"The [diocese] defrocked Parry as the group investigates him. He can choose to renounce his priesthood or face a trial among church leaders.”

Too bad many ECUSA bishops don’t allow orthodox priests this much due process.

"He can choose to renounce his priesthood or face a trial among church leaders, said Bishop Leo Frade, head of the Diocese.”

In this church?  Discipline?  How retrograde!

The school was shocked?

“Parry was vacationing in Thailand with friends, as was his tradition every year...”

When you combine this with some of the revelations from alumni about a well known Episcopal boarding school, one has to wonder.
Actually, I take that back, one doesnt have to wonder.
Where would you send your kids?

A perfect day for me would be a combo of “Sun, Surf, and Sex!” - Rise around eight, breakfast out, reading the newspapers, visit the gym and then hit the beach with a friend (or cruise one on arrival!), visit an art gallery or take in a movie, enjoy a romantic dinner followed by “dessert!”

And TEC is shocked, shocked to learn this kind of thing is going on among its clergy!!

This isnt a problem just with the Episcopal church.
But what is different about the Episcopal Church, and many of its schools, is that they do not believe that the underlying behavior is sinful or disqualifying for working with children or teens; rather, you just can’t have a criminal past, or invite, relationships with your underage students.  They don’t see how small a step it is from one to another; which is why they express shock when a relevation occurs.  Its like giving a loaded gun to your child with the warning--don’t pull the trigger.

Presumably one of the things Fr. Parry had to resign over was things like this:

I am a: Single Gay Man
Interested in meeting: Single Man, Group
For : Relationship, Friendship, 1-on-1 Sex, Group Sex

Perhaps one of our revisionist pals can explain: What’s the problem here? Why should Fr. Parry have to resign over something like this, while Gene Robinson gets to be bishop?

Seriously, people... what has Fr. Parry done that warrants his resignation, and all this talk of being brought up before a church court? Despite Timothy’s observation - and it’s a good one - exactly what has Fr. Parry done that’s different from what you want the Episcopal Church to bless - indeed, what it does bless, thanks to your efforts?

Greg, I will save some time.
They will say the church blesses and approve only “monogamous committed relationships”.
That has been the standard explanation has been around since the landmark ordination of the Rev. Robert Williams. Of course, Williams, in a moment of personal candor, later called monogamy unnatural. In this regard, at least William told the truth about what he believed. If you asked the revisionists how they defined “monogamous committed relationships” and gave them a dose of Sodium Pentothal, a few would say lifetime, others would say lifetime unless you are married and later feel that you are gay; some would say for an any extended period of time; others would say for whatever period the two feel they wish to have an exclusive relationship.  Most would then end the conversation by pointing out that many of the orthodox leaders have been divorced themselves.

Hi Greg.

Sexual morality is something we all wrestle with (da-dum ching!).

But the Episcopal Church has been pinned by its own rhetoric.  You ask a good question...can they articulate why this man should be fired?

I do have compassion for Fr. Parry, who must be not only very embarassed, but may also be wondering what exactly is this Church’s teaching on sexual behavior?

I seriously doubt Terry Martin-Fr. Jake would approach this topic.

Whatever happened to teaching that sex outside of a marriage between man and woman in a marriage?  Is that horribly puritanical of me?

I can not and I will not defend Father Parry’s actions. Promiscuous behavior is hurtful behavior whether homosexual or heterosexual. I would like to believe a heterosexual priest would have been treated the same under these circumstances.

Not every homosexual is committed to a life of promiscuity but far too many are. Bars, bathhouses and now the internet thrive on that fact. In a society where staying in the closet can be the most important thing to an individual. Long term, committed relationships are too dangerous.

I see great value in insuring that those individuals who work with children are not just legally free of issues but are also of good moral character. I will not say that a homosexual should not work with children. What I will say is that standards for those working with the young ought to be clarified, expounded upon and then action taken. Prayerful consideration of this issue is most certainly in order. Scandal serves no purpose and achieves no ends.

MP, are you advancing the hypothesis that public acceptance of openly gay relationships results in less promiscuity and more long term, committed relationships? I have seen no statistical evidence of that. Do you have any statistics to support the argument?

I wonder if, in the eyes of the Episcopal Church, Parry’s “sin” is that he wasn’t “open” about it. 

Dear Timothy,

YES!  You’ve got it.  Public acceptance of gay relationships DOES result in more long-term and stable gay relationships and less promiscuity.  There was an enlightening article about the sinfulness of the closet by Dan Savage in today’s NY Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/opinion/08savage.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials and Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors

There’s a reason this happened in Florida and not in a more progressive diocese.  When people have the option of engaging in healthy and affirming relationships, that is what they choose.  When they don’t… well there you have it.

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

MP -

Not every homosexual is committed to a life of promiscuity but far too many are.

Far too many… for what?

Scandal serves no purpose and achieves no ends.

Satan vehemently disagrees!  Just look at what this sort of thing has done to the Catholic church lately—just look at what it is doing to your own church right now!

There is indeed a purpose being served, and an end being achieved…

And it’s pretty obvious from where I sit who the pawns are…

Linda,

So what you’re saying is, if Fr. Parry had years ago moved to say, Massachusetts, he wouldn’t be in this mess?

With respect, Ms McMillan, that article you cite proves nothing.  It is an opinion piece, filled with sweeping generalizations and short on hard statistics, written by a person with a built-in bias.  (And some might add that the New York Times is an unreliable source, as it too has a serious political bias.)

Timothy’s question remains unanswered.

I can’t imagine that Miami is not a very progressive and gay friendly place… this pervert was in no closet, was he?

Re: “There’s a reason this happened in Florida and not in a more progressive diocese.”

There are four dioceses in the state of Florida, and this priest is located in the Diocese of Southeast Florida, Bishop Frade’s diocese.

The diocese is a Black Hole of Progressivism.

Didn’t matter.

You DO NOT want to see the images from “MiamiLucha’s” videos that are still for sale…

(X-rated, no, you do not want to see just how bad this is)

Marty, I understand you meant well, but indeed we “do not want to see just how bad it is.” Please do not post links to such things at Stand Firm. This is a Christian website and all...Matt.

Amazing… makes Haggard look like a choirboy… no pun intended.

Public acceptance of gay relationships does not guarantee long term committed relationships. It does provide an enviroment more conducive to that actually happening. Let’s face it, heterosexual relationships are accepted and there is still promiscuity occuring in the straight world.

As for my statement that far too many are involved in a promiscuous lifestyle (that goes for gay or straight incidentally), well, I believe in long term commitments. I do not believe that sexual encounters simply for the sake of physical pleasure is the proper use of God’s gift of sexuality. I concede that many do believe just that but I do not count myself among them.

And I should like to amend my earlier statement. Scandal serves no good end and no good purpose. The public whipping post, even if only figurative, is not a sound way to deal with moral issues. Prevention through proper direction and awareness is a much better path.

