In March, an article in The New Yorker made some pretty big waves in Episcopal circles. As we discussed at the time, the article was actually a book excerpt from The Bishop’s Daughter by Honor Moore, whose father the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore was the trailblazing Episcopal Bishop of New York from 1972 to 1989.
Now without reading The New Yorker article you can probably guess where this is headed — I’m pretty sure nobody who has written a memoir about their pleasant and normal family has gotten published since Laura Ingalls Wilder. And it’s probably got to be an especially interesting or unique dysfunction to snatch prime literary real estate such as The New Yorker.
Honor wrote about her father’s bisexuality and numerous affairs with men and women. Newsweek’s Jennie Yabroff reviewed the book and its effect on the Moore family and The Episcopal Church:
The revelation, Moore writes in her new memoir, “The Bishop’s Daughter,” was startling but not entirely surprising. Her father’s bisexuality was an “open secret” that she and her eight younger siblings had known for years, and that had been hinted at in the press and by members of the church. Still, the publication of an excerpt from her book in The New Yorker in March, detailing her father’s sexuality, created a minor scandal. In a letter to the magazine, two of her siblings wrote, “Doesn’t it matter, even when someone is dead, that his most fervently held private life, and the unnecessarily explicit details of his marriage, are exposed against his wishes? We believe that it does matter, and that both of our parents’ good legacies have been damaged.” Others applauded Moore’s candid portrayal of her father. An Episcopal priest from Maryland wrote, “This story illustrates the necessity for our church to struggle honestly with the issue of healthy sexual behavior—gay or straight.”
The article has some interesting tidbits, such as the news that some of Moore’s children found the essay and book to be a betrayal of their parents and that Honor Moore has also had sexual relationships with men and women. But overall Yabroff writes a typically sympathetic piece about bisexuality and, quite frankly, adultery.
Take this, for instance:
The Episcopal Church in the United States continues to wrestle with just that issue. When the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, was ordained in 2003, it drove some congregations here to align with Anglican churches in Africa and South America that are opposed to homosexuality. As bishop in 1977, Moore himself had ordained the first openly lesbian priest in the United States. Since The New Yorker excerpt, the blogosphere has been debating whether Moore broke his vows—and whether his daughter has violated his trust. Outing is always controversial, but in this case, the matter is especially complicated: he was a parent, a husband, a public figure and a spiritual leader. Honor Moore is critical of those who so harshly condemn her father’s secret life. “The negative reaction to The New Yorker piece was by the same people having the same reaction they had when he ordained the lesbian priest,” she says, speaking at her home in New York City. Yet writing the book was not a political act. “It’s a love story,” she says.
How about instead of a vague reference to unnamed people debating whether Moore broke his vows, Yabroff actually talk to some of these people to find out what they’re talking about?
Also, it’s fine to wave off any criticism of an adulterous, bisexual bishop by noting that the same people criticized the ordination of a lesbian priest. But is anybody surprised that people who believe in the historic Christian understanding of human sexuality are, well, consistent about it? But what that historic Christian understanding is is not mentioned in Yabroff’s article. Instead we are told that Bishop Moore was polarizing because he believed in social justice and fighting poverty.
Overall the article suffers from trying to cover too much ground. There is not enough religious context to explain the Episcopal brouhaha and there’s not enough discussion of the family drama for the story to be about that. Perhaps a more narrow focus would have served her better.
 | Posted at 1:12 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (11) |
May 8, 2008, at 9:26 pm
It is a real shame that the leaders of the Episcopal Church do things before it is even OKed by the church. I can disagree with somebody without destroying the credibillity of the church in general. The last thing that the Episcapalians need is more controvercy. All the people need is to hear the wonderous love of Jesus. God Bless
May 8, 2008, at 10:58 pm
It might also uncover whether Honor Moore was being accurate when she said the critics of her father’s personal life were the same people who criticized his lesbian ordination. Promiscuity and homosexuality are different things, and some of those critics might have rejected the one and embraced the other, had Yabroff asked them.
