Originally posted by mousethief:
<obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>
You silly westerners. This could never arise in the Orthodox Church because we don't allow clergy to marry.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
</obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat> [/QB]
quote:According to the report in today's Sunday Telegraph, the ceremony did indeed include those words, so it seems to be deliberately disobeying the guidelines on celibate relationships.
However, if these people are disciplined in some way for entering into this arrangement (if, for example, the vows included terms like 'with my body I thee honour...'), then it would imply that their actions were meaningful - in short, it would give the marriage de facto legitimacy...
quote:Yes. A PDF of the service can be seen here.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
...if, for example, the vows included terms like 'with my body I thee honour...'
quote:Seriously? It's that common for vicars to engage in that sort of thing?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
quote:I find it difficult to work out what the ultimate consequences might be. Disciplinary action means taking the service seriously, thereby suggesting that it acheived some change in the status of the relationship of the people concerned. I'm not sure that anyone will want to allow that inference to be drawn.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
What makes this case more interesting is that the London-based priest is also a Priest Vicar at Westminster Abbey. That is the appointment that looks in more jeopardy, rather than the hospital chaplaincy.
Like the OP, I can't see any good coming of this for any side. There is too much risk of a cons.evo pressure group on the Bishop of London leading to an over-the-top clampdown, which may not be good for anyone.
quote:I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
quote:Sadly, I've known two personally and I knew someone who was involved with dealing with the case of a third. In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
Originally posted by antSJD:
quote:I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
quote:I think it's pretty common, but I've underestimated the frequency of it occurring if glockenspiel is correct. But I understand that most times the priest would be quietly moved on. Now the consistory courts have presumably been replaced with the CDM.
In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
quote:I hope very much that glockenspiel is overestimating, but which of us really has an overview of the church as a whole?
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:I think it's pretty common, but I've underestimated the frequency of it occurring if glockenspiel is correct. But I understand that most times the priest would be quietly moved on. Now the consistory courts have presumably been replaced with the CDM.
In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
quote:I have nothing against these people or the service enacted for them - but let's be honest about what it was. If you look at the liturgy for it (linked to above by Pigwidgeon) it is not expressed as a blessing of an existing union. It is worded as the entering into a life-long covenant by the two people on that day. Furthermore, the partners made vows, exchanged rings and their union was pronounced as being effected by these actions.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The words of marriage were not, as I understand it, including in the service. It was a blessing of two civilly partnered, celibate clergy in honour of their commitment to each other, which made use of some of the phraseology of the 1662 BCP so beloved of many Anglicans.
It was legal and above board at every level and nobody who wasn't driven by the basest of motivations would bat an eyelid at the affair.
God bless the Revd. Fathers, and grant them many years.
quote:Amen. Much love to them both
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The words of marriage were not, as I understand it, including in the service. It was a blessing of two civilly partnered, celibate clergy in honour of their commitment to each other, which made use of some of the phraseology of the 1662 BCP so beloved of many Anglicans.
It was legal and above board at every level and nobody who wasn't driven by the basest of motivations would bat an eyelid at the affair.
God bless the Revd. Fathers, and grant them many years.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Yes it's wrong. It's also very human.
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
quote:Lydia, can I ask... were the details disclosed to the congreagtion or was it deemed better to withhold them? Were the congregation given any sort of pastoral care?
You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.
quote:Forgive me speaking in plain language, for the avoidance of doubt. Celibate means no sexual relations, it does not mean that you have to live alone! So a CP does not imply anything about the celibacy (or otherwise) of the partners. Whether the service enacted a couple of weeks ago means something different is a moot point, however.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst it is not my intention to enquire into the private life of the individuals concerned ,what exactly does 'celibate' mean ?
Certainly it means 'living alone'. I should have thought that ,whatever physical relationship the two may have ,the whole purpose of this ceremony was to indicate before the general public that they were not celibate,but were living together as 'one'
quote:What I'm trying to get a grasp of here is of how a 'two-tier' sexual code (one for laity and one for clergy) is supposed to operate in the anglican church. Whats the 'pass mark' for having sex? On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities untill this has been squared up to.
Originally posted by Lydia:
quote:I hope very much that glockenspiel is overestimating, but which of us really has an overview of the church as a whole?
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:I think it's pretty common, but I've underestimated the frequency of it occurring if glockenspiel is correct. But I understand that most times the priest would be quietly moved on. Now the consistory courts have presumably been replaced with the CDM.
In all three cases the clergyman in question lost his job and his licence - one was allowed to resign quietly, and the other two were subjected to the publicity of a Consistory Court.
You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.
quote:I think, in practice, prohibition of sex before marriage is accepted as unrealistic for most people. I don't think it's analysed beyond that.... Relationships between clergy and their parishioners I guess raised a separate set of questions.
On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities untill this has been squared up to.
quote:Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried. However, it is often used in modern parlance as a synonym for 'chastity' i.e. sexual abstinence. It was in this widely used but technically inaccurate sense that I used the term in my last post.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:Forgive me speaking in plain language, for the avoidance of doubt. Celibate means no sexual relations, it does not mean that you have to live alone! So a CP does not imply anything about the celibacy (or otherwise) of the partners. Whether the service enacted a couple of weeks ago means something different is a moot point, however.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Whilst it is not my intention to enquire into the private life of the individuals concerned ,what exactly does 'celibate' mean ?
Certainly it means 'living alone'. I should have thought that ,whatever physical relationship the two may have ,the whole purpose of this ceremony was to indicate before the general public that they were not celibate,but were living together as 'one'
quote:And sorry to double-post but... yes. Yes to all of the above.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?
Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?
quote:There is no one view really, but officially the CofE requires priests to be celibate or in a Christian marriage. The position is more vague for laity, but having a discussion on either of those points would be a Big Dead Horse.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?
Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?
quote:All of those.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?
Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?
quote:If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc...
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:There is no one view really, but officially the CofE requires priests to be celibate or in a Christian marriage. The position is more vague for laity, but having a discussion on either of those points would be a Big Dead Horse.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can anyone answer this question?
Where is the Church of England on the whole issue of homosexuality/same-sex relationships? Is the CofE conservative, liberal, or in between?
What did you think of the service in question? I guess it would be pretty much accepted in BC, but if you look at the liturgy linked to above by Pigwidgeon, would you call that a blessing or a marriage?
quote:I sit corrected. But does Issues use the term in the correct sense? If it does, since gay people can't marry, they are all 'celibate', whatever the status of their other-than-marriage relationships. I really don't believe that's what's intended, and I imagine that 'celibate' is one of those cases where the colloquial use is now the more usual meaning of the word. Otherwise the standard would equate to being married or not married, which would not be very difficult to adhere to.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried. However, it is often used in modern parlance as a synonym for 'chastity' i.e. sexual abstinence. It was in this widely used but technically inaccurate sense that I used the term in my last post.
quote:What is certain is that clergy in heterosexual relationships are not required to give the same account as those in homosexual relationships. Although clergy do tend to get married rather quickly, so it would be very unusual for them to be asked about the extent of their sexual relationship before marriage (or before ordination!).
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
What I'm trying to get a grasp of here is of how a 'two-tier' sexual code (one for laity and one for clergy) is supposed to operate in the anglican church. Whats the 'pass mark' for having sex? On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities until this has been squared up to.
quote:The guy who resigned quietly did so without the congregation having the faintest idea what it was all about.
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:Lydia, can I ask... were the details disclosed to the congreagtion or was it deemed better to withhold them? Were the congregation given any sort of pastoral care?
You're right that the CDM has now replaced the consistory courts - the 3 cases I knew about were all some years ago. I should perhaps add that all 3 were heterosexual.
quote:There are still evangelical churches that teach that the "passmark" for sex is marriage for everyone, lay or clergy. Many of them, however, adhere to a "belong first, believe next, behave after that" model of evangelism and discipleship, so they are quite realistic about what is probably going on amongst church members. They often require the "marriage or celibacy" thing of people in any kind of leadership, though, not just the clergy but homegroup leaders, worship leaders etc. (That's celibacy in its usual 21st century sense of sexual abstinence.)
Originally posted by Mogwai:
quote:I think, in practice, prohibition of sex before marriage is accepted as unrealistic for most people. I don't think it's analysed beyond that.... Relationships between clergy and their parishioners I guess raised a separate set of questions.
On the 3rd date if you're a layperson, but on getting engaged if you're a clergyperson?? Does anybody have a clue as to what the consensus is; in practice as well as theory? We can't even begin talking about 'alternative' sexualities untill this has been squared up to.
quote:I don't know exactly what the disciplinary procedures are at the Abbey these days, but a little bit of research indicates that the Dean of the Chapels Royal is the Bishop of London himself. There's also an episcopal Clerk of the Closet!
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
I find it difficult to work out what the ultimate consequences might be. Disciplinary action means taking the service seriously, thereby suggesting that it acheived some change in the status of the relationship of the people concerned. I'm not sure that anyone will want to allow that inference to be drawn.
Also, it has just occurred to me that a Royal peculiar (or is that particular?) like Westminster Abbey might not fall under the authority of the Bishop of London? In which case, I guess only the officiating minister might be at risk of censure.
quote:I might say that turning any wedding into a "PR stunt" is a bad idea.
Originally posted by Gwai:
On one level, I would say it's definitely more honest. After all, if these two people intend to live together as husbands, then it is appropriate to be married before God.
However, it's also pushing a church further than the Church is willing to be pushed right now, I fear. So yes, as a PR stunt, I think it was a very bad idea.
quote:Are monks in a monastery celibate, or no? They don't live alone, yet (if they're true to their monastic vows) they don't have sexual relations either and are thus chaste.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried.
quote:You really think that stopping clergy marrying stops scandal. Go and talk to our Roman Catholic fellow believers! In this world no regulation is humanity proof!
Originally posted by mousethief:
<obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>
You silly westerners. This could never arise in the Orthodox Church because we don't allow clergy to marry.
</obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat> [/QB]
quote:Um, no, it was a joke.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
You really think that stopping clergy marrying stops scandal.
quote:Errmm.. but you do allow them to marry, if they do it before ordination, don't you?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Are monks in a monastery celibate, or no? They don't live alone, yet (if they're true to their monastic vows) they don't have sexual relations either and are thus chaste.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried.
<obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>
You silly westerners. This could never arise in the Orthodox Church because we don't allow clergy to marry.
</obnoxious Orthodox holier-than-thou hat>
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:In which case:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It.Was.A.Joke. Part of the joke being the conceit that what would in fact be the "real problem" (gay marriage) isn't as important as a secondary problem (clergy getting married).