I pray for Father Parry, that he may find God’s peace. His actions lead me to believe that this has been elusive for him. I pray for the child who found his website and for all the children who were privvy to that sordid bit of information. I pray especially for any child who counted Father Parry among their heroes. I pray for the parents who had to digest this information, that their hearts may find peace and their worries be abated. I pray for God’s gentle and loving hand to direct us all in how to respond to this matter in a Christian manner.

Manny said:

Public acceptance of gay relationships does not guarantee long term committed relationships. It does provide an enviroment more conducive to that actually happening.

I’m not an Episcopalian/Anglican as you know, so you can take or leave my comments as you wish.  But,

You say “long-term committed [gay] relationships” as if that were a good thing.  Granted, it may well be the lesser of two evils (short term relationships), but do we really want to encourage anyone to commit themselves to a long-term sinful relationship?  In my book, the shorter the sinful relationship, the better.

Public acceptance of a sinful lifestyle is not a goal for which anyone should strive.  Public acceptance of same-sex relationships results in more children, not less, who are intentionally deprived of either a mother or a father soley because of the gender bias of one natural parent. Surely this is not something we Christians (or any decent person, of any stripe) should want to embrace.

I personally consider it a Justice Issue.  I care very little about what someone does in his/her own bedroom, but inflicting your own gender bias on your kid in such a way is surely a human rights violation.

Marty,

I understand your perspective is different than mine. Many, including yourself, would say that gay relationships in any manner are sinful. Your faith has brought you to this place and so there you are. I do not agree with that position but I see no value nor do I believe I possess the right to insist you believe as I do. So here I stand.

As for the matter of children, whether in gay families or single parent familes or even blended families, it is often the case that children are deprived of loving relationships with biological parents. It is indeed a heartwrenching issue. Some kids seem to adjust to their situations readily and others have great difficulty. There are children in all the above circumstances who are grateful for the families that they have. When I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s the proverbial village helped raise the children. As the years have passed that responsibility has become more and more the sole task of parents/caregivers. I think how rich my childhood was because there were so many I could turn to for guidance and assistance. The passing of that era is regretable indeed.

Yuk. Sorry I don’t have the stomach to be more verbal

Manny:

it is often the case that children are deprived of loving relationships with biological parents. It is indeed a heartwrenching issue

Heartwrenching?  In every circumstance I can imagine, it is not only heartwrenching, but tragic.

I can’t imagine why this circumstance is any less tragic.  I find it more so, because it is so easily prevented, and the cause is (not death, not divorce, not abandonment) nothing more than gender bias made flesh.

Anything we as a society do to encourage such a thing, is a crime against humanity, imho.  Permitting it (with strong social stigma) is one thing, but encouraging it?  Criminal.

Aside from the lurid stuff on the Gaydar site, this caught my eye:

I am full of contradictions (ex: I am intellectually/culturally elitist but poltically left-leaning)

One of the best descriptions of those ‘in authority’ of a reappraising inclination that I’ve read.

Ted Haggard and now this.

We in the broader Christian community need to think hard about what it is that leads men such as these to fall into ‘double lives’, for me the rationale that it is to do with a non acceptance of a gay lifestyle is too simplistic.

I agree that to point to the non acceptance of gay lifestyle as the one and only cause is simplistic. It is one of many factors to be sure. Each of us is molded by life...or we allow ourselves to be molded in ways....in each individual case there will be many answers to the question of why. But non acceptance is one thread that runs through many lives.

Our response to the challenges before us tell much about the measure of the individual as well as the depth of their faith.

I am full of contradictions (ex: I am intellectually/culturally elitist but poltically left-leaning)

I notcied that too. I immediately thought: How exactly is that a contradiction? If anything, that’s to be expected.

I’ll take the bait.

Promiscuity is always sinful.  it is based on lust, not love.  It is a twisting of the gift of human sexuality.

BTW, Williams was disciplined by Bp. Spong for his outrageous statements.  This priest needs to be as well for his behavior.

I agree with you there Manny.  Non-acceptance was very formative in my early years.  It was only after i stopped trying to be accepted by others and live my own life did i discover for myself that i was NOT gay.  Based on personal experience, I suspect that craving for acceptance is exactly what leads many kids to think they ARE gay. 

...

I am intellectually/culturally elitist but poltically left-leaning

Seeing pictures of an intellectually/culturally elitist episcopal priest engaging in sodomitic internet oil wrestling makes a NASCAR fan like myself feel so much better about myself.  Elitism is surely a relative thing!

yech.  more folks selling and spinning aberrancy as normalcy.
kinda hard to be a moral guide, surely a fundamental role of holding orders, when one is excessively amoral.  annual vacations in thailand?  nude oil wrestling?  Spong, no doubt, has a Palpatine-esque grin on his face this day.

I must have missed it...who exactly is suggesting this is normal behavior? 

He is being disciplined by his bishop.  He will be deposed, as he should be.  End of story.

MP

We are in the midst of a study on James. Please look at James 3 especially verses 1 and 13. Whether we like it or not, teachers and especially teachers of the faith are held to a higher standard - and should be. There are also lessons for the rest of us in that chapter on taming our tongues.

Opinions and preferences expressed publicly on various Internet fora are an extension of our tongues. Mr. Parry should have kept his “tongue” under control and not posted some of his un-biblical preferences so that we would not have ammunition with which to judge him. Likewise, we have to be careful to condemn only his actions and accept that his removal from leadership, where his public example is a stumbling block to some and casts doubts on the correctness of his teaching, may be the best that can happen in the short term.

In the long term, I pray that Mr. Parry is convicted of the sinful nature of his public behaviour and that that conviction sows seeds of repentance and contrition in his heart. May God have mercy on him - and me.

Linda, did you think I would make that statement if I didnt know of evidence to the contrary?
We are living in an age of increasing public acceptance of the gay lifestyle, yet it has done nothing to reduce reckless behavior in the gay community, just as acceptance of cohabitation and serial divorce has done nothing to reduce the number of heterosexual one night stands. 
The best marker for reckless behavior is in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. In June 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that between 1999 and 2003, new infections jumped 47 percent among 20- to 24-year-old gay/ bisexual men. The CDC also revealed that syphilis rates were up in America for the fourth straight year as a result of infections among gay men, who went from being 5 percent of all cases in 1999 to 64 percent in 2004. Gonorrhea has been exchanged so much in accepting, tolerant communities such as San Fransciso, Seattle and New York that nearly a fourth of cases diagnosed among gay and bisexual men last year were drug-resistant, compared to just under 2 percent for straight folks.

This is a tragedy, one aided and abetted by the agenda in the Episcopal Church.

Funny about the similarity between promiscuity and homosexual behaviour Father Jake,they’re both based on lust,both contrary to Scripture,ie God’s word,both twisted forms of sexual behavior,aberrations of married love between man and woman.
Even funnier,they’re running mates on the list of things ‘contrary to sound doctrine’(1 Tim.1:10).

