Backpedaling in Episcopal garb

New Hampshire's largest daily newspaper, the Union Leader, reports that the state's Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, is: "Furious for my remarks to be interpreted in a way as to mean something I never said. My office is being flooded with angry messages from around the country, and from around the world, about something I never said."

Episcopal religion writer David Virtue, now on a speaking tour in Asia, reported that Robinson, whom he identified as "the homoerotic bishop," had been "implying that Jesus may have been a homosexual himself."

TRENDING: Prof rejects calls to resign after rebuking his 'woke' university

Bishop Robinson told the Union Leader:

"We have absolutely no indication of Jesus' sexual orientation. Absolutely none. Therefore, it would be totally inappropriate for me to speculate about it."

Yet a recording of the bishop's speech to an Episcopal parish in South Hamilton, Mass., that is on the Christ Church website, has the following recorded Robinson statement:

"Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on, this man that we follow was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around, who had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved.' …"

I can remember at a meeting of the Religion Newswriters Association three decades ago in Atlanta, when the Rev. Troy Perry, moderator of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church used this same reference to St. John in arguing that Jesus may well have been homosexual.

How will Robinson's now-fervent denial go over with the ecclesiastical sodomy lobby?

The Union Leader also reported Bishop Robinson's denunciation of London's Daily Telegraph for reporting he "was married to his homosexual partner. While they had been together 16 years, Robinson said he had never married his partner and their relationship had not been blessed."

Why not?

These two could have gone to Massachusetts and gotten homosexually hitched.

Why haven't they?

And that majority of Episcopal bishops (61) who approved Robinson to be consecrated bishop: How do they now describe the without-benefit-of-clergy "partnership" of Bishop Robinson and his homosexual lover?

Is it fornication – or what?