It’s interesting that it’s moral conduct—in particular, active homosexuality—and not moral or theological teaching that puts the kibosh on communion and ecumenism: UPI Analysis: A rift worse than schism? The Anglicans have been consecrating bishops for years who think homosexuality is just great and who reject almost any Christian doctrine you care to mention. But it’s only when they consecrate an unrepentent practicing homosexual that ECUSA conservatives and Anglican primates really get serious and even Cardinal Kaspar thinks there’s a problem.
Maybe the explanation is that people today don’t really think words mean anything. A statement of doctrine can be explained or nuanced into almost anything. Someone who says “I’m an atheist” may be viewed as an anonymous Christian whose phrasing happens to be different from that traditionally used by the Church. But if substantive unity of doctrine becomes hard to pin down, then unity of practical conduct becomes a more important standard. The emphasis on practical conduct is clear in the attitude toward church/state relations currently dominant among Catholics—the state need not and probably should not recognize Catholicism as true, but it must conform to Catholic moral doctrine in what it does.
The response to the Robinson consecration suggests that such an attitude of relative indifference to belief has taken hold with regard to relations among Christian communities. To my mind that seems wrong. Christianity seems to me primarily a recognition of realities that affect the whole of life, including morality, rather than primarily a way to live. And however that may be—the parable of the Good Samaritan may suggest the contrary—goodness can’t be separated from truth. How can it be a problem for those who say “homosexuality is good” to become teachers and pastors only if they dare act on their beliefs?