Up until the last paragraph I find this interview heartwarming, intriguing and very human - Rowan Williams at his best.

And then I can't imagine what he's thinking saying gay clergy who don't act on their sexual 'preferences' 'adhere to the Bible.' 'Sexual preferences' implies a choice to be gay - bad science and psychology. And the language of adhering tot the Bible is bizarre. The Bible is much clearer assuming the continuing existence of slavery as a morally neutral institution than it is condemning homosexuality.

Rowan Williams is no literalist and knows good exegetes that challenge 'plain meaning' interpretation of the few passages the fundamentalist-literalists harp on. What makes him yield ground so readily on this?

We know he's read James Alison's "Faith Beyond Resentment, Themes Catholic and Gay," because Williams said of it in print, "The very best theological books leave you with a feeling that perhaps it's time you became a Christian; this is emphatically such a book."

Has he read Evangelical Jack Rogers, "Jesus the Bible and the Homosexual"?

Has he seen the film, 'For the Bible Tells me So?'

Has Williams forgotten his own writings on the subject?

The fundamentalists' interpretation distorts the Bible and Williams must know it. His final response yields everything for the sake of dialogue, but at that point, it ceases to be dialogue and becomes surrender.

I see little evidence that the current Cantuar has any brains. The power differential in his sitting back and judging LGBTs is unacceptable. Asking questions about whether a same-sex couple can parent as well as an opposite-sex couple in this day and age, when the American Academy of Pediatrics and other reputable organizations say same-sex couples are just as good and even better at some parenting tasks is unacceptable. Empirical evidence is not something mainline denominations like, alas!

I see the last paragraph not so much as an exception but as the key to seeing how stupid the man is.

A married Archbishop of Canterbury imposing celibacy on gay and lesbian clergy (what about trans?)is very hypocritical.

The last paragraph seems to betray a need on the part of straights to force gays to embody a fantasy which the straights have consistently failed to embody.

If Cantuar wants to adovcate this nonsense, he should get divorced and practice celibacy.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Since the article was written by Ruth Gledhill, I am highly suspicious about the claim that Rowan said any such thing.

Then again, if he did say so, his daughter is not the only one who thinks he is every kind of idiot.

icWales reports it this way here

Bryant,

Point taken about Gledhill - all sides seem to agree on that. But in fact she is quoting directly from the interview article that is linked in this post (first para under "update").

Donald, at the risk of being labeled stupid I venture to say that there is a clear distinction between preference and choice. We can't do much about our preferences - they are primarily shaped by nature and nurture, but we can control our actions.

God gave us free will. The concept of sin is that we do not always use that free will well. Where I part ways with the ABC's equivocations is that to me homosexual relationship are no different than heterosexual relationships. Now there bad relationships. But good relationships at worst are morally neutral and at best draw us closer to God. And if the church's blessing makes relationships better, then it is an institutional evil that the church inhibits same sex blessings.

John,

I certainly won't call you stupid, and the language we use is inevitably charged with layers of secondary meaning and implication.

What I snagged from Wikipedia (and one could certainly call me stupid for trusting such a quickie research source) is this:

"The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, but is more commonly used outside of scientific circles by people who believe that sexual orientation is, in whole or part, a matter of choice."

There's plenty of evidence in Rowan Williams's writings of his intelligence, reflectiveness and the breadth of his reading and interests. The human dilemma we acknowledge in using 'orientation' over 'preference' is that people we know, love and trust as well as good scientific evidence have begun telling us that orientation is significantly shaped before choice, part of how we're created.

I do see that you and I agree in substance, but I also think there is a straight line from the Archbishop's deliberate (or even inadvertent) use of the language of 'sexual preference' to the helplessly deferential liberal stance that Marilyn McCord Adams writes about in "Shaking the Foundations: LGBT Bishops and Blessings in the Fullness of Time," her paper posted under the headline "Homophobia is a sin
whose end time is now" in today's Daily Episcopalian here in the Cafe.

Donald,

Thank you for the clarification. I'd not picked up on that usage and the alarms it sets off. Perhaps it will help others as well.

I fail to see any intelligence in Rowan. Perhaps the problem is that the religion itself is stuck in another era, when people thought religion was supposed to offer answers.

Rowan seems to wish to chip away at women's right to choose abortion and he failed to answer the question about whether other religions are valid. He simply said that he respects the convictions of others and hopes that others respect his. But he doesn't tell you what his convictions are. He sounds like a fundamentalist trying to sound intellectually respectable

This sort of religion deserves no respect.

Gary Paul Gilbert