Just want to make sure I understand you, paddy...you are claiming that expressions of homosexuality, in all cases, are based on lust, not love?

In a word Fr Jake,yes.
To make it simple for you,I believe that it is,to use the Biblical description of it,the deviation from the rightful use of sex,the lust for one another that some folks burn themselves out for(Romans 1:26-27)the behavior that is shameful(actually shameless).

Continued thought from my last post
As the former priest who is the subject of the thread quite well illustrates.

I somehow doubt Fr. Parry is getting fired becuase he was having sex with people while having lust in his heart.

I believe he is getting fired because he embarassed the school and Bishop with outrageous behavior (posting sex videos on the internet, and so on)

If Fr. Parry simply had a new lover every year, or every six months, and never posted anything on the internet, nothing would have ever been said and he would still be a priest in good standing.

Because as I understand it, if you feel love for the person you are having sex with, it is not a sin, but if you only feel lust it is a sin.  But this leaves us to guess what is in Fr. Parry’s heart.

In our fallen condition we can “Feel Love” toward someone at any time.  I love Fr. Jake, and I feel no lust for him, so if his wife is OK with it....

If the church or a parent tells a 15 year old girl, it is OK to have sex with her boyfriend if they love each other.  What do you think will happen?  Then it is OK to abort if she prays about it.  You see, it is all our subjective feelings that are the measure of right or wrong.  That usually works, except when it doesn’t (like Fr. Parry, for example, who obviously does not think he is sinning).

So is the Episcopal church teaching that homosexual couples must wait until they enter a lifelong, committed, monogamous relationship for their sex to become un-sinful?  I don’t think so.  To the Episcopal church sex is not a sin if you primarily feel love and you don’t do anything that gets bad press.  The sin in that is making your Bishop uncomfortable.

I don’t want to give the impression in any way that I believe conservative Christians have sexual morality figured out (obviously).  We are all to some degree Fr. Parrys.  I think the difference is we come at the issue with what God reveals through scripture, and not our feelings or current cultural mores.

Peace!

DoW

PS: Props to Fr. Jake for approaching the question.  Thanks for trying to engage us neo-puritans.

DoW wrote: “We are all to some degree Fr. Parrys.  I think the difference is we come at the issue with what God reveals through scripture, and not our feelings or current cultural mores.”
That is a good point and highlights the “two churches” divide in Anglicanism. 
For those who accept the LGBT agenda, orthodox/traditional folks are fundamentalists who read old texts uncritically or with designs on legitimating power and privlege.
From an orthodox perspective, the progressives are essentially Scientologists, who believe that there is a “clear” elite that has achieved some kind of emotional health over/against the neuroses of those who disagree with them.
Each group, if it really cares about the salvation or wholeness it espouses, must witness to the other with an eye toward conversion.  Not even the UN MDG can displace that dynamic.

Sorry about that Matt—I actually didn’t intend for those URLs to be linked (too easy to click accidentally), but the system converted them anyway.  Should have left off the http:// I suppose.

If i were the parent of a child at his school and ran across those links, I don’t know what i’d do—but I’d call a lawyer first, before deciding…

I spent the late 60’s and all of the 70’s as an apostate from the faith.  And during that time I thought that being gay was just another form of love.

In the early 80’s I experienced a slow but progressive re-conversion.  However, I did not put myself forward until I knew that I could say all of the Nicene creed without reservation.  That I could believe in the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection.  But my opinions regarding homosexuality and sin hadn’t really changed until I started really reading scripture.  It wasn’t some dramatic Damacusus moment, but a gradual realization of God’s ownership over the entire fabric of our lives and how his design for human’s is the way we are meant and called to live.  And more, it is the place where humans as society, family and individual thrive.
I was moving toward an orthodox view of human sexuality, when I stumbled upon a booklet called “A Christian’s response to the homosexual”.  It set forth the theological and scriptural reasons why homosexual behaviour violates God’s plan and will.  It also provided guidelines on how to reach out in love to persons struggling with homosexual desires within the church.
But the “nail in the coffin” of my believing that homosexuality, in any form, was my reading of the book “And the band played on” by the late Randy Shilts.  Randy was a gay writer, living in San Franscisco who eventually died from AIDS.  This book was written in the late 80’s and was anything but anti-gay.  It was an uncensured account of the gay movement starting in NYC and San Franscisco in the 60’s to a very frank description of what goes on at bath-houses and all of the various sexual practices preferred by gays.  It is a difficult read, but I recommend it because it gives one a real view of the homosexual culture.

About 1/3 of the way through the book I came to some interesting realizations as to the psychology of the motivations of homosexual behavior and why it would be appealing to men.  I’m not sure this is the forum to go into the analysis, but suffice it to say much of the understanding came from my experience as a married woman of some 15+ years with male sexuality.
Bottomline, my opinion of male homosexuality (and I suspect lesbianism too) is that it is the sexual form of narcissism.  It is having sex with your mirror, a mirror that puts no restriction on the physical experience no matter how bizarre or degrading.  It is having sex in a shadow world that gives permission to embrace and fondle demons we should shun.  At the core of the homosexual tryst is Satan twisting the gift of sexual expression into the doppleganger of death and destruction.

And just for the record, a read of Mr. Shilts book will dissuade anyone of the fiction of committed gay relationships.

At some level, current Episcopalian teaching does leave the progressives in a bind over episodes like this, whether they admit it or not.  Fr. Jake says - and I wholeheartedly agree - that, “Promiscuity is always sinful.  it is based on lust, not love.  It is a twisting of the gift of human sexuality.” Or, others might say, as Timothy pointed out near the top, that monogamy is the Christian ideal, and Fr. Parry violated that.

The problem is, where does that ideal come from?  And on what basis do we say that, “Promiscuity is always sinful?” On the basis of Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, of course - but these are the same things progressives believe are of infinite elasticity, filled with cultural anachronisms.  How then can they say that promiscuity is always wrong?  Couldn’t that ideal be culturally conditioned, and not appropriate to a sophisticated society of Oprah, MTV and “hooking up?”

Thanks for engaging this issue, Fr. Jake.  At least we’re talking.

I understand what you’re saying: that the difference is between committed monogamy and promiscuity.  But here’s the problem: that is what your side is saying today.  The uneasy question at the back of reasserters’ minds is, what will you people be saying tomorrow? 

You yourselves have said that God’s truth is “still being revealed,” that it’s an “ongoing process,” that the Holy Spirit can lead us to do “New Things.” What’s tomorrow’s New Thing?  What’s coming down the pike next?  Are you really basing these changes to church practice and doctrine on some kind of divine revelation, or are you slavishly following secular societal trends—which in Western countries are drifting more and more towards a kind of sexual free-for-all?  Some people in mainstream churches are already flirting with concepts like so-called “justice-love.” Did Fr. Parry behave as he did, boldly putting his personal info on the World Wide Web for all to see, because he felt sure the church would come around to seeing things his way?

