On the Bible and Homsosexual Acts: Anglicans, 1, Episcopalians, 0

From the same Anglican Bishop (N.T. Wright). 

Decide for yourself here:  http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wright.htm

Money quote:

Q.  So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?

A. Correct.

Bishop Wright is quite an unpredictable fellow, by the way.  He tends to be liberal (sometimes very liberal) on some issues and conservative (sometimes quite conservative) on others.  I often find what he says to be illuminating, even when disagreeing with his conclusions.  Sometimes, though, his reasoning and judgments strike me as being well off the mark.  (Of course, the fault on these occasions could be with me, rather than with him!)  On the question of the Biblical basis of the ordination of women and the consecration of women as bishops (a question on which Michael P. awards him and his co-author, David Stancliffe, Anglican Bishop of Salisbury, a 1-0 victory over "the Vatican") he and his co-author do not themselves claim anything like the conclusive victory that Michael awards them.  "These arguments, so briefly sketched, are of course too brief to be conclusive, but should indicate that those who support the ordination of women to priestly and Episcopal ministry cannot be dismissed as treating scripture in a cavalier fashion, or as indulging in a fancy, exercising fancy hermeneutical footwork to imply that the text is now unimportant."  I myself think they are entitled to that limited claim.  The matter is complicated, and careful analysis of the whole of scripture is required.  If Bishops Wright and Stancliffe were truly to take up the challenge of justifying what they themselves refer to as "this undoubted innovation," they would have to wrestle with the relationship of holy orders and the relevant sacramental theology to the Aaronic priesthood of ancient Israel---something Fr. Benedict Ashley has explored insightfully in writings defending the male priesthood.  In any event, the central point of the article by the Anglican bishops was not to settle the question of ordination for Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) as well as Anglicanism, but rather to insist that Anglicanism has its own theological method---one that is distinct from the "Roman" method (as well as from Protestant methods)---and that Catholic partners in ecumenical dialogue with Anglicans (such as Cardinal Kasper, whom they are addressing directly) need to take that method seriously and understand it properly (though, of course, they will not share it), so that they avoid viewing it "as if it were a muddled way of doing Roman-style theology."  On the ordination issue, I suspect that what Wright and Stancliffe are trying to say to Cardinal Kasper is something like this: "sure, if you do theology Roman-style, you won't necessarily come to the conclusion that we as Anglicans have reached" (though Wright and Stancliffe are pefectly well aware that the opposite conclusion has been reached by many of their fellow Anglicans); "but you should not suppose that we are doing Roman-style theology and botching it.  We are, rather, doing something different, namely, Anglican theology.  You Catholics need to understand that if this dialogue is going to be a fruitful one."