May 8, 2008, at 11:39 pm
My problem with the coverage of this story is the coverage of this story. It’s indecent: the man is dead, for God’s sake, and should be left to rest. What kind of sick impulse drove Honor Moore to make public what her father kept private? It’s not like his theology and life were at odds. There seems to be no hypocrisy to expose, just salacious gossip.
Is there no privacy to be had even in death?
May 9, 2008, at 2:40 am
Donald Ahrens wrote:
For those of us who were Episcopalians but now are Anglicans, or Anglo-Catholics, or CANA folk, or Network folk, or …. you get the point [or don’t]… it’s not nor will it ever be a matter of something “oked by the church.”
It’s what is “oked” by God that matters, and the road map is in Holy Scripture.
The young woman who wrote this story is grieving in her own way. She for a man, the rest of us for a denomination.
Time to move on.
May 9, 2008, at 3:47 am
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=373653724
THAT IS NOT OK.
May 9, 2008, at 11:12 am
What matters is that Moore witheld his personal “stake” when he made statements like “Sex in homosexual or heterosexual relationships can be sinful, but it need not be.”
May 9, 2008, at 1:19 pm
Why does that matter, Will? Do you think a public figure can’t have a private life? Why do you think his private behavior is any of your business?
Full disclosure: I think the bishop violated the hell out of his marriage and ordination vows. I deplore his theology and his behavior. But more so, I deplore the fact that I know about his behavior, which bears on nothing he did or said in public.
His theology, and publics acts are another matter. Everyone knew Ellen Barrett was a partnered lesbian. At the ordination, she introduced her lover to the congregation as “an integral part of my ministry” (or words to that effect). That, and the bishop’s public public support for gay/lesbian rights are fair game for discussion. Behavior he kept private was a family matter and should not be bandied about publically.
May 9, 2008, at 7:11 pm
How many of these “affairs” were with parishoners or with those he counseled?
If this was a Catholic priest, he’d be sued for sexual harassment and end up laicized with the press all over him.
If this was a physician, he’d lose his license to practice medicine.
But if you are an Episcopalian priest who ordains lesbians (and presumably supports abortion) then you get a pass on exploiting women? How many did he give VD to? And this sort of lifestyle is associated with booze and drugs…gets a pass on this too I guess.
The article mentions nine kids? were these all by the same women? Or did he have a menagerie of wives like Bishop Pike?
His daughter calls this a “love story”…abused and neglected kids often “love” the abuser, which is why they end up psychologically messed up by their sociopathic parents…
May 9, 2008, at 10:51 pm
Don’t you mean historic Christian mis-understanding of human sexuality? How much more perverse can one get than the Catholic proscription of marriage for priests? And what about the Original Sin? The rest of the Christian denominations did not exactly put a lot of distance on this issue between themselves and Catholics until recently.
Another point is that you did entirely miss the purpose of Moore’s book. It is not meant to be a scandalous revelation of secret salacious details of her father’s life. Her point should be clear—one can only condemn the publication if (s)he is ashamed of the legacy. But if you simply look at it as a complete account of the man, warts and all, you might be able to understand him better. It is ironic that those without an open mind want others to keep their mouths shut as to not upset the delicate balance they have constructed in their mythical reality.
May 10, 2008, at 9:06 am
I usually don’t write in to these blogs, but this one has caught my attention. I am a member of Church, it doesn’t matter what faith, we serve the same God. What a person does in the privacy of their own home is one thing. But, to make it public is another. To be proud of your homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong in itself, but to be a leader of the Church and blantantly admit this, is not just wrong, it’s against what God has instituted. God has made clear that woman was created for man and because we want to do what we want to do, God has also given us the priviledge to choose to serve Him or ourselves. What this man has done is pervert and twist his obligation to be a servant into an opportunity to serve his own lust for selfishness. Him and his offspring are saying that this kind of behavior is acceptable. The question is: what did he become a man of the cloth for in the first place ?
May 10, 2008, at 11:20 am
Barry S worte the message above to which I add “Amen.”