We reasserters react the way we do to these situations because of a basic uncertainty: we just don’t know what the hell is coming next.  That’s an unpleasant position to be in.  Are you surprised that we respond accordingly?

thank you to Gayle for her insights.  Having Lived in San Francisco in the 80s, I can assure her that the book “And the Band Played on” is a truthful picture of the life...that is, according to my gay male friends and acquaintances.  frankly, there is nothing “gay” about it.  Someone said that sin is that which separates us from God.  It also hurts.  Many of those gay friends are now in their 50s and 60s and are anything but happy.  Some have found a contentment in a partnership.  My heart goes out to all of tem.  Always love your gay friends. I don’t think we are capable of understanding the pain they live with.

To say that “life-long, loving, committed relationships” become the norm in locales that are more tolerant of the gay lifestyle is absolute bullfeathers. How many gays move to San Francisco to find a loving committed mate, move to the suburbs, and settle in? Very few, apparently, since the gay bath house/gay bar culture is still going strong there. I asked my gay friend Bruce years ago what the attraction of San Francisco was. He said it was because it was a sexual Disneyland for gays. Unfortunately, he came back home with AIDS and died 15 years ago.

the snarkster

Always love your gay friends. I don’t think we are capable of understanding the pain they live with.

church lady,

I agree 100% with your first sentence. I agree 0% with your second. I doubt there is anyone on this board who hasn’t suffered tragedy every bit as terrible, and worse, as what we’re told so many gay people suffer. To elevate their suffering above those who have gone through, or are going through, the tragedies of cancer, violent crime, the death of a child, and a hundred other things, demeans all those other tragedies, and places far too much importance on misery that is caused, to some extent at least, by a person’s choice.

I love my gay friends, but not because they’re gay, or because they’re suffering from being gay. I love them because that’s what I do for friends, no matter what’s ailing them.

I am always amazed the number of people that buy into the concept that acceptance fo the lifestyle leads to committed, monogomous relationships.  You don’t have to pick up a Bible to read the statistics. It just doesn’t happen.

No book or movie or song or whatever is an all-encompassing look at anything. If I read the book “The Burning Bed” and believed that that is what heterosexual lifestyle and marriage is all about I would have a very narrow perspective on the subject.

There are heterosexuals who are very promiscuous and engage in bodily defiling activities. That is also true of some (many, if you wish) homosexuals but it is not true of all. To take the actions of individuals portrayed in a book and generalize that to all persons of a similar persuasion is way too far reaching. Then to generalize that lesbians must be just like gay men is absurd. Any professional psychologist worth their salt will talk of the inherent differences in psychological make-up between men and women.

What you have done is accept a stereotype in your mind. You can no longer look at individuals without your preconceived notions interfering with your vision. From this mode, it is hard to imagine how one would seperate the sin from the sinner because you only see a caricature.

If that is where you are coming from and you insist on biblical authority then why not demand that all homosexuals be put to death. That is what the Bible calls for. That is the literal interpretation of the scripture. Note, that even that small step away from true biblical compliance is a step toward the progressive end of the spectrum. Please consider that carefully. Pray on it. Why does is that thought so unpleasant? What is at work (the Holy Spirit?) to tell you that 100% literal interpretation is not appropriate?

I’ve read the words here and some comments are thoughtful, compassionate and thought provoking. Other comments seem filled with prejudice and anger and a negativity that is overwhelming. I challenge you to challenge yourself.

Acting upon inclinations toward same sex attraction always has to do with lust and the satisfaction thereof.  Once the behavior no longer yields satisfaction, the object of lust must change.  Many homosexuals, especially male, I’m sure, scoff at the idea of ersatz “marriage” arrangements” as it would place limits on their pursuit of satisfaction, and would mimic the hetero lifestyle that they basically despise.

MP, what you fail to address is the unrefutable statistical evidence that “acceptance” has simply not resulted in the shift to monogomous relationships.  Sure, there are exceptions.  But if you are a thinking person, the overwhelming evidence should cause you to pause and wonder if you are on the wrong track. Advocates of TEC’s course are, many unknowingly, supporting a path to pain and destruction for many of God’s children.

I did not say that acceptance would lead to a mass exodus toward monogamy in the gay community. I said that in that enviroment of acceptance, monogamy has a better chance of occuring. There are no guarantees....EVER… in such changes.

Secondly, you condemn all homosexuals as promiscuous and that is not true. There are gay men and lesbians who are not acting out in a reckless manner sexually. There are a number in monogomous relationships. When you point to the behaviors of some and say it is in reality the behavior of all that is prejudice. You have stopped seeing individuals and that is as unhealthy for you as for the people you have stereotyped. There are many facets to each and every person and no one fits a certain unalterable mold because they belong to a certain group.

When you speak of scripture as you understand it (that’s all anyone has is their understanding), I respect that this is how God has revealed His word to you. But I cannot in any way, shape or form imagine Jesus sitting around with the disciples or with any modern group and saying things like, “Well, homosexuals are all alike...” Because, when a Christian starts in with you “all homosexuals are promiscous” what are they saying about being Christ-like?

Responding to Phil and St. Anon,

Yes, I do understand your concerns.  You see no ethical standard.

There’s no point in debating the scripture argument here, as we will simply disagree.  I find nothing in the 7 clobber passages that refer to the present situation, and you do.  So there we are.

The tradition has been “don’t ask, don’t tell.” There have always been gay and lesbian Christians.  As long as they stayed in the closet, no one objected.  They are no longer in the closet.  Thus the current unpleasantness.  I don’t find the tradition helpful.

As with other ethical questions in which scripture and tradition are unclear or silent, that leaves reason.  What is a reasonable standard for human sexuality?  Do no harm.  That which harms another is sinful.  Promiscuity is always harmful, in multiple ways.  Human sexuality becomes the healthy expression of mutual affection only within the confines of committed, longterm relationships.  It would seem to me that the Church would be encouraging more committed relationships. 

Regarding your fear of what will be next, can you see that some of us on the progressive side have similar fears?  Although rarely said aloud, sometimes I wonder if we are headed towards a time when The Handmaid’s Tale will become more than just a work of fiction.  When we allow the Church to begin peeking in the windows of our bedrooms, where will the new lines be drawn?

Two ethical approaches, deontology and consequentialism, in collision.  Both approaches can be found in scripture and tradition.  Our current problem is that it is very difficult for these two approaches to hear each other, as each insists that their way is the only way. 

I’ve probably said too much for this particular forum.  Thanks for your civil responses.  I’ll now return to my heretic’s cave.

Kudos to Fr.Jake. That is about as civil and reasoned a response as I have ever seen from him. Of course, it is wrong but at least he has turned down his “attitude” a notch. He still refers to us as demented neanderthal bottom feeders on his site and allows others to do so as well. Be that as it may, kudos to him anyway, at least in this instance.

the snarkster

When we allow the Church to begin peeking in the windows of our bedrooms, where will the new lines be drawn?

