|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay clergy wedding at St Bart's, London
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
They locked the doors to keep out any newspaper reporters that might be lurking around and, thereby, to keep the priest out of trouble.
But if what they were doing was being blessed by God, why behind closed doors?
Seems strange that if God was involved it is important to fling the doors wide allow light in.
You are aware that the early Churhc met in secret, yes?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Gagnon is raving and obssessed with this issue.
Much as I would like Boswell to be an ally, it has to be said that much of his scolarship has been seriously discreditied by people more qualified that he.
On lesbians, Romans 1 was thought to refer to adulterers by many early church commentators.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
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.
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
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?
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
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?
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.
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.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
To return to topic for moment - this isn't really about whether same-sex couples should be wed is it ?
It is more;
a) was it or was it not intended to be a wedding sacrament ?
a1) if it wasn't, then why frame it so closely on the wedding liturgy so close to a major conference ? was it intended to rise public discussion ?
a2) it it was, has it helped or hindered the debate ?
b) are high profile blessings a good way to advance the debate ?
c) in what circumstances is it acceptable to deliberately, circumvent and/or contravene the current teachings of the church ?
d) were these the circumstances the presiding priest found himself in ?
e) is a promise to worship someone with your body consistent with vowed celibacy ?
f) what would constitute a measured response displaying integrity on the part of the British and wider Anglican communion ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachpsalms
Shipmate
# 4979
|
Posted
The law - in some countries - may well be on our side, but a culture of discrimination lingers, as evidenced by the reality that many gay and lesbian folks still lead closeted or semi-closeted lives. Furthermore, we see anti-gay protesters at funerals, showing a horrific lack of basic decency.
When Ontario's first high profile same sex weddings were performed, the presiding minister wore a bullet proof vest.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I know this - and at this time I can not marry either in my country or in my church. It doesn't really get us further with points a to f though.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
And you know this how? Why should the fullness of the Church not be present at such meetings?
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?
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.
People are missing the point. It is the Church that has been persecuting gays.
--------------------
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
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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). But in any case, they are facts of history. As such, they are not on trial so much as anyone today who would want to jump to voyeuristic conclusions as to their significance-- whether used then or used now.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
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).
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.
You need to scroll down to get to the liturgy, the article it is embedded in suggests the rite grew up to replace blood-brotherhood ceremonies which seems quite likely to me.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
My point was, it maybe appropriate for a platonic relationship - but not if you seek blessing for a sexual relationship, such as a civil partnership.
It may not be something we enquire after on a regular basis, but civil partnership / wedding presumes a sexual relationship, whilst currently the Church of England presumes that its gay priests will be celibate.
In general I think it is a bad idea to make promises you don't intend to keep.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
Am getting very curious about if the banns were read if in fact the event was a wedding. Does anybody know if this happened.
If the banns were not read can this event be considered a wedding.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
these services can be legal provided they aren't called 'Blessings'.
Does this mean there a chance that an Anglican clergy person living in sin and having sex without being married.
I am shocked if this is the case. What sort of authority does the Church of England have if this sort of behaviour is going on within it`s ranks.
I am having to retire to a darkened room with a cup of Horlicks as the brain hurts just thinking about what is happening in God`s church. Is the Anglican church still God`s church?
Has anybody every read Alec Buchanan`s prophecy made in 1975 concerning harlots in the church.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
From “1980 Year of Decision” which was delivered 10 after the writing in the sky over Tomban
5: As I look into my church for a bride fair and chaste, even there is harlotry and sin and every form of discipline.
As to what the harlots charge, the chances are that we have already paid the price. Trouble is some have already sold out and are the harlots without knowing
Anybody remember the Hookers for Christ who did a grand tour of UK in the 70`s.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Anybody remember the Hookers for Christ who did a grand tour of UK in the 70`s.
Richard Hooker in the 1570s?
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
Hookers for Christ were a bunch of young ladies from the colonies on the western shores of the Atlantic in the 70`s.
Their style seemed to be to entrice innocent young men to where they lived for an evening pleasure which was in fact bible bashing.
Was considered a prick tease for Christ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I find the use of the wedding liturgy in this ceremony to be close to sacriligous.
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)...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The BCP.
Would you make the same point (the one I think you're making) if it was the Catholic or Orthodox wedding liturgy being (ab)used in that way?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
What I'm suggesting is that it was not necessarily sacrilegious if the intent was to do something holy.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
A person can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
A person can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong.
Indeed and I'm quite sure the pope thought the same thing about Abp Cranmer's liturgy.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
That example is not quite on all fours, is it?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
As for 'sacrilege' I'd put many further up thee queue for that - those who bless nuclear weapons, for example.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You have no quarrel from me on that last point.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Surely Chartres can suspend his diocesan PTO without defrocking him?
The Mail on Sunday have done a smear article on David Lord, who was previously looking the most innocent of the parties involved.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
IT`S ranks?!?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
Who blesses nuclear weapons?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amiyah
Shipmate
# 11989
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/media/current_releases/2435.asp?dm_i=427575907
PS Is that a photo of Dudley with Gene Robinson at the bottom of the report??
[ 07. November 2008, 15:08: Message edited by: Amiyah ]
--------------------
Previously called MirrorMouse
Posts: 120 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amiyah:
Is that a photo of Dudley with Gene Robinson at the bottom of the report??
Affirmative.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766
|
Posted
Dr Dudley did not apologise. From the Church Times 7th November
quote:
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
He also denied that there had been any discussion with the Bishop of London or any of his representatives.
--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe
Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Audrey Ely:
The Bishop of Carlisle defends here why he blessed a nuclear submarine.
The Bishop's justification:
quote:
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.
could be used by Fr Dudley in defence of his blessing service, simply by re-writing as follows:
quote:
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.
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.
[ 11. November 2008, 20:30: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
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.
The real problem is that we all face "moral challenges" but we choose to ignore.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