)
quote:Our clergy can be married. Our clergy cannot marry. I shouldn't think the distinction TOO hard even for a westerner.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
(Especially since your clergy can be married
quote:Indeed, I am a terribly simple Westerner, although the distinction that you so helpfully pointed out was actually indicated in my earlier post (...before ordination...), which is why the wording was as quoted.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Our clergy can be married. Our clergy cannot marry. I shouldn't think the distinction TOO hard even for a westerner.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
(Especially since your clergy can be married
I don't ask you to think my joke is terribly funny, just not to take it as a serious comment. Hence the angle brackets. God, give me patience.
quote:Yes, they are chaste (or have, at any rate, sworn that they will try to be). And yes, they are celibate in that they live singly in the sense of not being married. The fact that they live in a community with others does not, I think, make any difference, any more than a man is not celibate if he lives in a shared house.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Are monks in a monastery celibate, or no? They don't live alone, yet (if they're true to their monastic vows) they don't have sexual relations either and are thus chaste.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, this isn't quite right - 'celibacy' technically just means 'living alone' i.e. being unmarried.
quote:Oh - I dunno, Nightlamp. Call me an old-fashioned agent provocateur, but I think it's brilliant.
I suspect this thread will end up in the old nag's derby but any way it is a live issue.
I am of the opinion that this will make things more difficult in the Church of England particularly for gay clergy. I cannot see any benefit for anyone other than some people had some nice food
quote:Like Lydia, I know three personally (and others at a remove). Of the three, two were straight, and the other gay. One of the straight offenders was given the opportunity to retire early, and lose his licence, with no reference to the bishop of his place of retirement, so no permission to officiate- ever. The other straight offender and the gay offender agreed to have their incumbencies terminated. The straight offender eventually took a parish in another diocese when his personal situation became regularized (i.e., divorce & remarriage), working in a bookstore in the interim. The third, whose personal situation involved an underage male (at that time, and I think still, an offence under the Criminal Code) can still be seen about town, running a marriage service as he somehow retained his provincial marriage officiant's licence while losing his clerical one. No specific pastoral initiatives for the parishes involved and, at least in one of the cases, this was a serious omission by the bishop.
Originally posted by antSJD:
quote:I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
quote:Actually I would argue just that. But that's high-level stuff. The job of the agent provocateur is just to stir the pot and create a commotion, leaving the big strategic stuff to the big boys.
So you could argue it was tactically clever but strategically unwise.
quote:It will be interesting to learn the results of the Arcgdeacon's investigation.
"I will be asking the Archdeacon of London to investigate what took place at the church of St Bartholomew the Great."
quote:This is a quotation given to Reuters by the officiant. The press coverage has been enormous. It was clearly staged for the press. The order of service is available to the public.
It wasn't intended to be provocative.
quote:Well indeed. If the officiant it really claiming that it wasn't intended to be provocative, he is either lying or unimaginably naive, IMO.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
quote:This is a quotation given to Reuters by the officiant. The press coverage has been enormous. It was clearly staged for the press. The order of service is available to the public.
It wasn't intended to be provocative.
Whether it was the right thing to do or not I maintain - It was provocative.
Personally, and I know this is a contentious position to hold, I believe there is something different about holding such a ceremony discretely and quietly on the one hand, and on the other involving the press, speaking to the media and publishing the order of service.
quote:Not sure what this means but I certainly know of babies born to one of a couple (lesbian) being baptized; babies adopted by gay couples baptized, and most oddly, although the story has gone off the main pages:
What next, maybe a baptism for a child born of one these unions.
quote:The BBC R4 Sunday programme (links should be up on Monday) this morning had David Banting pronouncing on this, and also Jimmy Mizen's parents discussing their journey of loss and forgiveness.
Originally posted by EJCardiff:
That women who is a member of the general synod was absolutely disgusting on the BBC news in what she said, God help us if these people are running the Church
quote:Well there's a new idea
Originally posted by Stoker:
Has anybody read their Bible recently and checked out God's revealed purpose for family and marraige? I'm not talking about using semantics on a verse here and there, I'm talking about the big picture.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Will other clergy involved in the ceremony do the same?
The New Zealand priest involved has felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license, in the light of Anglican Communion processes and discussions in the area of same gender Blessings and ordination.
quote:I can't find a definition that puts it quite like that.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Celibacy = living alone. Living alone in this sense does not necessarily mean living within four walls all alone,but rather not living as a couple...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. I know many people who live alone and who are extremely sexually active. In some cases, even promiscuous. I wouldn't describe that as being celibate.quote:I don't think so, although some reports have suggested that the other of the newlyweds will also be making his next career step outside of the church.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
The following is an extract from a press statement of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, on this matter:
quote:Will other clergy involved in the ceremony do the same?
The New Zealand priest involved has felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license, in the light of Anglican Communion processes and discussions in the area of same gender Blessings and ordination.
quote:I think that the officiant is using a few 'weasel words' here. That is, a guideline is not a regulation (let alone canon law). It is a to be understood as a document offering guidance - so it is advisory, not prescriptive - by being described as a guideline.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
On the face of it, it looks like some line must have been crossed if a blessing was given to this gay couple, so far as CofE guidelines go, if it's true that CofE clergy are requested not to offer such blessings. So I'm not sure in what way the officiant means it was 'legal'.
quote:Unsurprisingly, the guy who updates the diocesan website doesn't work at weekends!
Originally posted by antSJD:
Whatever your position on this, it is quite ironic that there is no mention of it on the latest news page of the Diocese of London website, although there is something else about 'wider weddings'...
Diocese of London Latest News
quote:Were the appropriate authorities 'in the know' then?
Originally posted by Incensed:
No, he doesn't work at weekends but he (and the senior team in the diocese) has had two weeks to prepare for the inevitability of it hitting the headlines. The service was very widely known about.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Bravo!
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I hope that +Richard and ++Rowan can find a magisterial solution to this.
Something like the participant stepping down as Priest Vicar at Westminster Abbey, and the celebrant having his diocesan PTO suspended for x years, plus a pretty clear message to anyone else in the diocese and province that anyone else trying this might face a tougher sentence than that.
Hopefully that can happen before the evo vicars wading into the controversy.
The tragedy of this publicity is that the actual diocesan parochial ministry on the ground is going very well. To spend time on spats on the matters that divide us (mostly the dead horses!) seems such a waste of time.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:They take vows of chastity, not celibacy. Chastity only means living in a moral way with regards to sexuality. A married couple having relations only with one another are chaste. However, for monks and nuns, chastity does generally imply celibacy.
Originally posted by Geneviève:
Regarding celibacy: Monks and nuns in TEC takes vows of celibacy (+poverty & obedience)natch. They live in communities so "living alone" is not considered the point; sexual abstinence is the point.
quote:Do what the majority can freely do, and you risk losing your job = frivolous & empowered? Really?
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Rather frivolous in my opinion. Like so many 'making a statement' actions by the empowered it rings rather hollow to me.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:For the first time I wonder if Sir Pellinore has been (ret'd) too long.. I usually agree with his posts.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Rather frivolous in my opinion. Like so many 'making a statement' actions by the empowered it rings rather hollow to me.
quote:Well, I'm not actually sure that the service concerned is a helpful development. It does seem a bit like rubbing the noses of the people opposed to SSM in the dirt. But...
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:Bravo!
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I hope that +Richard and ++Rowan can find a magisterial solution to this.
Something like the participant stepping down as Priest Vicar at Westminster Abbey, and the celebrant having his diocesan PTO suspended for x years, plus a pretty clear message to anyone else in the diocese and province that anyone else trying this might face a tougher sentence than that.
Hopefully that can happen before the evo vicars wading into the controversy.
The tragedy of this publicity is that the actual diocesan parochial ministry on the ground is going very well. To spend time on spats on the matters that divide us (mostly the dead horses!) seems such a waste of time.
Rather frivolous in my opinion. Like so many 'making a statement' actions by the empowered it rings rather hollow to me.
It seems like all attention on the Anglican Communion is focussed either on extremists of the Moore/Southern Cone variety or parblind 'revolutionaries' of this ilk.
Certainly I find both equally revolting.
God Willing, the Bishop of London will show some spine.
This is not about 'human rights' or 'gay liberation' but illconsidered stirring by the privileged.
Perhaps they think they're back at school and this is just 'another jolly rag'.
Resignation is now, IMO, the only 'honorable' way out. Ecclesiastical hari-kari. Otherwise discipline should follow.
We've had enough ecclesiastical Guy Fawkeses trying to blow us up.
quote:He is also considered a bit of an oddball and has been the source of plenty of not very helpful articles in the papers when it comes to improving the status of Anglican priests in the eyes of the public.
I know Fr. Martin Dudley - he is doctrinally very orthodox and liturgically catholic.
quote:These are things that are engineered by man, what would would be interesting if a same sex couple who had not medical help had a baby. If one of the clergy from St Bart`s became pregenant due to God`s hand blessing them life ould start to get interesting, though I would not be in earshot of the screaming as baby was born.
Not sure what this means but I certainly know of babies born to one of a couple (lesbian) being baptized; babies adopted by gay couples baptized, and most oddly, although the story has gone off the main pages:
Here in the US a woman who had gender change surgery and is now officially a "man" but still has a womb and vaginal canal and the rest of the necessary plumbing is giving birth soon or may already have done so. He is married to a woman.
quote:Perhaps none of us has all the answers, or should consider ourselves righteous.
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Some posters approving of this highly unorthodox liaison have entered the HTB/Alpha in Brighton thread on the grounds that they are orthodox, and canonically obedient HTB/Alpha aren't. We live in strange times.
quote:If a gay couple adopt a child, there is no medical help involved.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:These are things that are engineered by man, what would would be interesting if a same sex couple who had not medical help had a baby.
Not sure what this means but I certainly know of babies born to one of a couple (lesbian) being baptized; babies adopted by gay couples baptized
quote:I was under the impression that 'with my body I thee worship' referred to conjugal acts, specifically marital congress. Can anyone up on the history shed light?
leo:
Very traditional - almost BCP.
'With my body I thee worship' need not necessarily mean full-on sex.
Are cuddles a form of worship? Can two men cuddle and remain chaste/celibate?
quote:Member of the congregation Rev Dr David Lord ministers in checking in here.
This is not about 'human rights' or 'gay liberation' but illconsidered stirring by the privileged.
Perhaps they think they're back at school and this is just 'another jolly rag'.
quote:What I am waiting for is to see if God blesses the act of buggery with a pregenancy? I believe He blesses sex between man and woman with such an event occassionally.
If a gay couple adopt a child, there is no medical help involved.
quote:One does not need to be a prophet like Elijah to know the shit would hit the fan these two chaps of priesthood by their actions. As grown men they would have known what was going to happen but still went a head.
There was no agenda, and to be honest naive or not I don't think David expected the furore that has followed.
quote:And exactly what is that meant to mean? Its statements such as that which ignite situations. Its the kind of thing one expects Akinola to say. Shameful.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:What I am waiting for is to see if God blesses the act of buggery with a pregenancy? I believe He blesses sex between man and woman with such an event occassionally.
If a gay couple adopt a child, there is no medical help involved.
quote:But this is a sampling error surely.
