Kendall,
Louie Crew cites the reference in paragraph 143 of the Windsor Report to a “breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” But the cited language in the Windsor Report is a quote from the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003. The Primates’ letter in turn cites as its source on the individual pastoral care issue True Union in the Body. What does True Union in the Body say about the subject? In Section 5, “Embodying True Grace: The Pastoral Response of the Church,” we find this: “Pastoral care that is shaped by this costly grace will resist actions to legitimate same-sex unions and seek to show that, because they are in theological error, such actions by the Church do not contain within them the promised seed of freedom.” (paragraph 5.15) “Thus the decision to bless same-sex unions, rather than assisting a life of faithful witness and being good pastoral practice, sends out contradictory messages concerning the Christian life. It undermines faithful witness by leading Christian believers into areas of real temptation and indeed sin.”
(paragraph 5.16)
We are asked to believe that blessings of same sex unions are within the range of private pastoral responses envisioned by the Primates (and in the Windsor Report), but in fact the Primates’ (and the Windsor Report’s) cited source on the subject directly negates the view that unofficial blessings are to be embraced as a permissible pastoral response.
For what it’s worth True Union came out of Don Armstrong’s Anglican (Communion?) Institute.
For what it’s worth it looks like the Primates adopted True Union’s language. In any event the Primates did not use “pastoral care” language to authorize ssbs.
No postmodernist is constrained by the words themselves. Remember, there is always the meaning the postmodernist brings to the text. That’s what counts. Especially in ECUSA/TEC.
Thank you, Michael, for doing the leg work on that line of thought.
RGEaton
Pax, Fr. Eaton.