Gay Man Takes Church to Court for Refusing to Ordain Him

This was bound to happen.

A homosexual man is taking the Anglican Bishop of Auckland to the Human Rights Tribunal after being rejected for training as a priest.

A hearing begins today following a complaint from the man, who says he feels discriminated against because of his sexuality.

It is understood the man – who is in a sexual relationship with his partner – has wanted to enter the church’s training programme for priests for years.

But after applying to enter after years of study, he was rejected by the Bishop Ross Bay, who approves entrants.

Bishop Bay told One News last night that he was simply following the church’s doctrines.

The man was rejected “by reason of the defendant not being chaste in terms of canons of the Anglican Church,” the bishop said.

That means that anyone wanting to become ordained needs to be in what the Anglican Church deems to be a chaste relationship – a marriage between a man and a woman or committed to a life of celibacy.

In a statement to the tribunal, the complainant says he “felt totally humiliated that I had spent six years of my life in study, for a process that I was not permitted to enter because I was a gay man and in a relationship”.

“My humiliation and disappointment continue to this day.”

He also claims that had he been unmarried but in a heterosexual relationship, he would have been allowed to train as a priest.

However, it is understood that is not the case and that Bishop Bay has rejected people in such relationships in the past.

A spokesman for the Anglican diocese of Auckland, Jayson Rhodes, said he could not get into details of the case.

“The best way for both sides of this to be heard is before the tribunal, rather than through the media.”

HT

15 thoughts on “Gay Man Takes Church to Court for Refusing to Ordain Him

  1. As the former Dean of Anglican Christ Church Cathedral, Darwin is openly gay as are other Priests eg Subiaco, Perth or others closeted as the former University of Wollongong Chaplain and the SSM Canon in Alice Springs. It will be interesting to read what the Tribunal will say. What would Christ have done?

    • Some people can’t tell their *** from their elbow; you, evidently, can’t tell Australia from New Zealand.

      • The late Henri Nouwen posterity published in his “Life of the Beloved” 1992, ‘”You are my Beloved” revealed the most intimate truth about all human beings, whether they belong to any particular tradition or not.’ I wonder William if then you too could become more gracious & less personal?

      • I guess, forgiving your unnecessary, hurtful personalised comment for it seems you know not what you do? Forgiving, 77×7?

      • What a lame reply; no substance, just ranting. But it seems to be ever thus with the proponents and advocates of pseudogamy.

    • “What would Christ have done?” – I believe HE would NOT condemn the sinner, but HE would condemn ‘the Sin’–“go, and sin no more”! If ‘the Sin’ does not go, the sinner remains in ‘his Sin’; if he remains in ‘his (grave) Sin’, Christ must go; if Christ must go, there is no Sacramental/sanctifying ‘Life in the Soul’. If the Soul is ‘dead in Sin’ and persists in darkness, the Soul is in in imminent ‘Immortal danger’ – with Eternal consequences!
      One is playing with ‘Hell’s fire’ here – and this person’s “humiliations and disappointments” are nothing compared to that which his Soul will suffer for ‘all Eternity’!
      Christ took on our “Humiliations and Disappointments”–of Sin – so that we can be FREE and obtain ‘Eternal Life’! This man’s ‘burden of Sin’ weighs him down in “humiliations and disappointments”–because he is NOT ‘Free in Christ’…and so he blames others. How could someone of his ‘caliber of soul & character’ ever bring Christ to others–as a Priest?!

  2. What has international scamming legal fiction farcical fraudulent Founding Documents since Secret Sealed Orders from His Britannic Majesty Geo III’s Admiralty to then Lt James Cook on 30 Jul 1768 got to do with politicised boundaries William? I’m intrigued that you’d resort to redicule in a Christian forum posterity published online. It seems, sadly, netiquette is something you haven’t learned.

  3. If the gay Man was a true Christian he would understand the bible standards. It seems to me that the man is just wanting the title and to hell with the standards that Jesus taught us and the word of GOD teaches us. We are to conform to the word of of God, not that of the world.
    It appears to me that too many people are after what they want and to hell with others, I like to see a gay person became a cleric in the Muslim Faith they most probably end up dead or worse.

    • @Quentin, I wonder from 1st Principles Logic about defining our terms eg as in S I Units Systeme Internationale?
      When I was a child and growing up, the word “gay” meant to be happy, cheerful, etc..
      Now that word has been expanded to include woman who are attracted to women or as was written above, “homosexuals”. What then about married men who have sex with other men or a myriad of samesex sexualised expressions from for example two Muslim men holding hands in public or two Muslim men kissing in greeting? There appears to be a spectrum in the whole psycho-social-spiritual religious ideology, social mores which isn’t clearly communicated in casual community conversations in my mind, rather confused?

      • I used the “Gay” word as the man himself used the word to describe himself. The Man is going to a church and is in leadership check it out, I did. What I was stating is the man does not want to change his ways (repent) and is therefore still in his sin and Jesus will leave him. To be judged by the great white Throne. That’s not my issue my is that he wants to pastor a church without repentance in own life and therefore is endanger of becoming a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  4. Dear Mr Fowler, let me assure you as a member of his parish and personal friend that the rector of the Anglican Parish of Subiaco in Perth, Western Australia (not New Zealand) is thoroughly heterosexual, happily married and the father of two adult children. The parish does have a welcoming nonjudgmental attitude towards the homosexual community – that is not the same as endorsing their sexual activity. The stand of the New Zealand bishop is in line with the agreed official line of the Anglican Communion – people who offer for ordination (which is a privilege, not a RIGHT) must be either married (man+woman) or celibate (regardless of whether they are hetero or homosexual). The fact that some people did not disclose at the time of their ordination or subsequently that they could not abide by this requirement really have only two choices – live a lie or take an honourable stand and step aside. Sadly some choose to live a lie. Fortunately all of us have the chance to repent and accept the forgiveness promised by Jesus, and made available to all by His death and resurrection. Judging others harshly is easy, but is it also unChristian. So once again you and I can both be grateful that God is a God of mercy and love. Peace be with you.

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s