Among the questions that have arisen are: What does the approved motion stating that “the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada” mean? Can clergy and dioceses now conduct same-sex blessings? Some bishops have issued pastoral letters asking clergy not to conduct same-sex blessings — can priests be disciplined if they ignore this directive? How can clergy be disciplined if General Synod already declared that same-sex blessings are “not in conflict” with the core doctrine of the church? What does the defeat of the motion affirming the authority of dioceses to offer same-sex blessings mean?
And, for the Diocese of New Westminster, which approved such blessings in 2002: Do the decisions mean an end to the moratorium on blessings? (In response to the House of Bishops’ agreement in 2005 not to encourage nor initiate same-sex blessings “until General Synod has made a decision on the matter” New Westminster had voted to impose a moratorium on allowing any new parishes to permit same-sex blessings; those parishes which already received the bishop’s approval were permitted to continue.)
At least seven of the church’s 30 diocesan bishops have issued pastoral letters stating that General Synod has decided that same-sex blessings are still not permitted. Thirteen have not yet issued pastoral letters; the rest offered reflections or reiterated the pastoral response issued by the House of Bishops in April. (The pastoral response stated in part that civilly-married lesbian or gay couples may, with the bishop’s permission, celebrate a eucharist that includes intercessory prayers, but not an exchange of vows and a nuptial blessing.)
Ronald Stevenson, General Synod chancellor (legal advisor), declined to comment on the questions when reached by the Anglican Journal.
The Rev. Alan Perry, an expert on canon law from the Diocese of Montreal, said the motion that blessings are not in conflict with the church’s core doctrine is a “declarative” but not an “enabling” motion, “which would contain some mechanism or permission to act in a certain way.” It does, however, “clear the decks for future action on blessing of same-sex unions by some body or other, ” he said.
It all feels like they are living in a world where it comes down to what the meaning of “is” is. I find the muddledness and confusion baffling. If one is going to do something, then do it clearly and unambiguously, and if not, then make it clear you are not forthrightly. This miasma of a cacophony of different interpretive voices drowns out, in my view, any real common life for the church as a whole in question, in this case the Anglican Church of Canada. At a time when the whole Anglican Communion is struggling, this is most unfortunate. Read it all–KSH.
Like many conservative Anglicans, I am sick and tired of all this parsing of statements. Are not liberals also? Why define what the meaning of “is” is, as Dr. Harmon says, to stay in a communion which rejects their innovations? If they genuinely have the courage of their convictions, they should say so and be done with it.
The muddle, the cacaphony is the point. Since Scripture here has been set aside, there is only one recourse, civil and/or canon law. These can not make lasting distinctions in matters of faith and morals because there is no “constitution” from which all standards are derived. Absent such a standard, no question can be resolved. FOr the liberal cause, this is the best possible case because those parishes who favor the liberal cause cnnot be stopped, punished, regulated or isolated. That being the case, the practices they wish to continue will go on and on until time gives them the sanction they could not otherwise obtain. This is called tradition, and is one reason why tradition is a weak and faulty cord to bind any belief set together.
LM
I believe the muddle to be contrived. While the Canadian church may decide that same-sex blessings are not a matter of core doctrine, that in no way suggests that the church authorizes such liturgies, even if there were liturgies to approve! But again, as I keep saying, we are here in part because we wandered into the blessing business without ever saying what we mean by “blessing”.
Before the Tractarians, Anglican priests seldom if ever blessed anything except at the conclusion of a liturgy. It was just before the Second World War that TEC authorized a “Book of Offices” the predecessor of the Book of Occasional Services. Anglo-Catholics had various unofficial manuals and even a blessing of space ships. Virginians blessed hounds! There came to be items which only bishops might bless, such as chalices and patens and various oils. Yet all along, one supposes in typical Anglican fashion, no word on what is supposed to happen when one blesses tadpoles or purificators; a theology of blessing.
One wonders who latched on to the idea that perhaps “blessing” same-sex couples, using a form not unlike matrimony would go over better than attempting to marry them. I have yet to read an explanation about what is claimed to happen when a couple are “blessed” as opposed to what happens when they are “married”. It all sounds rather like the business that one cannot marry a couple but one may bless their civil marriage later!
Certainly the teaching of our church on matrimony remains clear, and is taught in the words of the marriage rite and in the catechism. As yet GC has not sanctioned or permitted same-sex blessings and how could it when we have no idea what we mean by “blessing” in the first place?
There are times when parsing a matter enables us to find the kernal of truth to which we can all agree and remain in unity. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case here. People are seeking loopholes, either to enact their homosexualist agenda, or protect against it. The sad fact is that the Canadian Anglican church has create a monster which is likely to devour them.
Political compromise often leads to contradictory statements and muddled law. Figuring out what a law means often is a task of trying to understand what the compromises were trying to accomplish.
Katherine #1: “Like many conservative Anglicans, I am sick and tired of all this parsing of statements. Are not liberals also?”
This one is.
Thanks for the post, PadreWayne.
I have to agree with Kendall here — it would be much better if the various conventions and synods declared clearly what they intended to do or not do.
As I recall the ACoC resolutions, I think the most plausible interpretation of them taken together is, “We believe that in principle we could do this if we chose to, but for now at least we choose not to.” Which is basically the “declarative”/”enabling” distinction quoted in the article. But they could have stated it much more clearly if that’s what they really intended.
It’s also why the ELCA synod’s “we won’t change the rules, but we won’t enforce them either” decision is particularly unfortunate. Pick a position and take a stand, f’r crying out loud.
#8: But they don’t WANT to be clear. Why should they? What would they gain? But the muddle gives the left everything to gain, and this gain starts with being given time and more time – what we have given TEC over and over. The Canadian attitude, wisely is: Be patient. Confusion favors the destruction of standards, and this confusion permits the left to AVOID making a public pro-homosexuality declaration that will possibly cause them to lose what they have already gained. NO, no, #8, clarity is for the naive, if I may be so cynical. Larry
I think that the other reason for obfuscation, particuarly in Canada, where the church is in greater numerical decline than here, is that most really want to avoid either internal schism or alienation from the Communion. Wanting the proverbial cake and eating it, leadership seeks to postpone or avoid the sure results of public policy while going ahead with it at the same time. It sounds confusing because the Establishment is confused, perhaps more so in Canada where a residual affection for the CofE remains.
In 1998 I spoke in our climactic Synod debate, when the Diocese of New Westminster first voted to ask our Bishop to permit clergy to “bless” same-sex “unions”. I asked the framers of the motion to define both terms for me, since I could not know how to vote on something so badly undefined. I was promised definitions before the vote, but we moved to the vote, with the concurrence of both the Bishop who had promised them, and his Chancellor, without any such definitions being granted.
Neither term has ever been defined for the Canadian Church at any time since then.