The Archbishop of Canterbury talks to Roy Hattersley about Tony Blair, war and God Sunday July 11, 2004 — The Observer Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, possesses personal modesty and moral certainty in equal measure. Combined with the scholarly precision of his language and his unqualified belief in the message of the Gospels, those qualities make him reluctant to give glib answers to simplistic questions. They also enable him to express strong views in gentle language. It is a technique which allowed Downing Street to describe his criticisms of government ('manipulating the media ... habitually repressing criticism') as 'elliptical'. He could hardly have been more direct in his condemnation of the war in Iraq. At a time when mistakes are being admitted and errors of judgment exposed, didn't he think an apology was necessary. He does not. 'Those who took the decision [to go to war] were acting in good faith.' I suggested that 'acting in good faith' understated the conviction of a Prime Minister who 'has no doubt that he is doing God's work'. The Archbishop described the Blair conscience in more theologically acceptable terms. 'He believes that he's answerable for what he does, and I respect that.' Answerable? Rowan Williams had already spoken of the instigators of the war being 'called to account'. Unsure what that meant, I asked him to explain. 'Two levels. At the simplest level, the public - nations, electorates - watch for the results. Politicians take large risks. I think they know that and the Prime Minister acknowledged it. Anyone making decisions involving the lives and welfare of other people must answer to God.' I asked, in the language of the Victorian Church, if the answer would be required 'at the Judgment Seat'. To my astonishment, the Archbishop of Canterbury replied - carefully enunciating each word - 'at the Judgement Seat'. That raised the question of what the penalty would be for an inadequate reply. I understood that, in life, Tony Blair and George W Bush might have to live with the knowledge that the death and destruction in the Iraq war could not morally be justified. But was the Archbishop talking about punishment after death? The penalty for those 'found wanting' at the Judgment Seat is, or used to be, Eternal Damnation. The Archbishop of Canterbury worships a more merciful and a more subtle God. 'Not damnation. But you know the scale of the mistakes you've made ...' I interrupted him to make sure I understood that he meant more than the regrets of old age. Was he, I asked, talking about 'the life to be, God's reckoning?' The Archbishop's reply - expanding the general to the particular - could not have been more categoric. 'You only see the clear perspectives of the situation when some of the ordinary muddles and selfishness of what life now involves have somehow slipped away. I'm talking about judgment and punishment. I've always thought that the essence of judgment is simply to be face to face with the truth - and no escape.' Was he really saying George W Bush and Tony Blair - and the rest of us - would, after death, still be able to feel guilt and remorse? Again, there was no doubt about the Archbishop's certainty. In the next life we will all be 'cognisant and conscious' beings, capable of suffering the torment of the truth about ourselves. Putting aside the implication of that doctrine for the Prime Minister and the President, it seemed - in my atheist ignorance - astonishing that a man of such obvious intellectual sophistication should speak in such fundamentalist language. The time had come to advance into the remote recesses of faith. 'Is it possible,' I asked, 'to be simply an ethical Christian or must I believe in the mysteries and miracles?' The answer - hedged about with a description of how a moral commitment usually evolves into 'something pretty indistinguishable from those doctrines' - seemed to be 'No'. I moved on to another one of the great intangibles. Are human beings redeemed, that is to say 'saved', by good works or by faith? The Archbishop answered that 'big classical question' with the explanation that 'neither good works (the way you act) nor faith (a state of mind) can guarantee a place in heaven. What brings you into eternal life is a relationship with God' - an answer which did not help me fumble my way towards my intended inquiry about 'the good life' (pace Thomas Aquinas rather than Tony Bennett). So I just asked, 'Is it the Church's job - your job as its head - to guide the nation's morals?' 'It is the duty of a religious community, part of its job, to say to the rest of society: "This is what matters about human beings, these are non-negotiable things about human beings" ... There are a range of matters where the Church says this far and no further - the image of God requires more than this.' So how does the Church decide what those issues are? 'There is always a range of possible issues and there is a danger of them becoming issues of the week. I think ecclesiastical spokesmen are prone to this ... A lot depends on being a bit reactive - what comes up at a particular moment.' It was the Archbishop of Canterbury's misfortune to have the issue of gay clergy - the nomination of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading - 'come up' at the very start of his archiepiscopate. I wondered if the wounds, endured as a result of his reaction to that proposal, had healed. Is he 'anxious not to be quite as controversial as it was assumed he would be when first appointed?' 'A lot of people helped to build up the picture of the controversial, turbulent priest. I have to be as honest as I can within the framework of the responsibilities I have to a large range of people. I have never thought there is any virtue in being controversial for its own sake.' Although Rowan Williams is a man whose word it is impossible to doubt, it did seem - during his early months in Lambeth Palace - that he was attracted to trouble. In February 2003, he announced that it was 'perfectly reasonable for those hoping to stay in Britain to be kept in secure accommodation while their cases are considered'. He appears genuinely surprised that his statement was interpreted as a support for imprisoning asylum seekers. That was not his intention. He meant 'security in a wider sense' - a concept difficult to define. Thirteen months later, he again demonstrated the wisdom of not commenting on the event of the week. He criticised Footballers' Wives for exhibiting 'different sorts of selfish behaviour'. The programme's executive producer said the Archbishop had missed the point. He disagrees. 'I knew it was ironic. I knew it was self-parody. Like a good moral comedy, it drew out an extreme version of human behaviour.' But it was the peg on which he hung two fundamental criticisms of modern society which television epitomises and encourages. The first is 'emotional voyeurism' - not just observing sex and suffering, but wanting to see 'other people going through extremes of feeling - anger and misery'. Both television drama and reality TV pander to a taste which the Archbishop finds baffling as well as distasteful. That is not, in itself, unworldly, but a surprise that expressing such opinions makes tabloid headlines is. The question which now hangs over Rowan Williams is whether or not the bruising experience of those early months - the abuse from the homophobic wing of the Church and the threat by the African bishops to break up the Anglican Communion - had driven him back from his own convictions that gay clergy, homosexual in inclination but celibate in life, should not be victimised. I suggested a preoccupation with unity was the reaction to be expected from a 'Prince of the Church' while the refusal to be driven off principle was the response of a 'Man of God' and that the accusation that he had chosen to occupy the wrong role was a 'very severe criticism'. He accepted the severity of the criticism but refuted it with the insistence that 'unity is a principle ... it is all to do with a calculation that goes something like this. The decision was one which severely ruptured a whole set of relationships which are not about structural harmony but about mutual learning and mutual giving - relationships, let's say, between churches in the developing world and the Church here or the Church in the States. To rupture those relations would be bad for the Church not as an institution but as a community ... making people feel they have not been taken seriously.' He then added, with admirable humility, 'I recognise the argument of unity versus principle and it stings. It goes deep.' No one can doubt that it does. But, integrity being beyond question, his decision may have been an error of judgment. I suggested that men and women of every sort are longing for people who speak out, who say 'it is wrong to discriminate against gays and I do not care what the consequences are of my saying so. It is a matter of principle.' Wouldn't it do the Church a world of good if people said that sort of thing? The Archbishop got very near to agreeing and perilously close to exhibiting regret that the inhibitions which are imposed upon him require discretion. 'I have had it borne in on me - I do not mean by weighty figures but borne in by the office - that, as Archbishop, I have to keep as many voices in play as possible ... The voices in the developing world, people who regularly feel marginal in pretty well every respect, this is another turn of the screw for them. I'm serious about the international dimension here. That is probably what weighs with me most, personally and emotionally.' Concern for the developing world - in the argument about the acceptability of gay clergy, normally a euphemism for Nigerian obduracy - leaves a palpably principled Archbishop with a dilemma. Some of his brother bishops openly speak of homosexuals in the pure language of prejudice. How does he deal with them? 'When our conference had a discussion in '98 about this, one of the things that the famous resolution said was that we had a commitment to listen to the voices of gay people. When I hear what I do regard as deeply prejudiced voices coming out of the Church I say "look, we have that commitment as well" ... There are some things which should not be said in the Church or anywhere else.' The hope of renewed harmony lies, the Archbishop believes, in the 'difficult and quite recent principle that orientation and sexual behaviour can be distinguished'. Jeffrey John is celibate. But that has not prevented the Reverend David Holloway, leader of Reform within the Church of England, excoriating him. That, the Archbishop says, is why the 'discipline making a disjunction between orientation and behaviour is important. The Church is committed to it, whatever any individual cleric may say.' The Church of England exists on compromise. But Islam seems to flourish on the refusal to yield. If a young Muslim, working in a Birmingham car factory, says that it is absurd that during Ramadan he must not eat between dawn and dusk, he is told by his priest that the Koran brooks no amendment. I wondered if the Archbishop thought people responded more enthusiastically to an absolute view of belief and faith. 'Some clearly do. Some are clearly appalled by it. If you look, second- and third-generation Muslim families have a lot of the same problems with teenagers that other families do.' My suggestion that they may be just as prone to steal motor cars, but probably still believe that the sky is God's canopy provoked the response that an 'older generation of Muslims would have regarded seeing the sky as God's canopy and not stealing motor cars was a part of the same ethical tradition'. The Archbishop is all of a piece. He never tries to divide virtue between faith and good works.

Each of Three Churches in Greater Akron Area Has Different View on What Is Acceptable By Colette M. Jenkins, Beacon Journal Religion Writer — July 11, 2004 On any given Sunday, you can hear the same prayers, readings, psalms and devotions at Church of Our Saviour, St. Luke's Episcopal Church and Hudson Anglican Fellowship. But while they all look like Episcopal churches — using the Book of Common Prayer as their primary guide for worship — there is something very different going on in each one a year after the Episcopal Church's painful debate over homosexuality. Church of Our Saviour is proud to be part of the Episcopal Church USA, which ordained an openly gay bishop. St. Luke's is still Episcopal but would rather not be. Hudson Anglican never was Episcopal, having started with people who left the Episcopal Church over the ordination. Those differences are a reflection of the division that remains within the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. It was August when delegates to the Episcopal General Convention confirmed the Rev. V. Gene Robinson and acknowledged the blessing of same-sex unions has become part of the church's common life. Since then, the chasm has widened. Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans worldwide have called for global leaders to discipline and censure the U.S. church, and there is discord within parishes and dioceses, including the Ohio Diocese. Shortly after the vote, 16 members of Christ Church Episcopal in Hudson left and formed Hudson Anglican Fellowship. Although the independent church is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church, it was established in the Anglican tradition. The congregation has grown to include more than 100 people and worships at 9:30 a.m. each Sunday at the restored octagon-shaped Danforth Barn on Darrow Road. The Rev. David "Doc" Loomis, the founding pastor, says his congregation is not interested in dividing the church any further but wants to be part of the "realigned" American Anglican church. The church has placed itself under the spiritual oversight of orthodox bishops in the Anglican Mission in America, a part of the province of Rwanda. "The Anglican church is splitting in two because the main body of the Episcopal Church fails to recognize Scripture," Loomis said. "More than 70 percent of the worldwide Anglican Church stands with us and against ECUSA." Anglican archbishops from Africa decided in April to reject donations from any diocese that recognizes gay clergy and recommended giving the Episcopal Church three months to repent for ordaining an openly gay bishop or face expulsion. Bishops in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are also furious over the American church's move. African leaders represent 18 provinces with a membership of more than 55 million people, compared with the Episcopal Church USA's 2.3 million members — a much smaller fraction of the global Anglican Communion's 77 million members. Last month, the Anglican church in Canada approved a measure to implement rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, complicating the possibility of unifying the global church. Within days, the American Anglican Network asked global leaders to recognize it as a true Anglican province in North America, if the Episcopal Church does not repent and immediately cease blessing same-sex unions. Ohio Diocese Bishop Mark Hollingsworth Jr. says each congregation in the diocese is currently focusing on its ministry rather than the issues arising out of last year's General Convention, and that this is likely to continue until the Archbishop of Canterbury gives some direction. The Rev. Meghan Froehlich, pastor at Church of Our Saviour in Akron, supports unity. "Four words describe what we do here at Church of Our Saviour — welcome, worship, caring and outreach," Froehlich said. "We extend an open welcome. There are no exclusions, regardless of age, race, gender, life experience." The Rev. Roger Ames, pastor at St. Luke's, disagrees. He says the American church has clearly violated the orthodox stance of the Anglican Communion. He and his charismatic, evangelical congregation have declared themselves in "impaired communion" with the local diocese and the national church, and are withholding contributions in favor of orthodox Anglican organizations. "We totally reject what the U.S. church has done and we are pulling together to reject its revisionist, liberal agenda that is anti-authority, anti-biblical and anti-marriage," Ames said. While conservatives like Ames are in the minority in the Episcopal Church, their viewpoint probably holds sway when it comes to global Anglicanism. They have been pleading with upset Episcopalians not to leave their churches, but to wait and see what the commission does. "We have an informal understanding that everything is on hold until the archbishop issues his response," Ames said. "Until then, we — conservatives and liberals — are in a period of waiting together."

