|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay clergy wedding at St Bart's, London
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
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.
A bit over the top, perhaps, but not nearly as grotesque as many a wedding I've been to.
Unity candles....<shudder>
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
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'.
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:
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.
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.
This is nonsense.
Timing factors will be governed by trying to fit into the sequence of family events, school schedules, bank holidays, etc. but hardly church conferences regardless of magnitude.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Not being an Anglican I've got no dog in this fight. I was merely trying to give an outsiders opinion.
quote:
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?
I'd say the same about any pair of priests, but especially this pair because of their high profile positions.
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I certainly didn't consult the calendar for major international events when holding my wedding.
Are you a Priest though?
Some friends inconveniently book weddings for FA Cup Final day. If they don't care for football then I'm hardly surprised ... if they were a professional footie player it would be different.
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.
[ 17. June 2008, 12:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
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).
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.
2. Westminster Abbey and Barts Hospital. These are national treasures, the former a royal church opposite our Parliament (founded in 616), the latter an ancient teaching hospital (founded in 1123). Magnifies point 1. Not just run of the mill parish vicars in Little Stowe on the Wold.
3. Lambeth Conference. An international priest couple blessing (Lord was from NZ) just before the Conference gives it an international interest (instead of a purely diocesan or national one).
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
Are you a Priest though?
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.
quote:
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.
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.
It changes things not one iota that this one ceremony was in a fancy church in London a few weeks before Lambeth in contrast to the many such ceremonies performed in the C of E each year.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
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
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?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
what data do you have to support your belief that most people hate gay people despite saying the precise opposite when they're asked?
As that is such a complete farrago of distortions of what I said I am not bothering to reply.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Okay, you're quite right, that was too strong of me. Nevertheless, you maintain that the great majority of people (especially 'ordinary families') do not approve of gay marriage*. In surveys, the majority say that, actually, they do. You maintain that this is because of some form of distortion introduced by the process of being surveyed. What evidence do you have for this?
*note that this is actualy marriage - not mere civil partnership.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Since when has a priest had a position that could be seriously called high profile in a national sense?
Did you not read Freejack's post?
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
You maintain that this is because of some form of distortion introduced by the process of being surveyed
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.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachpsalms
Shipmate
# 4979
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"You willing to die for that belief?"
"I am. 'Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
Posts: 826 | From: a hamster's cheek-pouch full of raisins | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
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
They are unlikely to attend church Full Stop.
I don't think that the celebration of 'gay weddings' put people off more than, say, the general sense of irrelevance
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachpsalms
Shipmate
# 4979
|
Posted
In our denomination's polling, we found that among non-faith-affiliated Canadians aged 30-45 a gay-positive stance was important to them in a faith community.
--------------------
"You willing to die for that belief?"
"I am. 'Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
Posts: 826 | From: a hamster's cheek-pouch full of raisins | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolita
Apprentice
# 13238
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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...
Posts: 11 | From: Brussels | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
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?
I am sorry but it is you that is out of touch on that one.
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
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.
Those churches which are most vocally opposed to SSM are the "Reform/Anglican Mainstream (sic)" types. Associated with this are many large-ish churches (St Helen's, Bishopgate, St Ebbes, Oxford, STAG, Cambridge) often in cities with large student populations, but they are not, in general, seeing the kind of conversion-growth experienced by Pentecostal/Charismatic churches.
This suggests, to me, that there are other dynamics at work than a desire for "traditional family values".
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
ordinary families will no longer go near many anglican churches as they see them as the ecclesiatical equivalents of transvestite piano bars
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.
Families like that sorta stuff. Danny La Rue was always a big hit in my family.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
quote:
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.
That is awesome and so touching.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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.
[ 17. June 2008, 14:38: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
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
You mean, you think people are more likely to attend churches if they disagree with their teachings? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Now I'm completely baffled.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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!"?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
You mean, you think people are more likely to attend churches if they disagree with their teachings? Now I'm completely baffled.
Well you would be baffled if I had said what you construed.
Aumbry
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Gildas - Nah - they were probably seized by existential angst, brought on by the reading from Jean-Paul Sartre.
[ 17. June 2008, 14:54: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I have changed my view on this after being harrangued by my group of 20-somethings who meet with me on Monday nights. one of them told me of a priest-friend in another diocese who argues that the current guidelines from the house of Bishops gives considerable leeway for 'pastoral considerations'.
Following this quasi-wedding, the bishops will have to be seen to be doing something, to stop Lambeth completely falling apart, so they will come down like a ton of bricks and the existing loopholes will make it harder, if not impossible, for clergy to plead 'pastoral need'.
