Ship of Fools: Same-sex marriage and the Anglican Church of Canada

Thread: Same-sex marriage and the Anglican Church of Canada Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030836

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

Caissa posted the following on the Canadian thread in All Saints, but it really belongs here in Dead Horses:

The Anglican Dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal are going to move ahead with same-sex marriages.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/anglican-diocese-ottawa-same-sex-marriage-1.3673521

Piglet, AS host

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

And....that's no longer necessary because the ACof Canada just did a recount and the item has now passed.

[ 12. July 2016, 20:39: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Isn't there a phrase about an alcoholic celebration in a house of brewing?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

It should also be noted that a change to the canon requires votes in two successive General Synods, so it won't be (in theory) effective until 2019. Others have commented that at least two bishops were going ahead, even when they thought that the motion had been defeated.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I understand that the Chancellor has opined that there is nothing in the marriage canon as written that precludes same-sex marriages from taking place in the ACC.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
And....that's no longer necessary because the ACof Canada just did a recount and the item has now passed.

Sort of - +Ottawa and +Toronto at least have indicated that even with the corrected result, they will put things into motion now, and not wait for 2020.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I understand that the Chancellor has opined that there is nothing in the marriage canon as written that precludes same-sex marriages from taking place in the ACC.

I read the Chancellor's statement and am puzzled as to his thinking. I don't know where the Chancellor got this from-- he may not have read Canon XXI carefully; in the preface, which is directive in intent, there are two specific references to husband and wife. As well, the marriage rite itself (p. 564) in the BCP, which remains the authoritative standard of doctrine and practice, also refers to man and woman.

This is why amendments to Canon XXI were required-- if there had been nothing in the canon precluding same-sex marriage, then they could have left it alone and just done a mind-of-the-synod motion, needing just the support of one synod vote, and not two successive synods.

[ 13. July 2016, 17:49: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

So does this mean that the Canadian Anglican Church is due a visit by African Primates or are they already being pushed aside?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So does this mean that the Canadian Anglican Church is due a visit by African Primates or are they already being pushed aside?

I think ACNA is already stomping around Canada so GAFCON are fully prepared to start pretending that the Anglican Church in Canada isn't Anglican.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

What is more relevant than ACNA's stomping around-- a topic on which I have become far more versed that I like after their Ottawa antics-- is how the two-three Arctic aboriginal-majority dioceses respond. The Bishop of the Yukon left Synod complaining about how the dissenting minority was treated and I know that at least one of the Arctic bishops is most unhappy. I hear varying opinions about how the near-Arctic aboriginal-heavy dioceses are responding.

Those outside Canada might not be aware that Canadian dioceses retain a high degree of autonomy and that, generally, national canons do not apply unless accepted by dioceses.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The comments from Abp Fred Hiltz re bullying during the synod make me want to know more: who, what about - is it this?

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

A very informative article on the man who, before the vote was taken, invoked a clause to require a recorded vote. Without this, the motion would have remained defeated.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/egan-how-a-gay-ottawa-anglican-got-the-same-sex-marriage-vote-overturned/

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Apart from Susie Leafe, who were the other members of GS who refused to take-part in the Shared Conversations sessions?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
A very informative article on the man who, before the vote was taken, invoked a clause to require a recorded vote. Without this, the motion would have remained defeated.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/egan-how-a-gay-ottawa-anglican-got-the-same-sex-marriage-vote-overturned/

How sad the comments underneath, and how ignorant some are. I think there is one reference in the Bible to the destruction of Sodom being for men wanting to rape angels, and the rest are about the breach of the laws of hospitality. (I may not have the education in the Bible that some here do, but I bothered to read it for myself on this subject.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0