By Rod Minchin, PA News The Church of England today rejected moves to look at ways of overhauling clergy disciplinary procedures. The General Synod voted against a proposal to create heresy courts to deal with allegations of misconduct by the clergy. It was the first review of disciplinary procedures in relation to doctrine, ritual and ceremonial matters since 1963 and was designed to make the process simpler. Under the proposals, new heresy courts, headed by bishops and advised by panels of theologians, would hear cases in which priests were alleged to have erred on doctrine, ritual or ceremonial. The Church of England has been rocked by a number of doctrinal controversies in the last century, notably that of the teaching of the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, in relation to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. However, there were fears the courts could be used to enforce a traditionalist view, targeting clergy who, for example, support same-sex marriages or gay priests. The Venerable Robert Reiss, the Archdeacon of Surrey, warned against a witch-hunt. "If theological conservatives try to use this as a stick to beat liberals over the head with then the church will gravely damage itself," he said. Addressing the General Synod, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said it was important for the Church of England to be able to speak out against issues like Apartheid. "The question I think we ought to be asking is whether this does or does not serve the integrity or credibility of the church in the long run," the Archbishop said. "I believe that such a measure can serve the integrity and credibility of the church if we do indeed step back in this way." "It is over 20 years since the World Alliance of Reform Churches declared that the theological justification for Apartheid was a heresy. It would be a very incredible and inadequate Christian church which did not have the resource to say something like that."

News Analysis By David W. Virtue — Colorado Springs, July 10, 2004 Two orthodox ECUSA priests have charged two revisionist Colorado bishops with deception, "secret protocols" and perjury, with one bishop taunting the priests saying "present me if you dare" in response. The Rev. Don Armstrong and the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner have taken on the former Bishop of Colorado Jerry Winterrowd and the present incumbent Bishop Rob O'Neill in the press and a private letter, charging the bishops with covert blessings of same-sex unions and running the diocese with a wholesale disregard of the church's received teaching on sexuality. The war of words escalated into the media with the Rocky Mountain News screaming in a headline, "Rift over same-sex ceremonies frays Colorado Episcopal diocese. Clergy exchange volleys as church weighs gay rights." The diocese's leading orthodox rector is the Rev. Don Armstrong of Grace Church and St. Stephen's in Colorado Springs, who traces the diocese's decline into pansexuality back to former Bishop Winterrowd, who knew these covert blessings were being done and who paved the way for today's disputes by secretly laying down guidelines for same-sex blessings 10 years ago — but testified otherwise during a 1999 lawsuit brought by a lesbian youth minister. "Jerry Winterrowd knew such covert blessings were being done," said Armstrong. "That's a bald-faced lie," Winterrowd retorted. "If Mr. Armstrong feels that way, he ought to make a presentment (church complaint) against me," he told Jean Torkelson of the Rocky Mountain News. Winterrowd bristles at the notion he did anything wrong, saying what he allowed was gay couples "to improvise and write their own prayers." However, he added a crucial caveat: "Under no circumstances may a priest bless that relationship." But Armstrong has also blasted Bishop O'Neill, accusing him of being soft on the issues and unwilling to take a stand for orthodox biblical faith on same-sex unions. At a June meeting, O'Neill confirmed what conservatives found startling: that the diocese had "at least 11 same-sex blessings performed," according to a private process Winterrowd set up in 1994. In a letter to the Colorado clergy, O'Neill wrote: "Although some clergy now allege that there was a 'secret protocol' established by Bishop Winterrowd for 'the blessing of same-sex relationships,' that is simply not accurate. What can be said accurately is this: That Bishop Winterrowd did establish an agreement with some clergy of the Diocese that made provision for honoring same-gender relationships in the context of the Eucharist at the time of the Prayers of the People; and that the agreement specifically excluded the pronouncement of any blessing and required the expressed permission of the Bishop." Colorado scholar and theologian the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner joined the fray, blasting O'Neill in a letter: "I feel deceived. Deeply so. I worked for 5 years as missioner of this diocese, struggled to maintain order within a fracturing common life riven by conflicts over same-sex relationships and their affirmation, and none of this was laid out to me within the formal life of our deliberations. Indeed, it appears that some of my colleagues simply went their own way in the shadows, pretending 'dialogue' while moving ahead secretly with agenda that certainly preempted the decision-making of this diocese and church." Radner outlined four areas of concern, noting that clergy were kept in the dark about the scope of the agreement, were never told exactly what it entailed, were denied access to the guidelines, and were given no explanation in the bishop's public letters that would account for the actions taken at Good Shepherd. He accused the bishop of keeping the guidelines "secret" and urged him to "come clean." "I don't know how to answer that," O'Neill replies when asked if he might reconsider his gay rights stand. "I believe, in the life of our church, there is room for those who hold different perspectives to live together with integrity and goodwill." It has been the hope of orthodox priests like Armstrong and Radner that O'Neill would "repent" of his pro-gay positions. Both men have founded the Anglican Communion Institute, an organization with international ties to the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. George Carey. They recently submitted a 50-page document to the Lambeth (Eames) Commission arguing that the Episcopal church should be disciplined for its actions in consecrating an openly homoerotic priest to the episcopacy. In Colorado, orthodox priests claim to have the behind-the-scenes support of about 40 clergy in 30 parishes — about a quarter of the total number. Armstrong projects a $500,000 budget deficit because parishes are withholding funds from O'Neill's control, though the bishop disputes that figure. "If there's no discipline, the communion (the Episcopal church) will probably fall apart," predicts Armstrong. Says the bishop: "The issue Don is raising is, what is the authority of the worldwide Anglican Communion over individual provinces (such as the U.S.)? That question hasn't been answered yet."

Clergy Exchange Volleys as Church Weighs Gay Rights By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News — July 10, 2004 A private same-sex ceremony in April between two Episcopalian women has escalated into charges of deception, "secret protocols" — and even a taunt of perjury against a retired Colorado bishop. "Jerry Winterrowd knew such covert blessings were being done," says the diocese's most outspoken leader of the traditional wing, the Rev. Don Armstrong. He argues that Winterrowd, who retired in January, paved the way for today's disputes by secretly laying down guidelines for same-sex blessings 10 years ago — but testified otherwise during a 1999 lawsuit brought by a lesbian youth minister. "That's a bald-faced lie," Winterrowd retorts. "If Mr. Armstrong feels that way, he ought to make a presentment (church complaint) against me." Such is the rift between two men who once played tennis and enjoyed dinner together with their wives. The rift in the Episcopal Church USA — and the Colorado diocese — illustrates how American society is being riven by the movement to widen marriage to include same-sex unions. This weekend marks a nationwide campaign to urge church members to support the federal marriage amendment, which defines marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman. It's scheduled for a Senate vote next week. Last summer, the gay rights issue made history in the Episcopal Church USA when the church officially approved an openly gay bishop and the right of each diocese to develop so-called same-sex blessings — essentially, a ritual presided over by a priest and the closest thing to an official church marriage for gay couples. In Colorado, both Winterrowd and his successor, Rob O'Neill, favor the idea. But to placate conservatives, the newly appointed O'Neill promised in January he would not authorize same-sex blessings until a task force study was finished. The study just ended, O'Neill said this week. He declined to give details, but said the findings don't call for same-sex blessings right now. In the interim, the traditionalists hoped O'Neill would "repent" altogether from his gay rights stand, which they believe is a fundamental break with historic Christianity. They have founded the Anglican Communion Institute, an international body that has submitted a 50-page document to the London-based worldwide Anglican Communion, appealing for sanctions against the pro-gay American church leadership. In Colorado, conservatives claim to have the behind-the-scenes support of about 40 clergy in 30 parishes — about a quarter of the total number. Armstrong, a member of the Standing Committee, a diocesan advisory board, projects a $500,000 budget deficit because parishes are withholding funds from O'Neill's control, though the bishop disputes that figure. And now, the fragile goodwill on both sides is fraying in earnest. The present tear traces back to April 24, when, at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial, assistant rector Bonnie Spencer "made promises and exchanged rings" with lay leader Catherine Anderson, the widow of an Episcopal priest. They say there was no blessing by a priest. The ceremony had been forbidden by O'Neill. Because of "the current climate," he says, he categorically turned down several requests for same-sex ceremonies, including even low-key prayer gatherings. So, when Spencer went ahead with her ceremony anyway, conservatives were outraged that O'Neill responded with only a light rebuke — 6-week paid leave — which Spencer and Anderson could have used for a vacation. The two women declined to be interviewed. Spencer is expected to resume her parish duties later this month. O'Neill and the affronted traditionalists met in June to hash things out. At that meeting, O'Neill confirmed what conservatives found startling: that the diocese had "at least 11 same-sex blessings performed," according to a private process Winterrowd set up in 1994. O'Neill denies the process amounted to "secret protocols," though he concedes "some variations" existed in the ceremonies that could be misconstrued as outright same-sex blessings. Winterrowd bristles at the notion he did anything wrong, saying what he allowed was gay couples "to improvise and write their own prayers" — clearly the right of any Episcopalian under church law, he says. However, he says, he added a crucial caveat: "Under no circumstances may a priest bless that relationship." Winterrowd's policy became important to a 1998 lawsuit brought by Boulder youth minister Lee Ann Bryce, who charged she had been wrongfully fired for participating in a same-sex ceremony with her partner at St. Aidan's parish in Boulder. In a deposition, Winterrowd's testimony helped the diocese win. Is there any chance, as conservatives hope, that O'Neill will reconsider his gay rights stand? "I don't know how to answer that," O'Neill replies. "I believe, in the life of our church, there is room for those who hold different perspectives to live together with integrity and goodwill." Winterrowd, too, is solidifying his gay rights beliefs. He's bitter and regretful now about the vote he cast with the Anglican majority at the 1998 worldwide Lambeth Conference, which asserted that homosexuality is contrary to scripture. Today, Winterrowd calls that vote "a very ugly moment in the long and glorious history of the Anglican church." "If there's no discipline, the communion (the Episcopal church) will probably fall apart," predicts Armstrong. One thing he and O'Neill agree on: The crisis may require an outside body to step in and settle the issue. Says the bishop: "The issue Don is raising is, what is the authority of the worldwide Anglican Communion over individual provinces (such as the U.S.)? That question hasn't been answered yet."