That’s a thoughtful question, and it deserves a thoughtful answer.  Where indeed should the lines be drawn?  Today they’re drawn at monogamy; tomorrow someone may have a different view.  The simplest answer for reasserters is “draw the lines where they’ve always been drawn, in scripture and tradition.  Draw new lines, and you merely invite further innovation down the road.”

The tragedy of the AIDS epidemic reaffirmed our belief that the church was right to preach monogamy in marriage and chastity outside of it.  The church has always “peeked in the bedroom wondows” because it acknowledges, along with scripture, the deadly consequences of unbridled sexual activity.  It is concerned with the wellbeing of people, both as community and as precious individuals.

Some see in “same-sex blessings” not a move toward asserting monogamy, but an effort to place the stamp of approval on arrangements other than marriage.  “Justice-love” (the approval of more casual relationships for all orientations) may well be next.  Who knows?  We certainly don’t.  And that not-knowing is the core of our resistance to these innovations.

The Church does not “peek in the windows” of heterosexuals or homosexuals. The church is suppose to define sin, and then it is up to each of us individually to acknowledge and confess our sins before God. Unlike the Catholics, we do not have to confess before our priest. No one else needs to know, but ourselves and God.

<blockquote>As with other ethical questions in which scripture and tradition are unclear or silent, that leaves reason.  What is a reasonable standard for human sexuality?  Do no harm.  That which harms another is sinful.  Promiscuity is always harmful, in multiple ways.  Human sexuality becomes the healthy expression of mutual affection only within the confines of committed, longterm relationships.  It would seem to me that the Church would be encouraging more committed relationships.

A refreshing admission that if we assume that scripture is not credible on the subject of SS activity, then it is also not credible on SS promiscuity.  Thus, we enter a field of reason, though I am not sure that it is Hooker’s - and I am not sure as to the credibility (i.e., to one inclined to promiscuity) of the subordinate assumptions.

At any rate - a church holding forth such teaching strikes me as quite vulnerable to the philosphical rejoinder: “oh yeah, says you.”

Pardon the failure to close the blockquote.

Well, no surprise, but I agree with st. anon.  If Scripture is truly silent on these matters – and, as Fr. Jake said, we don’t agree on that – but, if it is silent, then I don’t think his reasoned answer necessarily follows, and that is an example of the problem.

I don’t think it’s clear at all, to the human mind, with its passions (and, in America, its obsession with “rights” and individuality), that, “Promiscuity is always harmful, in multiple ways.” For example, in my college days (and I understand it’s worse now), I knew plenty of people that were promiscuous.  It was all part of celebrating your freedom and having fun – and, let’s be honest, it is fun, isn’t it?  And, what’s become of a lot of those people now?  They’re settled down (on both sides) in their own families now, with decent jobs, and some even go to church regularly.  What harm was done, especially in “multiple ways?” If the Church disclaims a basis in Scripture or its own Tradition for speaking to this kind of moral behavior, then it really has no right to say it’s right or wrong.  The truth is, quite frequently, some promiscuity does no harm at all, from a human perspective.  Of course, we are called to conform to God’s perspective, and therein lies the difficulty, for conservatives and progressives.

Phil, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The “sex, drugs, and rock & roll” of the sixties did incalculable harm to both our generation and future generations. I was there. I thoroughly enjoyed the drugs and the promiscuous sex. I enjoyed it so much, I plumb forgot to go to school, for which I am paying a heavy price today. Over the years, I have seen legions of my friends suffer the ravages of alcohol/drug addiction, unwanted children and sexually transmitted diseases. The promiscuity of the sixties is what has led to the breakdown in morality and the epidemic of divorce that we are suffering from today.

The only thing that saved me was that I got married, found religion, and had 3 wonderful (mostly) kids. Unfortunately, the religion I found was Episcopalianism.

So yes, promiscuity is harmful, both to heterosexuals and homosexuals but particularly to the homosexual community which lost millions to AIDS which was spread almost entirely by promiscuous homosex.

the snarkster

snakster - I concur. Also the Bible is not silent, it called sexual immortality. In fact the ONLY reason we’re at this point is becuase we have not held the standard inside the the American church about heterosexual sins.

Unlike snarkster, I’ve never known a life where I didn’t know Jesus as my Savior, but my screen name could easily be Hosea chap.1-3, for it wasn’t till 25 that He became my Lord. I have too many personal testimonies of where “sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll” have done great harm. God’s commands and instructions are a great gift of His love. He loves us so much to instruct us not to touch the hot stove, but has given us the ablity to destroy ourselves if we desire.

Our sexuality is a great gift and powerful. If it were not Satan would not devote such energies perverting. We can also see this empirically by the carnage left when it’s abused. The Lord has a lot to say on the subject, more than Fr Jake’s 7 verses (remember hetrosexuality is the norm so the Lord naturally has more to say there, even if 7 is considered the perfect number). We should as God followers, strive to learn His design and attempt to redeem human sexuality back from the culture.

(The two friends I’ve had die of AIDS were homosexual, world wide snakerster is correct, it is a hetrosexual pandempic. Herps was common, but the psychological issues were the greatest, we can invent barriers to prevent the exchange of fulids, but we have not invented anything to prevent damage to the soul. If you want a Scriptural exhortation 1 Cor 6:18,19 works for me).

I’m on your side, guys - point is, human reason, pace Fr. Jake, doesn’t necessarily lead us there - which is why we should heed those seven verses and everything else.

I’ve never known a life where I didn’t know Jesus as my Savior, but my screen name could easily be Hosea chap.1-3, for it wasn’t till 25 that He became my Lord.

I’m a cradle Episcopalian, I should write that I’m lucky to know Jesus as Savior, but what is really sad about thses events is that there have been many “men of the cloth “ who were faithful preachers.

I was privilege to know some. Yet, that didn’t stop my course to the far country. What turned me into a reformed liberal (you can use both double meaning & probably be correct)? There were two (and more) Bible believing near Catholic souls who loved us enough to build relationships & yet keep the standard that our choices were wrong and ultimately harmful to us. May God bless all those willing to risk the relationships and uphold His standards.

With all due respect to Fr. Jake, I think he is deceiving himself about the “7 clobber verses.” I suspect he had to engage in some serious and lengthy contortions before coming up with an argument that these verses don’t disapprove of homosexual sex acts.  Did he really read right over them the first time and think they meant—what?—adopt the MDGs?  Still, once you have decided to stake out that position, there is little basis for argument.  Words are without power.  What Fr. Jake fails to recognize, is that his standard of certainty with regard to Scripture makes it impossible to agree that any part of Scripture means anything at all.  So, why is he a Christian priest?

Cousin Vinnie, he likes the money and the ambiguity of the gospel from 815.