Originally posted by Geneviève:
well, as an "across the ponder" I don't know the intricacies of CoE, but coming a few weeks before the Lambeth the ceremony can not help but make a statement.
quote:Hmm, maybe you've got me dj!! From what I have read maybe it is an outlier--perhaps because of the fact that clergy were involved, and the service held in a well-known church, and the service was attended by several hundred people, and .....yes, Lambeth is only a few weeks away.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:But this is a sampling error surely.
Originally posted by Geneviève:
well, as an "across the ponder" I don't know the intricacies of CoE, but coming a few weeks before the Lambeth the ceremony can not help but make a statement.
The question is not 'why was this single-sex blessing held just before the Lambeth Conference?' but 'why was this single-sex blessing turned into a media frenzy when the CofE performs hundreds every year which are not'?
quote:Oh purleez!
Originally posted by Dee.:
There was no agenda, and to be honest naive or not I don't think David expected the furore that has followed.
That it could be suggested that two people committing to each other before God for life could be an "ill considered stirring" makes me sad.
quote:I wondered how long it would take before the Happy Clappy contingent raised their "no traditions of men" ploy.
Originally posted by Stoker:
Blah, Blah, Blah..............
Bishops, Authority, Church, Religion, Man made rules, Diocese, Anglicanism,
Blah, Blah, Blah............Are the cows home yet?
Has anybody read their Bible recently and checked out God's revealed purpose for family and marraige? I'm not talking about using semantics on a verse here and there, I'm talking about the big picture.
quote:But does it really damage the cause of those favouring change? ISTM that it is likely to convince any wavering deeply-conservative bishops to stay away from England and the Lambeth conference. Which means that there will be a higher proportion of non-conservative bishops in all of the discussions.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
This much publicised event damages the cause of those who favour change, and cannot have helped Archbishop Rowan Williams or the Bishop of London, or indeed the Church of England, as they approach the Lambeth Conference.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:I for one am worried about the Lambeth Conference and what will become of all this. The Anglican Communon is far from stable as it is. It will be sad if the Communion breaks up, but is there the question of this changing the look of the CofE? 500 Anglo-Catholic priests are on about leaving if you believe the papers. A schism in the CofE??
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I'm not worried about the Lambeth Conference, which is a bit of an irrelevant talking shop really.
quote:But that speculative figure of 500 priests is said to relate to those opposed to women Bishops, and has nothing to do with the Big Wedding Incident.
Originally posted by antSJD:
I for one am worried about the Lambeth Conference and what will become of all this. The Anglican Communon is far from stable as it is. It will be sad if the Communion breaks up, but is there the question of this changing the look of the CofE? 500 Anglo-Catholic priests are on about leaving if you believe the papers. A schism in the CofE??
quote:Well, the loss of many evangelical and Anglo-Catholics would be a very serious loss, not just to the CofE, but to Anglicanism, seeing that many will go to non-Anglican jurisdictions.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
I agree, though, that any fracturing of communion would be sad and a move in the wrong direction. But I am struggling to understand what the substantive loss might be, given the last 10 years of tension and dissension.
quote:I'm always happy to have Happy Clappies unwittingly appeal to the natural law to make their point about marriage, something which they usually take to be man-made tosh. Now, if they start taking, "till death do us part" seriously, we'll really be getting somewhere, since I thought that was part of God's plan for marriage as well.
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:I wondered how long it would take before the Happy Clappy contingent raised their "no traditions of men" ploy.
Originally posted by Stoker:
Blah, Blah, Blah..............
Bishops, Authority, Church, Religion, Man made rules, Diocese, Anglicanism,
Blah, Blah, Blah............Are the cows home yet?
Has anybody read their Bible recently and checked out God's revealed purpose for family and marraige? I'm not talking about using semantics on a verse here and there, I'm talking about the big picture.
quote:This is my concern over the issue. That unity has been put into jeopardy because someone won't respect the authority of his Bishop. In my opinion the ceremony had provocative intentions as well as, I suspect, the genuine intentions of the participants. I, like many others, wish them well in their life together, but I think the fact that the Anglican Communion has been given another blow is a sad sad thing.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
As I understand it the Bishops of the Church of England have asked clergy not to perform such services. These clergy have publically and with much publicity, disobeyed their bishop(s). They may have done this after carefully following their consciences. It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
quote:But other issues of authority, failures to respect unity and disobedience to rules never create this kind of fuss. Issues in the CofE such as withholding of diocesan contributions, irregular ordinations, competitive church plants, for example - all of these have a more immediate and substantive impact on the church, at a local or broader scale, and don't attract scorn from an international cadre of bishops.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
quote:Ah the 'red herring' 'defence'.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:Do what the majority can freely do, and you risk losing your job = frivolous & empowered? Really?
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Rather frivolous in my opinion. Like so many 'making a statement' actions by the empowered it rings rather hollow to me.
Isn't it a terrible nuisance. How embarassing people wanting to be equal can be. Go sit at the back of the bus, M'am. Don't make a fuss.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:The personalisation of that remark was simplistic and unnecessary.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:Well, the loss of many evangelical and Anglo-Catholics would be a very serious loss, not just to the CofE, but to Anglicanism, seeing that many will go to non-Anglican jurisdictions.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
I agree, though, that any fracturing of communion would be sad and a move in the wrong direction. But I am struggling to understand what the substantive loss might be, given the last 10 years of tension and dissension.
But I guess to liberals like yourself, that's not *substantive*.
quote:Are people within the church never to be allowed to react strongly to things other Christians do? Or only on this issue? Should we kowtow to what those outside the church want us to be?
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
So if, in comparison, reactions to such events as the St Barts ceremony turned people away from Christ, then that would indeed be a substantive loss. It would be a disaster.
quote:If you didn't care for my reaction to your argument you'll find some others in the thread that took similar exception to it, in fuller forms of expression.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Less emotional foaming at the mouth by the likes of you might help the cause you support.
quote:Well, that is a good point, to which I do not have a final answer, if I'm honest. I can only point to the remarks I made earlier about caring more about the things that hurt other people, which I think should be a part of our common mission. But you are right, it's difficult to talk in absolutes about this - and I, like everyone else, find it difficult to be nuanced when reacting to a message in front of me...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Are people within the church never to be allowed to react strongly to things other Christians do? Or only on this issue? Should we kowtow to what those outside the church want us to be?
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
So if, in comparison, reactions to such events as the St Barts ceremony turned people away from Christ, then that would indeed be a substantive loss. It would be a disaster.
quote:
Nor is it the first time there have been prayers, hymns or readings following a civil partnership.
quote:Were there other such events held in other C of E churches in recent weeks? I imagine so.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Not even the most naive person who is very very naive could fail to see that the timing of this event was bound to create enormous waves in the Anglican Communion. To claim that no-one involved had any inkling of what might follow makes the couple and the priest incredibly stupid to the point of imbecility.
quote:Except the link provided would seem to suggest that the leak was not from the couple or clergy. The document appears faded and water-damaged - perhaps it was even fished out of the rubbish by an unscrupulous journalist.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
Having the order of service available on the internet suggests an intention was to publicise.
quote:It is not just the blessing of a civil partnership by a vicar that is controversial. I agree there are probably a few every month across the Church of England.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Were there other such events held in other C of E churches in recent weeks? I imagine so.
Those that want to single this event out for special attention will do so, but the consequences are largely on the heads of those that do.
If I managed to find a great church and a reception hall on a lovely weekend in June, I wouldn't give the timing a passing thought. Especially if I were attempting to arrange a ceremony to be attended by family coming from essentially the other end of the earth.
quote:Maybe this is a pond difference thing but we are talking about Priests here. This is an extremely painful issue that divides the church of their ordination so there is no way that it 'just happened to be a lovely weekend in June'.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
If I were getting hitched, and did not think folks would go out of their way to call attention to my ceremony, I don't think I'd care when it occurred relative to Lambeth. If I managed to find a great church and a reception hall on a lovely weekend in June, I wouldn't give the timing a passing thought.
quote:But, but, but...
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
As I understand it the Bishops of the Church of England have asked clergy not to perform such services. These clergy have publically and with much publicity, disobeyed their bishop(s). They may have done this after carefully following their consciences. It does, however, raise several issues.
Not least the authority of the Bishop of London, respect for church unity, need to observe any rules...
quote:Godspeed.
Originally posted by Hermeneut:
quote:If you didn't care for my reaction to your argument you'll find some others in the thread that took similar exception to it, in fuller forms of expression.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Less emotional foaming at the mouth by the likes of you might help the cause you support.
The tone of your response, however, does not encourage me to entertain further discussion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Exactly!
Originally posted by FreeJack:
It is not just the blessing of a civil partnership by a vicar that is controversial. I agree there are probably a few every month across the Church of England.
It is unusual that the couple were both Anglican priests, and one of them was not merely licensed by our Bishop, but an incumbent in one of his churches, chaplain to one of our great hospitals and priest vicar at one of our royal churches. That is what makes this newsworthy.
quote:I think it is undoubtedly true that some traditionalists will be repelled by the ceremony. But a different (and in my view, larger) section of the population - including many ordinary families - think that the church is bigoted, obsessed with sex, unrealistic and out of date. This latter group might, conceivably, be encouraged rather than discouraged by recent events.
Originally posted by aumbry:
I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque. To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars. As churches lose their traditional broad support in the community they will end up making these sort of bizarre statements and the decline will continue.
Aumbry
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
Originally posted by aumbry:
I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque. To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars. As churches lose their traditional broad support in the community they will end up making these sort of bizarre statements and the decline will continue.
Aumbry
quote:(Just realized I posted earlier on this thread - must re-check over it. But this is a direct response to this comment alone)
I think it is undoubtedly true that some traditionalists will be repelled by the ceremony. But a different (and in my view, larger) section of the population - including many ordinary families - think that the church is bigoted, obsessed with sex, unrealistic and out of date. This latter group might, conceivably, be encouraged rather than discouraged by recent events.
Sadly, the main reasons why people seem to stay away from church is because they do not really believe in God (in any committed, life-affecting sense) or increasingly, because they know nothing about Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by antSJD:
quote:I've never known this to be the case. I'm not saying they are all saints, but still, I've never known it personally.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I suspect we can all think of at least one vicar who has had, or is most likely having, a sexual relationship outside marriage. Is that wrong?
With the OP in mind, I can only see an awful backlash from this. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, the media will grab it with both hands and it is hardly doing anything for unity and cohesion in the Anglican Communion.
quote:I've never been to a 'transvestite piano bar' (I imagine it's a place where you might come across a 12 inch pianist?) but it sounds fascinating- and probably more interesting and appealing than a church that is succeeding in making itself less and less relevant by it's muddle over 'gays'.
Aumbry said: To that extent it is no wonder that ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars
quote:I am sorry but it is you that is out of touch on that one.
You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
quote:But no. The only recent survey I could find with a quick Google came from the Daily Record and included this nugget:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:I am sorry but it is you that is out of touch on that one.
You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
quote:Note that this is in Scotland - England would certainly be more tolerant on account of having more centres of gay community. So a large and growing majority of people think that gay relationships are mostly or always okay, and a small but growing majority think they should be able to marry.