The Christian Challenge — June 26, 2004 A noted Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish in the nation's capital has announced the visits next year of an outspokenly conservative Anglican provincial leader, followed by a liberal one — namely, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. The invitation by the well known St. Paul's, K Street, Washington, to the presiding bishop — among other things the chief consecrator of openly homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson — raised some eyebrows among local traditionalists. Nonetheless, the rector, the Rev. Andrew Sloane, announced in the parish publication, The Epistle, that Bishop Griswold would be at the parish for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Great Vigil of Easter, 2005. Fr. Sloane did not say what role Griswold would play in these observances. Fr. Sloane also announced that the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, would be at St. Paul's for Candlemas, February 2, 2005, "to celebrate and preach with the Bishop of Washington's permission. Archbishop Gomez has been to St. Paul's before, and his sister, Myrtle, is a faithful member of our congregation." "These visits speak of the high and broad esteem in which this parish church is held in the wider Church and are also expressive of the respect for diversity that is possible within Anglicanism," Sloane wrote. "We shall be delighted and honored by their presence and their office." Asked about Griswold's visit, one St. Paul's parishioner candidly approached the matter thus: "Fr. Sloane has said many times that one cannot experience Holy Week at St. Paul's without being changed."

Monsignor Gene Thomas Gomulka SPECIAL REPORT   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org February 23, 2026   Gene Thomas Gomulka is a one of a kind Roman Catholic. A retired Navy Captain/Chaplain, author, investigative reporter, and screenwriter, he is also a sex abuse victims’ advocate who helps those who were sexually abused or unjustly reprised against by Roman Catholic Church leaders and their attorneys for reporting abuse. Gomulka's work often goes against the mainstream and Catholic media sources, and he is known for his investigative reporting and advocacy. Not surprisingly his blog cites John 18:37; “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” Fr. Gomulka makes no claims to being totally like Jesus, but he is a disciple of Jesus, and he wants his Church and the world to know the truth about how damaging the whole homosexual enterprise has been to his church, and warns that it will all go badly if the Lavender Mafia that now runs the Vatican is not dealt with expeditiously.   What he says about his church is not dissimilar to what VOL has been saying about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, that is, the growing encroachment of pan sexuality into the life of Western Anglicanism, and what will happen if it ever takes hold in the Global South, which to date has not done so. With a new (woman) Archbishop of Canterbury committed to an inclusive church theology, the pressure is on.   VIRTUEONLINE interviewed Fr. Gomulka for his views on the state of the Roman Catholic Church today.   VOL: As a sex abuse victim’s advocate and whistleblower who was coerced into leaving ministry after confronting your ecclesiastical superiors for underreporting and covering up the sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults, what do you see as the main cause for the ongoing sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church that has led millions of baptized Catholics to leave the Church?    GOMULKA: According to Kim Haines-Eitzen , professor of ancient Mediterranean religions, “The Catholic Church has a long history of actively covering up sexual abuse, including the silencing of victims.”  She went on to point out that, “Systemic abuse can be found in the literary and historical records going back to the very beginnings of the Catholic Church, and outrage at corruption in the church is part of what led to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.” Interestingly, both the 16th century and current 21st century have witnessed the election of homosexual popes who were accused of engaging in or covering up the sexual abuse of young men.    While Pope Julius III (1550-1555) was reported to have “ shared [his] bedroom and bed ” with 15-year-old Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte whom he made a cardinal at the age of 17, Pope Francis was likewise accused of abusing young Jesuit novices in Argentina.  In 2024, just before his excommunication, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò wrote , “Bergoglio himself committed the same abuses [as McCarrick] when he was Master of Novices of the Society of Jesus in Argentina, as personally confided to me by one of his former novices.” Bergoglio’s sexual involvement with novices was corroborated earlier in 2015 by an Argentine priest working in the U.S. who graphically described to two American priests how Bergoglio allegedly engaged in sodomy with a novice in Córdoba.   The recent sex abuse crisis in the U.S. has claimed far more victims and cost American Catholics far more than has been reported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Catholic media. While it was reported that the Catholic Church in the U.S. has paid out about $5 billion in abuse settlements and legal fees, it is interesting that two California dioceses alone, Los Angeles and San Diego , are reported to have paid out $2.3 billion in settlements and legal fees. If one were to do the math, one would deduce that with 5.7 million Catholics in the Los Angeles and San Diego dioceses that has paid out $2.3 billion, the cost per Catholic would be $404.00. If the remaining 196 dioceses in the U.S. with 56.3 million Catholics were to have the same amount of abuse, they would end up paying $22.7 billion. Hence, the total amount for 198 dioceses and eparchies would be $25 billion! The only reason many dioceses are not being bankrupt like over 40 dioceses and religious orders today is because most states have not lifted their statutes of limitations for sexual abuse cases like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, and others.   The more important issue is how did this all come about. What caused so many priests to abuse so many children and vulnerable adults, mainly teenage boys?  Catholic Church leaders, the majority of whom are homosexuals and part of the problem and not the solution, will not like my explanation.   Fathers Robert Kelly and Martin Cingle with whom I served in a large parish from 1975 to 1980, were accused years later of having abused teenage boys before they were removed from ministry in 2015. Both priests attended high school seminaries in the early 1960s during which time many priests were known to have groomed innocent teenage young men like Bob and Marty who felt they had a calling to the priesthood. The deceptive and fraudulent idea behind high school (minor) seminaries, was to “recruit young boys before they discovered girls.” Had they had an emotional, physical, or sexual experience with a girl, it was feared they would change their minds about becoming priests.    By grooming and exposing them to gay sex during their period of psychosexual development, Bob, Marty, and countless vulnerable seminarians often interpreted what they experienced in the bedrooms of priests and seminarians as expressions of “love and friendship.” However, knowing that their parents, relatives, and friends might not approve of what they had been doing behind closed doors, they kept it a secret. Now that they self-identified as homosexuals, they did not want to return home only in time to be outed. Hence, they decided to stay the course, get ordained, and hide their same- sex attraction.   Once Bob and Marty were ordained, they attempted to groom teenagers in their parishes just as they were groomed. Many of their victims never told their parents or others about what happened to them. Some were afraid that no one would believe them, or they were ashamed and felt guilty that they placed themselves in a situation where this occurred. If teenage boys later report abuse, it is often only after many years. One former altar boy of mine who was abused when he was 14 by a former seminarian from our parish did not inform me and his spouse of his abuse until he was 60. I have yet to meet one predator priest who himself was not abused himself.   When the sexual revolution took place in the 1960s, it led to the closure of most high school seminaries.  Deprived of a large pool of high school recruits, Church leaders made up for the loss by lowering their recruiting standards and accepting homosexual candidates that in the past would have been rejected. Because there were still many college age seminarians who lacked sexual experience with women, a number of college and even naïve theology students were groomed who, after a gay encounter with a faculty member or seminarian, felt the only way they could hide their homosexual identity was to be ordained and to live “in the closet of the sacristy.”   With the AIDS crisis in the 90s, many homosexuals, fearing for their lives, saw the priesthood as a safe haven. When then-Monsignor Edwin O’Brien was the rector of the North American College (NAC) in Rome (1990-1994), New Jersey psychiatrist and AIDS expert, Dr. Joseph Barone , reported that one in 12 NAC seminarians tested HIV-positive.   If the sexual revolution in the 1960s impacted the recruitment of heterosexuals, the presence of growing numbers of homosexuals in seminaries and the priesthood had a harmful effect upon the retention of straight seminarians and priests. How many straight priests want to live with priests who bring their boyfriends home to the rectory for sex, or serve with gay pastors who proposition, or even drug and sodomize seminarians like Mark Brooks and Wiesław Walawender ? Heterosexual priests and seminarians who report this behavior are often transferred or dismissed by closeted homosexual bishops who, in many cases, are sexually involved with their own gay clergy. The video, Clerical Orgies: The Rome Connection , captures how homosexual bishops, priests, and seminarians engage in sex together both before and after their ordination without consequences.   As former seminarians and novices continue to report sexual predation and homosexual misconduct in seminaries and houses of formation as I document in, “ Addressing the Present Day Culture of Sexual Predation and Cover-Ups in U.S. Seminaries ,” it is clear that homosexual bishops, seminary rectors, and vocation directors are hoping they can recruit enough candidates to keep the Church afloat while they are still alive and are able to continue enjoying pampered lives at the expense of “paying, praying, and obeying” Catholics. As long as there are enough American and foreign-born priests to keep the money coming in to fill their diocesan coffers, closeted homosexual bishops will continue, with the support of the Pope and Vatican officials, continue to cover up abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.    It should be noted that when married Eastern Rite Catholic clergy were forbidden by the Vatican to exercise a ministry outside of their native lands with the promulgation of Ea Semper in 1907, and Cum Data Fuerit in 1929, this led to the ordination of as many so-called “celibate” homosexuals as were being ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.  Insofar as Sociologist, Rev. Dr. Paul Sullins, in his 2018 report to the U.S. bishops, “ Is Sex Abuse by Catholic Clergy Related to Homosexuality? ” showed a direct correlation between an increase in clerical abuse cases and an increase in homosexual clergy, it should not come as a surprise that the Eastern Rite Eparchies in the U.S. reported almost identical rates of abuse and abuse settlement costs as Roman Catholic Dioceses. However, with the 2014 lifting of the ban on the ordination of married men to the priesthood in Eastern Catholic churches in the diaspora, the Eastern Rite Churches are witnessing an increase in ordinations of mainly married men; a decrease in the acceptance and ordination of homosexuals; and fewer cases of sexual abuse. This development shows that mandatory celibacy is not only responsible for fewer straight vocations, but is also indirectly responsible for the Church’s sex abuse crisis that in over 80 percent of the cases involve male victims, none of whom are being abused or sodomized by married heterosexual priests like those being ordained today in the Eastern Catholic Churches.   The scandalous lives of homosexual popes like Leo X, Julius III, and others that led millions of Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries to leave the Church is happening today. However, instead of converting to Protestantism, the Orthodox Church, or another faith group, most Catholics, scandalized by the ongoing abuse crisis, are becoming religious “ Nones ,” the largest single group in the U.S. today.      VOL: You have made some pretty ‘out their’ remarks about cardinals, archbishops, even popes about their homosexuality. You have even accused Pope Leo of being a homosexual! That’s a strong charge to make. Have you faced pushback and what if any are the legal ramifications of your charges?   GOMULKA: If I were to accuse you of being a heterosexual, I don’t think you would sue me. However, if I falsely accused you of committing adultery, then you should sue me. Today when members of the LGBTQ community, supported by the mainstream media, and even some pro-LGBTQ Catholic bishops, priests, and laity say it’s quite fine to be a homosexual, how can a homosexually oriented cleric sue me simply for accusing him “of being a homosexual?”   Unfortunately, Pope Francis did not want to admit in 2013 to reporters on the flight back from Rio that his close friend, Monsignor Battista Ricca , was guilty of cohabitating with Patrick Haari in Uruguay; getting caught with a prostitute in an elevator; and being beaten up in a gay park. Hence, when he said, “Who am I to judge?” the media deceptively reinterpreted his statement to have been about a person’s sexual orientation, and not his behavior. Because I distinguish clearly in my writing between orientation and behavior, as I did when I testified before Congress on the Department of Defense Homosexual Exclusion Policy, most people know that I don’t judge people on their orientation, but on their behavior, particularly if involves the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults. Pope Leo has nothing to worry about from me unless I receive either sworn testimony from victims in Peru stating that he sexually abused them, or proof that he was or is sexually involved with another bishop, priest, or seminarian.    