The Church of England

The Church of England’s parliament, the General Synod, met in November 1987 to consider a motion that called on it to reaffirm that “fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are sinful.” The general secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement declared: “If this motion were accepted it would wreck the Church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury knows it. As a general figure, we believe between 30 and 40 per cent of Church of England clergymen are gay.”

Reporter Philippa Kennedy, writing in England’s Daily Express, October 29, 1987, said: “Margaret Thatcher’s attack on Church leaders for failing to give the nation adequate moral guidance will add spice to what promises to be one of the great clerical punch-ups of the decade. For it is not only the Prime Minister who believes that Bishops in general and the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular, are a bunch of wishy-washy wafflers.”

On November 11, 1987, the motion was debated, was found to be a pill too big to swallow, and was scuttled by a feeble amendment that passed overwhelmingly. So it was not “one of the great clerical punch-ups of the decade.” It fizzled out. The bishops shadowboxed, ducked, weaved, feinted, and backpedaled.

The General Synod’s decision: The ideal is sexual intercourse in a permanent married relationship; fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal; homosexual genital acts fall short of this ideal; and all Christians are to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality. Homosexual acts were rated less serious than fornication and adultery​—the latter are sins against the ideal, whereas homosexuality merely falls short of the ideal. No removal of fornicators. No dismissal of adulterers. Gay priests and vicars whitewashed.

The synod’s trumpet had given an indistinct call, and the original motion submitted by parish priest Tony Higton was left in shambles. (1 Corinthians 14:8) Yet, strangely, he voted for the emasculated version and was “very, very pleased” with the outcome. A difficult reaction to fathom in view of his previous expressions. “If the Church doesn’t put its house in order,” he threatened, “then God will judge it.”

During the synod, Higton had presented a sensational dossier of evidence against the homosexual clergy. One was convicted of child molesting but was merely moved to another parish. Another priest, convicted of gross indecency in a public toilet, was appointed to another diocese, where he was convicted of a similar offense​—still not defrocked. Homosexual Anglican priests in London, Higton reported, ran a church bookstall for “selling literature alleged to encourage homosexual promiscuity, the use of male prostitutes, and a variety of homosexual acts.” One book in the stall allegedly showed “a five-year-old girl in bed with her father and his male lover.”

Since Higton’s evidence was ignored, how could he be “very, very pleased”? No doubt because Anglican clerics are gentle souls easily pleased. As one news report said: “Admittedly, none of this scandal has been met with thunder, rather with the gentle drizzling rain in which Anglicans specialise.”

Understandably, the homosexual clergy were pleased. “The Synod had clearly given the gay and lesbian community a place in the life of the Church,” they said. After all, Archbishop of Canterbury Runcie had “argued that the church should not condemn disciplined and responsible homosexuals,” and had said: “I want to insist that to be homosexual by nature is to be a full human being.”

“Homosexual by nature,” the Archbishop of Canterbury said. Helpless homosexuals sentenced to be such by genetics? Some so argue, saying that the homosexual condition “is a basic psychological trait which predates any moral choice.” They dismissed the apostle Paul, who under inspiration condemned homosexuality, as “a bit of a prude,” according to The Times of London.

Sir Immanuel Jakobovits, a chief rabbi, questioned that “such a natural disposition to homosexuality” had been proved and said: “To argue from natural predispositions is a slippery slope which would lead to the collapse of the entire moral order . . . We cannot accept in any society that a natural predilection can in itself be sufficient to exonerate from guilt. We must be masters of nature, and not its victims.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury whittled away at Jesus’ words until they were reshaped to make room for homosexuals in Christ’s church, saying: “In this earthly tabernacle of Christ’s church there are many mansions, and they are all made of glass.” (Compare John 14:2.) So he was saying, ‘Don’t throw stones at anyone else, not even at homosexuals, for there is also a mansion for them in the church of Christ.’

The Bishop of Chester, Michael Baughen, argued that “the Greek of the New Testament justified the restatement of Anglican doctrine to express ‘love, sadness, sensitivity and understanding’ towards homosexuals,” that homosexuality was rebuked in Scripture only as “a wandering away from the path.” What the Scriptures really say is that homosexuals, if they don’t change, will not inherit the Kingdom and “are deserving of death.”​—Romans 1:27, 32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

To quote The Times again, the synod proved “the well-worn accusation that the Church of England believes nothing and permits everything” and established “its wishy-washy trendiness​—swallowing, as if it were the Gospel, each new liberal fashion.” Under the headline “Church Fudge,” the Liverpool Daily Post said: “Church of England leaders seem increasingly unable to declare in ringing terms just what they consider right and wrong.” As The Economist wryly observed: “The Church of England is against homosexual practices, but not very much.”

Under the headline “Fury at Synod Ruling on Gays,” the Daily Post quoted a number of Tory MPs. One MP called the Synod’s decision “shameful and lily-livered.” Another: “I am afraid that homosexuality has now obtained a firm foothold in the clergy of the Church of England and in the Church of England itself.” A third: “This vote​—I would prefer to call it a disgraceful fudge—​actually puts children at risk. Many homosexuals who are unable to find partners turn to young children and this is where youngsters who attend church are so vulnerable. . . . In stark language, the Church has failed to purge itself of an evil rampant within its own ranks.”

The Roman Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is blunt in its disapproval of homosexuality, branding it a gross sin. But in practice the church conducts a cover-up for guilty priests and even makes it possible for them to continue their sexual perversions. Certainly, Pope John Paul II had warm words for homosexuals when he declared: “They are in the heart of the church.”

An independent Catholic newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, of February 27, 1987, said that homosexual clergy estimated that 50 percent of the U.S. Catholic priesthood is homosexual. This figure is contested. One psychologist, basing his statement on 1,500 interviews, says that 20 percent of the 57,000 U.S. Catholic priests are homosexual, whereas more recent reports make “other therapists think the true figure today may be closer to 40 percent.”

Just over a year ago, newspapers across the country were flooded with reports of sexual assaults on children by Catholic priests. The following report from the San Jose, California, Mercury News, December 30, 1987, is typical:

“At a time of heightened national awareness of the problems of child abuse, the Catholic Church in the United States continues to ignore and cover up cases of priests who sexually molest children, according to court records, internal church documents, civil authorities and the victims themselves.

“Church officials insist that a notorious 1985 Louisiana case in which a priest molested at least 35 boys has taught them to deal firmly with the problem. But a three-month Mercury News investigation reveals that in more than 25 dioceses across the country, church officials have failed to notify authorities, transferred molesting priests to other parishes, ignored parental complaints and disregarded the potential damage to child victims. . . . Millions of dollars in damages already have been paid to victims and their families, and one 1986 church report estimated that the church’s liability could reach $1 billion over the next decade.”

The “notorious 1985 Louisiana case” mentioned in the Mercury News report concerned a priest named Gilbert Gauthe. There has been a “payment of $12 million to his victims.” The homosexual activities of Gauthe were known for many years, but ‘the diocese handled the problem by transferring him from parish to parish at least three times.’ In one instance “parents testified that Gauthe sodomized their 7-year-old son on his first day as an altar boy and for a year afterward, until the priest was transferred.”

Thomas Fox, editor of the National Catholic Reporter, says: “There has been a national cover-up of the problem for years by the bishops.” Eugene Kennedy, a former priest and now psychology professor at Loyola University, says: “What you see in the courts is just the tip of the iceberg.” Thomas Doyle, Dominican priest and canon lawyer, declares: “The sexual molesting of little boys by priests is the single most serious problem we’ve had to face in centuries.”