Scotland was more tolerant when it came to attitudes to gay people. Only 30 per cent of those polled said gay relationships were "always" or "mostly" wrong, compared to 41 per cent in 2003.
And 54 per cent believed gay couples should have the right to marry, compared with 21 per cent who insisted they should not. In 2003, 29 per cent of those polled were against gay marriage.
quote:A bit over the top, perhaps, but not nearly as grotesque as many a wedding I've been to.
Originally posted by aumbry:
I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque.
quote:I'll grant the comment about sensitivity about priests, but I can't believe that other priests in civil partnership have not also had their commitments blessed. So why this pair?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Maybe this is a pond difference thing but we are talking about Priests here. This is an extremely painful issue that divides the church of their ordination so there is no way that it 'just happened to be a lovely weekend in June'.
quote:Really? I certainly didn't consult the calendar for major international events when holding my wedding. Heavens - there may have been a middle east peace summit at the time! Is the concern that some guests won't be able to make it? How insensitive of me.
Planning a wedding is always a very sensitive and political affair and therefore factors of timing etc. are usual paramount. You would not just miss something like this.
quote:I'd say the same about any pair of priests, but especially this pair because of their high profile positions.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I'll grant the comment about sensitivity about priests, but I can't believe that other priests in civil partnership have not also had their commitments blessed. So why this pair?
quote:Are you a Priest though?
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I certainly didn't consult the calendar for major international events when holding my wedding.
quote:1. Central London. The British media are very London-centric. If you want something in the press, do it in central London. If you don't want something in the press, do it somewhere else. As the participant was London-based the choice was logical on a pastoral basis, but nonetheless increases the media interest.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I'll grant the comment about sensitivity about priests, but I can't believe that other priests in civil partnership have not also had their commitments blessed. So why this pair?
Show me some facts. This just sounds like personal prejudice (in the sense of prejudging, or imputing motive without evidence).
quote:What, is one a bishop? I thought the other was a hospital chaplain? Hospital chaplains unite! You have nought to lose but your chains! Since when has a priest had a position that could be seriously called high profile in a national sense?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd say the same about any pair of priests, but especially this pair because of their high profile positions.
quote:No. I can imagine a priest preferring a Saturday wedding to make it easier for colleagues to come, but otherwise don't see the bearing of the point.
Are you a Priest though?
quote:That would be entirely different than planning the whole thing to deliberately rub peoples noses in it, though, wouldn't it? The media are looking for a story because of Lambeth, found one of the many such ceremonies going on which happen at all times of the year, and chose this one because of all those going on, it had the best tidbits. The blame is with the media, not the couple.
I cannot believe that they would be unaware of the impact and timing of what they were doing. They probably hoped to keep it quiet and fly under the radar but it must have been a calculated risk aware of what would happen if the media got hold of it.
quote:Do you have any data whatsoever to support your first statement? And if not, then what data do you have to support your belief that most people hate gay people despite saying the precise opposite when they're asked?
Originally posted by aumbry:
I am afraid that when canvassed people will always give the impression of being more liberal than they are in reality. I expect if surveyed 95% of Scots would deplore the misuse of alcohol too.
In any case I did not say that these relationships should not be blessed but that this sort of a wedding-simulacrum is a grotesque.
Aumbry
quote:As that is such a complete farrago of distortions of what I said I am not bothering to reply.
what data do you have to support your belief that most people hate gay people despite saying the precise opposite when they're asked?
quote:Did you not read Freejack's post?
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Since when has a priest had a position that could be seriously called high profile in a national sense?
quote:A CofE Priest not knowing (even two years ago!?) that Lambeth this year would be all about this issue is like an American politician not knowing there is a certain election coming up soon. You don't have to be Obama to know there is an election coming up and it is pretty important.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I can imagine a priest preferring a Saturday wedding to make it easier for colleagues to come, but otherwise don't see the bearing of the point.
quote:It is a phenomenon well understood by psephologists that when surveyed people will nearly always want to appear more liberal and less conservative (politically and culturally) then is in fact the case.
You maintain that this is because of some form of distortion introduced by the process of being surveyed
quote:But a lot better than +Gene and partner and those horrible floral wreaths on their heads. Yeuch! Why was he not wearing his dog collar BTW?
Originally posted by aumbry:
[qb] I have no problem with the blessing of the civil partnership of couples but to dress it up as a wedding with two morning dress clad chaps exchanging rings to the strains of a full orchestra seems to me to be heading towards the grotesque.
quote:They are unlikely to attend church Full Stop.
Originally posted by aumbry:
I did not say they did not approve of gay marriage - they are probably mostly indifferent to it - but they are unlikely to attend churches which celebrate gay marriages. Acceptance is one thing but support is quite another.
Aumbry
quote:PIE stands for Proto-Indo-European, the hypothetical common ancestor of almost all European and a lot of Asian languages. Which is to say, you have to go back a very long way to when celibacy meant 'living alone'.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Found a nice little etymology site, whose entry for celibacy is here.
Although derived from the Latin for 'unmarried' or PIE use (whatever that is) of "living alone", this says little about its current usage, or usage changes over time.
Thought someone posted from the OED, but couldn't find the post.
quote:Well three very different groupings there. I know little about the dynamics of the growth of Islam, but I suspect much of it is biological. The same goes for Catholicism, though there could be some transfer growth due to OoW and maybe the gay issue, though I think the latter unlikely. The conevo grouping is the one I am most familiar with. Firstly, if you are really looking at a growth area in the evangelical end, it is surely the pentecostal/charismatic rather than conservative traditions. The reason that people are attacted to such groupings are, ISTM, the vibrant worship and the strong and supportive community bond that they find there. In general, though such churches are often opposed to CP/SSM, it figures quite low on the grand scheme of things. In general, these are not the churches making the most noise about SSM. I doubt whether many of the "average attenders" (however defined) have given much thought to the issue at all. It's largely under the radar.
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:I am sorry but it is you that is out of touch on that one.
You are aware that the great majority of people in Britain are very far from sharing your beliefs that such ceremonies are 'grotesque' or 'bizarre' or reminiscent of 'transvestite piano bars'? That actually the great majority of people in the country would have been delighted to see gay couples given the right to marry in registry offices, churches or wherever else they chose?
It might explain why families are staying away from this particular type of anglocatholic church and the growth is with the conservative evangelicals, catholics and Islam. I believe that in America where the process is more advanced the Episcopalian Church is in very serious decline.
Aumbry
quote:Another person sticking his hand up for 'transvestite piano bars' sound like a lot of fun! I'm thinking Vera Lynn with a beehive and cleavage. Knowing my luck it'll prolly be Divine doing Abba. Sigh.
ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars
quote:That is awesome and so touching.
Originally posted by beachpsalms:
Back to the subject of high profile weddings - Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons married yesterday. They have been together more than 50 years, and are important pioneers for lesbian (and gay) rights.
quote:In Western Europe Catholicism is also growing due to immigration from Eastern Europe, Islam ditto due to immigration as well as an increased birth rate, and some branches of the conservative evangelical church (in particular the majority Black churches) for the same two reasons. Apart from the Eastern European immigration issue, I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of N. American religious groups.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Well three very different groupings there. I know little about the dynamics of the growth of Islam, but I suspect much of it is biological. The same goes for Catholicism.
Originally posted by aumbry:
It might explain why families are staying away from this particular type of anglocatholic church and the growth is with the conservative evangelicals, catholics and Islam. I believe that in America where the process is more advanced the Episcopalian Church is in very serious decline.
quote:You mean, you think people are more likely to attend churches if they disagree with their teachings?
Originally posted by aumbry:
I did not say they did not approve of gay marriage - they are probably mostly indifferent to it - but they are unlikely to attend churches which celebrate gay marriages. Acceptance is one thing but support is quite another.
Aumbry
Now I'm completely baffled.
quote:Do you think that everyone at the reception was bopping away in their flares only for someone to rush in and shout: "Bad news, everyone! John Lennon's dead!"?
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I must admit that transvestite piano bars have a certain burlesque appeal. Not sure I'd want my marriage to have resembled one, though.
When I wrote earlier about the whole thing looking like it came straight out of the 1970's, I hadn't read:
this article
by the Rev. Dudley himself.
QED is all I can say. The 1980's are going to come as a bit of a shock.
quote:Well you would be baffled if I had said what you construed.
You mean, you think people are more likely to attend churches if they disagree with their teachings? Now I'm completely baffled.
quote:You're both right. Larger numbers of people are more tolerant these days, but tolerance should not necessarily be mistaken for approval. I haven't come across any surveys which really go into the subject of changing atittudes towards homosexuality in any detail, so I don't think we know terribly much about it. The people I rub up against in the west country are probably less tolerant than people who live in major metropolises where there are visible gay communities. So my anecdotal impressions are that people in the country-at-large are not necessarily as tolerant and accepting as those in major urban centres. Undoubtedly, some people will be attracted to churches where a more accepting, inclusive ethic is in existence - there are some, but not many examples of liberal-catholic churches which are growing. By the same token the secret of the success of evangelical and pentecostal churches is not because they are traditional on the family issues, but because they are vibrant communities to belong to. So I don't think numbers in the churches necessarily relates to attitudes towards sexuality.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aumbry:
[qb] You mean, you think people are more likely to attend churches if they disagree with their teachings?
quote:And I am sure that they are extremely grateful for your imprimatur!
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Meanwhile, ++Canterbury and ++York have followed my sage advice and made a statement. I think it a good one.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:And what will be the loss of liberty for those that do?
But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.
quote:perpetrators?
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
This statement by the Archbishops, reinforcing the official statements quoted, would not have been made had the perpetrators of the ceremony been more careful and discrete.
Their lack of discretion has damaged their cause.
quote:Surely there can be only one Church though many churches?
Originally posted by LQ:
I don't suppose it would do to inquire as to which Christian Church you are referring to, PaulTH?
quote:Although I note they are still ignoring the fact that similar blessings are occuring in many diocese of the CofE and have been for several years.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
The Archbishops are men of the greatest integrity and their statement is to be welcomed. It is to be hoped that the Vicar conducting the ceremony acknowledges the damage done, and resigns.
quote:Sorry Pete, but being uneducated in strange tongues what does "lex orandi, lex credendi principle" mean.
lex orandi, lex credendi principle
quote:I'm glad some data on point (c) are available, that would be an important addition to this discussion. How many instances are we actually talking about then?
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I think you may have fallen under the spell of the propaganda. There aren't (a) authorised liturgies (important on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle); (b) many public services of blessing; (c) as many instances as folk would like to claim.
quote:I'd be wary of basing theology on what English law may, or may not, say.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
What is wrong with the gay wedding is that it follows none of those principles. Homosexual acts are forbidden in Scripture. They were forbidden by the law of this land until 1967.
quote:Nonsense. This is at least as valuable as anything posted here.