Recall that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò reported , “Bergoglio himself committed the same abuses [as McCarrick] when he was Master of Novices of the Society of Jesus in Argentina, as personally confided to me by one of his former novices.” In response, Pope Francis excommunicated Viganò. Had the Pope sued Viganò for libel, this could have opened him up to discovery which the Pope wanted to avoid. Also, had Viganò been sued, I could be called to testify that an Argentine priest, working in a Midwestern parish in the U.S., made a similar claim in 2015 about Bergoglio’s sexual behavior with vulnerable novices.   One New Jersey bishop threatened to sue me for what I wrote about him in a report entitled , “The State of the U.S. Catholic Episcopate and Priesthood.” When I presented his lawyer with evidence to support my claim, I never heard back from him. I doubt that Pope Leo or any bishop will sue me because, in most cases, they know they are guilty, and they fear discovery which could prove quite damaging.     VOL: Why do you think Catholic media and laity do not want to admit that Pope Leo is a homosexual like the cardinals who elected him? Why also has Leo yet to discipline over 160 bishops credibly accused of sexually abusing children and vulnerable adults? You say “We All Knew.”   GOMULKA: Many of us like to project our heterosexuality and our fidelity onto those around us. Even though I studied, lived, and worked very closely with a classmate, three years in Rome and three years in a Pennsylvania parish, I had no idea that he engaged in homosexual relationships with other seminarians and priests, or that he preyed upon the altar boys in our large parish. Hence, I am not at all surprised that many Catholics don’t want to believe that over 80% of bishops and priests are homosexuals and that most of them have violated their promises of celibacy or vows of chastity since they were ordained. Most Catholics discount studies by respected researchers like psychotherapist Richard Sipe, and South African sociologist, Father Victor Kotze, whose research revealed that, at any given moment in time, no more than half of all priests are living celibate lives. When Cardinal José Tomás Sánchez, a former Head of the Dicastery for the Clergy, was asked by a BBC TV reporter what he thought about the studies by Sipe and Kotze, he replied , “I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of those figures.” Most bishops and older priests like myself with extensive supervisory experience also concur with these findings. Catholic media outlets can stand to lose revenue if more Catholics continue to leave the Church, scandalized by articles I write based on police, reports, court documents, and often incriminating evidence provided by confidential sources.  What upsets me about the Catholic media and some Catholics is they criticize me for “harming the faith” by writing about sexual predation in the Church instead of expressing outrage at abusers like Father Marko Rupnik who is accused of raping over twenty nuns and forcing them to drink his semen out of a chalice. Catholic media outlets will ignore my news releases reporting priests like Father Dennis Hanneman who is accused of inserting communion into the vaginas of little girls without reporting how Pope Leo and the Archdiocese of Omaha continue to cover up for perverts like Hanneman. If Pope Leo will not support the sexual abuse victims of priests like Rupnik and Hanneman, why should we be surprised that he has yet to discipline over 160 bishops credibly accused of abusing children and vulnerable adults as documented by BishopAccountability.org ?     VOL: You recently wrote this: “Most Catholics cannot cogently explain to their children or their non-Catholic friends why the Catholic Church doctrinally and scripturally does not approve of homosexual behavior. One reason for this is that 80 percent or more of American-born bishops and priests, like Catholic clergy in European countries such as Spain, are documented to be homosexually oriented. That’s a heavy charge. Can you elaborate?   GOMULKA: A 2012 psychological study of “actively ministering or retired priests” in the U.S. revealed that only 26.9% of the priests identified themselves as heterosexuals; 67.3% self-identified as gay/homosexual; and 5.8% reported that they were bisexual. This study, viewed in relation to previous studies, shows how the percentage of gay clergy has risen considerably over the past decades. When I speak with both homosexually and heterosexually priests from around the country who live and work in the 198 dioceses and eparchies, I often asked them what percentage of American-born priests in their diocese do they believe are straight. The response they give about the percentage of American-born straight priests (excluding foreign-born priests from Africa, India, and other countries) varies between 5% and 20%.   Just as homosexual bishops do not want their priests discussing the problem of clerical sexual predation and homosexual misconduct as former Tyler Bishop Joseph Strickland did at the November 2018 meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), so too can we expect homosexual priests to avoid preaching about why the Catholic Church doctrinally and scripturally does not approve of homosexual behavior. How might a teenage boy who is being groomed by his parish priest react if he were to hear him preach a sermon detailing how awful it is that so manly lawsuits have been filed against homosexual priests and Scoutmasters for grooming and abusing vulnerable boys? It may be similar to how a homosexual young man reported then-Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien for telling a reporter of the National Catholic Register how homosexuals should not be allowed to study for the priesthood only after O’Brien just tried to recruit him at a Courage conference to enter the seminary and become a military chaplain.    Unfortunately, teenage children who can be targets of sexual grooming by both homosexuals and lesbians are not learning at church or in school why major religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for centuries, viewed homosexual behavior as immoral, harmful, and against the natural law. Although some psychologists and members of the LGBTQ community argue that grooming teenagers during their period of psychosexual development cannot affect their sexual orientation, my experience in working with sexual predators, and the research of other psychologists like Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and researchers like the late Dr. Judith Reisman , would prove otherwise.       VOL:   In an effort to justify their homosexual behavior, some members of the LGBTQ community will argue, “I was born that way.” Even Pope Francis was reported to have told a gay man, “God made you like this.” It is said that being gay is not a choice; it is often considered a fundamental part of who someone is. Scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is influenced by a combination of biological factors, including genetics and prenatal hormones, as well as environmental influences. While there is no single "gay gene," studies indicate that genetics play a role in determining sexual orientation, but it is not the sole determinant. Do you agree with this? What is your assessment of the situation vis-à-vis the Roman Catholic Church.   GOMULKA: Multiple studies confirm the fact that there is no “gay gene .” Hence, despite what Pope Francis or others may say, God does not make people gay anymore than God sends  hurricanes or tornados that cause countless deaths.   It is important to distinguish between orientation and behavior. Unlike race and gender which are non-behavioral characteristics, I might be heterosexual, but that does not mean that my orientation compels me to engage in fornication or adultery. Even if genetics were to play a role in determining sexual orientation, the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church do not condone homosexual behavior such as sodomy which it finds immoral and a violation of the natural law. If members of the LGBTQ community suffer from certain medical or mental health problems, it is not because they are not affirmed by society in their behavior. Rather, it is their behavior and lifestyle that has resulted in serious illnesses such as AIDS, or even higher suicide rates than heterosexuals.   Most of the homosexuals whom I have encountered were either sexually abused during their period of psychosexual development or reported a family dynamic that impacted their sexual orientation and behavior. When one cleric opined that a lack of a father and a dominating mother in his life contributed more to his homosexual orientation than the abuse he was subjected to by a predator priest, I posited that his lack of a father may have predisposed him to being groomed and abused. Hence, there are cases when both circumstances may occur which can lead one to be homosexual.  The fact that homosexuality is often the result of learned behavior is also supported by  studies  showing that adult children of gay and lesbian parents are less likely to identify as heterosexual as adults and much more likely to report same-sex attraction. Some  studies  also show how children of gay or lesbian parents may be more likely to have social and emotional problems than children raised in homes with a mother and father.   The belief that the lack of a father in one’s life can impact a person’s sexual orientation is supported by the fact that Black Americans, who often grow up without a father, are  more likely  to identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender than any other racial or ethnic group in the nation. The lack of fathers in the home is also a major driver of Black incarceration rates.   Being sexually abused or growing up without a father, which can contribute to men and women becoming gay or lesbian, reminds one of how some children of alcoholic parents can grow up to become alcoholics, and how boys who witness their fathers abusing their mothers can later abuse their wives. Learned behavior, and the fact that there is  no “gay gene ,” prove that God does not make people gay or lesbian.   In the past, parents worried that their teenage daughter might get pregnant or their teenage son might get a girl pregnant. Today, parents have to worry that teachers or fellow students might cause their children to wrestle with gender dysphoria . The fact that  one can change  one’s LGBTQ identity, and that conversion therapy aimed at reducing unwanted homosexual or lesbian attraction makes people  less likely to consider suicide  than those who continue to live the unbridled LGBTQ lifestyle, needs to be taught to every young man and woman.     VOL: An explosive book by French sociologist Frederic Martel who spent four years interviewing more than 1,500 priests, bishops and cardinals says the huge rate of secret homosexuality in the Vatican has created a church ‘built around lies, double lives and hypocrisy.’ Is this true? Please elaborate.   GOMULKA: Having lived and studied in Rome for four years, and having gotten to know some of the clerics that are mentioned in the “explosive book,” In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy , I can concur with most of Martel’s findings. Consequently, I believe it is absolutely true that “the huge rate of secret homosexuality in the Vatican has created a church ‘built around lies, double lives and hypocrisy’.”    During my three years as a seminarian and one year as a priest in residence at the North American College (NAC) while pursuing a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, I was able to befriend some Swiss Guards, similar to the Secret Service at the White House, who were privy to all types of behaviors within Vatican City. What most people don’t know is how many of the young, mainly 19-22-year-old Swiss Guards were propositioned by homosexual prelates and priests. Religion News Service did report in 2014 that a former Swiss Guard said he received “more than 20 unambiguous sexual requests” from priests, bishops, a member of the powerful Vatican Secretariat of State, and at least one cardinal.   In an interview with the Swiss newspaper, Schweiz am Sonntag , Elmar Mäder , a former Commandant of the Swiss Guard (2002-2008), said, "I cannot refute the claim that there is a network of homosexuals [in the Vatican]…. A working environment in which the great majority of men are unmarried is per se a draw for homosexuals, whether they consciously seek it out or unconsciously follow an urge….the Roman Curia [the Vatican's bureaucracy] is exactly this kind of environment."   Just as bishops are known to transfer priests quietly to other parishes who get reported for sexual predation, so too does the Vatican move bishops to other dioceses who are reported for the same behavior. An American bishop working in the Secretariat of State who was reported for making advances toward Swiss Guards, was not only transferred to an Archdiocese in the United States, but he later was moved to an even larger archdiocese where he was made a cardinal. While Martel was made aware of such accused prelates, his publisher, possibly fearing a lawsuit, did not have their names published.   Unlike my time in Rome (1971-75) during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI who resided in the Papal Palace like his successors, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, Pope Francis took up residence in the Domus Sanctae Marthae , a five-story a residence and guest house located adjacent to St. Peter's Basilica which features 106 suites and 22 single rooms. Martel, who was given permission to visit the papal residence where the pope lived in a two-room suite (Room 201), never recounted to my knowledge the multiple homosexual misconduct allegations leveled against Monsignor Battista Ricca during the Pope's 2013 return flight from Rio.   Rumors about notes inviting sex being slipped under doors of visitors to the Domus Sanctae Marthae should come as no surprise, particularly after one reads Chapter Six of Martel’s book, entitled, “Roma Termini.” In this chapter, gay prostitutes who work in the vicinity of the Rome train station share stories of their sexual encounters with bishops and priests whom they say are “willing to pay more than a normal client.” The prostitutes also shared with Martel how they were invited to the Vatican for orgies, similar to a drug-fueled orgy reported in the media in July 2017 at the Vatican apartment belonging to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of Pope Francis' key advisers. Martel wrote, “Several of them talked to me about Friday-night ‘foursomes’ when a chauffeur would turn up in a Mercedes in search of prostitutes and drive them to the Vatican.”    