Which brings me to the recent overture by the Vatican to invite disaffected Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church. A lot has been said and written about this development. I am not sure how it will be played out. Yet I can’t help but hear the beginnings of another contract between men ”“ from men who have institutional power in one tradition offering a place to men in another tradition who have felt their institutional power undermined and don’t want to give it up. Women are no doubt included in the invitation from Rome, but I don’t think that disaffected women Anglican priests will be allowed to keep their clerical collars should they make the switch.
I take inspiration from Jesus who insisted on the equal value of every human being. I take great joy in the Episcopal Church and in the Diocese of Newark in its invitation to all people to be a part of the Christian community ”“ and that whatever their gender or orientation, their gifts will be honored ”“ and that their life-long relationships can be blessed.
Funny how a bunch of Episcopal nuns, all women, were not unhappy to make the move to the Roman church.
The rationale of this note is all political theory; there’s no theology.
Phil, Political theory is their theology.
Oh, puhleeze… another person called a bishop who’s so-called diocese has around half the membership it had not too long ago pontificating (sic) on something happening in a world thousands of times larger than his safe little island of leftish prejudices.
You’re right, Paula. I should have said there’s no Christian theology.
“But a closer look shows that the historical tradition of marriage is that of a contract between two men: the groom and the father of the bride. When a woman was given in marriage, she was given by her father to her husband, and in this exchange the woman surrendered her name, her rights and her property.”
I am certain that this is not at all the traditional Catholic/ Protestant view of marriage. Nor was it the prevailing civil view of marriage in the West. Arguing against such ignorance is frustrating because first you have to carefully tutor the guy in the whole history of marriage before you can even arrive at the question of marriage of two people of the same sex.
It should be remembered that an important part of Christian marriage is the ability to freely consent to the marriage. One of the main reasons for the Tridentine marriage reform was the practice of clandenstine marriage and marriages which were not freely entered into by mutual consent. Because of concerns arising out of these practices the Church implemented the law that a priest must witness the marriage and that banns had to be published prior to the wedding.
As for the giving up of property, title and rights it was not as broad brushed as this gentleman presumes. Woman did have title by their own right and they did own property and they did have rights. No they were not as broad as we enjoy now but to imply they were unknown is wrong.
And besides that the argument against Church recognizing same sex marriage does not arise from wanting to deprive persons of perceived rights but from a Christian anthropology of marriage. Shockingly enough to put it in simpler terms it arises from a Christian view of sex. And from that view same sex marriage is not only wrong it is impossible.
Done with no panache and a Swan and a Spong! Not even a wing and a prayer apart from realpolitik.
The sorts of commentary being produced by the senior management of the Episcopal Organization (see also the recent comments from the Episcopal Manager of Arizona) which suggest all is well and no one would want to leave their egalitarian paradise for the narrow minded bigotry of a two thousand year old faith (Christianity) is starting to sound rather desperate.
How hard they have to work to continually reassert that they’re the “good guys”! It strikes me as terribly brittle.
Well, given that the good people, er, all those benighted bigots in New Jersey elected a pro-family candidate for gov, the good bishop and his political minions had better make the most of the lame-duck session.
I like the part about “life-long” relationship. So did the Lutherans. How can you tell until a partner dies?
[blockquote]I take inspiration from Jesus who insisted on the equal value of every human being.[/blockquote]
Yeah, well how come Jesus never dined with a Gentile, called a Gentile disciple (much less an Apostle) and – get this – never even touched a Gentile? Jesus’s vaunted “inclusiveness” [i]included[/i] having basically nothing to do with ninety-some-odd percent of the human race. And it’s not because there weren’t Gentiles in Judea. Sure, we hear that Jesus changed His tune after healing (at a distance, just like the Centurian’s servant and the Samaritan leper) the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter. Did He? Just exactly what changed, pray tell? Try nothing. The fact is, when it came to the Gentiles, Jesus was just like every other Torah-observant Jew in Galilee and Judea. He remained ritually pure and never once challenged the Jewish attitude in this or just about any other regard.
What changed, of course is not that He had some sort of groovy encounter with the Other – and He never was a 20th century Liberal – but rather His death and resurrection such that at His Ascension, He charged His Church (just as God had never gone Himself to the Gentiles but rather charged His people Israel to be a light to them) with such outreach. This was a command and call to Catholicity, not some degraded notion of “inclusiveness”. But then taking note of these facts would require a level of sophistication the attainment of which isn’t nearly as fun or easy as taking moralistic cheapshots at people you are desperate to look down on.
You’re right, Paula – but this is the kind of nonsense you get from devotees of Episcopalianism. I’ve been told that there was no such thing as marriage until the Byzantine emperor invented it in the 4th century as a way to subjugate women (egged on by the Church, of course). Conversing with them is nearly pointless.
13- ah that chestnut- it was a favourite amongst certain Westcott House students and was one of those arguments I could not even muster the energy to get cross about…just bang the dust and move on!
Where is the marriage inequality under traditional secular law? Indeed, law has never denied access to marriage simply because either the bride or groom or both were homosexually oriented.
What the left is really talking about is not equal access to marriage, but the privilege to define marriage how ever any two consenting adults choose. And wonders where this imagined right to privately and subjectively define marriage logically ends. Indeed, if marriage is a private subjective matter, with no public, objective standards, why limit it to two persons, or to humans; why not polygamy or bestiality, etc.?
A lake full of red herrings! One could throw a bare hook and catch a boat full. But I don’t care for the taste of red herring, so I’ll pass.