Originally posted by Nicolita:
PIE stands for Proto-Indo-European, the hypothetical common ancestor of almost all European and a lot of Asian languages. Which is to say, you have to go back a very long way to when celibacy meant 'living alone'.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I have nothing of value to add to the actual discussion... [/QB]
quote:Sure. None of those strike me as posts to which a member of the average public could name another holder. Incumbent? Bah - every parish has an incumbent, usually described as "mostly harmless". Most people within the parish boundaries could not even name the incumbent, I'd wager. Hospital chaplain? Puleeze. Who cares what hospital it is? Priest vicar at a royal peculiar? Honestly, most people couldn't name a single one. The title may be impressive, but it is hard to support the claim that a holder of that tile has any kind of public profile.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Did you not read Freejack's post?
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Since when has a priest had a position that could be seriously called high profile in a national sense?
quote:Lambeth this year is quite apparently NOT all about this issue, much to the dismay of the GAFCON folks.
A CofE Priest not knowing (even two years ago!?) that Lambeth this year would be all about this issue is like an American politician not knowing there is a certain election coming up soon. You don't have to be Obama to know there is an election coming up and it is pretty important.
quote:Well, I'm a Catholic, and what you seem to be objecting to is a sociological statement ('most people in the UK are OK with same-sex marriages') which is probably true. I'm not clear what your point is.
Originally posted by aumbry:
It might explain why families are staying away from this particular type of anglocatholic church and the growth is with the conservative evangelicals, catholics and Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
It seems the Bishop of London is not pleased.
quote:Addressing issues of justice is going to distract us from addressing issues of justice?
So much good work is being done both nationally and internationally by the Church as it seeks in the spirit of Jesus Christ to address some of the global issues of peace, justice and poverty that confront the peoples of the world. It would be a tragedy if this episode were to distract us from the big agenda.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Then, why did not Rowen -- to whom the question was asked publicly and spcifically by the Primate of Canada, not deny the allegation? Why did he remain silent?
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I think you may have fallen under the spell of the propaganda. There aren't (a) authorised liturgies (important on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle); (b) many public services of blessing; (c) as many instances as folk would like to claim.
quote:Leo, as you seem to be invited to more of these services/parties than +Pete, would you like to estimate:
Originally posted by leo:
There are quite a few bishops who have backed their clergy, provided they stay within the guidelines - but I ain't going to name them.
quote:I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - it clearly does. I am saying that it's not as widespread as LGCM like to pretend. Where it is known that priests might be contemplating such action, a clear explanation of the meaning of canonical obedience will usually suffice. There are, of course, those clergy who are so insufferably arrogant that they think they are beyond the law.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:Then, why did not Rowen -- to whom the question was asked publicly and specifically by the Primate of Canada, not deny the allegation? Why did he remain silent?
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I think you may have fallen under the spell of the propaganda. There aren't (a) authorised liturgies (important on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle); (b) many public services of blessing; (c) as many instances as folk would like to claim.
Failing a personal response from Rowen, why did not another representative of the CofE respond?
And, unless you know certainly that there are no such services, whether widely or not -- and Leo has said he has attended two so far this year -- why are bishops of all stripes (on this issue), from Southwark to Rochester, remaining in steely silence?
JOhn
quote:Umm.. I see what you're saying. But I'd say that as the institution of marriage falls out of favour with the general population, Christian marriage becomes increasingly *more* political.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Although I have to say that ordinary marriage is decreasingly a political statement. Why should it be? Politics is about getting things done, and most of the same things now get done if you simply live together rather than marry. Modern cohabitation rights have largely evacuated the political dimension from marriage. An example of the law of unexpected consequences perhaps, and still not 100% true, but largely so I think.
quote:Does 1981 count as 'far back in history'? I seem to remember the Church of England getting pretty much involved in a well-known wedding back then. Wonder how that turned out? But that was straight politics of course, which is greatly preferable to pouf politics.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Countless marriages arranged regardless of love, but simply to further the interests of a family, a nation or whatever (and we don't need to look *that* far back in history to see examples of this...)
quote:No they don't. The problem is in the area of authority. By what authority do we Anglicans believe and do what we do? Gay 'marriage' may come to be agreed upon by the churches eventually, but this should be on the basis of theological, synodical agreement (with ecumenical understanding and dialogue) and it should certainly be congruent with our understanding of the Bible, tradition and reason.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
And they say it's gay marriage that will split the church
quote:That was hardly a glorious moment in the history of the Church.
And remind me... wasn't it the marital affairs of a certain king that brought about the CofE's separation from Rome?
quote:Ok.. so why do we have the OoW then?
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:No they don't. The problem is in the area of authority. By what authority do we Anglicans believe and do what we do? Gay 'marriage' may come to be agreed upon by the churches eventually, but this should be on the basis of theological, synodical agreement (with ecumenical understanding and dialogue) and it should certainly be congruent with our understanding of the Bible, tradition and reason.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
And they say it's gay marriage that will split the church
quote:Are you trying to slaughter two dead horses at once?!
Ok.. so why do we have the OoW then?
quote:I take your point, which is a bit different to what I was talking about. It's only going to work in the wider context, though, if it is seen to be a distinctive thing rather than an opportunity for spending insane sums of money for a ceremony in a historic building. Quite what the nature of that distinctive thing might be is of course the locus of the debate within the church (and a dead horse so I won't go there).
...I'd say that as the institution of marriage falls out of favour with the general population, Christian marriage becomes increasingly *more* political.
quote:Firstly, I don't agree that it is a far bigger issue. But we have the ordination of women in the Church of England because we came to agree over the course of the 20th century (and it was raised as an issue many times in Lambeth Conferences, the Church Assembly, and other Anglican councils, before the General Synod actually addressed the issue) that it was a move that was consonant with our understanding of the Bible and tradition. I think we shot the bolt ecumenically, but nevertheless we did listen to ecumenical partners. And we decided to make pastoral arrangements and financial provisions for those who couldn't accept the changes.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Ok.. so why do we have the OoW then?
That was (and is) a far bigger issue- the only difference is, there are less gays than women so they're easier to oppress
quote:This story is all about a self-important Rector continuing to behave as though nobody else matters. Richard Chartres is almost universally accepted as having been overly tolerant of his outrageous behaviour over the years. (The instances are numerous). His latest act of defiance has been carried out under the auspices of being very pastoral. Any criticism of Dudley is seen as a criticism of pastoral care to gay couples...
Originally posted by aumbry:
In many ways the real story here could be about the Rector painting himself as the little man standing up on behalf of a persecuted minority against a big bullying bishop than about gay marriage.
Perhaps this has been done to strengthen his position and to stop the bishop from ousting him for other reasons.
Aumbry
quote:I don't want to name and shame but I reckon each city has at least one 'liberal' church that do these on a regular basis. (One had more blessings than heterosexual weddings in one year - demographics).
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:Leo, as you seem to be invited to more of these services/parties than +Pete, would you like to estimate:
Originally posted by leo:
There are quite a few bishops who have backed their clergy, provided they stay within the guidelines - but I ain't going to name them.
How many such civil partnership blessing services a year are taking place in total in the Church of England, and how many of them are reasonably public occasions, as opposed to essentially private blessings?
quote:Thank you for that. I always cherish pearls of wisdom from God`s anointed.
Perhaps Coiled Spring you sometimes appear perfectly normal at interviews. It can happen.
quote:I think that we had better be precise in defining a 'gay blessing'. At the one event of this nature I have atteneded the officiating priest was keen to point out that it wasn't a blessing of a civil partnership but a service of thanksgiving. This distinction will doubtless seem like hairsplitting to some but for those of us who have a more catholic understanding of the bonds of matrimony the celebrants are the couple and the relationship is blessed by the priest who also, in England at least, acts as registrar on behalf of the state. So wedding is basically a blessing, a service of thanksgiving is not quite the same thing. This took place in what is undoubtedly one of leo's Civic Centres of Liberal Excellence - the church concerned has been offering 'gay weddings' since the 1970s so clearly someone was attempting to reconcile their oath of canonical obedience with a conviction that Jesus Wants Us To Be Nice To Gay People. Those who hold that there is a place for gay people in the Church of England, but that it just hasn't been dug yet, will doubtless find the whole thing deplorable but on the basis of my admittedly anecdotal experience I would be chary of claiming that there is a wholesale 'gay blessing' industry.
The difference between gay blessings which are happening under the radar, and are essentially private events, was that the 'wedding' at St Bart's was 'political' and 'public'. The Church of England can put up with anomalies quite easily - there always have been priests who've behaved poorly and believed some extremely dotty things. The cost of discipline and the potential for scandal has meant that they are for the most part ignored and swept under the carpet. In other words, they have little or no impact on the position and teaching of the Church.
quote:I have some sympathy with this and Gildas' post. There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship (I had some correspondence with the late Alan Bray, at one point, and think we could build theologically on his research, rather than Boswell's). Politically, liberals could view this as a stepping stone, while I and many others would regard it as probably as far as the Church can go.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Beyond that, I'm more or less where I was before it started. Though the thought occurs that of all the options we have before us, what if the CofE has stumbled into a place that is, or is close, to being tenable. Which is to say theologically justifiable and pastorally sensitive. And yet which might now be an area that is uninhabitable? That would be the stuff of classic tragedy.
quote:In my darker moments I suspect that might turn out to be the epitaph of the Church of England!
Though the thought occurs that of all the options we have before us, what if the CofE has stumbled into a place that is, or is close, to being tenable. Which is to say theologically justifiable and pastorally sensitive. And yet which might now be an area that is uninhabitable? That would be the stuff of classic tragedy.
quote:But this is just what the anti-gay lobby have been resisting. That, and the pledge to 'listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people.'
Originally posted by Spawn:
There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship
quote:Well, fudge is just another term for compromise and I think it is often in the nature of compromise that the protagonists don't explicitly acknowledge that a deal has been struck but are merely too tired to keep the conflict going indefinitely and let the matter drop.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Please understand I'm not advocating it myself. And I would be the first to admit that it looks like a classic fudge. It was only a "what-if" sort of thing. I suppose my main interest is to see what responses it draws, because any solution will need to withstand similar critiquing.
But what about Spawn's suggestion? I suppose the hardliners will reject that too...
quote:Not at all. People have disagreed with the claim that homosexual relationships are on a par with marriage, with the ordination of practising homosexuals and with same sex blessings. I'm not aware that any of the liberal groupings have seriously proposed a theological debate around friendship. Certainly, neither of the 1997, or 2007 private member's motion debates which were put forward with full consultation with activist groups such as LGCM directed the Church towards a study of this. The approach has been all or nothing, and the placing of facts on the ground, the outing of clergy, the invasion of pulpits, accusations of homophobia rather than serious theological debate.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:But this is just what the anti-gay lobby have been resisting. That, and the pledge to 'listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people.'