Seven clobber passages eh.
Sounds more like one of games of loaded dice described by Paul in Ephesians 4:14 when people are trying to deceive and manipulate other people,not unlike deriding ‘promiscuity’ while at the same time saying that homosexual behaviour is good on the sly side of one’s rebuke.
Perhaps here’s another set that they can add to their ‘clobber verses’ :’That is not the way you learned Christ! For surely you have heard Him and you were taught in Him,as truth is in Jesus(PB Schori can ya hear me,sung to the tune of Tommy).You were taught to put away your former way of life,your old self,corrupt and deluded by its lusts,and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,and to clothe yourselves with the new self,created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.’ Ephesians 4:20-24 NRSV

God bless all those willing to risk the relationships and uphold His standards.

Man that’s right on. 

Just about all I hear from the left on this matter is about the “relationships”, as if they are supposed to trump the Word.  So anyone who dares risk their relationship with a fellow Christian for the sake of the Word is held up as a “hater”, when in the end, after all the excuses and rejections have played out, we find that it is those unwilling to bend their knees who “hate” those who humbly follow the Master (who continute to preach the Word, despite their rejection by those who refuse to heed the plain and obvious Truth). 

What Jake, Kaeton, Russel, Crew, etc hate is the Word, they disdain and those who proclaim it.  Read their blogs, and you will see that there is no love in their hearts for those who fear God.

A couple of thousand years ago, we were warned about people like this.

"Two ethical approaches, deontology and consequentialism, in collision. “

With all due respect to Fr. Jake, deontology and consequentialism are not the only available ethical approaches.  Augustinian ethics is grounded in the proper sorting out of right and wrong desires in pursuit of the good.  Thomist/Aristotelianism, echoed in Richard Hooker, is a teleological virtue ethics.  Historic Reformation ethics is grounded in Luther’s law/gospel distinction.  Of course, none of the above will allow for approval of same-sex unions.

I came across this website while doing a search for stories on Father Parry. I am a former student of Father Parry and have kept contact with him after graduating; I have also been kept up to date with the school and their decision to accept his resignation. Father Parry was a wonderful teacher as well as a kind and gentle human being. However, I agree with the school’s decision. Palmer Trinity School is a wonderful institution and made their decision based on the website that Father Parry had, not on his choice of lifestyle. Palmer believes in individual rights of expression, but after personally viewing his website, I was disappointed. Big businesses fire individuals for inappropriate comments made in blogs, and in Father Parry’s case, he went far beyond inappropriate. In school, all students and faculty were aware of his gay lifestyle and it was never an issue becuase it was his personal decision. However, when Father Parry made the decision to place a website containing pornographic material involving himself, he was ignoring the fact that he is not only a representation of himself, but of his school and his church. I must stress that I have always had much respect and admiration for Father Parry, and still do, but at the same time I believe that actions taken by the church and the school are justified. And in response to a prior posting, Palmer Trinity is not a boarding school, it is a day school. My reason for posting is so that all who read this story and make comments regarding it will know that Father Parry is a good person and was and is loved by current and former students. Although this does not excuse his actions, stories have yet to discuss Father Parry as an individual outside of his current situation.

MaryMary, I appreciate your desire to acknowledge the positive part of your former teacher’s life.  You sound like a good and loyal friend; and I bet you were a good student.
However, according to the the GayDar profile linked above, your teacher (if that is him) maintained an apartment in Bangkok.  Do some research, and then contemplate about why an apartment would be maintained at that address.  Just think about it a while.
Forgiveness is available for this gentleman as it is for anyone else.  But it the big problem was not his exposure on a public website or the fact that he embarrased the school. That was just a relatively minor consequence of a life of hidden disobedience.  I am sorry for the state of his life, but am grateful that the publicity may protect others.

Thank you for your post MM.  As believing Christians we have faith that God will judge each one of us on our whole lives, weighing both good and bad.  Fr Parry’s ultimate fate is in the hands of One who knows more about the state of his soul than any of us can.

But as members of a faith community we must uphold certain standards, especially for those in holy orders, and so I agree with you that your school made the appropriate choice in disciplining Parry.  The saddest thing about such cases is that it makes all of us a little bit more cynical, less trusting of our fellow human beings.  Less likely, in fact, to accept those who appear to be “wonderful...kind and gentle… good” persons at face value.  Parry has hurt not just himself, but the priesthood to which he belongs, the Episcopal Church, and Christians everywhere.  The repercussions from this will be both widespread and long-lasting.

Based on her comment, it seems that MaryMary (and the school itself) doesn’t find any fault with the lifestyle of Mr. Parry, only with the fact that it was publicized on the internet.

Isn’t this the same “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that Fr. Jake finds “unhelpful”?  That a promiscuous and perverted lifestyle is okay, so long as nobody is aware of it?  At least Jake was willing to say that the lifestyle itself was immoral—MaryMary’s comment leads me to beleive that it was not the promiscuous and sodomitic oil wrestling that was a problem, just the publicity of posting it on the internet.

And yes Timothy, any gay american male who keeps a second residence in Bangkok should be under close scrutiny by the FBI in my opinion.  It’s no secret why that city is such a popular destination for american gay men… the tourist attractions there pale in comparison to internet oil wrestling, and are worthy of long prison sentances here.

Why doesn’t someone just come right out and say it: Bankok is the notorious World Capital of sexual perversion, child prostitute exploitation/enslavement, and any number of other illegal/immoral sexual activities. Any priest maintaining an apartment there has a serious addiction, unless he/she can document some other attachment to the area.

What it seems to me is that perhaps the Rev. Mr. Parry dove into his aselgeia with a vengeance and found it to still be a bit hazardous and not as unrestrained as he would have believed or desired.

Wow paddy, you just used a word that only has 649 references in Google.com.  That’s no simple feat

(but thanks for teaching me yet another word i’ll never use...)

MaryMary & Gulfstream,

More to the point, Bangkok is where American men (gay and straight) go to indulge their sexual attractions to children. As Marty notes, it should be an automatic trigger for FBI surveillance.

I am aware of that and yes, it should be investigated. However, no information has been gathered other than the fact that he has an apartment there. On the same point, Costa Rica is also a location that indulges sexual attractions to children.

In response to Marty the Baptist, you’re comment that I do not see any fault in his lifestyle is incorrect and unfounded. I only said that the website was the grounds for dismissal, not the sole source of disapproval. I do believe that his behavior was unbecoming of a priest and a teacher but at the same time I feel that as a sinnner, I am in no position to place judgement. As I said in my first post, I was dissappointed, and agreed with his dismissal. I should have made it more clear that the school, and myself, were only aware of his gay lifestyle and not his pornographic lifestyle (prior to the website). Father Parry’s pornographic and gay wrestling lifestyle were not known until the website was brought to our attention. I cannot say how the school would have dealt with his lifestyle had it been revealed through a manner other than a website, but in no way did I say that the school, or myself, agreed with the lifestyle made clear through his website. As for the don’t ask, don’t tell, I mentioned that the school and the students were very aware of his gay lifestyle; however, this same mentality did not apply to his other actions because they were not known, or suspected prior to the discovery of the site.

