Sisk is SHOCKED, SHOCKED, that Paul Moore was human, trapped in an unjust and perverse system, that led to undesirable actions.

Of course the closet destroys relationships, cripples marriages, and enables inappropriate behavior. Paul seems to have been trapped in his closet, as have so many of his brother Bishops throughout the ages.

But where is Sisk's condemnation of the social and religious constraints of Moore's time that made the closet both possible and necessary to almost anyone of Moore’s age.

Where is Sisk's condemnation of those seeking to split the communion asunder in order to reaffirm and reinforce the closet?

How can Sisk be shocked about was known by some even when Moore was Bishop, and surely available in the Diocesan records (filed complaints about Moore's conduct).

Where is Sisk’s condemnation about his immediate, and very much alive, predecessor’s violation of his marriage vows and inappropriate relationship while still married?

For all the outrage, it is Sisk that looks like the hypocrite.

This naming of the boundaries is important. I think it was done in a highly appropriate manner. I'm amazed by the reactivity I've seen in response to this letter.

I'm with Bill.

And if I may, let me quote a relevant piece of our Feedback policy: We won’t permit potentially libelous statements. (You may know that the terrible things you are saying about Mr. X are true, but we don’t, and we don’t have time to verify your assertions.)

Bryant seems to be making a mistake I've seen elsewhere about Bishop Sisk's statement. Bryant refers to "the closet;" but Bishop Sisk's statement doesn't reflect on the sex of Bishop Moore's partner or partners. VIolation of marriage vows is a problem whether the other person loved is of the same sex or the opposite sex. VIolating a counseling relationship is a problem whether the client or parishioner is of the same sex or the opposite sex. "The closet" isn't the issue here.

Marshall Scott

I agree with Marshall's analysis, but

I do think that the closet is part of the issue, but not in any sense that would absolve Bishop Moore of his own responsibilities. The closet is an occasion of sin, and cursed be anyone who contributes to the stumbling of another. Paul Moore's double life is an example of why ending the regime of the closet is so important. The closet contributes to destructive and self-destructive behavior. It is both the occasion of sin and an example of structural sin and the evil powers over which Christ has won the victory. Here as elsewhere, the Body needs to catch up with the Head.

Moore's marriage was a part of his closet.

It is the closet that demands that men like Moore enter such a marriage in the first place.

To hypocritically force men like Moore into their own closet, including different-sex marriage, and then demand they strictly conform to it is unjust.

The sin is not only failing to abide by the marriage vows, the sin is forcing gay men and women into different-sex marriage or celibacy contrary to their own vocation.

Further, to judge Moore by our early 21st C standards, when same sex marriage is both possible and celebrated, when he was a product of the early 20th C is unjust.

And that is why Sisk sounds like the hypocrite. He should be championing gay men and women who refuse the closet, and choose same-sex marriage or “singleness” freely and ethically.

Putting the marriage issue to one side for the sake of argument, the fact remains that the diocese received complaints from people who came to Moore for counseling.

Jim...
and those complaints were dealt with by the PB's office, as was appropriate. During that time, Paul was a member of my parish, and he would attend, in civvies, and sit in the congregation.

Bryant, Mark Sisk is doing a great deal to support his gay and lesbian clergy, and in fact this letter is a part of his effort -- to demonstrate that this is not about "gay issues" but violation of a marriage vow and pastoral relationships. Mark met with a large group of gay and lesbian clergy the day this story broke, and he has offered unqualified support in a difficult time. Mark has long championed gay and lesbian clergy who refuse the closet -- something Paul Moore never did; choosing instead to project his own insecurities and welcome others into his own closet. I hate to say that, as Paul was a personal friend and mentor; but the closet was his choice, and he imposed it on others, too.

The closet produces inappropriate behavior. When healthy sexuality is repressed, unhealthy expressions break through like a leak in a dam.

Sure, Moore shouldn't have done it. He was guilty. But Moore was also a victim himself of the closet.

And Sisk is putting all the blame on that victim. Where is the justice?

I regret Bishop Sisk did not take this opportunity to challenge and condemn social and institutional bigotry,secrecy, hypocrisy and fear of scandal more than a love of justic as strongly as he did his predecessor's personal sexual pecadillos that in hindsight appear all too conventional and rather soap operatic.

However, I have a premonition the Bishop of New York does not think this way. To him such things are personal, pastoral, and confidential and have nothing to do with justice or advocacy. His gay clergy, whether in the closet or out of the closet, seem to have bought this bill of damaged goods and will no doubt stoutly defend the good bishop's attempt to limit the discussion to the ethics of vows and counseling.

This is all the more reason those of us who remember Bishop Moore mourn the loss of a prophetic voice, however flawed the speaker, that his successors have reduced to but a faint echo in the cavernous reaches of St. John the Divine.

It seems to me that Mr. Sisk may be speaking out in order to protect the image of the institution. I would like a demythologized view of Paul Moore. But this statement strikes me as more institutional spin from a diocese that has covered for Mr. Grein. As long as the diocese's is inclined to cover things up, there can be no healthy discussion of what is appropriate and inappropriate in a religious leader's conduct. Yes, going out with someone one is counseling is wrong. But, on the other hand, if one stays in a relationship with that person, there must be some health in the relationship. Also, there could have been a debate about what kind of behavior is possible when a religious leader is in the closet.

Mr. Sisk's double standard that all extra-marital relations are wrong is too much!

This denomination and this diocese do little to help bring the day when all couples, regardless of gender, will be able to marry and receive the same social support sex-discordant couples get. Even the state of New York has moved on and has concluded it must recognize same-sex couples who married elsewhere as married for purposes of state law. I don't see this honesty in the Episcopal diocese of New York.

Facts have to come out of the closet if there is to be a healthy debate about what is appropriate today.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Bishop Paul Moore was a prince of the church, whose breeding and position protected him when he transgressed personal and moral boundaries. The story is as much about the continuing power of class in the church as it is about sexual orientation or marital fidelity.