Originally posted by Spawn:
There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship
quote:It might be fairer to say that there has been serious theological debate, or at least discussion, but that it has tended to be intra-liberal or intra-evangelical. I think that Synod, the pages of the Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper et. al. has been more about rallying the faithful and megaphone diplomacy than it has serious theological reflection. I think the St. Andrews Day statement was the one attempt to kick off a serious debate and that pretty much fizzled out.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Not at all. People have disagreed with the claim that homosexual relationships are on a par with marriage, with the ordination of practising homosexuals and with same sex blessings. I'm not aware that any of the liberal groupings have seriously proposed a theological debate around friendship. Certainly, neither of the 1997, or 2007 private member's motion debates which were put forward with full consultation with activist groups such as LGCM directed the Church towards a study of this. The approach has been all or nothing, and the placing of facts on the ground, the outing of clergy, the invasion of pulpits, accusations of homophobia rather than serious theological debate.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:But this is just what the anti-gay lobby have been resisting. That, and the pledge to 'listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people.'
Originally posted by Spawn:
There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship
The same, muatatis mutandis can be said of liberals of course. If we are serious about extricating ourselves from this impasse we are going to have to get beyond the glib assumption that conservatism = fundamentalism and liberalism = baptising the pieties of the Grauniad editorial page and actually engage with the real other and not the abominable strawmen in our heads.quote:The parallel with the OoW is not 'dodgy'. It is instructive on many levels.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I have some sympathy with this and Gildas' post. There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship (I had some correspondence with the late Alan Bray, at one point, and think we could build theologically on his research, rather than Boswell's). Politically, liberals could view this as a stepping stone, while I and many others would regard it as probably as far as the Church can go.
quote:And gay women are women. (Half the folk who flog this dead horse do seem to obsess about buggery.) But that is a different debate.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Similarly, the ordination of gay people is nowhere near as big an issue as the OoW: gay men are men.
quote:Exactly. And if one is strongly anti-gay, you're unlikely to know gay people -- or if you do, you won't realise that they are gay.
My hunch is simple: most people (even conservatives, fundamentalists and bigots) have wives and daughters and mothers and so on. The issue is hard to ignore. But it's easy to pretend gays don't exist. Because gays are a small minority, they make a convenient issue around which the conservatives can unite.
quote:Well, here you've put 'arguably'. So there it is. I think the parallel is dodgy and in my opinion, women's ordination is secondary because it is a matter of church order, whilst marriage and human sexuality are primary matters because they relate to doctrine and biblical authority.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
The parallel with the OoW is not 'dodgy'. It is instructive on many levels.
The OoW is arguably a much more important issue than blessing gay weddings.
quote:Well that's clearly not true, so what's the point in saying it.
If you can make the journey to ordain women, then the gay issue is a piece of cake.
quote:No I don't think the Philadelphia ordinations helped anyone. In fact, they were detrimental in that they set out a pattern of unilaterialism and canonical disobedience in the the US which is haunting them today.
You hold up the process that lead to the OoW as being the model to which we should conform the gay debate. Perhaps the CofE didn't indulge in illegal ordinations.. but do you not think that the 'illegal' ordinations in the US helped push the issue up the agenda? If something is believed to be right.. if the Spirit's in it, then it's difficult to put a lid on it. If the Windsor recommendations had existed 30 years ago we wouldn't have had the OoW.. we'd still be waiting.
quote:This is plainly ignorant. Biblical and traditional arguments convinced many of us on the ordination of women. Furthermore an appeal to reason, is not an automatic pass for the ordination of practising homosexuals and same sex blessings. Traditionalists argue from reason, as well.
So why is it that we have the OoW? Why is it that we've managed to use our reason to re-understand Scripture and Tradition for this issue, but not gays?
quote:Well thanks for sharing your hunch. Do you really think conservatives have just been waiting for the gay issue to come along so that they could unite? Frankly, I can't see much unity among conservatives so either it hasnt worked, or we're all in actual fact, just reacting to a cultural juggernaut which we find is coming straight towards us.
My hunch is simple: most people (even conservatives, fundamentalists and bigots) have wives and daughters and mothers and so on. The issue is hard to ignore. But it's easy to pretend gays don't exist. Because gays are a small minority, they make a convenient issue around which the conservatives can unite.
quote:
As for the Church of England, it increasingly resembles a sect interested only in itself, and obsessed with the single issue of homosexuality. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, may not have the power of the Pope, but unless he and his fellow bishops exercise some authority over wayward priests who flout its rules, our national Church will continue to fall apart. A good start would be to sack the Rev Martin Dudley for his insolent disobedience - but don't hold your breath.
quote:I find the use of the term 'anti-gay' misleading to say the least. Believing that Christians are called to chastity and marriage, is not anti-gay. Furthermore, some gay men and lesbians also take this view. I'll think you'll find few of the conservative theologans and church leaders in Britain and America involved in this debate who do not know gay and lesbian people personally. But it's easy to demonise so-called conservatives isn't it?
Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And if one is strongly anti-gay, you're unlikely to know gay people -- or if you do, you won't realise that they are gay.
quote:It made the national headlines because activists (from the liberal side of the divide) phoned Sunday newspaper journalists last week and leaked the story, and the liturgy. I know this because I know the journalists in question.
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
quote:No, I can't recall anything of that kind. I think the women involved in the campaign had a great deal of respect for the priesthood because many of them felt called to it. Silly stunts like that would have been a sign of disrespect for something they valued and also would have been detrimental, in precisely the way the St Bart's event has been.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
With the OoW issue, did they do the pretending thing I described earlier ? (Not sure of the church history on this.)
quote:Your last comment is an out and out misrepresentation of the facts. It shames me and all christians when a bishop of the church deliberate spreads falsehoods. Or, in the alternative, is so willfully ignorant of the facts, and so willing to let prejudice overtake judgement.
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - it clearly does. I am saying that it's not as widespread as LGCM like to pretend. Where it is known that priests might be contemplating such action, a clear explanation of the meaning of canonical obedience will usually suffice. There are, of course, those clergy who are so insufferably arrogant that they think they are beyond the law.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:Then, why did not Rowen -- to whom the question was asked publicly and specifically by the Primate of Canada, not deny the allegation? Why did he remain silent?
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I think you may have fallen under the spell of the propaganda. There aren't (a) authorised liturgies (important on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle); (b) many public services of blessing; (c) as many instances as folk would like to claim.
Failing a personal response from Rowen, why did not another representative of the CofE respond?
And, unless you know certainly that there are no such services, whether widely or not -- and Leo has said he has attended two so far this year -- why are bishops of all stripes (on this issue), from Southwark to Rochester, remaining in steely silence?
JOhn
Unlike the situation in Canada, where it's clearly an article of faith to make such liturgical provision...
quote:is a personal attack and so belongs in Hell. The same goes for anyone tempted to reply in that vein - take it to Hell, please or don't pursue it.
Your last comment is an out and out misrepresentation of the facts. It shames me and all christians when a bishop of the church deliberate spreads falsehoods. Or, in the alternative, is so willfully ignorant of the facts, and so willing to let prejudice overtake judgement.
quote:I used `strongly anti-gay' for a reason. Yes, it is possible to take a conservative line on this issue in a loving and compassionate manner. However, there is an awful lot of rhetoric from the conservative side that fails to recognise the humanity of gay and lesbian people and treats them as pariahs -- at the extreme end, witness the reports of the Nigerian bishop who said that `gays were not fit to live'. It is vitriolic comments like that which unfortunately tend to dominate the debate and cause a lot of hurt to gay and lesbian people, whether they are struggling to make sense of their sexuality and their faith or whether they've run a mile from the church because of what appears to be blanket condemnation of who they are. Gay and lesbian people are very much in the category of `sinners' in today's church with them being seen as polluting our purity -- but our Lord went about with the tax-collectors and sinners and upbraided the pharisees for their self-righteousness.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I find the use of the term 'anti-gay' misleading to say the least. Believing that Christians are called to chastity and marriage, is not anti-gay. Furthermore, some gay men and lesbians also take this view. I'll think you'll find few of the conservative theologans and church leaders in Britain and America involved in this debate who do not know gay and lesbian people personally. But it's easy to demonise so-called conservatives isn't it?
Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And if one is strongly anti-gay, you're unlikely to know gay people -- or if you do, you won't realise that they are gay.
quote:Thank you. So it wasn't the couple or the vicar involved? But `friends' of theirs? I'm not convinced it has helped, but I can understand the frustration at the hypocrisy on this issue and why people might feel that it is better to be open and honest about what is going on.
quote:It made the national headlines because activists (from the liberal side of the divide) phoned Sunday newspaper journalists last week and leaked the story, and the liturgy. I know this because I know the journalists in question.
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
quote:What a curious distinction.
Spawn said: Well, here you've put 'arguably'. So there it is. I think the parallel is dodgy and in my opinion, women's ordination is secondary because it is a matter of church order, whilst marriage and human sexuality are primary matters because they relate to doctrine and biblical authority
quote:You've evidently lived a sheltered life, if you think this is a curious distinction. I've expressed it in short hand, but it's a view commonly-held among evangelicals, which is why even conservative evangelicals who argue the headship line, have not passed the full panoply of resolutions, because they do not regard it as a communion-breaking issue.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
What a curious distinction.
How on earth can 'church order' *not* be about doctrine and biblical authority? It was to Calvin and Luther.. it is to Rome and Constantinople. It is to the CofE.
And if 'sexuality' *is* a first order issue, then it necessarily follows that the OoW is to.. gender and sexuality are intricately linked.
ISTM, that your distinction is a convenient one. It simply allows you to continue a prejudice
quote:This highlights the fact that Catholics and Evangelicals, whilst both being part of the Anglican Communion, argue from very different basic assumptions and this means that they talk past each fairly frequently.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
My life has been far from sheltered actually.
The distinction doesn't become less curious just because some conservative evangelicals maintain it.. my experience is that it's usually quite the opposite.
It' debates like this that remind me why I grew out of evangelicalism.
quote:A delightful example of how a gentleman or lady responds to an admonition. Thank you for the example, it was much needed given recent rantings.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Louise:
I accept your admonition, and am sorry that I lost my temper, and apologize for braking the commandment about personal attacks.
John
quote:I think that there are two problems here. The first is that these due processes are exactly the sorts of things that the Churches in the US and Canada have been engaging in, and the response has not been to debate with them - it has been to try to throw them out of the Communion. At the moment, effort is being spent shutting down debate, not facilitating it.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:No they don't. The problem is in the area of authority. By what authority do we Anglicans believe and do what we do? Gay 'marriage' may come to be agreed upon by the churches eventually, but this should be on the basis of theological, synodical agreement (with ecumenical understanding and dialogue) and it should certainly be congruent with our understanding of the Bible, tradition and reason.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
And they say it's gay marriage that will split the church
quote:If it was the case that the US and Canada have engaged in due process and had been open about that all the time, I don't think we'd be in quite the same mess we are now. It seems to me, that what has been done has been done partly by stealth, partly by placing facts on the ground, and without due regard for order or process.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think that there are two problems here. The first is that these due processes are exactly the sorts of things that the Churches in the US and Canada have been engaging in, and the response has not been to debate with them - it has been to try to throw them out of the Communion. At the moment, effort is being spent shutting down debate, not facilitating it.
quote:Yes, I think it's true to say that there is enough dishonety to go round on all sides in this current debate. That is not to say, I agree with all the coments you have made in this paragraph.