Marty,a lot easier to find in a good Greek text,or if you’re like me not a great Greek student,a good study Bible,Interlinear(NASB-NIV-Greek) or Bible Dictionary,I use Strong’s and Vine’s Dictionaries and Thayer’s Lexicon,not to mention,a lot of student loan money bought a good beginning on a commentary library(Barclay,Expositor’s,Tyndale,Abingdon).

I might add that MaryMary’s closing remark:

My reason for posting is so that all who read this story and make comments regarding it will know that Father Parry is a good person and was and is loved by current and former students. Although this does not excuse his actions, stories have yet to discuss Father Parry as an individual outside of his current situation.

...is a textbook example of the kind of brainwashing that’s going on in too many schools, especially those run by “priests” such as Fr. Parry. Mary, please take this in the spirit in which it’s intended: You’re forming lovely-sounding sentences, but they don’t mean anything. They’re a perfect example of the kind of reaction folks like Fr. Parry want all of society to have: That kind of sympathetic compartmentalization the logical terminus of which is, “We mustn’t be too harsh on Fr. Parry, and we certainly mustn’t judge him; after all, look at what a good person he is otside of his current situation.

Mary, it’s often said that character is what you do when you know no one is looking. Fr. Parry, on his web sites and his life away from the school, assumed no one was looking. And look what he did. I’m not going to claim that his apartment in Bangkok - at which he lived for half of every year - is proof of anything sinister, but the fact remains that just as Berkeley is the best-known place to go if you want a radical-left education, and Dearborn, Michigan is the best-known place to go if you want to meet some radical Muslims in America, Bangkok is the best-known place to go if you want to have sex with children without much hassle from the law. It’s no coincidence that John Mark Karr, the man who recently lied about having murdered JonBenet Ramsey, was found in Bangkok.

Look at it this way: What if it came to light that Fr. Parry kept an apartment in Las Vegas, and lived there for 6 months out of the year. “Um… what do you do there, Father?” Is the question really anything more than rhetorical at that point?

Mary, what I’m saying is: You can’t be “a good person,” even if for 6 months of the year you’re a chaplain at a school, when the other half of the year you’re in Bangkok hanging out at bath houses, soliciting gay group sex, making X-rated gay wrestling videos, and - let’s be candid her - God only knows what else. I shudder to think what might constitute that “else.”

You are not the person you are because of what you do during the 7 hours you spend at work, 5 days a week, 6 months a year. By my calculations, that’s only 15% of Fr. Parry’s waking hours every year. - even less with vacation. The kind of person you are is what you do the other 85% of the time as well. I’d also remind you that where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire, so we shouldn’t be too surprised if in the next few weeks or months, it comes to light that Fr. Parry’s extra-curricular activities involved “partners” closer to home.

Don’t get me wrong, Mary - I’m not berating you for your innocence or naivete. I feel tremendous sympathy for you, because what’s going to happen as more comes to light about Fr. Parry, is that you’re going to be forced to come to terms with the fact that a trusted adult - and more important, a priest you were expected to trust to help bring you closer to Christ - has let you down in a most depraved and disgusting way. I hope that if you need help you’ll find someone you really can trust; return here if you have to - there are good priests we can put you in touch with who can help you through this.

You and the rest of the kids at Palmer are in my prayers. I only wish there was something I could do to make sure no chlidren ever have to go through this kind of thing again.

Dear MaryMary, I respect that you have seperated the sin and the sinner. So many speak of this and so few do. I think that when you speak of knowing this priest personally as a previous student you add that element that no one on the outside can truly appreciate. It is so easy to create a caricature or try to prove our points at the expense of others who have made all too human mistakes. There is always more to the person than the single action an outsider might know about. It doesn’t matter whether that action is good or bad even, there is always more. Your post helps to remind us all of that fact. So, thank you for sharing. Your honesty and your courage are valuable.

First, thank you Manny Publius for your comment. I believe that you are one of the few that has taken my comments for what they were truly intended to mean. As for the comments made by Greg, I respect your opinion. However, as a result of my upbringing and my profession, I am far from naive as I stated in my earlier posting and far from innocent. I have seen more examples of what a human being is capable of than most individuals will ever see or hope to see. I guess that again, I wasn’t clear enough in stating that the possibility that Father Parry has done more than is seen remains a possibility in my mind. If in fact these possibilities become realities or even substantiated accusations, I will be the first to say that he should be held accountable for his actions. However, sake for an apartment, there is no other evidence at this time to base accusations. It seems that you have already formed an opinion and made a judgement. In my previous posts I only intended to provide an insiders view of Father Parry and not a definitive summation of his character and being as was witnessed by me, be it accurate or inaccurate in reality. As I mentioned before, Palmer is not an exclusively religous school and Father Parry was not only a chaplain but an Economics teacher. Father Parry spent more time teaching than anything else. I am not saying that Father Parry shouldn’t be judged soley on the fact that he is a good person. If people feel the need to judge him, fine. However, as a person who sins and believes in God, it is not my place to judge. Call me “naive”, but doesn’t it say somewhere in the Bible that God is the judge? I do not know how true accusations are, nor does anyone else, and because of this, I can only base my feelings on what I have witnessed first hand, whether it is true or not. Good people, or people of seemingly good character, are capable of bad things, this is a fact that I have witnessed first hand and by no means have I excluded Father Parry from this fact. My intentions and feelings were exactly as Manny Publius described.

Ugh.
How do you ignore MaryTheBabdist?
What does it matter to her?
Whyever does this one want our attention?

Mary,

It seems we’ve once again run across the old misunderstanding of what the word “judge” means. I have not condemned Mr. Parry to anything - to any punishment or eternal judgement. That is not within my ability to do, only God’s.

However, I have determined that his actions are wrong, and more than unacceptable for someone with the responsibility for children. I have judged them to be repugnant, certainly in the context of a school chaplain and, so the Bible says, in the eyes of God.

You wrote, “save for an apartment, there is no other evidence at this time to base accusations.”

You’re absolutly right, and said as much in my previous comment ("no proof of anything sinister"). But it’s foolish to downplay the fact that he keeps an apartment in Bangkok, on the assumption that he probably just has a keen interest in the history and cultures of southeast Asia. This is the exact same attitude that gets us from:

“Well, yes, he’s gay, but as long as he keeps all that outside the school, he’s welcome to teach our children.”

..to:

“Well, yes he’s gay and we hear he makes and sells homemade DVD’s on the Internet, but as long as he keeps all that outside the school, he’s welcome to teach our children.”

...to:

“Well, yes he’s gay and we hear he makes and sells homemade DVD’s on the Internet, and he spends six months out of every year in Bangkok, but as long as he keeps all that outside the school, he’s welcome to teach our children.”

...to:

“How in the WORLD did we ever end up with a gay chaplain who makes pornographic wrestling videos and sells them on the Internet, and lives in Bangkok six months a year where he cruises bars and beaches soliciting strangers for group sex, preferably if it involves ‘Anal, Bondage, Kissing, Outdoor, Role Play, S&M, Sauna/Bath Houses, Shaving, and Wrestling’?”

