Help me with the two sentences

[henz988]

1) It was the most popular private member's motion in the history of the General Synod:it tapped a deep vein of evangelical distrust of the squirmy liberals they believed to be running the church;it sounded from the outside like stuff the church already believed--and it terrified the House of Bishops.

Q Doesn't a private member belong to the church?why OUTDSIDE is used here?And what on earth the stuff is that can terrify the House of Bishops?---is it simply the motion above-mentioned?

2) All the bishops,including the few who had then and subsequently ordained practising homosexuals and protected them,voted in favour of the motion.

Q what does "ordained" mean here? please explain the sentence underlined to me?

[Rusty]

1) It was the most popular private member's motion in the history of the General Synod:it tapped a deep vein of evangelical distrust of the squirmy liberals they believed to be running the church;it sounded from the outside like stuff the church already believed--and it terrified the House of Bishops.

Q Doesn't a private member belong to the church?why OUTDSIDE is used here?And what on earth the stuff is that can terrify the House of Bishops?---is it simply the motion above-mentioned?

2) All the bishops,including the few who had then and subsequently ordained practising homosexuals and protected them,voted in favour of the motion.

Q what does "ordained" mean here? please explain the sentence underlined to me?
What was the motion? Is there a website where we can read the whole story?

[henz988]

Very glad you can respond to help me, many many thanks!
The article I read is from The Independent, March 18,1995. I searched it on the Internet for many times, but in vein.
I had better type it down here, inserting more questions::D
The Clergymen Came out Two by Two

Is there no end to it, the travail of the Church of England in the matter of gay priests? As Andrew Brown sees it, the answer is --- probably not.

There are two ways of looking at the whirlwind of sexual politics now sweeping over the Church of English. The first is biblical: if you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind, observes the prophet Hosea. It is undoubtedly true that what is now being reaped was sown in wind and hypocrisy over many years. You can also look at the story in human terms, where it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy not because it is sad, cruel, or unfortunate, though it is all those things, but because it is a disaster brought about by virtue. Everything that is most lovable about the Church of England: its charity, its belief in discussion, and respect for the knobbly individualities of people, has led it into the present mess.
In the Eighties, when church politics were still a kind of liturgical dance for educated gentlemen, a gay priesthood was like Victorian architecture: one of the special glories of the Church of England, {Q1: Do the inner circles of the Church of England take the gay priesthood as glories of the Church of England like Victorian architecture?} even if not doctrinally essential. This sophisticated viewpoint seemed almost a badge of the membership of the inner circles of the Church of England in the Eighties.
Two things happened to shatter that view of the church. The most terrible blow was the ordination of women priests; but the first was a private member’s resolution from the floor of the General Synod that was debated in November 1987. The Rev Tony Higton, a vicar from Essex who had come to prominence in the agitation against the heterosexual {Q2: Does this word here mean the Rt Rev David Jenkins intends to have women priests? } bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, put down a motion asserting“that fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are sinful in all circumstances; and that Christian leaders are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality, as a condition of being appointed to or remaining in office”.
It was the most popular private member's motion in the history of the General Synod: it tapped a deep vein of evangelical distrust of the squirmy liberals they believed to be running the church; it sounded from the outside like stuff the church already believed--and it terrified the House of Bishops. {Q3: Doesn't a private member belong to the church? why OUTDSIDE is used here? Maybe, from the outside means on the surface? And what on earth the stuff is that can terrify the House of Bishops?---is it simply the motion above-mentioned?}Even the evangelical ones still squirm at the memory and mutter that it shows the essential wrongness of private members’ motions. The 44 diocesan bishops and nine suffragans on the General Synod generally reckon to be able to run the church if they can all act together and exploit the confusions among the clergy and laity. But in this instance they were powerless. They could not be seen to vote against the motion on sexual morality; some of them could not have voted for its substance and none could accept its unforgiving pharisaic tone.
In the event they voted for a watered-down version, which said that “homosexual genital acts fall short of <god’s> ideal and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion.” Only eight synod members had the courage to vote against this; 13abstaned, and 403 voted in favour. All the bishops, including the few who had then and subsequently ordained practising homosexuals and protected them, voted in favour of the motion. {Q4: What does "ordained" mean here? please explain the sentence underlined to me?}What they really meant, and still mean , is that what goes on in bedrooms should be no one’s business outside. But they could say that only in private. In public, they sowed wind
Even at the time, it was astonishing how far removed the public speeches were from the world of private conversation about people. With the benefit of hindsight, the ironies are scarcely bearable. Only one man, a JP from Hereford named Barnaby Miln, admitted to being a homosexual. Later, he was to live with {Q5: Tell me its grammar structure?} the Secretary-General of the General Synod, the Rev Sir Derek Pattinson, after the couple had been on a tour of southern Africa partially paid for by SPCK, the oldest missionary society in the Church of England. Mr. Miln was last heard of in Hereford jail, serving six months for defrauding the inmates of an old people’s home

[Rusty]

That was a lot of typing. I have looked at website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_coe.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_coe.htm)
and links from there and will try to summarize information that applies to your questions.
First, the basics. The world-wide Anglican Communion consists of the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, USA. the Anglican Church of Canada and many other churches of the same denomination world wide. I will refer to them simply as "the church." The General Synod is the ruling body in the church. It meets every three years. It is made up of bishops, priests and lay persons ( also referred to as members).
The subject of the article below is the church's policy (past, present and future) on homosexuality. Members are divided by their conservative or liberal points of view and beliefs. You can read the details at the above website.
Now, to your questions.