Similar orgies have been reported at rectories and episcopal residences in the U.S. like a December 2004 orgy hosted by then-Springfield Bishop George Lucas. After investigator Stephen Brady reported the orgy to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo Higuera, Lucas convened a “Special Panel” that covered up the orgy and focused its attention on the sexual perversions of Lucas’ predecessor, Bishop Daniel Ryan. Father Peter Harman , who was reported by Tomás Muñoz of having sodomized Lucas, was rewarded by being made the rector of the Pontifical North American College in Rome.  Lucas himself was later promoted and made the Archbishop of Omaha where he was accused of covering up the satanic ritual abuse of Lisa Roers and another girl whose case continues to be covered up by both Pope Leo XIV and Lucas’ successor, Archbishop Michael McGovern .     VOL: Priests in Roman Catholic dioceses make vows of celibacy at their ordination, thereby agreeing to remain unmarried and chaste throughout their lives; that seems to be falling apart. How bad is priestly celibacy in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church?    GOMULKA: Following the November 2018 meting of the USCCB, Lou A. Bordisso, author of Sex, Celibacy, and Priesthood, reported : “Celibacy research studies among Catholic clergy suggest that gay, straight, and bisexual priests are significantly sexually active, and many priests outright reject mandatory celibate chastity. The largest empirical research to date by Richard Sipe studied 1,500 Catholic priests over the period of 25 years.”  Bordisso noted how Sipe concluded that at any moment in time, fewer than 50 percent of Catholic priests practice celibacy, and only about 2 percent achieve total celibate chastity throughout their lives.    When celibacy was mandated for diocesan priests in the 12th century as chastity was always mandated for religious priests who live in community, it was often not practiced by priests, bishops, and even popes. For example, in the 15th and 16th centuries, Pope Paul II (1464-1471) died while being sodomized by a page; Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) was known to be a "lover of boys and sodomites;" Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) had illegitimate children with two women; Pope Julius II (1503-1513) had three illegitimate daughters; Pope Leo X (1513-1521) suffered from an anal fistula as the result of too much anal sex; Pope Paul III (1534-49) fathered four illegitimate children; Pope Julius III (1440-1555) shared his bed with 15-year-old boy whom he made a cardinal at the age of 17; and Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) had a son while he was studying for the priesthood.   The only difference between the clerical misbehavior of the past and today is that Cardinals Joseph Bernardin and Roger Mahoney; Archbishops George Lucas and Gregory Aymond; Bishops Howard Hubbard and Nicholas DiMarzio, and hundreds of other prelates credibly accused of sexual abuse or homosexual misconduct, with the help of a complicit Catholic media, out of court settlements, and whitewashed Vos Estis investigations, have been able to mislead Catholics into believing that most Catholic clergy are straight and celibate when quite the opposite is true.   Another difference between today and past centuries is that, except for Africa and parts of Asia and Eastern Europe, the vast majority of unfaithful clergy are homosexuals.  Because almost all the cardinals are homosexuals, except for a few who were not appointed by Pope Francis, the chances of electing a reforming straight pope life St. Pius V in the near future is very slim. One cannot expect a closeted homosexual pope to discipline other homosexual bishops for abusing teenage boys and engaging in consensual homosexual relations with other clerics when the Pope himself is known or thought by the promiscuous prelates to also be a closeted homosexual.   Research undertaken by writer French Frédéric Martel; psychotherapist and researcher, the late Richard Sipe; professor of sociology, D. Paul Sullins; Polish researcher and theologian, Darius Oko; South African sociologist Victor Kotze; and others explains how decades of sex abuse cover-ups and clerical sexual misconduct within the Catholic Church are intrinsically linked to the fact that so many cardinals, bishops and priests are homosexuals. Their research, confirming  the high percentage of homosexual clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, supports arguments dating back to the twelfth century that the imposition of mandatory celibacy for diocesan clergy would result in an increase in the percentage of homosexual popes, bishops, priests, and seminarians in the Church.    Homosexual popes and bishops today usually enforce celibacy for straight priests, but not for gay clergy like themselves. I know several cases in which a straight priest was reported for breaking his promise of celibacy on one occasion which resulted in him being laicized or, in some cases, excommunicated. Compare that treatment to several homosexual priests who remain in ministry after being caught using the gay Grindr app like La Crosse Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill and Raleigh Father Clemente Guerrero-Olvera .  Sexually active homosexual priests retained in ministry also include Washington Father Adam Park who is accused in court documents of preying on seminarians, and Springfield Father Peter Harman who was reported for engaging in homosexual relations with his bishop. Finally, consider the case of Santa Fe Father Steve Rosera who was returned to ministry and given prestigious positions in the archdiocese after being “married” to a man for ten years. Truly, under current closeted homosexual Church leaders, a double standard exists when it comes to the treatment of straight and gay clergy.   Because homosexual clergy are not being held accountable for violating their promises of celibacy or vows of chastity, one can expect the high clerical infidelity rates reported by Richard Sipe and other researchers to continue. Homosexual bishops and priests, many who were sexually active before and after their ordination, oppose optional celibacy because they don't want straight priests to be able to marry women when they can't "marry" other men as is allowed in denominations such as the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), United Methodist Church (UMC), Presbyterian Church (USA), and United Church of Christ (UCC). Hence, the chances of reversing the centuries old practice of clerical infidelity in the Roman Catholic Church are very low.   Many Catholics do not want to admit that mandatory celibacy impacts the recruitment and retention of heterosexual clergy in the Catholic Church, and the extremely high infidelity rates of so-called “celibate” clergy. Because the Catholic Church does not approve of same-sex unions, marriage in the Catholic Church is an option for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals.  Hence, homosexual clergy, unlike heterosexual clergy, do not sacrifice foregoing marriage and family life if they are ordained Roman Catholic priests. Because of mandatory celibacy, homosexuals can live their entire priesthood in the closet with many Catholics believing that they are heterosexuals who sacrificed getting married to serve Christ and the Church. If they were Protestants and were not married, it would be a lot more difficult for them to hide their homosexuality. It is for this reason that most homosexual clergy support mandatory celibacy, while most heterosexual clergy support optional celibacy.   What most lay Catholics fail to understand is that far more heterosexual diocesan priests would be truly celibate and less prone to break their promises of celibacy if they freely chose celibacy over marriage as is the tradition in the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches.    Catholics also need to know that far fewer homosexuals would want to be diocesan priests if the majority of diocesan clergy were married and not homosexuals as is the case today. Because religious priests who live in community cannot marry for practical reasons, allowing diocesan priests the option of marrying would probably not have a negative impact on the number of homosexuals applying for religious orders like the Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.     VOL: As a result of the numerous controversial articles you published as found on www.gomulka.net , has any bishop, archbishop or cardinal threatened you in any way that might make you fear for your life?   GOMULKA: I know investigative journalists and investigators whose lives were threatened for investigating or reporting bishops, priests, and even seminarians who engaged in homosexual predation or misconduct. Anyone familiar with the Lavender Mafia  and the work of the late  George Neumayr  or  Stephen Brady  knows that a person can end up dead or have their life threatened for confronting and exposing sexually active closeted homosexual Catholic clergy.    I wrote articles, including, “ Four Whistleblower Priests Murdered ,” about Monsignor Francis J. O’Connor , Father Joseph Moreno , Father  John Minkler , and Father  Alfred Kunz , all who were believe to be murdered for speaking out and reporting sexual abuse and homosexual misconduct in their dioceses.   In July 2023, I left California where I lived for 17 years and took up temporary residence in Niagara Falls for 10 months during which time I investigated: 1) The death of Father Moreno whose murder was ruled a suicide; 2) The malicious prosecution of former Buffalo seminarians, Matthew Bojanowski and Stephen Parisi, who protested abuse cover-ups in the diocese and seminary; 3) The unjust dismissal of former Polish seminarian, Wiesław Walawender, whose spiritual director and confessor was Father Moreno, and who reported Auxiliary Bishop Edward Grosz and Father Dennis Riter for sexually abusing Anthony Ravarini in a letter dated May 9, 1992 .   Unfortunately, even though many of these cases were reported to local law enforcement and the Vatican, none of the clerics implicated in the murders or abuse were ever prosecuted or incarcerated. Even the local media did not want to address how the Erie County District Attorney, John Flynn, could accept the argument from diocesan officials that the semen that was washed off of Anthony Ravarini’s face did not belong to Father Riter, bur rather was produced by Ravarini who masturbated in the rectory bathroom. The only problem with that argument was that Ravarini was only six and a half years old at the time of the incident and physically incapable of producing semen.   Because of complicit media sources and corrupt law enforcement and court officials as portrayed in the opening scene of the 2015 movie, Spotlight , many guilty predator clergy, and Church officials who cover up their abuse, go unpunished. Fortunately, to date, none of them whom I reported have threatened my life. Having served in the Marine Corps and Navy for over 24 years, I have acquired enough weapons and skills to put up a good fight in the event that a contract is taken out on my life. When you get older and believe that your loved ones can survive without you, you tend not to worry as much about your life as you might if you were young with a wife and small children.     VOL: For years I read the blog of Michael Voris and Church Militant. He was ‘out there’ with his accusations of homosexuality in the Church, but then he fell off the cliff himself. Church Militant was shut down.  He ran it into the ground. Your thoughts?   GOMULKA: Michael Voris, with a Bachelor in Sacred Theology (STB), like many former seminarians, was homosexually abused in formation which made it impossible for him later to develop healthy, loving relationships with women. Even thought he self-identifies now as a homosexual, he looks back on his homosexual experience as “abuse” and not “love and friendship” as some groomed seminarians might interpret their introduction to gay sex by a priest or older seminarian. Consequently, unlike groomed seminarians who often go on as priests to groom other young men as they were groomed, Michael would never even think of preying on young men as he was abused.  However, as a human being, with the basic psychological need to love and be loved, he, like most adults, can be tempted to act out in a sexual manner.    Homosexual behavior, like drug and alcohol abuse, can be very addictive. Many addicts can arrest their behavior only later to relapse. If Michael is going to avoid being sexually involved with other men, he will have to live one day at a time as a chaste homosexual, hopefully with the support of family and friends, and even support groups life Courage , a Roman Catholic apostolate that helps individuals with same-sex attractions who wish to live in accordance with Catholic teachings on chastity.    Unfortunately, when some priests admit to their closeted homosexual bishops of engaging in homosexual behavior with other men, as Father Steve Rosera did with Santa Fe Archbishop John Wester, they are often not removed from ministry or directed to groups like Courage . Interestingly, Father Rosera’s biography deceptively makes no mention of the fact that he left the priesthood to marry another man with whom he lived for ten years.   When former Charleston Father Michael Cassabon informed Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone that he had married a man, he reported that the bishop congratulated him, but counseled him to keep his relationship secret. It was only after Cassabon later returned to the bishop and requested that he discipline Father Hayden Veverek , the priest he alleges sexually abused him in high school, that the bishop removed Cassabon from ministry. Hence, Cassabon was not dismissed because he married a man, but because he reported clerical sexual abuse. After dismissing Cassabon, Guglielmone himself was later accused of sexually abusing a young parishioner in New York in the 1970s when he was a priest in the Diocese of Rockville Centre.   VOL: Thank you for your time, Fr. Gene.     Attachments area Preview YouTube video Bishop Strickland hits home run! Baltimore Nov 14, 2018Preview YouTube video Bishop Strickland hits home run! Baltimore Nov 14, 2018 Preview YouTube video Spotlight (2015) Opening ScenePreview YouTube video Spotlight (2015) Opening Scene

