St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

There's been a lot of comment about Bishop Sisk's letter out in the diocese and the blogosphere. Some seem to think the primary concern wasBishop Moore's sexuality, and I guess for the wider public interested in
such things that will be the titillating revelation.

But Bishop Sisk's primary concern was the infidelity, and much more importantly, the misconduct. The latter was reported to the PB, and was dealt with "quietly" but it was dealt with. I know this because, although I did not know the nature of the charges, it was easy to see that "something" had happened, for at the time Bishop Moore was a member of my parish, and the scuttlebutt was that he was under some kind of discipline. In retrospect it would have been better for all if the matter had become public, and Bishop Moore openly sentenced, either to suspension or deposition. This would have been very painful, but it would have lanced the wound. We've learned a lot in the last 20 years.

As it is, though, Paul is dead and whatever sentence a higher tribunal will make, in the earthly arena only his memory suffers. Those who hated him in life will feel vindicated; those who admired him will feel to some extent embarrassed or pained, and some of them have directed their anger at Honor Moore or Bishop Sisk.

But Paul himself is not subject to pain inflicted post mortem. Honor Moore might be held up for criticism for telling tales she knows full well her father did not wish to have exposed. But the anger against Bishop Siskand the extent to which that anger distorts perceptions of what he actually wrote seems to me to be entirely misplaced.

This is difficult for all of us. It is perhaps most difficult for those who have canonized Paul Moore in their memories. I knew and admired Paul Moore in several different contexts: as my Bishop, as Visitor to my
community, and as a fellow parishioner. I also know how, in spite of his moving the issue forward, he nuanced his support of gay and lesbian people, and distanced himself with distinctions about “orientation” and
“practice” when the House of Bishops came down on him. If you want to see a poignant exercise in Paul's inability to face his own and other's reality, and what he knew or didn’t know, read his address to the House
of Bishops. He did not want to know of others that which he didn’t want known of himself.

At the same time, I am very weary of those who blame society for Paul's choice to live in the closet. He really wasn't "forced" -- he made a choice.

I am also weary of those who take the next step and blame the closet for Moore's infidelity and/or misconduct. Hard as it may be for some to believe, there are celibate gay and lesbian people -- some in the closet and some out. There are gay and lesbian people who marry persons of the opposite sex and who remain faithful to them -- though this is a painful course I would not urge anyone to follow. There are gay and lesbian persons who remain faithful to their partners.

Paul Moore was unable to follow through on his choice; he benefited from the superficial protection it offered him. Had he been fully honest about himself, he would likely never have been a priest, certainly not a
bishop -- unless he chose the path of celibacy, or the virtual celibacy of the closet favored in his day in Anglo-Catholic circles, and still urged by some as a way to have avoided the present tensions in the
Anglican Communion.

Paul Moore did not just have feet of clay. He was, in fact, almost entirely clay -- as are we all. He was inbreathed by God, yet lived a fallible life. He is now dead. He will rise again. Christ died for Paul's sins as he did for yours and mine, and at the judgment he will stand as we will, acquitted only because the judge is also our only mediator and advocate.