As I said previously - we are what we do off the job as well as on, when no one’s looking as well as when they are. Especially when we’re entrusted with the car and guidance of children.

C.S. Lewis
“...the safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

"Long term, committed relationships are too dangerous.”

Manny, and Fr. Jake,

This is a real question. I am not being facetious or cynical.  How do you define “long term, committed [same-sex] relationships”?  Does “long term” mean for life, until death do us part?  Does “committed” mean exclusive, as in forsaking all others?

What percentage of “long term committed” same-sex relationships do you think are literally life-long and absolutely exclusive, as the church expects as the standard for heterosexual marriage.

Do you yourself believe that the church should expect or require such long term committed same-sex relationships to be literally life-long and absolutely exclusive?  What should be the consequences should same-sex relationships be neither one nor the other?  Should the church be willing to bless more than one subsequent relationship for a person?  If so, how many?  To what extent should the church consider non-exclusivity to be outside its blessing?  If both partners in the couple agree to an open relationship, should the church still undertand this to mean “committed”?

I’d like to return to Fr. Jake’s remarks. Snarkster and others may be willing to let him off the hook here because of his civility, but I’m not.

On the one hand, he says that he finds nothing in the “7 clobber passages” that applies to this situation; but then on the other hand he says “promiscuity is always sinful.” From where does he get that promiscuity is always sinful? From scripture? So here we go again: Jake and Co. are parsing things like 1 Corinthians ("Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God") such that the message is: ‘Well, of course God meant the sexually immoral, and the idolaters, and the adulterers… and of course the thieves, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers and the swindlers, but don’t be ridiculous - he didn’t mean homosexuals.’ And how do we ‘know’ He didn’t mean homosexuals? Why, because Jake is one, of course!

There is, therefore, exactly no difference between what Jake is saying, and this:

‘Well, of course God meant the sexually immoral, the idolaters, the adulterers, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the thieves, the greedy, the slanderers and swindlers… but don’t be ridiculous - there’s no way He meant the drunkards too! Why, I’m a lifelong, committed drinker. That’s completely different!’

Greg: I am not, repeat not, letting Fr.Jake off the hook for anything. If you would re-read my post, I was simply commending Jake for his civility, an attribute that is glaringly absent from most of his comments, particularly on his site. I said right after that I believed that he was wrong. So I gave him a B+ for form and an F for content. That is a far cry from letting him off the hook.

the snarkster

Greg, maybe we do not see eye to eye on what it means to judge. I personally go by the dictionary definition. Pass judgement: to criticize or condemn someone from a position of assumed moral superiority. Of course what Father Parry has done is much more severe than what some other individuals do but a sin is a sin in my book, not to say that they are equally severe. Moving on, out of general curiousity, I would like to know how reactions would change if the situation were altered. These scenarios in no way serve to remove blame or lessen the severity of Father Parry’s actions both proven and in question. Here is a first scenario: If Father Parry had been openly gay and nothing else, would there still be an issue with him teaching children? Scenario two: A married youth pastor who is also a teacher holds a home in Bangkok and frequently travels there alone or with a friend. Again, I am only curious to see how feelings are the same or different under theses cirvumstances and am in no way trying to be disrespectful or take away blame or suspicion from Father Parry. I am only curious to read reactions and maybe gain a better sense of where individuals are coming from; I am intrigued and I guess that my sociological curiosity has come in to play.

MaryMary,
I gather you don’t have children. If you do, I hope your children’s school exercises greater diligence that your former school, and the Episcopal Church, in screening those who we put in a position of trust and authority over our children.  This situation screams for a review of the hiring and retention policies--it shouldnt have taken the web page to bring this to a boil.

I’m not sure I understand your response. Is your issue with his sexual orientation or his other actions? I agree that there should be great care when hiring, but I also believe that sexual orientation is not grounds for dismissal nor a reason to exclude individuals from teaching. From what I hear and read on the news, the inappropriate actions that have occured between teacher and student have not involved homosexual teachers, but instead heterosexual teachers. There are also plenty of teachers out there who are gay but not openly, what of them? I feel that there is no reason to believe that a homosexual teacher is less trust worthy than a heterosexual one given that so many cases of inappropriateness on the part of heterosexual teachers has taken place. This is not to say that actions by homosexual teachers have not occured as well. I do not want to discuss the dynamics of my family and feel that great diligence is needed, however, great diligence in screening homosexual teachers does not mean great diligence in screening heterosexuals.

MaryMary, I agree that you should apply great diligence in screening all teachers (and Priests!). 
For Christian schools, teachers obviously should not be allowed, by word or action, to maintain a public lifestyle contrary to the ordinary teaching of the Church. That’s because they are models for our children, and parents should be able to depend on the school to practice what it preaches.  Granted, in this area the teaching of the Episcopal Church has changed.  So you may have a point. I hope, however, that these schools at least provide the information necessary for parents of prospective students to understand how this standard has changed.
The role of a Priest is one of authority and confidentiality.  The potential harm caused by a life of sexual immorality is magnified when the person involved wears a clerical collar. The Roman Catholic scandal of the nineties, involving primarilly Priests and teenagers, is the best example of what can happen when you don’t screen and police properly.

Mary-Mary,in the Christian church there is a reality the ‘don’t judge’ crowd hates.
It comes from the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7:15-20.There he makes statements about false prophets and wolves in sheep’s clothing and good trees and bad trees.
Many things are there,the truth that if you have true prophets,beware of false prophets who counterfeit the look and the sound of prophetic truth with fantasies either demonic or of their own making.He also says that inside their disguise they are ravenous wolves.
Since you want the dictionary definition,here’s ravenous,greedily hungry,another derivation of ravenous,ravening,is probably better in describing them,’greedily looking for prey’.Somehow a second home in Bangkok may not say that to you,but it seems to me that if we read that along with his website there could be the possibility of cohesion with an old Duran Duran title,’Hungry Like A Wolf’.With hunting grounds online and in Thailand.

Jesus makes the comment ‘You will know them by their fruits’
Methinks if we look at his without blinders on,we’ll see and be able to evaluate,discern and distinguish without too much problem.

On the subject of “judging,” For the edification of any who care, I would like to share an excellent comment by the Rev. Dr. Robert J. Sanders in response to my request. This exchange is taken from my archive. I filed it under Of Spiritual Concern.

On November 1, 2003 I wrote Dr. Sanders: “…I am trying to put together a treatise that shows we, as Christians, DO need to make judgments.  I simply want to be able to make the point that God wants us to judge behaviors and situations and know what godliness is so that we may be holy as he is holy. That Scripture, to my mind, implies that we need to understand (be able to judge) what holiness means in order to aim for it. Am I missing something?

SO, I am looking for a thorough exegesis of the Matthew 7:1-5. I know you have covered this here and there in all of your essays, but since you don’t have a search ca