|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disestablishment
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Maybe the CofE is really indicating that it wants to be disestablished. Would non-Anglicans really care? Perhaps the purpose of equality would best be served not only by having same-sex marriage, but by not having an established church.
It could be a win-win situation for quite a lot of people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
No. There's a lot of posturing at the moment by C of E bishops but there is no desire on either side for disestablishment. The C of E bishops, on the whole, don't want to lose their status and parliament really doesn't want to spend years getting bogged down in the minutiae of passing the necessary legislation to enact disestablishment. Look at how parliament (other than hardline Lib Dems) doesn't really want to reform the House of Lords - which is a piece of piss compared to disestablishment.
I think that what we are seeing here in the issue of SSM is the C of E adopting the tactics employed AGAINST it by those vigorously opposed to women bishops - utter threats of catastrophe in the hope that this will elicit further concessions. It is not a pretty sight.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
NO! This is where I despair of the bishops. They pontificate as if they and they alone speak for the C of E. Well, they don't. There are plenty of people (lay and ordained) who do not agree with their vaguely homophobic pronouncements. As WATCH have just forcefully pointed out (in regards to the matter of women bishops), the house of bishops have developed a remarkable ability to ignore what they do not want to hear.
I don't think it will come to a split, though. Although, in my mischievous days, I harbour the insane vision that a significant portion of the C of E may rise up, rebel and ask for alternative episcopal oversight from TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada. Now that WOULD be interesting...
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
It looks like the CofE (or a part of it) is in a Violet Elizabeth Bott state of mind.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
The established church has a privileged position in England with regard to marriage (albeit one which has considerably less impact than in the past), so it will be interesting to see whether anyone challenges the right of the Church to fulfill only part of a legal function (if it refuses to conduct Gay Marriage).
The government lawyer I heard earlier was suggesting that it wouldn't and that it and the European courts take faith professions seriously. I'm no lawyer, but it strikes me that the established church is in a different position than any other faith group in that respect.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Disestablishment is not going to happen while QEII is on the throne. It also follows on from the completion of House of Lords reform. It won't be about dead horse issues. I'd guess 15-20 years.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It's a natural progression of sorts from questions not so long ago as to whether Britain needed a monarchy. Back then you all had a big party - for a reason I forget - (looked like a monied traveller wedding complete with gold coach) and lots of people waved umbrellas and cheered outside Buckingham Palace and there was a bit of glitter and everyone thought, 'O God no, we really need this family in a big house at tax payers expense - it's who we are.'
In the same way, even though the church costs the average tax payer nothing, the question arises if you do need an established church and I suspect the answer eventually will be the same with a new twist; 'It's who we are - and heck, we don't even have to pay for it.'
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Establishment is an embarrassment. Can you imagine Saints Peter and Paul coolly donning their togas to take their seats in the Roman senate?
But to disestablish over this particular issue may be a bigger embarrassment still.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Establishment is an embarrassment. Can you imagine Saints Peter and Paul coolly donning their togas to take their seats in the Roman senate?
Paul yes. His epistle to the Romans would become an oration to them. I can't imagine Peter doing it though.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe the CofE is really indicating that it wants to be disestablished. Would non-Anglicans really care?
Yes actually, there are many of us who do care.
Christianity has been an integral part of the governance of this country for centuries and just because many of us belong to nonconformist or catholic churches, doesn't mean that we want the entire edifice of the state to be fragmented and for the CofE to become just another Christian sect.
It seems to me that the CofE actually speaks for us all - Angicans and nonconformists alike. We value an official voice and influence that we can say 'Amen' to; and it was said over the Jubilee weekend that in actual fact the presence of Christianity in the government of the country makes it easier for people of other faiths to practice their own religion in peace and tolerance.
We don't want the Anglican church to become just another denomination.
We want the voice of the Church in Parliament.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
The problem is that as a Christian, the bishops don't speak for me. As far as I can see, they rarely speak for their own church, never mind anyone else's.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
According to Stonewall (in this link):
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
Ha! Well they never asked me. The Salvation Army as a denomination has said it doesn't support gay marriage.
And I bet these 'people of faith' didn't include the Muslims who would be even more vocal against homosexual marriage than many Christians.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
Much as we should all devoutly wish and pray for disestablishment, the CofE has disagreed with the government on all sorts of things in the past, and none of them has ever led to disestablishment yet.
