As you might expect, I would like to make a few comments about “The Bishop’s Daughter,” the buzz-provoking piece in The New Yorker by the poet Honor Moore about the double life lived by her father, the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore Jr., the trailblazing liberal leader of the Diocese of New York from 1972-89.
However, until the magazine elects — we can only hope — to post the full article online, we can only link to a secondary form of revealed wisdom, a news report on the subject printed in the New York Times.
Conservative Anglicans will gag on the headline, “A Bishop Unveiled God’s Secrets While Keeping His Own,” but let’s set that aside for the moment. There is no question that Bishop Moore was one of the most important voices in the history of the U.S. Episcopal Church, especially as the modern patriarch of a powerful family in New York church circles and the city’s liberal establishment.
Here’s a chunk of the story containing the crucial information:
In an elegiac article in the March 3 issue of The New Yorker magazine titled “The Bishop’s Daughter,” the poet Honor Moore describes her father, Bishop Moore, who died in 2003 at 83, as alternately passionate and elusive, capable of deep “religious emotion,” yet just beyond her emotional reach. It was only after he died, she said, that she fully realized that he had had gay relationships during his two marriages, the first of which produced his nine children. …
The revelation of his hidden world comes at a time of deep tension within the Episcopal Church of the United States over the issue of homosexuality. Since the church ordained an openly gay bishop in the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, a dozen congregations in various parts of the country have withdrawn from the American branch of the church and aligned themselves with theologically conservative African or South American branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
First of all, there is a clear error in that phrase that says “a dozen congregations in various parts of the country” have withdrawn to align with conservative branches of the Anglican Communion. It is possible that a key word dropped out, or was clipped by an editor. That word would be “several,” as in “several dozen congregations.” At the very least, there are multiple opinions about what the exit number would be (watch here for reactions at the TitusOneNine weblog).
Now, I realize that once a national church starts splintering, it is hard to keep track of which congregations are headed in which direction and this is certainly true in the complex Anglican diaspora that is unfolding here in North America. Some parishes are leaving and entering the Anglican Mission in America, but not all of them are retaining their old names. There are new missions that are made up of members of old parishes. But is it accurate to say that this is a parish that has left its diocese? People will argue about that.
Then there are the parishes that are forming ties to the traditionalist Anglicans in the Global South, the most obvious example of which is the emerging network linked to Nigeria called CANA — the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. Then there is the American Anglican Council, another network of churches that includes many that are fighting to stay in the Episcopal Church and others that are fighting to get out. Is that a fair way to word it? It’s complex.
In other words, in partial defense of the Times, it’s hard to come up with a definitive list of churches that have made it all the say out the exit door.
But a dozen? That is way low — bizarre even. To read a conservative analysis of this question, see this post by Father Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine. Of course he is a partisan. But the numbers are so far off that they are hard to ignore. It would seen that the number is at least 100-plus and, as I mentioned before, that does not include the AMIA numbers or missions that began as pieces of Episcopal parishes. And what about the pending departure of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin?
So it’s hard to count all of these apples and oranges. But it is not hard to discover that there are more than a dozen.
Another issue that interests me in this Moore story, as it did in the fall of the Rev. Ted Haggard, is the degree to which this bishop will now be identified as “gay.” As I have asked before, to what degree was this married man — father of nine children — gay? Why isn’t his daughter’s book evidence that he was “bisexual”?
I realize that the Times report clearly states that the bishop “had had gay relationships during his two marriages.” So a bisexual man had gay relationships. Is the word “gay” being used in this reference in a different way than when “lesbigay” activists discuss the legal status of gays, lesbians and bisexuals?
Finally, there is the way that the piece ends, which strikes me as a bit strange:
Howard Hadley, 62, a member of the church choir who considered himself a friend of the late bishop’s, said it came as no surprise to him to learn that Bishop Moore had been involved in gay relationships.
“It was the times he lived in. That’s the sad fact. But there was never any doubt in my mind about him,” said Mr. Hadley. “People who say they didn’t know? Well, you know, people see what they want to see.”
The writer of “The Bishop’s Daughter” might say that, in some cases at least, people see what they are invited to see.
Is that the end, or was an attributed quote cut off? Who is speaking, in this sentence? When I was in journalism school and learning the ropes in mainstream newsrooms, I was told to avoid speculation in hard news reports.
Then again, perhaps this story is a work of analysis or opinion. Could be.