By Bishop Joanne Grenfell East Anglian Daily Times February 21, 2026 Church is for everyone: God has made us to live in communities, and their foundation must be love. I believe that gay people should have the same opportunities as straight people to have their faithful, loving, and stable relationships blessed in church, and to know that the Church wants to support and celebrate the God-given love that is contained within their relationship. I value the ministry of LGBTQI+ colleagues who minister in the Church of England and do not believe that they should have to choose between marriage and ministry. I want every LGBTQI+ person to know that God loves them, that God has made them just as they are, and that God’s heart breaks when they are treated as less than fully human or denied the possibility of having their love recognised by the Church. General Synod, the national assembly of the Church of England, commonly referred to as the Church's Parliament, has during its February in London voted to bring to an end the programme Living in Love and Faith. And it is not where I had hoped the Church’s Living in Love and Faith work would end up. The programme has tried to help the whole Church to have a careful, sensitive, informed conversation about human sexuality. It has acknowledged that people have different views on whether churches should be able to offer blessings for same-sex couples and whether gay clergy should be permitted to enter into same-sex civil marriage. Although parts of the process have seen grace-filled listening and have increased people’s knowledge and understanding of their differences, there has also been painful disagreement. The cost of this pain has been borne most of all by LGBTQIA+ people themselves, as they have seen their lives and loves dissected and their hopes for full inclusion and equality in the Church dashed. The Church has allowed for a new suite of prayers for local churches to use to enable same-sex couples to have prayers of blessing within regular church services. Churches are not, however, allowed to offer bespoke or standalone services that look like wedding services. At the moment, those who have entered into a same-sex civil marriage cannot be ordained in the Church of England. Those who are already ordained could face the Church’s disciplinary processes if they were to enter into a same-sex civil marriage, and they are unlikely to be able to take up new roles elsewhere. At this point in time, I want to say sorry to LGBTQIA+ people who are hurting because of the Church’s decisions. And I want to set out what I believe every LGBTQIA+ person should be able to expect from the Church of England in Suffolk. We will love and affirm you, and will care for and protect you in every one of our churches, chaplaincies, and Bishop’s Mission Orders in the county. Although they cannot legally offer same-sex civil marriage in our churches at the moment, in churches that have chosen to offer the Prayers of Love and Faith, you will find clergy keen to work with you to celebrate the faithful commitment you are wanting to make before God. We will do that joyfully with you: we see your love as a gift not only within your relationship, but in the wider community. In churches which have decided that they are not able to offer the Prayers of Love and Faith, you will find welcome and care in a healthy church culture where disagreement is handled with transparency and respect. To the young people of our communities, please know that, as you figure out your identity, there are churches and church people with whom you can feel safe. You are wonderfully and beautifully made by God; we see God’s love within you. To those who, in conscience, have not wanted the Church of England to take even the steps that it has towards offering Prayers of Love and Faith, please know that, although we disagree, I respect your decision. You believe the doctrine of the Church of England as you have received it and you must have the protection to express with kindness and respect that traditional teaching to which you hold fast. And to those who, for whatever reasons, feel called to singleness and celibacy, please know that our churches will support and encourage you in that vocation, valuing you as a cherished member of our communities. I am learning that there are many special things about churches in Suffolk. One particularly special thing is that churches are there for everyone, particularly in rural communities where there aren’t lots of church options to choose from. In a village church, we meet people who are like us as well as people who are different from us: young and old, richer and poorer, people of different ethnicities and nationalities, people with a whole range of different views and priorities. And somehow, church brings us all together to worship God. In Suffolk, we are not given to extremes of church tradition; instead, we see the value of a broad and generous approach, where everyone can find a place to belong. That means relating well to people with whom we might not agree. The Church of England still has a long road to travel as it works out the next steps on this difficult journey. As it does so, perhaps it can learn something from our Suffolk approach. The Rt Rev Joanne Grenfell is Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich VOL was told that she was a disaster in London as a safeguarding bishop, and was rewarded with a diocese.

GSFA will stay in the Communion but demand reform as the price GAFCON has cut ties with Canterbury and will consecrate a new Archbishop to replace the current Archbishop of Canterbury PHOTO: GSFA primates present at the Seychelles meeting: Archbishops Justin Badi Arama of South Sudan, Titus Chung of South East Asia, Ande Titre of Congo, Samy Shehata of Alexandria, Gilbert Rateloson of the Indian Ocean, and Miguel Uchoa of the Anglican Church of Brazil – Courtesy of TLC COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org February 20, 2026 By any reckoning, 2026 will be a decisive year for the Anglican Communion. Global factions are hardening their stances as the Western branches of Anglicanism continue their rocky ride into the sunset. The numbers speak for themselves. The Global South is under 30, female, Black, and growing. Its members represent 80% of the Anglican Communion. The Global North is over 60, predominantly white, and dying. The Global South is orthodox in faith and morals; the Global North is revisionist and progressive. One group accepts the authority of Scripture; the other defers to the culture, especially in the area of morals. A new woman Archbishop of Canterbury is a non-starter for the vast majority of the Global South, as well as for Anglo-Catholics and some evangelicals in the Global North who believe Scripture offers no support for such a consecration. Her progressive views on sexuality undermine her authority even more. That she is supported by the Archbishop of York and the majority of her bishops and clergy underscores the deep fissures within the Church of England and the wider Communion. The ordination of women to the priesthood is a lightning rod issue that won't go away. While the issue has been resolved by progressives, ecclesiastical movements like the ACNA are internally conflicted over it. Continuing Anglicans have issued a resounding no. Homosexual activity, proscribed by Scripture, is the standard for orthodox Anglicans. Progressive sexuality — which has led to homosexual priests, bishops, and even an archbishop, and to the acceptance of homosexual marriage — has undermined the biblical, traditional, and historic position. This has proven unacceptable to faithful Anglicans. From Lambeth Resolution 1:10 to the Jerusalem Declaration, the wider church, with its 80 million members, has declared a categorical and unambiguous no to such behavior. Caving into the culture is the kiss of death. GSFA CHURCHES RESPONSE The primates of the orthodox Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), who met recently in the Seychelles, maintained a tentative grip on the Anglican Communion as they sought "to bear witness to life rather than death; lament the departure from historic Anglican teaching and support fellow conservatives within the Church of England." It is clearly a delicate balancing act that has defined the movement since its inception in 1994. The fellowship was formed to represent orthodox evangelical Anglican churches, primarily from the Southern Hemisphere and Third World provinces within the Anglican Communion. They released a communiqué saying they planned to become "an increasingly effective instrument for the reform of the Communion," and are working on a strategic plan to make it happen. This becomes more urgent as the Church of England has chosen a woman to lead the Mother Church for the first time in its 1,400-year history. Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London and a former head nurse, is also a proponent of same-sex blessings, a position the vast majority of Anglicans in the world reject. Archbishop Titre Ande of Congo chose John 6:68 — "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" — as the sermon text for the gathering's opening service. "This question comes to the Church today: are we leaving or are we staying? GSFA is staying within the Anglican Communion, but more importantly, we are staying with Jesus to bear witness that we must choose life rather than death and light rather than darkness," they said. The primates said they "lamented the departure from historic Anglican teaching which is now becoming entrenched in the senior leadership of the Church of England." This was an indirect reference to Archbishop of Canterbury-elect Sarah Mullally's support for same-sex blessings, a fact highlighted in their October response to news of her appointment. At the same time, they expressed support for fellow conservatives within the Church of England and in other parts of the Communion who have been encouraged by the recent House of Bishops' decision to effectively table Living in Love and Faith. "We recognise that there are many in the Church of England, united in 'The Alliance,' who have remained faithful and are offering an increasingly effective resistance to the revisionist agenda," they wrote. "It was a privilege for some of us to be present with over three hundred orthodox leaders in July last year, and we assure them of our continued solidarity as they contend for the faith." They added that GSFA is "working to truly be a home for all orthodox Anglicans" and that they "continue to engage for the time being with the IASCUFO Nairobi-Cairo proposals." Three of the six primates present — Titre Ande, Samy Shehata of Alexandria, and Titus Chung of South East Asia — are members of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order, which developed the proposals. The proposals seek to create space for unity and common mission amid theological disagreement by revising the Anglican Communion's classic definition and decentering the Archbishop of Canterbury's role in its Instruments. The GSFA submitted an as-yet unpublished response to the proposals during the summer. Notably absent from the GSFA communiqué was any reference to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) October announcement of launching the Global Anglican Communion as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound by the Reformation Formularies of 1867. This decision marks a departure from the Anglican Communion's established order, with GAFCON urging its members to remove references to Canterbury from their constitutions and disengage from the ACC. GAFCON TO ELECT NEW LEADER TO REPLACE ABC GAFCON has invited all Anglican churches that accept the 2008 Jerusalem Declaration in March to cut all ties with the Canterbury-centered Anglican Communion and has invited its primates to Abuja in March to elect a new leader, who they say will take the Archbishop of Canterbury's place as the "first among equals" leader of worldwide Anglicanism. This will be viewed as a red cape to a cloistered bull that will infuriate Lambeth Palace's newly anointed Archbishop Sarah Mullally; but the arrogance with which Church of England leaders operate — as if they still own the Communion — will be shattered once and for all by this election. Six of the nine GSFA primates who signed the January communiqué are also listed as members of GAFCON's Primates' Council. One of them, Archbishop Miguel Uchoa of the GAFCON-founded Anglican Church of Brazil, was among the drafters of the vision for the Global Anglican Communion. There are eight provinces affiliated with both the GSFA and GAFCON (Alexandria, Brazil, Chile, Congo, Myanmar, North America, South Sudan, and Uganda), though several of these are not currently active in GAFCON. Some officially remain in GAFCON; their withdrawal has never been requested. Titre Ande, who is listed as both a GSFA and GAFCON primate, has critiqued GAFCON's plan, writing in late October that the Anglican Church of Congo has "no intention to leave the Anglican Communion, rather to keep working with brothers and sisters of the GSFA to accomplish our common goal: to reform, heal, and revitalize the Anglican Communion without leaving it." While GAFCON and GSFA can coexist with common purposes and different strategies, each organization has a unique calling. GAFCON, since 2008, has already declared its goal to be the resettlement of the Anglican Communion. There is little doubt that 2026 will be a Kairos year in the life of the Anglican Communion. Orthodox Anglicans in the West and Global North wait with bated breath to see where and how the chips will fall. Stay tuned. END

