case. He did not like the demanding, strident approach. That had become a feature of the English Church, he noted, not least where the issue of the ordination of women was concerned. As an issue homosexuality was "not as stridently obvious here [in the Church of Ireland]". He would describe the situation as extremely conservative.

Dean Ian Corbett of Tuam expressed extreme disappointment at the Lambeth vote. It suggested a long struggle ahead, he said. The bishops had "failed the Church considerably. It seems the world is able to offer a more godly compassion [to homosexuals] than the churches." What had happened was "terrible, a serious moral failure on the part of the church leadership".

The bishops had endorsed a fundamentalist biblical line in support of "an unholy alliance" of Third World bishops and North American fundamentalists. The result was a consequence of politicking rather than theological debate, and that matter of itself raised very serious issues which went way beyond homosexuality, he said. The bishops had "put the unity of the Church before a concern for truth". The result had been "at the expense of truth."