UPDATE: Hey, the New Yorker link is up. Read it all, as the master Anglican elf would say.
 | Posted at 2:03 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (29) |
March 3, 2008, at 2:50 pm
Why isn’t his daughter’s book evidence that he was “bisexual�
I’m no expert, but I’ve been told by some that a large portion of the activist GLBT community considers a bisexual to be someone who is gay, but has yet to fully commit to the gay lifestyle. Hence, a popular phrase among that particular community is “bi now, gay later.”
March 3, 2008, at 2:55 pm
You’re never going to be a success on cable TV “news”.
March 3, 2008, at 3:24 pm
Like Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, we let people define themselves despite all evidence to the contrary. If a married man with nine kids considers himself “gay” (or in this case, his daughter considers him gay) than he’s “gay.” Just like married men with kids who have sex with men are free to label themselves “straight.”
March 3, 2008, at 3:44 pm
I’d add that assuming someone is “bisexual” is a more loaded (and nuanced and political) assumption than assuming someone is “gay,” even if they’ve been married and have kids. It infers something about the person’s mental and emotional state that can really only labeled by the person themselves.
March 3, 2008, at 3:51 pm
Michael,
How so? How is bisexual a loaded, nuanced, political assumption any more than gay? And what does it infer about someone’s mental and emotional state?
I’m not familiar with that argument.
Mollie
March 3, 2008, at 4:07 pm
Mollie,
Bisexuality is a fairly controversial concept in the gay community. To label yourself as “bisexual” is a very specific act which says you are rejecting the label “gay” as well as the label “straight.” Since we tend to view things as polar extremes—in this case straight or gay—bisexuality exists in a sort of nether world of identity.
Sexual orientation is more than who one has sex with or even who one marries. It is a state of emotional and psychological attraction that can be completely disconnected from sex. Men in prison have sex with other men without being gay. They are still emotionally and psychologically attracted to women (and probably even primarily physically attracted to women) but they have sex with men out of necessity.
Most of the men I know who were married and have kids consider themselves now gay. They considered themselves gay while having kids and being married. Some consider themselves bisexual, of course, but that’s a specific label they’ve chosen based on their own set of attractions. Women are a whole other ballgame that is too complicated to get into on a religious blog.
Because it’s not really the journalists place to read the mind of people and assign a label on them that they would reject, the AP style would favor letting the person choose the label themselves.
In the case of Haggard, I’m not sure why he was labeled as “gay.” But I wouldn’t label him “bisexual” either. We know he apparantly had sex with men and women. Whether that is gay or bisexual or straight, who knows.
In the case of the Bishop’s daughter, she would have a much better sense of her father’s orientation than any journalist would, and labeling him gay is probably less risky and “mind reading” than labeling him bisexual.
March 3, 2008, at 4:14 pm
Moore’s article didn’t label her father either way, and it was a little hard to tell what she thought about it. On the one hand, she describes signs that her parents’ marriage was sexually deficient and connects this to his homosexual tendencies. On the other hand, she says her father married his second wife for love and kind of let her take over his life. So really, who knows? I think the NYT’s decision to say he “had gay relationships” without labelling him as such is the appropriate thing to do.
March 3, 2008, at 4:44 pm
Like Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, we let people define themselves despite all evidence to the contrary. If a married man with nine kids considers himself “gay†(or in this case, his daughter considers him gay) than he’s “gay.â€
But we don’t know if he considered himself gay, because he never said so before he died. As Camassia points out, the New Yorker article by his daughter slides around this point somewhat. Many people - straight and gay alike - are very uncomfortable with the notion that sexual identity and desire can be murky, uncertain, and poorly suited to a Manichean, either/or framework.
I think the Times handled it well in this case simply by reporting the facts as they seem to be: that despite marrying women and having nine children, the bishop also had sexual relationships with men. Readers can draw their own conclusions. It’s an old cliche, but it fits: show, don’t tell.
March 3, 2008, at 5:49 pm
I read the article online and she never labels him, so the NYT’s handling of the label makes sense. It would certainly be wrong to label him bisexual, unless that’s the label he used himself.
March 3, 2008, at 6:25 pm
Thus, my question about this new meaning of GAY, this adjective form.
Why not same-sex relationships?
So he had gay relationships with men and straight relationships with women? Are the words simply meaningless?
March 3, 2008, at 8:28 pm
For what it’s worth: While the excerpt from Honor Moore’s forthcoming book does not refer to the bishop as bisexual, Ms. Moore does use that word in an audio interview that appeared alongside the article.
March 4, 2008, at 12:08 am
Pending departure of Diocese of San Joaquin, tmatt??? Nay, they left in December and now are in the Southern Cone, members of The Episcopal Church no more, except a few who chose not to come along.