By  Joel Kotkin  &  Bheki Mahlobo , RealClearInvestigationsFebruary 17, 2026   The decline of religion remains a fundamental reality in most Western countries, particularly in Europe, where over 50% of those under age 40 do not identify with any faith. Even in more religious America, some estimate that as many as 100,000 churches will close in the near future. Meanwhile, the ranks of “Nones,” those outside religious communities, have grown so large that their numbers rival those of Catholics and evangelical Protestants.   Yet, as we document in a new report for the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, there are signs that religion is enjoying more than a nascent revival. Data emerging from the 2020s suggest that we are witnessing a complex spiritual restructuring that intersects with economic mobility, demographic resilience, and a profound intellectual realignment.   For the first time in decades, Pew Research notes, in the U.S. at least, Christianity has stopped its nosedive as more people begin to see the efficacy, and the rewards, of religious faith and practice.   This fragile development is especially noteworthy as it exposes growing divides and fault lines in American politics and culture. Drawing on a vast array of longitudinal studies, interviews, and other sources, one startling finding in both America and abroad is that, contrary to past assertions, today the faithful are not poor and ignorant but increasingly from the educated upper middle class.   Even the cognitive elites are experiencing a growing trend to embrace religious activity. Indeed, in a rebuke of the aggressive New Atheism of the early 2000s advanced by thought leaders such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, a counter-movement appears to be growing among scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals who view religious tradition not as a delusion to be eradicated but as a sustainable civilizational operating system.   As our politics splinter along gender – with women increasingly forming the base for Democrats and men, for Republicans – it is men who are leading the return to church. Reversing a 25-year-long trend, men reported higher church attendance than women in 2025. This growing divide may continue to separate men and women, with grave implications at a time when rates of marriage and parenthood are declining.   Even in places where religion continues to decline, the remaining faithful are shifting away from more liberal faiths to those hewing closer to traditional values. For many, more orthodox sects provide existential security and create a sustainable sense of community.   As our report makes clear, the budding religious revival taking place in the U.S. reflects a global trend, especially strong in Africa, which is now the most demographically robust place on the planet.   The implications and promise of this trend cannot be overstated. Data show that religious communities function as potent engines of human capital accumulation, risk mitigation, and social capital. These mechanisms effectively propel adherents up the socioeconomic ladder.   There is considerable evidence that faith is again gaining adherents, even in Europe. Last year, for example, there was a 45% increase in the number of people baptized in France. In the U.K., according to an April study by the Bible Society, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds saying they attended church at least monthly has jumped from 4% in 2018 to 16% today. Among young men, it’s increased 21%. Most of this growth is concentrated among Catholics and Pentecostals; the Bible Society suggests there are now more than 2 million more people attending church than in the last decade.   Spiritual Hunger   In the U.S., there are also signs of spreading spiritual hunger, according to Pew. Relatively few “nones” identify as either atheist or agnostic but consider themselves spiritual outside organized faith. One recent survey showed young people are increasingly embracing a higher power, often using the internet to access traditional beliefs. Research also suggests that most Gen Z teens are interested in learning more about Jesus, with younger cohorts leading the way in the growth of new commitments.   This is particularly marked among men, marking the closing of the so-called “God Gap” between the sexes. In both the U.S. and the U.K., Gen Z men are now retaining or adopting Christian identity at rates equal to or higher than their female peers. Many young men report feeling culturally dislocated or villainized by progressive secular discourse regarding masculinity. Traditional forms of Christianity, particularly Catholicism and Orthodoxy, offer a narrative of responsibility, sacrifice, and hierarchy that appeals to men seeking a defined role in a fluid world.   Public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson have played a crucial role in re-enchanting the Bible for a secular male audience. By framing biblical narratives as psychological maps for meaning rather than just metaphysical claims, they create an on-ramp for secular men to enter religious spaces. The internet has further facilitated this through the rise of digital orthodoxy, where the aesthetic of antiquity and rigorous discipline appeals to young men to the spiritual vacuity of modern life.   More surprising may be the nascent embrace of religion by scientists and other learned classes. In the early 2000s, the New Atheism gained traction for the view casting religion as a dangerous delusion. By 2025, this movement has largely exhausted itself, replaced by nuanced curiosity and, in some cases, a robust defense of religion among the epistemic elite.   Longitudinal research by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund, based on surveys of scientists in eight regions, including the U.S., the U.K., Turkey, India, and Taiwan, reveals that scientists in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India are often more religious than the general public. They view science and religion as overlapping or independent spheres, not enemies.   This perspective is emerging in the U.S. as well. Although still a distinct minority, younger scientists under the age of 35 are more likely to attend religious services than the older baby boomer cohort, suggesting that the rigid secularism of the academy is softening with the new generation. Even two decades ago, only 15% of scientists considered religion in conflict with science, while 70% did not see that conflict.   There are even signs of a revival in the technological heartland of secular America – Silicon Valley. Leading figures, including Pat Gelsinger, former head of Intel, Gary Tan, CEO of Y Incubator, and the venture capitalist Peter Theil openly embrace Christianity. The world’s most important innovator, Elon Musk, has recently become more public in his embrace of Christianity, which he described as “ a religion of curiosity” and “greater enlightenment.”   Membership at Our Lady of Peace Church and Shrine in Santa Clara has risen to more than 3,000 families, according to Father Brian Dinkel, who said the Catholic church hears an estimated 50,000 confessions a year. “People who may be doing well also want something more,” notes Father Dinkel. “Our people work at Google and Apple, but there’s a real search for the truth beyond tech.”   Orthodoxy Flourishing   Even amidst a fledgling religious revival, mainline Protestantism, once a primary cultural and political pillar of American life, is in freefall. Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and others now account for less than 11% of the population, down 40% since 2007, according to the Pew Religious Landscape Study. Since 1960, for example, the Episcopalian share of the population has dropped by two-thirds, the Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ by even more. Lutherans and even Baptists have seen their share shrink by 50%.   More recently, traditional faiths, such as Greek Orthodoxy, have done particularly well. A survey of Orthodox churches around the country found that parishes saw a 78% increase in converts in 2022, compared with pre-pandemic levels in 2019. And while historically men and women converted in equal numbers, vastly more men have joined the church since 2020. The average age of attendees is 42, with 62% between 18 and 45. That’s significantly younger than other major traditions.   The appeal of Greek Orthodoxy, notes religious intellectual and convert Matt Mattingly, actually lies not in politics or race, but in ancient values. Mattingly, himself a convert, notes in conversations with recent American converts, “I have talked with, I would estimate, 100+ young men headed into Orthodoxy in the past decade or so. It is true that most are strong supporters of this ancient faith’s teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, and gender. Many of these single men are highly motivated to get married and start families. Yes, they are worried about trends in American life and many mainline pews.   Even more ascendant are the Pentecostals, who emphasize direct contact with God. Their numbers have swelled, particularly among immigrants and in the developing world, as well as in the U.S. By some accounts, it is the fastest-growing religion in the world, with over 600 million adherents today and projected to reach one billion by 2050.   Similarly, among Jews, reform and even conservative synagogues are struggling while those of Orthodox Judaism, particularly the thriving Chabad movement, have gained both members and influence. Critically, it has enjoyed the greatest growth in engagement since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. In contrast to Chabad’s assertive embrace of the Jewish state, some progressive reform rabbis have embraced anti-Zionism, even in the face of overwhelming support among Jews for Israel. Today, Orthodoxy represents one in seven Jews, but by 2040, that is projected to be one in five.   Elite Marker   A central tenet of secularization theory was that higher education would inevitably lead to lower religiosity. This pattern still holds in Europe, but the 2022-2023 Cooperative Election Study, which included nearly 85,000 respondents, indicates a positive correlation between educational attainment and religious attendance in the United States. High school graduates report attending religious services weekly at a rate of approximately 23%, whereas graduate degree holders report attending weekly at a rate of approximately 30%.   This suggests that religion is becoming an elite marker in America.[i] Increasingly, at least in the U.S., religious affiliation has become a form of elite social behavior associated with stability, community leadership, and bourgeois respectability. Indeed, a deep dive into the data shows that, over the past 15 years, religiously engaged people have become more likely to be well-educated, while atheists are less so. Generally, the nones tend to be somewhat less schooled than their more religious counterparts.   These findings shatter the notion that religious people are generally less curious, less ambitious, and less intelligent than their non-believing counterparts. Religious groups such as Jews and Hindus, as well as Episcopalians, also outperform atheists and agnostics, while many others, such as Mormons, Lutherans, and other Protestant groups, do as well.   Nowhere is the efficacy of religion more obvious than among poorer Americans. Inner-city boys who attend religious school are twice as likely to graduate from college as their socio-economic counterparts in public schools, notes Tulane sociologist Ilana Horwitz. Critical here, notes Horwitz, are the attributes of the religiously engaged, such as respect for elders and learning, with the deepest divergence felt among working- and middle-class children.   This may be one reason enrollment in private Christian schools has shot up across the nation in recent years. The K-12 enrollment at the Association of Christian Schools International, “one of the country’s largest networks of evangelical schools,” increased 12% between 2019-20 and 2020-21. Since then, particularly during and after the pandemic, private schools, mostly religious, gained 300,000 new students between 2019 and 2023 while public schools lost 1.2 million.   That jump mirrors other migrations out of public school systems, including a doubling in the percentage of kids being homeschooled. In the 2019-20 school year, 6% of all American students, some 3.5 million, attended religious schools. The rise of voucher programs, including in such large states as Texas and Florida, has largely benefited religiously oriented schools.   Pathway to Success   One subtle effect, most importantly for the poor, is that religious institutions provide a connection to the more affluent. This is a critical factor for success as outlined in the “Social Capital Atlas” project led by Harvard economist Raj Chetty. Utilizing privacy-protected data from 21 billion Facebook friendships linked to tax records and census data, the report found the degree of social interaction between low-income and high-income individuals as the single strongest predictor of whether a poor child would rise out of poverty. High exposure to wealthier peers increases lifetime earnings by an average of 20%.   Chetty’s team found that poorer people associate more with the affluent at religious institutions than at secular institutions like high schools, colleges, and workplaces. A low-income individual attending a religious congregation is significantly more likely to form a meaningful friendship with a high-income congregant than they would be in a workplace, school, or neighborhood group.   Perhaps most critically, religion provides a sense of community and ties that are more tangible than those found online, at school, or in the workplace. For instance, just 10% of religious observants say they have no close friends; the number almost doubles for those who have no faith. For young families, in particular, the religious community offers a village in which to raise children in an era of atomized parenting. This functional utility is a major driver of individuals returning to church in their thirties.   The church, notes Aaron Renn, a leading protestant intellectual, provides a mechanism, particularly for the young, to escape the loneliness and alienation associated with the “negative world.” Even though plagued at times by racial and ethnic division, the church’s role was “not merely socially useful but as “part of a gospel obligation.”   Three-quarters of those who attend church weekly give to the poor, compared with 41% of non-observants. Overall, 73% of all charitable contributions come from religious sources, while 60% of all beds for the homeless are from faith-based institutions.   Indeed, when volunteerism has been on a decline among the young, the young religious are more likely to perform community work than their nonreligious Gen Z counterparts. Data from a nationally representative survey of nearly 2,000 young adults ages 18 to 25 coordinated by Neighborly Faith reveals that half of religious Gen Zers report volunteering in the community often or very often, compared with 30% of slightly religious Gen Zers and just 21% of not religious Gen Zers.   In the end, our report finds that the growing evidence of religion’s basic utility, including its provision of a spiritual anchor, seems likely to grow, by offering a viable alternative to hyper-competition and individualism rife in secular-driven societies.