When it does come it will come because the CofE wants to escape from government, not because government is fed up with the CofE. Because they couldn't care less on the whole.
quote:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
The bit that has bishoips in the House of Lords.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Biggest threat to the Church in 500 years?
Blimey, I suppose that is what Thomas More felt when King Henry VIII issued the Act of Supremacy, separating the CofE from Rome.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
<disclaimer: I am not Anglican>
Listening to Radio 4 this morning, I became more convinced than ever that disestablishment would be a very good thing indeed for the Church of England. I just can't buy the nonsense they've been spouting about how it would be the end of the world for religious and civil marriage to be separated. I live in a country where they are separated in exactly this way, and it's a perfectly good arrangement. I would rather see the church stop being the servant of the State and get on with being the church.
I get the impression that (certain members of) the House of Bishops are labouring under the quaint illusion that they are the tail that wags the dog. They're wrong. The dog *always* wags the tail.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Um, no. The ruling for the CofE is that a church can choose to marry divorcés, a lot of churches choose not to. The rule is that they are not allowed to marry couples who were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Um, no. The ruling for the CofE is that a church can choose to marry divorcés, a lot of churches choose not to. The rule is that they are not allowed to marry couples who were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage
Indeed, and neither is there a law that says the church MUST marry divorcees.
There is a difference between saying the church MAY marry them if conscience allows and the church MUST marry them because the law says they have to.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
The cynic in me thinks that the state and the population at large do very well out of establishment. The C of E preserves thousands of historic churches and cathedrals which the state would otherwise be lumbered with, while a largely secular post-Christian population get access to eye-candy venues and charming rituals for hatches, matches and dispatches without the inconvenience of actually believing anything. Bar a few militant atheists the only people I know who seem arsed about disestablishment are Christians ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear La Vie En Rouge
<disclaimer: neither am I>
I agree with your analysis. The only equitable way forward is for ALL couples to be married in a civil ceremony first and then those who want to can go to the church, synagogue, mosque or temple for divine union and blessing or whatever other description might be appropriate.
There are two problems here though for the CofE. Notwithstanding the Coalition Governments assurances there are bound to be legal challenges eventually in respect of same sex couples, perhaps also bold Anglican clergy who will want to try and use the Equality legislation to extend SSM beyond Civil ceremonies. As soon as that hole in the wall is breached it's game over (in the CofE at least) for those who will not countenance Anglican celebrations of SSM. (Maybe Quakers will push through first). Under my proposal Anglican clergy would stop functioning as Registrars but that would not mean disestablishment anymore than not having Anglican bishops in the House of Lord would mean disestablishment PROVIDED THAT the second issue (below) was addressed.
The second problem has to do with a Protestant theology of marriage. This holds that it is a creation ordinance and not something that the Church can reserve to itself. Of course Anglican clergy prefer couples to have a church marriage ... but they cannot under their own teaching disadvantage those who do not. There is already a dissonance between Anglican canon law and statute in that at least one party to the marriage should be baptised. As far as the State is concerned two non-baptised Buddhists have the right to marry in the Church of England because neither the State nor the Anglican Church accept any difference between what happens in the Town Hall and what happens in the Church. The proposed legislation as it stands is a unilateral move away from that is the CofE holds her ground. If however the CofE were to change her teaching and say that a marriage isn't a marriage until it is blessed in church then the pressure to disestablish from its own practice (not blessing SSM's) would evapourate.
[ 12. June 2012, 14:30: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Um, no. The ruling for the CofE is that a church can choose to marry divorcés, a lot of churches choose not to. The rule is that they are not allowed to marry couples who were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage
Really? I thought that was the whole reason the Church of England existed in the first place.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Really? I thought that was the whole reason the Church of England existed in the first place.
[History pedant hat on] IIRC (and its ages since I studied the English Reformation) Henry VIII argued that his marriage to Catherine was actually invalid in the first place on grounds of consanguinity, so that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was actually his first legitimate one.
His marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on the grounds of non-consumation, and his other marriages were entered into as a widower.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Hehehe you have to love the idea that if fat Henry had asked for a marriage after divorcing his wife the church he created wouldn't have allowed it.. but being a widower on account of beheading his wife was no problem.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
It is also - before anyone pleads this - quite different from Welsh disestablishment. That was the repudiation of a particular ecclesial community which did not command the loyalty of most Welsh Christians at the time, but was not a repudiation of the Christian faith. Disestablishment in a modern context would be bound to be.