The Clergymen Came out Two by Two

Is there no end to it, the travail of the Church of England in the matter of gay priests? As Andrew Brown sees it, the answer is --- probably not.

There are two ways of looking at the whirlwind of sexual politics now sweeping over the Church of English. The first is biblical: if you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind, observes the prophet Hosea. It is undoubtedly true that what is now being reaped was sown in wind and hypocrisy over many years. You can also look at the story in human terms, where it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy not because it is sad, cruel, or unfortunate, though it is all those things, but because it is a disaster brought about by virtue. Everything that is most lovable about the Church of England: its charity, its belief in discussion, and respect for the knobbly individualities of people, has led it into the present mess.
In the Eighties, when church politics were still a kind of liturgical dance for educated gentlemen, a gay priesthood was like Victorian architecture: one of the special glories of the Church of England, {Q1: Do the inner circles of the Church of England take the gay priesthood as glories of the Church of England like Victorian architecture?}
(My guess is that the reporter is using humorous sarcasm. I think he means that gays in the priesthood was something that people took for granted).
even if not doctrinally essential. This sophisticated viewpoint seemed almost a badge of the membership of the inner circles of the Church of England in the Eighties.
Two things happened to shatter that view of the church. The most terrible blow was the ordination of women priests; but the first was a private member’s resolution from the floor of the General Synod that was debated in November 1987. The Rev Tony Higton, a vicar from Essex who had come to prominence in the agitation against the heterosexual {Q2: Does this word here mean the Rt Rev David Jenkins intends to have women priests? }(No, he is saying that the bishop of Durham is heterosexual. Heterosexual priests/bishops are often married) bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, put down a motion asserting“that fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are sinful in all circumstances; and that Christian leaders are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality, as a condition of being appointed to or remaining in office”.
It was the most popular private member's motion in the history of the General Synod: it tapped a deep vein of evangelical distrust of the squirmy liberals they believed to be running the church; it sounded from the outside like stuff the church already believed--and it terrified the House of Bishops. {Q3: Doesn't a private member belong to the church? why OUTDSIDE is used here? Maybe, from the outside means on the surface? And what on earth the stuff is that can terrify the House of Bishops?---is it simply the motion above-mentioned?}(The private member was the Reverend Tony Higton, a vicar/priest from Essex. "From the outside" means from the reporter's point of view. "The stuff" was what was contained in the motion. I've underlined the part above. The reporter is saying that the lay people (ordinary members) of the church were in agreement with the motion (above). This, he says, terrified the bishops who had since the 1980's become very lenient towards homosexuality). Even the evangelical ones still squirm at the memory and mutter that it shows the essential wrongness of private members’ motions. The 44 diocesan bishops and nine suffragans on the General Synod generally reckon to be able to run the church if they can all act together and exploit the confusions among the clergy and laity. But in this instance they were powerless. They could not be seen to vote against the motion on sexual morality; some of them could not have voted for its substance and none could accept its unforgiving pharisaic tone.
In the event they voted for a watered-down version, which said that “homosexual genital acts fall short of <god’s> ideal and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion.” Only eight synod members had the courage to vote against this; 13abstaned, and 403 voted in favour. All the bishops, including the few who had then and subsequently ordained practising homosexuals and protected them, voted in favour of the motion. {Q4: What does "ordained" mean here? please explain the sentence underlined to me?}(Ordain means to appoint/decree someone as a priest. Bishops ordain supplicants into the priesthood). What they really meant, and still mean , is that what goes on in bedrooms should be no one’s business outside. But they could say that only in private. In public, they sowed wind
Even at the time, it was astonishing how far removed the public speeches were from the world of private conversation about people. With the benefit of hindsight, the ironies are scarcely bearable. Only one man, a JP from Hereford named Barnaby Miln, admitted to being a homosexual. Later, he was to live with {Q5: Tell me its grammar structure?}
(am/is/are/was/were to + infinitive is a type of future, similar to am/is/are/was/were going to + infinitive. This structure can carry an intention or expectation: I am to be at the bus stop at 7:45 a.m. He was to arrive by 9:00 a.m. = he was expected/supposed to arrive by 9:00 a.m. In the case above, a simple future from a past point of view is meant. "Later, he would/was going to live with...").
the Secretary-General of the General Synod, the Rev Sir Derek Pattinson, after the couple had been on a tour of southern Africa partially paid for by SPCK, the oldest missionary society in the Church of England. Mr. Miln was last heard of in Hereford jail, serving six months for defrauding the inmates of an old people’s home

[henz988]

It's so kind of you,think you very much.I know there is still a long way for me to learn this language well, its culture, its grammartical structures and its logical development of an article etc
thanks again