The second problem is that many 'liberals' are in no great mood to debate with many 'conservatives' - we've been lied to too often. Even those minor compromises made by conservative leaders have been ignored with impunity. Gay clergy not discriminated against if sexually abstinent? Nope. Lay members not required to be sexually abstinent? Nope. Gay and lesbian Christians listened to? Not a single voice involved in any stage of the Windsor Process, not a single solitary one. An end to boundary-crossing and 'sheep-stealing'? you must be joking!
quote:That's simply not true. The C of E permitted the ordination of women after 20 years of debate (which from the very first debate tackled the theological issues). It wasn't left up to individual parishes to decide, and I don't know where you get this impression. At most it could be said that it was left up to individual parishes to opt out by passing resolutions adopting extended oversight. But ordination of women could not be said to be a matter of local option.
Finally, the analogy with OoW - imperfect though it is - is still instructive. Specifically, it suggests that we'll probably have to wait another eighty years for anything to improve. Which hardly seems an attractive option. However, it is an instructive analogy in another way - at the end of all of the debate, the C. of E. simply decided that she didn't know whether women could be ordained or not, and leaves it up to individual parishes to decide. I think that this will probably end up as the only workable solution to this issue - let those churches which wish to have SSBs pass a resolution to let them do so, and leave them to get on with it.
quote:As would I. The suggestion seems almost to be that the whole thing was a huge publicity stunt set up by a media-crazed Rector of St Bartholemew the Great. Evidence (ie the length of time between the event and the fan being switched on) suggests otherwise. If I were Fr's Cowell and Lord, I would be scrutinising my list of 'friends' very closely!
Originally posted by Carys:
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
quote:The problem is that in the circles I move in, I hear people use your argument rather more than it is worth. A cheap way to dismiss people with Spawn's views is to say that they are naive and don't know any gay people. This doesn't actually deal with any of the points they put forward. It's also largely untrue. Is it too damaging to my friends (and you) to accept that rational people in full possession of the facts can still disagree? Can you only maintain your position by pretending you're the only informed people, rather than facing the issue head on?
Originally posted by Carys:
I used `strongly anti-gay' for a reason. Yes, it is possible to take a conservative line on this issue in a loving and compassionate manner. However, there is an awful lot of rhetoric from the conservative side that fails to recognise the humanity of gay and lesbian people and treats them as pariahs -- at the extreme end, witness the reports of the Nigerian bishop who said that `gays were not fit to live'.
quote:That's how American polity works - absence of a ban is the same thing as permission - and is another point that gets lost in cross-pond communication (witness ++Rowan's inflated estimation of the US bishops' power).
Originally posted by Spawn:
In the US, for example, there was no permissive resolution in General Covention ruling on the principle of ordaining practising homosexuals.
quote:Well that may be true, there's something wrong with the polity then, because it effectively precludes theological decision-making in the Church about theological issues.
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:That's how American polity works - absence of a ban is the same thing as permission - and is another point that gets lost in cross-pond communication (witness ++Rowan's inflated estimation of the US bishops' power).
Originally posted by Spawn:
In the US, for example, there was no permissive resolution in General Covention ruling on the principle of ordaining practising homosexuals.
quote:I hope I am not using it as a cheap argument and I do accept that rational people in full possession of the facts can still disagree. But is it too much to ask that the `compassionate conservatives' (for want of a better term) to distance themselves clearly from the hateful comments of some of those supposedly on their side?
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:The problem is that in the circles I move in, I hear people use your argument rather more than it is worth. A cheap way to dismiss people with Spawn's views is to say that they are naive and don't know any gay people. This doesn't actually deal with any of the points they put forward. It's also largely untrue. Is it too damaging to my friends (and you) to accept that rational people in full possession of the facts can still disagree? Can you only maintain your position by pretending you're the only informed people, rather than facing the issue head on?
Originally posted by Carys:
I used `strongly anti-gay' for a reason. Yes, it is possible to take a conservative line on this issue in a loving and compassionate manner. However, there is an awful lot of rhetoric from the conservative side that fails to recognise the humanity of gay and lesbian people and treats them as pariahs -- at the extreme end, witness the reports of the Nigerian bishop who said that `gays were not fit to live'.
quote:Nonsense. The difference is that the opponents of ordaining women think it is a theological issue. The opponents of acceptance of homosexual partnerships think it is a moral issue. So the whole basis of argument is different.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
so why do we have the OoW then?
That was (and is) a far bigger issue- the only difference is, there are less gays than women so they're easier to oppress
quote:There's a lot of truth in this post, of course. But surely all these issues are theological? You could quite easily say that that ordination of women was ecclesiological, which doesn't make it any less of a theological issue, and similarly, you can't straightforwardly separate ethics from theology.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Nonsense. The difference is that the opponents of ordaining women think it is a theological issue. The opponents of acceptance of homosexual partnerships think it is a moral issue. So the whole basis of argument is different.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
so why do we have the OoW then?
That was (and is) a far bigger issue- the only difference is, there are less gays than women so they're easier to oppress
quote:I find this an odd argument since it seems to presuppose that if we only all got on with it and had a proper discussion, there could only be one inevitable outcome: acceptance of gay relationships. The same applies to the question about whether Scripture and tradition really oppose women's ordination as if the goal of the debate is to get round bits of Scripture which are 'obviously' opposed to it. Surely the goal of the debate is to work out what Scripture actually says/the more authentic tradition actually is - something that can hardly be determined in advance!
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
I understand that the CofE has been engaged with the issue of the OoW for a long time- it had to be: the burden of proof has to lie with those who want change because there is so much in Scripture and Tradition that poses problems for the OoW.
It may be the same with the gay issue.. but I don't think it is. Scripture says a lot less about gay relationships than it does about women leading Christian communities.
quote:No, but it does mean that if many people see homosexuality as an ethical question, it means that it is possible to see one's opponents as behaving in an immoral manner. Those who didn't want women to be ordained may have thought their opponents confused and wrong-headed and maybe heretical, but immoral?
Originally posted by Spawn:
bquote:There's a lot of truth in this post, of course. But surely all these issues are theological? You could quite easily say that that ordination of women was ecclesiological, which doesn't make it any less of a theological issue, and similarly, you can't straightforwardly separate ethics from theology.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Nonsense. The difference is that the opponents of ordaining women think it is a theological issue. The opponents of acceptance of homosexual partnerships think it is a moral issue. So the whole basis of argument is different.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
so why do we have the OoW then?
That was (and is) a far bigger issue- the only difference is, there are less gays than women so they're easier to oppress
quote:I think that's where many of us are at. We're not going to go backwards. All the common objections have been refuted six ways to Sunday, and the rebuttals to those refutations are hardly satisfactory. (I have yet to encounter a conservative apologia of comparable sophistication to, say, Fr Haller's "Sex Articles). But people will continue to oppose it because they want to.
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:I find this an odd argument since it seems to presuppose that if we only all got on with it and had a proper discussion, there could only be one inevitable outcome: acceptance of gay relationships.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
I understand that the CofE has been engaged with the issue of the OoW for a long time- it had to be: the burden of proof has to lie with those who want change because there is so much in Scripture and Tradition that poses problems for the OoW.
It may be the same with the gay issue.. but I don't think it is. Scripture says a lot less about gay relationships than it does about women leading Christian communities.
quote:50 cities yes.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
leo - just as a matter of interest for me and no other reason -
- it depends I guess on what counts as a city, but say 50 cities in England, each having somewhere that does say 20 of these a year - i.e. 1000/yr in England? Does that sound reasonable?
quote:No. 'We' know that in wider society everyone and their dogs disagree with us. That is presumably one of the reasons why 'we' dig ourselves in so deeply: fear.
Originally posted by LQ:
I think that's where many of us are at. We're not going to go backwards. All the common objections have been refuted six ways to Sunday, and the rebuttals to those refutations are hardly satisfactory. (I have yet to encounter a conservative apologia of comparable sophistication to, say, Fr Haller's "Sex Articles). But people will continue to oppose it because they want to.
But I don't travel in "reasserter" circles. Do many people labour under the impression that there is going to be a dramatic turn-around?
quote:Actually, speaking for myself, I think something rather different. I find that the meagre Scriptural witness of the subject is unanimously "con." What I can't understand is why anyone would argue for that witness. (We don't, for instance, excommunicate insurance salespersons or court clerks). Who benefits if the traditional stance is vindicated? The authors of the Bible? A heavy cost for gay people then.
Originally posted by Sean D:
'You' think 'we' are just nasty homophobes and 'we' think 'you' are just cultural accommodators.
quote:If the happy couple with 200 witnesses needed to do it all behind closed doors, it beggars the question what are they afraid of. If they honestly believe what is happening then surely an open door policy should be in place and doors open with light coming in. Also what sort of church shuts it`s doors in this day and age.
In the year I am thinking of as the 'bumper' year, I attended a blessing complete with 'nuptial' mass with 200 congregation where the doors were locked after the bride and bride had entered - all very secretive.
quote:Well, God created everything, so its theology all the way down. But you know what I meant.
Originally posted by Spawn:
But surely all these issues are theological?
quote:As we're now in the Nags Derby I will say that whilst I haven't read Gagnon (despite Faithful Sheepdog's exhortations - suffice it to say the list of books I ought to read to complete my doctorate seems to grow longer as things move towards completion and when I finish the wretched thing I propose to settle down with the collected novels of David Peace), my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now. If this is the case then virtually every classical scholar I have read with a view on the subject is entirely mistaken. Given that, to put it politely, Gagnon appears to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet on the subject that doesn't really inspire me to add him to my collection of books I intend to get round to reading at some point. Quite simply I don't think that St. Paul was talking about permanent, faithful and stable gay relationships because such things were virtually unheard of in antiquity. If you can find an actual classical scholar who thinks differently, then let me know, but if I'm right his exhaustive scholarship has missed the elephant in the room.
In my circles it seems that exegetically and theologically the case for acceptance of gay relationships is actually quite weak and nobody has done the spade work necessary to refute scholars like Robert Gagnon whose exegetical case is (in my view) nigh on watertight (which is more than could be said for several of his other views). Having said that I have not read Haller's articles so I shall go and do so.
quote:Why would that be, if homosexuality is inherent? If being gay is like being straight, then one would expect the same need for monogamous relationships to exist in gay people in antiquity as well. Or does one question the need for monogamous relationships among straight people?
Originally posted by Gildas:
Quite simply I don't think that St. Paul was talking about permanent, faithful and stable gay relationships because such things were virtually unheard of in antiquity. If you can find an actual classical scholar who thinks differently, then let me know, but if I'm right his exhaustive scholarship has missed the elephant in the room.
quote:Well I have some pretty old fashioned views on usury actually. So I try to be consistent.
