Talk:LGBT bishops

Source for Barbara Harris being a lesbian? Evercat 01:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My Bad. It was on the web and I believed it, checking it out, I think not<G>. If it were true, she'd have had to come out after her ordination if Gene Robinson was the first known gay person to be ordained a bishop. I'll keep looking for lesbian bishops, but I think the official count is 0. -- Someone else 02:04, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church website don't mention it (Google search) contrast with: New Hampshire priest is first openly gay man elected bishop. --Ann O'nyme 03:36, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anachronism

for historical examples the use of the term gay or homosexual would be an anachronism

Hmm? In what way? People's understanding of homosexuality may have been different in the olden days, but it still existed, surely? I don't think such basic human attributes as their sexual urges have changed, at least not since prehistoric times... -- Oliver P. 23:39, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FYI: Merriam-Webster dates homosexual of 1892 [1]. --Ann O'nyme 03:10, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So? The word didn't exist, but they were still homosexuals. The word "Elephant" didn't exist until the 14th century; does that mean it's an anachronism to call Abul-Abbas an Elephant? - Efghij 23:51, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Well, some folks consider that sexual orientation is strongly tied up in culture and as such these kinds of statements are anachronous, but this is more to do with gay than homosexual. Martin

Simply put, the idea that a person is defined by their sexual object choice is a very modern one. To map that definition back onto a person who existed centuries before that idea did is an anachronism. -- Someone else 02:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The word Homosexual means "feeling or involving sexual attraction to persons of the same sex". This applies just as much to 15th century Popes as it does to Alexander the Great or Melissa Etheridge. - Efghij 02:43, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, while it is as such anachronism, do you go to a Shakespeare article and find it written in "King James" English? No. There has to be a certain balance of authenticity and accessibility. If anything, the word of the time would have likely been sodomy. So maybe use that? Master Thief Garrett 22:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THERE IS TWO GAY PRIESTS CLAIMING TO BE BISHOPS, THEY WAS NO SOONER CONSECRATED AS THERE CONSECRATION WAS INVALIDATED BY ALL THE BISHOPS EVEN THE CONSECRATING BISHOPS, THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED, THERE NAMES ARE RICHARD SANDERS AND PETER WHITE AND THEY LIVE IN PINXTON, DERBYSHIRE.THEY ARE APPARENTLY SUPPORTED BY THE BRAZILIAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH IN BRAZIL HEADED BY A SELF STYLED PATRAIRCH LUIS FERNANDO CASTILLO MENDEZ. WHAT SHAME THERE IS WITH THE CATHOLIC FAITH. WHAT DOES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE SAY? I AM PROUD TO SAY WE HAVE A FAITH WHICH IS TRUE, I WAS RAISED AS A BRAZILIAN AND I HAVE NOW CONVERTED TO THE TRUE FAITH OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. I KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE IN BRAZIL IS NOT AWARE OF THE GAY ISSUE BUT THEY NEED TO BE AWARE AS THERE WOULD BE NO BRAZILIAN CHURCH AGAI./ THERE WEBSITE IS WWW.CHURCH4US.CO.UK

Sources

Some sources for listing these people here would be good. Thier Wikipedia entries make no mention. DJ Clayworth 21:29, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

If Robinson's election receives the necessary consents, his consecration will be held November 2, 2003, and he would be installed as bishop on March 7, 2004. New Hampshire priest is first openly gay man elected bishop --Ann O'nyme 23:08, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

After edition by Evercat:

Another Anglican, Otis Charles, came out as gay after his retirement. He had been a Bishop in Utah from 1971 to 1993.

But he's still active in 2000: Bishops follow deputies in dropping last resolve of sexuality resolution. --Ann O'nyme 23:17, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Curious. I have sources, e.g: [2], [3] --Evercat 00:00, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

If the General Convention of the Episcopal Church consent (as expected), he will take office on March 7, 2004.

Hrmm? Isn't this what just happened, on August 5? Evercat 00:04, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