It's a pity that it's sex (yet again) that has prompted debate on something that is a lot more important than where people put their grubby genitalia, and has little to do with that question. Nevertheless
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory
perhaps also bold Anglican clergy who will want to try and use the Equality legislation to extend SSM beyond Civil ceremonies. As soon as that hole in the wall is breached it's game over (in the CofE at least) for those who will not countenance Anglican celebrations of SSM.
If the UK went over to having separate civil and church marriages, which does not automatically follow from disestablishment, this would be even more likely. Blessing an existing marriage is something that takes place outside law and that would then apply to all church marriages. Given the state of clerical discipline in some parts of the CofE and the pride some clergy seem to take in disobedience, then even assuming the present rules continued, some would be bound to make a point of breaking them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Hehehe you have to love the idea that if fat Henry had asked for a marriage after divorcing his wife the church he created wouldn't have allowed it.. but being a widower on account of beheading his wife was no problem.
Yes, although the important things is that on HVIII's terms, which of course were the terms on which Anglicanism was founded, he was never actually divorced.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
My point Enoch is that the establishment of the CofE can only be saved - assuming that SSM does indeed remain a point of irreconcilable difference - on the basis that both parties accept a distinction between civil and Christian marriage ... which would be de facto the case anyway for most Christian communities on approval of SSM legislation. I am not sure if a State can become apostate, except perhaps if it constitutionally repudiates Christianity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
The cynic in me thinks that the state and the population at large do very well out of establishment. The C of E preserves thousands of historic churches and cathedrals which the state would otherwise be lumbered with, while a largely secular post-Christian population get access to eye-candy venues and charming rituals for hatches, matches and dispatches without the inconvenience of actually believing anything. Bar a few militant atheists the only people I know who seem arsed about disestablishment are Christians
100% true.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
. If however the CofE were to change her teaching and say that a marriage isn't a marriage until it is blessed in church then the pressure to disestablish from its own practice (not blessing SSM's) would evapourate.
Really? I don't see that at all. What difference would it make?
Whatever Establishment is its not a system that requires the CofE and the government to agree with each other on anything much. So disagreement between the two puts not pressure on the government to disestablish.
Anyway, the other way round is more likely. The CofE ismore or less certain to be disestablished sometime, probably not that far in the future, but I doubt if it will decide that only church weddings count.
For at least five reasons:
1) most people in the CofE actually believe that weddings outside church are valid. In fact I suspect that many of them believe that couples can marry each other and don't really need any external ceremony even though its nice if they have one. At any rate they would not want to unmarry half their family, friends, and neighbours.
2) Lots of communicant members of CofE churches were not married in church. At least some of them are ordained clergy. It would be an awful lot of hassle telling them to have another wedding. And would probably piss a lot of people off.
3) The general trend in the CofE, of at least a century oif not more like one and a half, has been away from making self-aggrandising legalistic claims about its own importance in society (Only a trend - there is still a lot of it about - just imagine how insufferable some High Churchmen must have been in pre-Victorian times). Rejecting non-Church weddings would seem like a step backwards.
4) It sounds awfully like defining marriage as a sacrament. And that's one of the many arguments that the Church of England has to tolerate both sides of in order to carry on. (The list includes the tactile Apostolic Succession, the exact nature of the Real Presence, the supreme authority of Scripture, whether or not Christians should be pacifists, marrying divorced persons, and of course the ordination of women - and it looks as if gay marriage will be added to that list soon - as it de facto already has in many churches)
5) The bible-bashing evangelicals will come up with a list of Old Testament characters from Eve to Esther who were married by neither Christian nor Jewish rites, and ask you if you think they were not really married. That will be a rhetorical qestion of course.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Of course Ken ..... all that you say is true in the sense that the CofE upholds by teaching and practice the Protestant understanding of marriage. Moreover I know that this isn't going to change anytime soon. I wasn't even commending a sacramental approach ... I was simply saying that a distinction between civil and religious marriage ... if only a legal distinction might be one less loose brick in the dodgy wall of establishment if (and only if) the CofE holds the line on SSM. This isn't about triumphalism or grand standing ... it's about the application of the law. THAT is not a small matter ... for anyone.
