The Supreme Court’s ruling broadens the legal definition of marriage beyond that which is currently stated in the Canons of the Church or the Prayer Book which contains our authorized services. Further, the Prayer Book requires compliance with both the laws of the State and the canons of the Church. But the Church’s definition of the sacrament of marriage and the state’s definition of the legal form of marriage now differ. In spite of the good intentions many may have, I am unable to permit Episcopal clergy to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Couples wishing prayers and a blessing therefore must go first to the state to be married or a priest may ask a state official to provide for the vows and the signing of the license.
Prayers and the seeking of blessing with the receiving and witnessing of the couple in the company of the people of God are a pastoral decision at the parochial level in the Episcopal Diocese of Iowa. That was the situation before the possibility of marriage, and remains in practice now. What is now clear is that the Church is discussing the nature of the sacrament, not civil rights. The Court has provided us with a definitive debate. While that debate continues, some will enjoy a new freedom for which I am grateful and rejoice.
As an Episcopal bishop I honor the fact that the title of the ruling names an Episcopal couple. I know many Episcopal clergy and baptized who have worked and prayed to see this day. I also know that I am the bishop of the whole Diocese in a global Communion as well as a Catholic Church, and we are not of one mind on this issue. It ought to be no surprise that I desire the Church to find the will and way to move forward beyond our focus on this disagreement to the more fundamental mission of God which we share. What we can hope for is to witness God’s power to reconcile, even in our differences.
“As an Episcopal bishop I honor the fact that the title of the ruling names an Episcopal couple.”
What the tartaros does that mean? ‘honor’? Do none of these bishops understand simple English? You don’t ‘honor’ facts: you accept or dispute the truth of a statement. If he means ‘I am pleased that two homosexual Episcopalians pushed this case’, he should say so.
[blockquote]I also know that I am the bishop of the whole Diocese in a global Communion as well as a Catholic Church, and we are not of one mind on this issue.[/blockquote]
Um. The Church Catholic IS of one mind on the issue. If you’re of a different mind, guess what? You’re now outside the Church Catholic!
On the whole, this appears a promising development and I suppose we should look for hopeful signs where we can find them. The good bishop recognizes that the Church’s doctrines are unaffected by state court decisions and that he does not have authority on his own either to ignore or rewrite the prayerbook. I do not understand why he holds his simplistic-sounding political position, and certainly hope that some day he can come to a more thoughtful one, not to mention developing more careful theological, anthropological, and ecclesiastical thinking than he displays here. Still, his modest willingness to defer to current Church teaching, while minimal, is a hopeful sign of the possibility of humility in the Progressive wing of Anglicanism. If more Progressive TEC bishops will prove willing to exercise even this clearly minimal level of restraint, TEC may have a chance to survive their eventual passing from the scene. They may not do as much damage as they might otherwise and a recognizably Christian Anglican Church may survive the current Progressive assault. I should like to think that pressure from traditional Christians has been some help here. The pulse is faint but the patient is perhaps not dead yet. Optimism, however, is, as always, uncalled for. But one may dare to hope.
I don’t know, Daniel. The bishop recognizes the (in his view) calcified doctrines of his organization and that he has no authority to change them, then goes on to cheerlead for a “blessing” of sinful behavior. It’s six of one, half dozen of another.
—
Not only that, Chris Molter – but, “a” Catholic Church? I had always been taught there was only one.
Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
I have been ordained in Iowa for 9 years, and known Bishop Scarfe since he came to the diocese in 2003. Let me say that I respect him as a brother in Christ. He has been very fair to the orthodox minority here in the diocese, and I believe is sincere in his belief that sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is “job one” for the Christian.
We part ways, however, on this issue. I am sorry to say that I don’t understand why he has taken this position, given that he has allowed same-sex blessings in the diocese, and ordained non-celibate, unmarried individuals (same-sex partnered) to the diaconate and priesthood. Are these also not issues on which the Catholic Church [sic] is not of one mind?
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
Durant, Iowa
While I can see no compelling reason to prevent two people (who are legally competent to make any other contract) from making a civil marriage contract, I wonder why Mr Scarfe considers an extensive personal comment on the event to be either necessary or even helpful for the mission of his organization.
[blockquote]Not only that, Chris Molter – but, “a†Catholic Church? I had always been taught there was only one. [/blockquote]
I suppose we could say the Church Catholic is not of one mind on the issue 😉
(In all seriousness, yes, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic! …in 23 sui juris rites no less!)
I wonder why a bishop would appeal to a man-made document (the BCP) when denying his pastors the right to sign same-sex marriage documents when the God-inspired document is so readily at hand . . .
I also have had conversations with Bishop Scarfe and believe him to be a man who comes across as someone who feels your pain but when pressured to give clarity on his terminology, then resorts to episcobabble. He strikes me as a guy who wants to be everyone’s friend but in the end is very transparent and is clearly a company man for TEC. He was brought to Iowa by a liberal majority, and he knows his base.
He also seems to have different standards for non-celibate partnered heterosexuals, especially those contemplating Holy Orders. Bishop—you can’t have it both ways! I thank the Lord I made the decision to leave the Iowa Diocese and TEC. No regrets.
The good bishop is of a mind apparently that “all will be well” if we just jettison orthodox Christian morality and disregard any interest in or commitment to something called Truth. Although I can hear the Pontius Pilate groans now: “Truth! What is truth?” How about the historical truth that any church or society that thinks there can be such an abomination as “same-sex” marriage is on the way to decay, self-destruction, and history’s rubbish heap. The only hope is that God will raise up prophets who will uncompromisingly teach and preach genuine Christian Truth and not a perverted, worldly corrupted version of it.
One sees here why TEC “bishops” are not bishops to the whole Anglican Communion much less the Church Catholic. As if there needed to be any more evidence……..