VfD

• Gay bishop - redirect. As if there's only one in the world... Evercat 01:51, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I've changed it to a more apropiate redirect, but it should still be deleted. - Efghij 02:11, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the new redirect. --Ann O'nyme 03:20, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a disambiguation-page be The Right Thing? For the time being, the controversy over Gene Robinson and Anglican views of homosexuality is probably what someone might have in mind if making a link [[gay bishop]], but that will surely change.--Tuomas
  • Kill it, it seems pretty pointless and sort of demeaning. If its a redirect why wouldn't it point to gay rights instead of Christian views? The redirect itself seems sort of NPOV due to where it is pointing.Ark30inf 01:48, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Check your jargon, Ark30... ;-) It's a good redirect, though a disambig page might be equally suitable. Martin 09:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete it, or change it back. The original redirect made more sense. If anyone can name another gay bishop (which there certainly have been), a disambiguation page would be reasonable. If no one can, "gay bishop" and "Gene Robinson" would seem to be the same thing. "Gay bishop" and "Christian views of homosexuality" are not. -- Someone else 17:34, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Now disambiguated. Needs more gay non-Catholic bishops, but of what can that not be said? -- Someone else 18:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Yep, the current page is nice. Keep. Martin 18:48, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Ann O'nyme 02:44, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Homosexual bishops in keeping with our pluralization policy. - Efghij 01:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nothing in the articles about Pope Benedict IX, Pope Julius III, Pope Leo X, Pope Paul II and Pope Sixtus IV makes any reference to their performing any homosexual acts. If they were, indeed, gay, their articles should say so, or their names should be removed from this list. RickK 01:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They were not "gay". They were, however, at least alleged to have had sex with at least one man. I'm not sure that's a significant enough fact to require inclusion in their articles. -- Someone else 02:20, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Either they need to have that information included in their articles, or they need to be removed from here, or else something here needs to say what qualifies them to be included here. RickK 02:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So do it. The reference is on the page. -- Someone else 02:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Where? I don't have a clue as to why these people are listed here, don't ask me to make it right. RickK 03:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here. * The First Gay Pope and Other Records, Lynne Yamaguchi Fletcher, Alyson Publications, Boston, 1997. -- Someone else 03:06, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So, in other words, you want me to go out and either buy a book or track it down at the library and look up why YOU put this information on here, instead of YOU (or whoever did it) letting us know IN THE ARTICLE why they should be included here. RickK 03:13, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's the general idea RickK. :) Martin 08:40, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Apparently the general idea is to delete footnoted information not found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Interesting approach. -- Someone else 01:16, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What footnoted information? Where? RickK 03:11, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here. * The First Gay Pope and Other Records, Lynne Yamaguchi Fletcher, Alyson Publications, Boston, 1997. -- Martin 10:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So as not to be totally uninformative, I should append some additional comments from Leigh W. Rutledge's "New Book of Gay Lists": John XII "an insatiable bisexual...he was accused of running a brothel out of St. Peter's"; Benedict IX "turned the Lateran Palace into the site of lavish homosexual orgies"; Paul II "known to his cardinals as 'Our Lady of Pity' for his tendency to cry at the slightest provocation, he allegedly died of a heart attack while being sodomized by one of his favorite boys"; Sixtus IV "took one of his beautiful young nephews, Pietro Riario, as his lover"; Julius III "lovers with his bastard son Berruccino...appointed handsome teenage boys as cardinals and allegedly ...brought them together for orgies where he would watch them sodomize each other. Della Casa's famous poem "In Praise of Sodomy" [De laudibus sodomiae] was dedicated to him. -- Someone else 03:29, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RickK - see verifiability - it's polite to make a good faith attempt to verify information before removing it. Martin 08:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not my responsibility to make your data work. If you're unwilling to support your contentions, then don't be upset if they get deleted. RickK 02:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But they are supported - that's what the reference is there for. --Camembert

The allegations against the list of Popes should be in their individual articles where sources can be given, allegations detailed, and opposing arguments presented. You can't do all of that in a list. In addition, these men were known primarily as Popes, not Bishops, and the fact that they may have had sexual relations with another man does not necessarily make them homosexual. They might be bisexual, they might be experimenters. It is misleading to characterize them as homosexual bishops when in fact one might have actually been a bisexual Pope. The information should be moved to an appropriate place other than homosexual bishopArk30inf 02:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Popes are Bishops. That is, "Pope" is the most common title of the Bishop of Rome, who also has many other titles. The Pope is no less a bishop because he is Pope, than the Archbishop of Canterbury is because he is Leader of the Anglican Communion.

Yes, they are bishops, but they are not primarily known as bishops they are primarily known as Popes which makes the homosexual bishop title not a real good one for this list.Ark30inf 03:01, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree though that it would be incorrect to have bisexuals on the list, unless the article is re-named, which means at least that Pope John XII should be removed. - Efghij 02:46, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

If we called it Queer clergy we could be really inclusive... --Camembert

If you agree that bisexuals fall under the definition of Queer. Clergy who have or have been alleged to have engaged in homosexual activity is about the only thing that fits everyone listed in the article I think. But the title is too unwieldy which indicates to me that it needs to be split into more focused articles Clergy alleged to have engaged in homosexual behavior and Homosexual clergy Ark30inf 03:01, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"homosexual" is debatably anachronous, but "Queer" certainly is.