[ 12. June 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Notwithstanding the Coalition Governments assurances there are bound to be legal challenges eventually in respect of same sex couples, perhaps also bold Anglican clergy who will want to try and use the Equality legislation to extend SSM beyond Civil ceremonies. As soon as that hole in the wall is breached it's game over (in the CofE at least) for those who will not countenance Anglican celebrations of SSM.
(Good to see you posting here again, Father)
I don't think it would be game over. I imagine some priests and potential priests would choose to leave, or not seek ordination, if they thought their parish church would have to marry same sex couples, but as there are plenty of priests who would happily marry gays, it seems to me much more likely that some rota system will get set up in each diocese so that a willing officiant can be found to supply local pastoral needs*. A traditionalist incumbant may have to glower and sulk in the vestry while some upstart curate from the next parish waves his hands over a troublesome couple who insist on promising eternal love and commitment to one another in ‘his' church, but that really is the worst that any priest is ever going to have to put up with. Hardly ‘game over'.
It doesn't need to be anything like the issue that ordaining women was (is). In that case, the issue, for some, was that the whole priestly ministry was compromised. Here, the most that can be said is that some priests will be going about blessing solemn commitments that some other priests think ought not to be blessed. And, as this is the Church of England, and we disagree on practically everything, SFW?
(*Which will not be onerous. There are about 8,000 formalised gay relationships a year, I think. Say a quarter of those will become CofE marriages. 90% of those will look for gay-affirming priests - using the most special day of your life as an opportunity to piss off the conservative local vicar is likely to be a minority taste - so essentially "forcing" the CofE to conduct gay marriage means, in effect, forcing the CofE throughout the whole of England to stump up for 200 return bus fares a year. We could live with that.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Yeveran:
quote:
.....which of course were the terms on which Anglicanism was founded......
Really? That seems a tad over-simplistic considering that there must surely have been other people involved and not just Henry. After all I think someone else did compile the Prayer Book, and none of this happened in grand isolation either - we aren't talking Japan here. Britain was somewhat influenced by other goings on in Europe I suspect.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Its a tangent...I'm summarising fairly spectacularly...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
Ha! Well they never asked me. The Salvation Army as a denomination has said it doesn't support gay marriage.
And I bet these 'people of faith' didn't include the Muslims who would be even more vocal against homosexual marriage than many Christians.
Muslims make up less than 5% of the UK's population and a lot of them are rather pro-gay rights (Polls says Muslims are proud of Britain's stance on gay rights) and Salvationists, even fewer.
[ 12. June 2012, 17:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Eliab
I think you underestimate the evangelical "awkward squad." They won't break the Establishment but they might just break the episcopacy.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Father Gregory: good to see you back!
This is probably a tangent, but I don't understand why a marriage can't be sacramental even without the Church's blessing. After all, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest: I believe this is RC teaching though it may not be Orthodox of course.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Maybe a bit of traffic direction at this point. I recognised that this thread was always doing the splits between
a)a Dead Horse (same sex marriage as an aspect of homosexuality) and
b) a Purgatory topic (Disestablishment)
So I suggest that those whose primary interest is discussing a) wend their way to page 11 of this thread?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
According to Stonewall (in this link):
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
I heard that on the radio this morning - made me think "So if you are over 50 your opinion doesn't matter?" How to win friends and influence people ....
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
]I heard that on the radio this morning - made me think "So if you are over 50 your opinion doesn't matter?" How to win friends and influence people ....
It's more an attempt at demographic projection. It's not uncommon on social issues to try and work out how views are evolving.
Alternatively they're just saying, chances are that if you're over 50 you'll be dead or rapidly losing marbles by 2050 so we're not going to worry too much about you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Biggest threat to the Church in 500 years?
This is the thing that really pisses me off in this debate - the argument that this is the most important issue facing the church at the moment (never mind in the last 500 years).
I think that the irrelevance of the church to society today might be a more important issue. Or the cost of maintaining a structure with an ever aging population. Or whether the church should be fucking around with making pompous declarations when the economy is in a state of crisis, and many people across the country are suffering from the "austerity" measures.
It is times like this that make me glad I am out of the CofE.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Eliab
I think you underestimate the evangelical "awkward squad." They won't break the Establishment but they might just break the episcopacy.
You mean that we Anglicans might fuck up our own church out of spite? Yeah, i suppose we might. But that will be our own fault. It won't be because of gay rights or law reform.
