Episcopal riddles

I noticed the newspaper headline when I was walking from the village store this morning: Bishops reject same-sex liturgy. Chuckling, I went over in my head how totally nonsensical the poor Episcopals have become in this Gene Robinson mess. One one hand, to cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex is a sin and disapproved by the Church, while traditional marriage is encouraged and fostered; on the other hand, to cohabitate with a person of the same sex is acceptable (if not, how could they elect Robinson?), while same-sex marriage is still off the table. So, man/women/no marriage = bad; man/women/marriage = good. And man/man or woman/woman/no marriage = good; man/man or woman/woman/marriage = bad. Clearly, the Episcopals have twisted themselves into quite a dilemma.

Others are on to this silliness as well, as David Virtue relates in his ezine this morning:

At his press conference yesterday, [Presiding Bishop Frank] Griswold got blind-sided by a reporter. A CBN news reporter asked whether, if it was okay for a divorced male bishop to live with a man with whom he was not married, would it be all right for a divorced heterosexual man with a female lover to be an Episcopal bishop as well?

Griswold said he thought there would be a significant problem with this.

In other words, "there's a double standard?" the reporter replied.

Jim Solheim, the church's media man moved in to rescue the PB and cut off his answer. The press laughed. Shortly after that, Griswold, donned in magenta cassock, departed.

And Rowan Williams' first statement on the controversy was pretty non-commital, or as one Anglican wag put it: It's an Anglican version of the Rodney King 'why can't we all just get along'. I guess he hopes it will all just solve itself? Fat chance.