There's a use-mention distinction here. Just because we have an article on time travel doesn't mean that any of the alleged methods of time travel in that article will ever work. Just because we have an article on homosexual clergy doesn't mean that any of the people in that article are actually homosexual. It just means that they're relevant to a discussion of homosexual clergy. Martin 10:27, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't being entirely serious about queer clergy - I just liked the idea of the title. I think that homosexual clergy is probably fine. --Camembert

Deletion of homosexual bishop

Further discussion moved here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

• There is no information on the page as to why the people listed are included on the list, and no information in their respective articles to indicate why they are there. When I raised the question on the talk page, I was informed that I needed to go and either buy a book or find it at the library and correct the page, instead of the people who are responsible for the page actually making it meaningful. RickK 03:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Nobody is "responsible" for a page - or rather, everyone is responsible for every page. You wouldn't be the first Wikipedian to visit a library in a bid to improve an article. Martin 09:14, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm inclined to see it deleted. There are Popes on the list who are 'alleged' to have had sex with men. If we have allegations they should be NPOV within the individual's article. Putting them in a list format on a page called 'homosexual bishop' seems to give the allegations more weight and provides absolutely no context and does not explain just where the allegation came from or what it is. In addition, even if it is absolutely true that one or more on the list behaved as alleged, that does not necessarily qualify them as a homosexual, such an encounter could mean the individual was a bisexual or an experimenter. So the article shouldn't be specifically homosexual. In addition, these men are primarily known for being Pope, not for being a bishop. So the article shouldn't be titled with the word bishop either. It looks like this one was about the Episcopal Bishop and then go expanded when it probably shouldn't have been. Break it up and put the info in the places it should logically go.Ark30inf 04:31, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject is valid and should be covered. Just because it is a stub right now is not reason enough to delete it. See the talk page for more information that can be put into the article. --mav 06:25, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be covered. I'm arguing that the list of Popes does not belong under homosexual bishop. 1) These men are not best known for being bishops, they are known for being Popes. 2) These are allegations and allegations don't belong on a list, they belong in the subject's individual article where the source, details, evidence, and refutations can be placed. This necessary context cannot be placed in a list. 3) Even if the allegations are absolutely true that does not make them homosexuals in the cultural sense of the word. They might be bisexuals. They might be experimenters. If you put the allegations in the individual Pope's article I have no complaint. If you put them in a list titled List of Popes alleged to have engaged in homsexual behavior then I have no problem because that is accurate. But putting them under homosexual bishop just if flat out not accurate. Leaving the article homosexual bishop does not bother me if you stick only with those who are best known for being bishops and are really actually known to have the sexual orientation in the title (and not just alleged).Ark30inf 07:04, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All perfectly valid points. I don't disagree. Perhaps a more general article is needed then; homosexual clergy? --mav

The article title is badly chosen but the content is worth keeping. I see no reason for deletion, merely moving. FearÉIREANN 23:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem if its elements can be moved to the appropriate places.Ark30inf 03:52, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed from VfD because most folks seem to favour a title change over deletion. Still not sure we agree on what the title should be, though! :) Martin 22:26, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It bears mnetioning that every Pope is indeed a Bishop, every time. One of the requirements of being Pope is being a Bishop. A layman can be elected Pope, he would be ordained, consecreated as a Bishop, and then installed as Pope. A listing of those bishops who are verified as gay, and also Popes, would be appropriate here. As far as the name, like moving this to homosexual clergy can work, and be more general. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

remove if article has no info

See Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. There has been a proposal to remove anyone from that list whose article does not mention that they are gay. We can't have it both ways. If those people are removed from the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, then the bishops should be moved from this list if their articles don't mention that they're gay. RickK 02:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

List selection criteria can vary on a per-list basis. Thus most in list of incumbents are complete lists, whereas most in list of people by belief are selected lists. Selection criteria should probably be chosen to maximise the usefulness of a list.

Which isn't to say that RickK's suggestion is wrong: only that inconsistency with LFGLB alone is not a reason. Martin 10:42, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup, etc...

I tried to clean this up a bit - I think the Gay Popes (or alleged at least) should go on the Gay popes page that there is, not here with no information. I hope I have improved on this article. JG of Borg 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needed a massive rewrite. There is no need to have a section on gay popes when there is a separate article. Likewise, the priesthood section was totally speculative. It took a paragraph to say that there are no known cases of openly or outed gay bishops in the RC church. (Of course there are gay bishops, but that it beyond the scope of Wikipedia) And who says that some of the abusive priests have "undoubtedly" become bishops? Carolynparrishfan 23:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One-sided

One would think that homosexuals in the episcopate were a novelty or peculiarly Anglican. I added some historical info. - there is a lot out there concerning the presence of gay men in the episcopacy, and the various reactions of their judicataries towards them. Fishhead64 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New Addition

Information is correct, but it's not really neutral in presentation in my opinion. Any other thoughts. (About 2/3 of people...) 69.236.160.12 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)