I greatly admire Colin Coward and his writing on the CHANGING ATTITUDE website. He has the great skill of being diplomatic at the same time as being open, honest and lacking in all disingenuity. His post, "What type of gay priest is acceptable as a bishop in the Church of England?" following the appointment of yet another closet gay person to the House of Bishops in England is a perfect example of his writing prowess. Go check it out.

This was the comment I left under the post:

Yes. But, of course, in reality it is not quite so black and white. A bishop may be celibate now but have a history of same sex , physical relationships when he was a priest. A bishop may be celibate in England but enjoy sex with a same sex partner when abroad on holiday (and we have all known such annual relationships). Both of these examples show the bishops involved to be first class hypocrites.

The other problem we have, especially within Anglo-Catholicism, is the secret society of gay, closeted priests and bishops and their straight, clerical supporters. The recent appointment and the previous game of musical chairs centred on that diocese, is proof of how manipulative and effective this grouping within the church can be. Martin Warner, when bishop of Whitby, refused to even send me an application form for posts in his jurisdiction, that I would have been ideally suited for. Walsingham is pretty much a no go area for Anglo-Catholics, like myself, who are not Romanist and/or reactionary, when it used to be a place of spiritual beauty for all of us.

I lost my vocation, career, salary, home, pension, church home, tradition, good health and future hopes because of these women hating, self loathing men and those who are complicit in their hypocrisy. And I’m just a boringly ordinary bloke with a wife, who has never been part of any campaigning organisation but who has the unfortunate affliction of answering a straight question with a straight and honest answer. That my life has been ruined because an influential group of gay men, who are open about their gayness with each other, have decided to lie about their sexuality in public, is indicative of the rampant hypocrisy that underlies most of the decisions made by the Church of England nowadays.



  1. If your summation is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, it’s just that I have no personal knowledge of it, my simple mind has no way of understanding how living in such “dualism” is possible. This is religion versus the Gospel (aka, white-wasched sepulchers) that results in alienating those in search of the Divine. Their attempts to monopolize power will only leave them impoverished and, in the end, to be pitied.

  2. So what are you saying exactly – that they should come out and then lose their jobs because of the nastiness, bigotry and pure evil that abounds in religion. So you lost your job because of a cabal of gay priests. Well, I have news for you, start thinking of all the poor gay people through the ages who have lost their lives, positions, family, jobs, money because of the nasty doctrines of yours and others churches. Deal with it and move on; you have nothing to whine about.

  3. Come on Jonathan, put up or shut up. Either go ahead and properly out people or stop this close to the edge innuendo. Have the courage of your convictions (even if Colin Coward doesn’t).

  4. Anon, the point that this is about hypocrisy, and not sexual orientation, seems to be lost upon you.

  5. I out gay people of influence who act hypocritically and harm other people. I have done it in the past and will do it the future if the situation arises.

    How on earth can somebody who steadfastly remains anonymous tell somebody else to have the courage of their convictions? Arsehole!

  6. Well, MadPriest beat me to it, here. Nevertheless, I’m going to make my comment anyway: You’ve got some nerve, Anonymous, when you don’t have the ordinary courage to sign your name (EVEN with a pseudonym), to tell anyone to have courage. I rarely, rarely say this to anyone but you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

  7. you think your role is to out those you claim to be hypocritical? by what authority do you act and what evidence you provide, other than supposition and innuendo?

    I understand your anger at the church which disowned you, i understand your frustrations at not being allowed to exercise the ministry to which you feel called (and which others would agree you are called to), but is belittling, undermining and ridiculing others exercising that same calling really worthy of you? i didnt think it was, and i have lurked here for sometime. all i see now is an embittered man hitting out, not a pastor in search of a flock.

  8. Sid?! For fucks sake is that the best you can come up with?! Why am I burdened with such unimaginative, unintelligent trolls?

  9. Hello, Sid.

    You know, there’s a difference between “lurking” (as the term is used on the internet and is fundamentally benign in character) and “lying in wait” (which is a very wicked thing to do). When your very first communication with someone is to pounce the way you did above, I rather suspect lying in wait.

    And that’s not worthy of any honorable person.

  10. Oh I don’t know, MP: seems like a appropriate handle to me.

    “all i see now is an embittered man”: Sid, Vicious.

  11. “I out gay people of influence who act hypocritically and harm other people.”

    You outed Martin Warner. Do us the courtesy of telling us what he did that was hypocritical. Or is it the case that you claim high moral ground but in fact are just acting in a reactionary way because a man you don’t like was offered a diocesan bishopric?

  12. I outed him on this blog. I even mentioned it again on this blog last week. I’m not going through it all again because you can’t be bothered to read my posts, troll.

  13. Is this your response Jonathan? The moment someone challenges you on your own inconsistency (claiming that you only out people who are hypocrites but not providing any evidence that the person you have outed was a hypocrite) you resort to name calling and ad hominem?

    All I’m asking for is for you to spell out where Martin Warner has been a hypocrite, because for the life of me having read the past few weeks of your blog posts I can’t see where you spell it out.

  14. Look, Pete. It’s all on my blog somewhere. I named names and gave full details. Heck, some journalist from the Telegraph even did a piece about it on the back page of the Church of England Newspaper. Basically, Lindsay Urwin signed a letter of support for the homophobes of San Joaquin diocese. But he had sex with a good, male friend of mine after being accepted for ordination. That is hypocrisy. If you want more details use google.

    • Martin Warner, you were outing Martin Warner. What did Martin Warner do that was hypocritical?

      And let’s just hypothesise that Dennis’ report of having sex with Lindsay Urwin is absolutely true. What if Lindsay had confessed that as sin and repented? What would your position be then? Is he not allowed to believe that what he did as a younger man was wrong? Are men who have sinned once but since repented no longer allowed to be Bishops? What place grace and forgiveness? Are you arguing that any person who has sinned by default has to support anybody else who wants to commit the same sin?

    • Peter, talking with you is like talking with a Muslim. We may use similar words and phrases at times but, in reality, we believe in completely different gods. I am not an evangelist and I would never get you to stop worshipping your god and start worshipping mine, even if I was interested in doing so, which I am not because it is not my job. OCICBW… is not a debating site. If you wish to debate whether or not being gay is a sin I suggest you do so on a site like “Thinking Anglicans” that exists for such debate. I provide news and entertainment for likeminded people of my own religion. It has been years since I read a blog outside of my own neighbourhood let alone left a comment on one. The ministry that my God has asked me to pursue takes up all my time and energy. I don’t have the time or inclination to argue with people outside of my own concern.