March 4, 2008, at 1:22 am
Gay and straight are becoming meaningless words. But isn’t this the point of “Gay/Straight Alliance” groups? They try to do away with labels by merging the gay culture with the straight culture together as one. Be whatever you want; you don’t have to chose one sex over the other. Switching it up is great and completely natural and expected.
Same sex relationships makes more sense to print because the man obvioulsy had a heterosexual lifestyle; so why call him gay? It promotes a desensitized culture to homosexual whims. During the day he’s a husband with nine kids, by night he’s on a gay escapade. The idea that a man can be married and heterosexually active and “gay” or homosexually active at the same time reveals the social trend of following compulsive sexual desires.
Maybe I’m off here.
March 4, 2008, at 8:41 am
The question, of course, is whether the “compulsive sexual desire” is with women or with men. If he was a gay man—emotionally and affectionally drawn to men—but married because of social convention and pressure, than he’s gay and the nine kids are the products of compulsive sexual desires. That’s why this is so complicated. Orientation is difficult and it’s really impossible to label it.
He had gay relationships. He had straight relationships. I’m not sure how one has a bisexual relationship. The terms have a meaning, they are just complicated meanings that are shaded by ones own perspectives.
March 4, 2008, at 9:07 am
And it is that vagueness and dependency on self definition that is so hard for journalists to deal with. And you know that is the land-mine field that faces the U.S. Supreme Court justices, sooner or later.
What is bisexuality? As Kinsey noted, in one of the only things that he said that has stood the test of time, what is the line between an exclusive orientation and bisexuality?
I still ask: What is the meaning of the word “gay” in the phrase lesbigay, if this bishop had gay relationships and straight relationships? What is the difference between gay and bisexual, in this case?
Journalists need to know, if we are going to use these words.
March 4, 2008, at 9:08 am
Connie:
I used “pending” because I am sure the lawyers have not finished with their work. You know that one is going to court. Several courts.
March 4, 2008, at 9:22 am
Look, it’s easy.
A guy who has sexual relationships with females, then has sexual relationships with guys is gay.
A guy who has sexual relationships with other males, then has sexual relationships with females, and claims to be an ex-gay due to repressive religious primitivism is gay.
A guy who has sexual relationships with females, and not with males, yet has at one time been attracted to males is repressed or “closeted”, due to repressive religious primitivism, but he is also gay.
There is no such male as a “closeted straight.” only “closeted gays.” Any male who claims to be straight, has sex with females, and has never had sex with males still may well be gay.
On the other hand, any male who claims to be gay, has sex with males, and has never had sex with females could nevah nevah nevah nevah be actually straight.
One may “come out” as gay, but one may nevah, nevah, nevah “come out” as straight.
March 4, 2008, at 9:24 am
My sense is your desire to use the term “bisexual” is the same as the press’ desire to use the term “fundamentalist.” You have a sense of what that term means to you and what you think how society defines it, but for those who it is applied to, it is completely incomplete and inaccurate and loaded and dismissive.
Bisexual is someone whose orientation—sexual, emotional, affectional—is with both men and women. We have no idea if that applies to the Bishop or Ted Haggard. It is possible they were gay men who were married. It could be they are straight men who have sex with men. They could be bisexual men who have relationships and attraction with both men and women and are drawn to both at similar rates.
The fortunate thing is that as fewer gay people are forced to live in the closet, your consternation over labels will be less problematic because it will be more clear. The Bishop is a product of his time and era. Fewer and fewer men would feel the need to have marriages and long-term relationships with men. Haggard is an anolomaly and becoming more and more unique. Even gay people who choose to live lives of chastity are not going to get married, which is the source of the confusion.
I guess my question is why, as a journalist, you want to use the label “bisexual” to define what is going on here when you don’t know how the parties defined themselves? Why is it problematic to label a 30-year relationship between two men “gay.”
March 4, 2008, at 10:25 am
Orientation is difficult and it’s really impossible to label it.
If this is correct, then much of our moral and political discourse of the last 30 years, not to mention most of the controversy in the mainline churches during that time, around questions of sexuality have been misguided and meaningless. We’re right back we’re we started—talking about sexual behavior rather than the amorphous category of “orientation.” I for one think Michael is correct, and it’s time to return to the older approach, which would clarify a great deal.
March 4, 2008, at 11:51 am
RE: “Why is it problematic to label a 30-year relationship between two men “gay.â€
I don’t think that it’s a problem labeling “a relationship between two men” as “gay” — but then, Mr. Mattingly is referring to labelling a *human being* “gay,” not a relationship.
I’m just fine with labelling a “relationship” as “gay” since we have then gotten right back into labelling the *behavior* rather than the person.