What Happens When Church and Culture Conspire to Ignore the Meaning of Words By Bob Wenz It's been almost nine months since two significant but seemingly unrelated events happened — events symbolized by two separate hills in our nation's capital. The U.S. Senate, in an overnight session, failed to muster a supermajority of 60 votes to break a filibuster over presidential nominations for the federal court bench. As a result, the minority in the Senate stonewalled four seemingly qualified nominees because they were considered "outside the judicial mainstream." About the same time, despite the pleas and threats of a large minority of its constituency, the Episcopal Church in the United States — whose symbolic "see" is the Washington National Cathedral in D.C. — invested a practicing homosexual with the title of bishop. Although the stories were covered in different sections of the newspapers, the two are closely linked, and much more so than appears on the surface. The key to understanding the connection is found in the appendix of a new book on preaching. Dr. Walter Kaiser, president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, writes: "In my judgment, the most dramatic moment in the entire 20th century came in 1946 when W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published their article 'The Intentional Fallacy' in The Sewanee Review" (Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament, Baker 2003). Wimsatt and Beardsley, according to Kaiser's summary, taught that "whatever an author may have meant or intended to say by his or her written words is now irrelevant to the meanings we have come to assign as the meaning we see in the author's text. On this basis, the reader is the one who sets the meaning for the text." Also called "formalist criticism," this school argued, in short, that paying attention to the author's intentions is a fallacy. The author first encountered the idea 30 years ago — not in a philosophy class but in a graduate class on literary interpretation. The doctrine had spread from a doctoral committee chairperson influenced by literary critic Kenneth Burke, and within 25 years had reached the colleges educating the baby-boomer generation. Now, a half-century since it was first proclaimed, the Wimsatt-Beardsley doctrine has so thoroughly permeated major social institutions that even the church has not been spared. THE IMPACT ON CAPITOL HILL One philosophical stalemate surfaced in the Senate over judicial nominations. Those who may never have heard of the "intentional fallacy" have nonetheless been indoctrinated in what is called judicial activism — the view that the Constitution is a "living document" that must be reinterpreted in each generation according to the needs, wishes, and politics of the day. Judicial activism was the vehicle for finding in the Constitution the rights of privacy and a woman's near-absolute right to abortion. It continually seeks to redefine the very words of the founding fathers, words chosen with care and precision. As a result, otherwise qualified nominees for federal courts have been quashed on the grounds that they are "outside the judicial mainstream" — a cryptic phrase for describing, for example, people who do not believe that the Constitution provides an absolute right to abortion. Standing guard on this hill are the "strict constructionists." Viewed as dinosaurs by activists, they regard the Constitution as a sacred trust, continually asking the question dismissed by Wimsatt and Beardsley: What did the authors intend? They seek to interpret the document with a commitment to its truest meaning. AND ON THE SACRED HILL A few miles northwest of Capitol Hill, the Washington National Cathedral is set on another hill overlooking the city — a symbolic center of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. Here, a slightly different strain of the intentional fallacy has manifested itself among a people historically grounded in the words of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. The result is that Anglicans all over the world are at war over the elevation of an openly non-celibate gay man to bishop of New Hampshire. Supporters of the new bishop downplay the matter, insisting that the rest of the church will get used to a gay bishop over time, just as it eventually became accustomed to female priests. But the issue is clearly different — this is not a debate over a secondary theological point. Like the strict constitutional constructionists, Episcopal conservatives divide from the supporters of the gay bishop at deep fault lines. These conservatives read the Bible and seek to interpret it by determining, as best they are able, the intended meaning of the text. They will not always agree about the meaning of particular passages, but they desire to know and be faithful to the original intent of Scripture. In the Episcopal Church, however, the effect of "The Intentional Fallacy" can clearly be seen. Those who have embraced this philosophy apply their flawed hermeneutic to important biblical passages that speak of God's judgments over homosexuality — Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Romans 1:24-32 — and come away saying that homosexuality is good and even blessed by God. Gene Robinson, the newly ordained gay bishop, put it this way: "Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong." This same disregard for authorial intent has been witnessed elsewhere. In March, a United Methodist court acquitted openly gay pastor Karen Dammann of charges that she was in violation of the denomination's laws regarding homosexual practice. The jury said the Methodist Book of Discipline was unclear in stating: "Homosexual practice is incompatible with church teaching." The jury doubted whether those words were intended as a formal declaration of church law. Among Presbyterians (PCUSA), the pattern continued: Stephen Van Kuiken, former pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, was convicted in 2003 of performing a same-sex marriage. After the Presbytery of Cincinnati rebuked and removed him, a synod court restored his ordination in February of this year, citing a 2000 decision by the denomination's Permanent Judicial Commission that, while saying same-sex marriages are impermissible, "avoids an outright prohibition by using the words 'should' and 'should not.'" What part of impermissible do they not understand? MASTER OF WORDS Evangelicals are seeing the alarming results of this disease in two of the three institutions God ordained — the church and the government. The third institution, the family, is also being dismantled by those in both church and government who have embraced "The Intentional Fallacy" and extended it into postmodernism. The attempts to redefine marriage as something other than the union of a man and a woman for a lifetime are consistent with the implication that words have no intrinsic meaning. A skeptic once asked: "If God is all powerful, can He make a square circle?" The question points to a categorical impossibility. Yet there are those who would, for the sake of their agenda, give us "gay marriage." Marriage by definition has always involved a man and a woman. Stripped of conventional meaning, words take on the value of junk bonds. In its front-page story on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage, The Washington Post noted that Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall "acknowledged that it was finding in the words of John Adams a meaning that he could hardly have foreseen when he wrote the Massachusetts Constitution 223 years ago." One must wonder if those who embrace the intentional fallacy grasp the implications of reducing language — including their own — to meaninglessness. NOTHING NEW The professor who introduced the author to this doctrine gave a midterm examination. To express disdain for the concept, he simply wrote an answer to a totally different question than she had asked. He received a zero, then used a follow-up visit to her office to challenge her. She told him he had not answered the question she wrote. He responded that once she had written the question, he had no need to determine what she — the author — originally intended. She was clearly angry, because she was not yet, in 1973, a fully postmodern woman. A fully postmodern woman would have found a consistent worldview unnecessary. Today's postmoderns — from judicial activists to the friends of the gay Episcopal bishop — find in the writings of professor Richard Rorty of Stanford University the essence of the paradoxical postmodern perspective. Rorty argues that what is needed is "a repudiation of the very idea of anything having an intrinsic nature to be expressed or represented" — except, of course, his own ideas. There can be no distinction between a true meaning of words and a false one, because "truth is not out there" — except his truth. In one sense, Christians ought not to be surprised by any of this. The attack on authorial intent began in the Garden of Eden when the Tempter came to Eve and asked: "Has God really said?" Wimsatt and Beardsley's article may or may not have been the most dramatic moment of the 20th century, but it was certainly one of a number of events that declared war on the idea that truth depends on words having specific meaning and on knowing with some certainty what an author intended. This is not only a religious issue — the very fabric of our culture is at stake. In both government and church, the stakes could not be higher. These are two hills worth dying on. Bob Wenz is vice president of national ministries for the National Association of Evangelicals in Washington, D.C., and a professor at Nyack College in New York.

Church of England Newspaper | July 8, 2004 Evangelical clergy are making plans to keep the Bishop of St. Albans out of their parishes following last Friday's controversial installation of Jeffrey John as Dean of St. Albans. The service to install Dr. John took place with only minor protests outside, but many evangelical clergy boycotted the service. The Bishop of St. Albans, Christopher Herbert, remained defiant, declaring in his sermon that the reality of the call to Christian service is "confused." Moses was a murderer, he pointed out, and St. Paul a religious thug before his conversion. The calling, he said, hung on a word — "yes" or "no." The consequences of the call, he argued, were "a daily struggle with the questions that trouble all of us — about purpose and meaning, about whether what we are doing is really God's will." Bishop Herbert said that his own role in the appointment of Dr. John — "third in the combination of Prime Minister, Crown and bishop" — also rested on the word "yes" or "no." "Jeffrey John's courage in saying his 'yes' should never, ever be underestimated — knowing what the reactions in the Church and media might be." He said he was aware that reactions to the appointment would be mixed. "There are very, very many who are absolutely thrilled; and there are some of my fellow Christians who have been — and remain — deeply upset, angry and dismayed." Bishop Herbert suggested that the answer was to "listen deeply and patiently to each other." But evangelicals in the diocese complained this week that the Bishop wasn't listening and hadn't even replied to a recent letter from a group representing the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship, which met with him last month. They believe that he is intent on downplaying the strength of feeling in the diocese, assuming the controversy will die a natural death. To this end, according to sources in the diocese, Jeffrey John has been ordered not to give any interviews to the media. Canon John himself made an unscheduled plea for a return to "normal Christian service" at the installation service before a 2,000-strong congregation. He said: "Over the last year or so I have sometimes hardly recognised myself in some of the things that have been said about me. So I would like to say what a huge privilege and joy it is for me to be here. This is where God hopes and intends me to be and this is now home for me." He added: "I hope that from this point on, normal Christian service can be resumed in my life and in the life of this place." Canon Nick Bell, the Vicar of St. Mary's, Luton, and leader of the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship, said there was a great deal of anger in the diocese. "It's incumbent on us, having made a stand for Biblical orthodoxy, to continue on this line." But he called it a "dreadful distraction," adding: "We're not in a position of strength anyway, but what has happened has reduced even further the standing of the Church of England in the community, especially in a multicultural situation like Luton." Dr. Philip Giddings, the convenor of Anglican Mainstream, said that the installation had intensified the sense of alienation from Church of England structures which an increasing number of parishes and clergy are feeling. "This growing estrangement of parishes from dioceses will, sadly, impair the Church's wider mission to our society and make the task of leadership at all levels of church life all the more demanding." He added that "evident disunity" was always a hindrance to mission and evangelism, at a time when the need was greater than ever.