Originally posted by LQ:
Actually, speaking for myself, I think something rather different. I find that the meagre Scriptural witness of the subject is unanimously "con." What I can't understand is why anyone would argue for that witness. (We don't, for instance, excommunicate insurance salespersons or court clerks). Who benefits if the traditional stance is vindicated? The authors of the Bible? A heavy cost for gay people then.
quote:If this is out and out what he says then clearly he is dwelling at the top of the magic faraway tree. I would have to revisit it to check. My understanding though is that he is more nuanced than that and argues that something like homosexual orientation (perhaps better called 'preference') was understood by some writers e.g. Plato to affect some people (though not necessarily all people who enjoyed sex with people of the same sex), and that therefore it is plausible that Paul's comments in Romans 1 refer not only to the disordered character of same-sex sexual activity but also to same-sex sexual desire - which in turn is necessary to rebut the argument (Boswell's I think) that Paul only thought he was referring to straight people (because everyone is straight) who like a bit of same sex sex on the side.
Originally posted by Gildas:
my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now.
quote:According to my memory, he also attacks the theory that Paul was only referring to temple prostitution and pederasty citing texts which refer to adult homosexual relationships etc.
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:If this is out and out what he says then clearly he is dwelling at the top of the magic faraway tree. I would have to revisit it to check. My understanding though is that he is more nuanced than that and argues that something like homosexual orientation (perhaps better called 'preference') was understood by some writers e.g. Plato to affect some people (though not necessarily all people who enjoyed sex with people of the same sex), and that therefore it is plausible that Paul's comments in Romans 1 refer not only to the disordered character of same-sex sexual activity but also to same-sex sexual desire - which in turn is necessary to rebut the argument (Boswell's I think) that Paul only thought he was referring to straight people (because everyone is straight) who like a bit of same sex sex on the side.
Originally posted by Gildas:
my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now.
quote:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
quote:Have a look at this, from James Alison, if you're in the mood.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just checking, but am I correct in thinking that there are no prohibitions on lesbian relationships in the bible ? For example did Paul comment on it ?
quote:
Before actually reading the text I'd like to make two points as a build up. If any of us is faced with the following verse from Romans 1, it seems to have an obvious and clear meaning:
quote:A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: “This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.” Well, all I'd like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural... (Romans 1:26)
Now, my first point is this: irrespective of who is closer to the mark as to what St Paul was referring to, one thing is irrefutable: what modern readers claim to be “the obvious meaning of the text” was not obvious to Saint Augustine, who has for many centuries enjoyed the status of being a particularly authoritative reader of Scripture. Therefore there can be no claim that there has been an uninterrupted witness to the text being read as having to do with lesbianism. There hasn't. It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism. Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose “obvious meaning” was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.
quote:But if what they were doing was being blessed by God, why behind closed doors?
They locked the doors to keep out any newspaper reporters that might be lurking around and, thereby, to keep the priest out of trouble.
quote:You are aware that the early Churhc met in secret, yes?
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:But if what they were doing was being blessed by God, why behind closed doors?
They locked the doors to keep out any newspaper reporters that might be lurking around and, thereby, to keep the priest out of trouble.
Seems strange that if God was involved it is important to fling the doors wide allow light in.
quote:Gagnon is raving and obssessed with this issue.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:According to my memory, he also attacks the theory that Paul was only referring to temple prostitution and pederasty citing texts which refer to adult homosexual relationships etc.
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:If this is out and out what he says then clearly he is dwelling at the top of the magic faraway tree. I would have to revisit it to check. My understanding though is that he is more nuanced than that and argues that something like homosexual orientation (perhaps better called 'preference') was understood by some writers e.g. Plato to affect some people (though not necessarily all people who enjoyed sex with people of the same sex), and that therefore it is plausible that Paul's comments in Romans 1 refer not only to the disordered character of same-sex sexual activity but also to same-sex sexual desire - which in turn is necessary to rebut the argument (Boswell's I think) that Paul only thought he was referring to straight people (because everyone is straight) who like a bit of same sex sex on the side.
Originally posted by Gildas:
my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now.
quote:And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
Originally posted by §Andrew:
The fullness of the early Church, to hide from the ungodly and the persecutors. In the case we are discussing about here, it was not the fullness of the Church.
quote:History tells us that the early church was persecuted, todays persecution is different, but still there. As the law is on the side of gays and protects their rights, why close doors, let all come in if it is God`s will and join in the celebration. If God is going to bless what is happening, why not let the world witness?
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
quote:The persecution is indeed different, in that the modern persecutors are our fellow Christians, disturbingly enough. Nevertheless, I quite agree with you - the doors of church should always be open to the world, and it is great shame that so much furtiveness is forced onto people.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:History tells us that the early church was persecuted, todays persecution is different, but still there. As the law is on the side of gays and protects their rights, why close doors, let all come in if it is God`s will and join in the celebration. If God is going to bless what is happening, why not let the world witness?
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
Believe that doors are shut in man`s church because of the need to walk in darkness but God`s church should always be open.
quote:People are missing the point. It is the Church that has been persecuting gays.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:History tells us that the early church was persecuted, todays persecution is different, but still there. As the law is on the side of gays and protects their rights, why close doors, let all come in if it is God`s will and join in the celebration. If God is going to bless what is happening, why not let the world witness?
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
Believe that doors are shut in man`s church because of the need to walk in darkness but God`s church should always be open.
quote:Thank you for bringing up Boswell and his unearthing of rites for the "making of brothers." I don't have this book ready to hand, if I own it at all-- but if liturgies like this one at St. Bartholomew's were modeled after these highly traditional forms, rather than being a take-off on contemporary wedding ceremonies, those worried about how traditions are being broken by radical innovations would have a lot more trouble finding grounds for complaint-- and from the point of view of the couple, what would be lost?
Originally posted by Spawn:
(I had some correspondence with the late Alan Bray, at one point, and think we could build theologically on his research, rather than Boswell's). Politically, liberals could view this as a stepping stone, while I and many others would regard it as probably as far as the Church can go.
quote:I'm sure that would be the case. I can (and do) tell clergy that they can't do public services of blessing of gay relationships, but they do of course have complete pastoral discretion about whom they pray with and to whom they give godly counsel in their role as a parish priest. Locking the doors is of course completely contrary to Anglican practice if a service is being held.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Leo and others,
I wonder if locked doors may just have something to do with the canonical requirements regarding 'conduct of public prayer' by those enjoying a Bishop's Licence?
Locked doors = private
ergo not public and Canon B5 does not apply.
quote:This page contains a translation of an 11th century liturgy - I believe it is lifted from Boswell. I am not sure I am convinced it was ever meant to consecrate a sexual relationship - but it would be ideal for two people consecrating a relationship in which they intended to remain celibate.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Thank you for bringing up Boswell and his unearthing of rites for the "making of brothers." I don't have this book ready to hand, if I own it at all-- but if liturgies like this one at St. Bartholomew's were modeled after these highly traditional forms, rather than being a take-off on contemporary wedding ceremonies, those worried about how traditions are being broken by radical innovations would have a lot more trouble finding grounds for complaint-- and from the point of view of the couple, what would be lost?
These were most prevalent in eastern orthodoxy (which is nothing if not traditional).
Of course, it may be that these old rites themselves used language comparable to those for matrimony (which is why I'd like to review the texts that Boswell presented).
quote:No one needs to be convinced that it was meant that way. It is there for what it is worth. When and why has is it become necessary to interrogate a couple about their behavior in private? The church developed and used this rite because it served a need expressed very early in the Bible: "It is not good for the man to be alone." Has this need disappeared? Obviously not.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am not sure I am convinced it was ever meant to consecrate a sexual relationship - but it would be ideal for two people consecrating a relationship in which they intended to remain celibate.
quote:Does this mean there a chance that an Anglican clergy person living in sin and having sex without being married.
these services can be legal provided they aren't called 'Blessings'.
quote:Richard Hooker in the 1570s?
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Anybody remember the Hookers for Christ who did a grand tour of UK in the 70`s.
quote:And which liturgy was that? the one used by OLJC at Cana (seem to have mislaid my copy, perhaps Our Lady ran off with it and misplaced it)...
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I find the use of the wedding liturgy in this ceremony to be close to sacriligous.
quote:Indeed and I'm quite sure the pope thought the same thing about Abp Cranmer's liturgy.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
A person can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong.
quote:Chartres cannot suspend him in law unless he defrocks him first - he cannot do that because what he did was within the bishops' guidelines - too late tonight but I can quote you chapter and verse if you like.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As someone who, au contraire to many here, believes same-sex relationships to be wrong, I find the use of the wedding liturgy in this ceremony to be close to sacriligous. I think at the very least +Richard should suspend Dudley's licence.
quote:Well he didn't win the Stonewall 'Hero of the Year' award (the winner was Gene Robinson) but according to Stonewall's report, he did attend the award ceremony.
Originally posted by leo:
Yes, but Dudley has been nominated for an award by Stonewall and it will be interesting to see if he turns up to accepts it.
quote:Affirmative.
Originally posted by Amiyah:
Is that a photo of Dudley with Gene Robinson at the bottom of the report??
quote:He also denied that there had been any discussion with the Bishop of London or any of his representatives.
I did not issue “a statement of apology to the Bishop of London”; I sent him a letter of regret on 21 July, drafted in consultation with my lawyers, to which he replied on 15 September requesting that it should be made public.
MARTIN DUDLEY
quote:But blessing a submarine is not quite the same as blessing a nuclear weapon; it's more akin to blessing a Royal Navy ship ie: asking for God's protection on those who serve in her. With that I have no problem, particularly given the fact that we have quite a few naval personnel within our congregation, and I'd quite like to have the Bishop's (or at least the vicar's) blessing on them when they go to sea.
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
Apparently Frank Chee Whiletto is prepared to bless a nuclear weapon...
The Bishop of Carlisle defends here why he blessed a nuclear submarine.
Such submarines carry nuclear weapons, it should be recalled.
quote:The Bishop's justification:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
The Bishop of Carlisle defends here why he blessed a nuclear submarine.
quote:could be used by Fr Dudley in defence of his blessing service, simply by re-writing as follows:
I met the crew, and intend to pray for them, to keep in touch with them, and, if possible, to go to sea with them. Work in defence and the armed services brings significant moral challenges. Some Christians would rather keep a safe distance from the whole area. But, in gratitude to those who have the courage to be involved with this kind of work, and as a bishop for the whole community, I have been glad to offer support and encouragement.
quote:It is bizarre that the Bishop of Carlisle thinks that the 'moral challenges' of being gay are greater than those of serving in the armed forces.
I met the couple, and intend to pray for them, to keep in touch with them, and, if possible, to spend time with them socially. Living together in a same-sex partnership. brings significant moral challenges. Some Christians would rather keep a safe distance from the whole area. But, in gratitude to those who have the courage to be involved with this kind of work, and as priest for the whole community, I have been glad to offer support and encouragement.
quote:The real problem is that we all face "moral challenges" but we choose to ignore.
It is bizarre that the Bishop of Carlisle thinks that the 'moral challenges' of being gay are greater than those of serving in the armed forces.