On any reasonable view, if having to organise a corps of volunteers to marry the gays is as bad a persecution as the English church had to face, we are laughing. There's no need for it to lead to disestablishment, schism, litigation or the sky falling on our heads.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Angloid
Briefly because we are off topic ... no, in Orthodoxy the marriage is conferred by the Church, not the couple themselves. Goodness, we don't even have vows!
[ 12. June 2012, 23:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
We want the voice of the Church in Parliament. [/QB]
So what about electing christian politicians then?
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
<tangent alert> At the time James i/VI was proceeding towards London to be crowned, he was met by Puritan divines who wanted his attention on certain absolute essentials for the continuance of proper "church", threatening disorder within the state if these demands were not satisfied.
Quoting from a ten-year-old article in the Winnipeg Free Press:
"The church in 1603 was divided into warring factions -- Puritan and High Church -- as it is divided now between those who accept a bishop who is a practising homosexual and those who do not. The Puritan party was hoping that the new king would back its side of the dispute.
The points in dispute in 1603 read rather oddly now. The petitioners then were asking that the service of confirmation should no longer be used, that priests should no longer wear surplices over their cassocks during services, that rings should not be used in wedding ceremonies and that priests should not ask people to bow at the name of Jesus. It seems difficult now to imagine disorders in the streets over these points, but in England 400 years ago, these were the things people got angry about."
Just think of the really good religious fights we could have over topics that you might want to open up!
And, to add another more contwmporary comment, let me add Simon Jenkins (no, the other one) on today's Grauniad.
Among others things, he writes: quote:
If any proof were needed for church disestablishment, it is the capacity of canon lawyers to find quarrels in straws. What consenting adults do in private should be of no concern to governments, and that applies to worship as much as sex. If grownups want to dress in Tudor costume, douse babies in water, intone over the dead and do strange things with wine and wafers, it is a free country. But for a Christian sect to claim ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship is way out of order.
and then points out that the RC church at one time actually preached that marriage was only foer the fallen, since the desirable state was Chastity, which would leave marriage, in whatever form, as basically irrelevant to the faithful.
And I didn't realise that "common-law" marriage was illegal in England after 1753. Funny, it is fairly normal and has legal standing over here.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but I hadn't noticed Giles Fraser's comment.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
At the time the last census results were released, IIRC, the figure was just over 70%.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
At the time the last census results were released, IIRC, the figure was just over 70%.
However, as discussed before, identification and belief are very different things.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. (I may be wrong there, neither being British nor Anglican, and will stand happily corrected - in which case pretty much ignore the rest.) If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
The government proposes now to call all civil unions "marriages", for the express purpose of achieving total equality before the law. Yet it also proposes to let the CofE continue as is. In which case we end up with the situation that the only remaining inequality before secular law is exactly the accommodation given to the CofE.
It is clear that this situation cannot last for long. So whatever one may think on the subject of calling gay civil unions "marriages" or on the particular threats the CofE sees now (from European courts), it remains perfectly fine for the CofE to call foul on this one. By whatever means this will happen in the end, one cannot really doubt that this move by the government will eventually end in either disestablishment or the CofE "marrying" gay couples.
The only other alternative I see here is for the government to declare that the CofE has the right to marry people (in the secular sense), but no obligation whatsoever to marry any particular couple, maintaining complete control over when she wishes to exercise that right. This is, of course, just what it should be like (if one wants to continue the current porneia between government and CofE in the first place).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. (I may be wrong there, neither being British nor Anglican, and will stand happily corrected - in which case pretty much ignore the rest.) If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
The fact of being obliged to marry non-Christian couples is an interesting point.
The current situation is that the Church is not obliged to marry divorcees - in other words, it already has a conscientious 'opt-out'.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The current situation is that the Church is not obliged to marry divorcees - in other words, it already has a conscientious 'opt-out'.
Am I right in assuming that the CofE generally does marry divorcees - or at least that a sufficient fraction of CofE parishes do, so that a legal challenge is more cumbersome than simply going to another church close by? Even if that is the case, I'd be somewhat surprised if this had not been legally challenged. It provides a good test case. If the CofE can get away with not marrying divorcees, in spite of them trying (including legal means), then she presumably can get away with not marrying gays.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
Sorry, but I think this is a load of nonsense. The sky doesn't seem to have fallen in on the oldest daughter of the Catholic church following her committing regicide and guillotining large numbers of bishops.
Also, under the new covenant, God deals with people, not states, IMO.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
