Episcopal bishops in New England and Iowa, the only parts of the nation where same-sex marriage is legal, are preparing for a wave of requests to allow priests to oversee the ceremonies as the result of a decision last week by the Episcopal Church that opens the door to church weddings for gay couples.
In interviews yesterday, none of several bishops interviewed said they were immediately prepared to allow priests to officiate at same-sex weddings, which remain prohibited by the canons of the Episcopal Church.
But, citing the denomination’s decision Friday to allow bishops in states where same-sex marriage is legal to “provide generous pastoral response’’ to same-sex couples, the bishops indicated that they are looking for ways to allow priests to at least celebrate, if not perform, gay nuptials in church.
“The problem is the prayer book says that marriage must conform to the laws of the state and the canons of the church, but if we respond to the laws of the state, we are in violation of the canons of the church,’’ said Bishop Stephen T. Lane of Maine, where the situation is further complicated by a possible referendum to overturn same-sex marriage. “We’re trying to respond pastorally, but not to get so far beyond the bounds of what the church understands that our clergy are just sort of hanging out there.’’
“What utter nonsense….–KSH”
=================================================
If the ‘revisionists’ have lifted a page from the play book of radical socialism, it isn’t “utter nonsense.”
One of the operating rules of radical socialism has to do with its concept of morality/ethics. Basically, to paraphrase, “Whatever advances the revolution is moral.” and “Whatever impedes the revolution is immoral.”
Therefore, ‘if’ the revisionists are using that play book, then dishonestly inconsistent behavior/lying is moral/ethical if it advances the cause.
Yes, Kendall, what utter nonsense. I am with you.
Do you think that the ABC can get “horse’, “barn door”, “closing”, and “after the escape” in the right sequence? Or would he do better with “train”, “station”, and “has left”? How about the words, “Episcopalian”,
“sect”, “no longer Anglican”, and “Christian”?
Calling this horrid, putrescent mess utter nonsense is putting it rather charitably, is it not?
What it is is [i]Episcopalianism[/i], a word I first heard from Christopher Johnson of MCJ fame.