In other words, this high-profile event will mean that there will be no more low-profile ones.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
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? Now I'm completely baffled.
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.
However, prevailing cultural norms, and demographics have nothing to do with what sort of theological attitude the Church should take to any issue. Sometimes churches are called to be countercultural. The appeal to culture has nothing to do with whether St Barts should have offered a service of blessing - either the naive utopianism of a progressive, inclusive culture, or the tragedy of an intolerant, homphobic one.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
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.
And I am sure that they are extremely grateful for your imprimatur! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
The BBC News appeared to show a snippet of video made of this momentious event in Anglican history. If there is a recording of complete service this might help the two primateys of Canterbury and York get to the bottom of this matter.
The quality looked quite good, much better then your average church wedding video.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.
And what will be the loss of liberty for those that do?
Diocesan PTO is a liberty to be lost...
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
++Rowan may have great integrity; I'm not always sure about his common sense, or his understanding of the gospel. Let's hope in this case he manages.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
It seems to me that the church continues to confuse its requirements to deal sensitively with "unconventional" relationships on a pastoral level, with its requiremets to uphold the Christian faith in its public role. I am a remarried divorcee. The church has nurtred my faith, admitted me to communion etc, which is what I hope of it. But I have broken the rules of the Christian religion. One marriage, indissoluble for life. I would not expect the church to bend itself out of shape for me, only that it would accept that none of us is perfect, and treat me as a penitent.
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. The church should never turn away gay people seeking a relationship with God any more than it should divorcees. But to make a ceremony based on the Prayer Book is to ignore all the church stands for. A marriage in church should be once only between one man and one woman. All else is against the teachings of the Christian Church.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I don't suppose it would do to inquire as to which Christian Church you are referring to, PaulTH?
[ 17. June 2008, 22:26: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
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.
perpetrators?
Extraordinary choice of words. However, I wonder if perhaps the overall effect has been to radicalize the discourse. What I mean is, for example, that several people on this thread have commented (roughly) that "if only it was a blessing, not a 'mock' wedding, then it would have been OK".
Before this happened, I wonder how many would have choked at the blessing.
The argument is moving. How could it have been moved in silence?
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Quite. Paul is relying on that equivocation. There is no teaching of "the Christian Church" on homosexuality.
[ 17. June 2008, 23:28: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
They are happy to reaffirm the standard -- and I can't say I blame them at all -- but equally happy to ignore (except in this one case) the practice of much of the CofE in ignoring the standard.
JOhn
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
lex orandi, lex credendi principle
Sorry Pete, but being uneducated in strange tongues what does "lex orandi, lex credendi principle" mean.
Having been told on a number of occasions that it does not matter what I do by clergy, there is no need to repent. It appears the teaching is that because God loves me so much He will forgive me and I will not spend eternity burning in Hell. If this is current Anglican policy so no judgement there then.
It would be strange if the three clergy get a stern bollocking over this matter yet others are ignored. Were Jeffery John and Grant told not to be naughty boys again and has the church recognised the service which took place at St Albans when man`s law recognises what they have done. A bit of honesty as to what the service was all about might be useful, instead of moving the goal posts by describing the service differently as the wind blows. Was it a blessing or marriage or a celebration?
Considering how many gay clergy (male and female) live with their partners in vicarages openly. Why are they not allowed to formalise their relationship.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
[typo]
[ 18. June 2008, 08:05: Message edited by: Hermeneut ]
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I'd be wary of basing theology on what English law may, or may not, say.
Afterall, until the 19th Century, being RC was frowned upon, too
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I don't think that many evangelical vicars will actually be calling for them to be sacked. That would set a bit of a precedent.
We have two incumbents in the Diocese, who arranged an occasional office for genuine pastoral reasons, presumably with the implied support of the local congregation and PCC, who are facing the potential loss of their freehold positions under media pressure and from outside the Diocese. The only substantial offence is use of liturgy not authorised by Canon which is departing from the doctrine of the Church of England.
There's plenty of evangelical vicars who use liturgy not authorised by Canon and if the doctrine of the CofE is determined by the House of Bishops in a media storm then sooner or later they too would be at risk.
We don't really want AffCath v Reform tit-for-tat liturgy wars.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
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]
Nonsense. This is at least as valuable as anything posted here.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Since when has a priest had a position that could be seriously called high profile in a national sense?
Did you not read Freejack's post?
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.
How many outside the parish could have named the incumbent of Great St. Barts prior to this story? Now divide that number by the population outside that parish. High profile - it is to laugh.
Now folks may counter that some of these people are better known within the church. But what does that mean in the Established C of E?
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.
Lambeth this year is quite apparently NOT all about this issue, much to the dismay of the GAFCON folks.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