Of course, now the word “gay” means defining oneself in the terms of one’s sexual activities *and* political identity, and is itself a politically loaded term. It’s perfectly understandable for Mr. Mattingly therefore to wish to stay away from the term in regards to identifying the *person* and not the behavior.
But again — as you’ve made clear — it’s the *relationship* not the person?
; > )
March 4, 2008, at 1:20 pm
“lesbigay†is a new word for me. I think it is better than the unwildy initials, LGBT. But I do wonder why lesbians get top billing? Is it dictated by the CMofS?
March 4, 2008, at 1:30 pm
Michael, you seem to be having a strong reaction to the word bisexual. Does that word carry negative connotations among homosexual men? To me it seems like an accurate descriptor,since the man in question consistently had “sexual” realations with both men and women. Or are you saying that homosexual and bisexual behavior should both be included in the word gay? (This is almost enough to make m spend the money for an OED.)
March 4, 2008, at 1:47 pm
Isn’t the definitional problem due to the reification of “orientation”? Originally a descriptor of attractions, it has now become a thing in its own right, and consequently cannot bear the weight put upon it.
Besides, I’m far from certain that the current model can cope with people who seem to be attracted to one sex, then the other. There is sufficient literature to show that an attraction towards one sex pretty exclusively may not predict the development of other attractions later.
March 4, 2008, at 2:10 pm
The term is controversial. If you use Kinsey’s approach, almost everyone is bisexual. Clearly, that can’t be true from the perspective of how people live their lives. So then you are stuck with the question of who is a bisexual and who isn’t.
There’s the old joke that bisexuality tends to be a pit-stop between being either exclusively gay or exclusively straight. I’m not sure that’s fair, but it does explain the ambivilence about the label. There’s also the sense that, when it all comes out in the wash, bisexual women and bisexual men both end up in “permanent” relationships with men.
I think the confusion is about the sex. Almost every gay person of a certain age has likely had sex with someone of the opposite sex. That doesn’t make them straight or bisexual. Prisoners have sex with people of the same-sex, but that doesn’t make them bisexual or gay. It’s not, ultimately, about the sex. Thus, a priest who has sex with an 11 year old or a 15 year old boy but never has sex with male adults and doesn’t find himself even emotionally or physically attracted to men isn’t necessarily gay.
Orientation is also about the emotional, affectional, and psychological attraction. So a married man can love a woman (his wife), but not really be emotionally or pschologically attracted to women in general. Thus you end up with tortured men like the Bishop. It’s possible he’s bisexual or it’s possible he’s gay. He most certainly isn’t straight, given what we know.
But none of that has to do with the sex.
March 4, 2008, at 3:20 pm
MattK,
RE: “Michael, you seem to be having a strong reaction to the word bisexual. Does that word carry negative connotations among homosexual men?”
Yes it does for gay activists — if the word is used as a description of *males capable of having sexual relations with both sexes*. Why?
Because that implies *activity* and not ontological/political identity — which latter is what they wish to work with.
As Michael said — in his worldview all people are “bisexual” if you define it as Michael wishes to define it, which is that somewhere deep in the recesses of all human beings is a polarity of sexual attraction/identity/ontology. As Michael says “But none of that has to do with the sex.”
According to this worldview, all humans are somewhere on the pole of sexuality — as defined not by sexual activity, but defined by ontology and vague [even though unacted-on] “attraction.”
In other words — use the word “bi-sexual” not to describe sexual activity, but to describe ALL of us in our ontology and political identity. But don’t use it do mean “engages in sexual activity with both sexes.”
Then, you see, one can claim “gay” as a political identity and not as simply a person who states “I have sex with the same gender.”
Once gay goes back to meaning “I have sex with the same gender” gay activists are in the soup again.
March 4, 2008, at 5:41 pm
As a 67 year old gay man in a 36-year committed relationship with another man, I’m not prepared to let gay “activists” tell me that being gay is a political identity! I have been gay much longer than most of them have been politically active. I don’t give them permission to define me; I define me!
March 4, 2008, at 11:39 pm
The difference I see in gay and bisexual is that gay means a man is sexually oriented only to other men and bisexual means that a man is sexually oriented to both women and men. It’s smart to label a relationship rather than a person.
I guess a journalist could ask the person/relationship in question how he or she wishes to label it if possible.
Let them define themselves?
I typically hear girls referred to as bisexual more than guys if that means anything.
March 5, 2008, at 1:34 pm
Thanks Michael and Sarah. Now I understand.
March 6, 2008, at 1:43 pm
[…] ~ SORRY BISH– believe what you want, but get another profession. GetReligion Chimes In on the Bishop Paul Moore New Yorker Story …. (KH, GR) […]