In San Francisco, Presiding U.S. Episcopal bishop affirms same-sex unions

The 27,000-member Diocese of California, based in San Francisco, has ordained more gay and lesbian clergy than any other. Priests in the diocese – which includes San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa counties and part of Santa Clara County – have blessed same-sex unions for more than three decades.

Those practices, once on the margins of the Episcopal Church, have become the mainstream.

The church’s House of Bishops gathered in New Orleans last week to discuss how to respond to the communique. They chose to maintain the status quo: They would “exercise restraint” by not consecrating any gay, partnered candidates for bishop, and they would not authorize “any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.”

For conservatives, the statements were hollow because it allows priests to privately bless same-sex unions.

“This is neither prohibition nor restraint,” said a statement issued Wednesday by the Right Rev. John-David Schofield, bishop for the Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin. “It is simply turning a blind eye.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Presiding Bishop, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)

16 comments on “In San Francisco, Presiding U.S. Episcopal bishop affirms same-sex unions

  1. VaAnglican says:

    The primates should read this article. Quite a “journey” from her agreeing to DES to this.

  2. f/k/a_revdons says:

    My feeling is the “rosetta stone” to interpret the HOB statement is slowly being created post New Orleans. This quote says it all when ++KJS says, “We’re not going backward.”

  3. hyacinth says:

    “There’s such a long history of splitting that it would be a sign of the Spirit’s movement if he were able to gather them into a coherent whole.”

    That line by the PB is the most sensible she has said during her tenure as PB. More important than her question would be knowing how she would change her behavior and that of TEC were such a move of the Spirit occur. Would she recognize the move of the Spirit as such or would she harden her heart? I suspect she would say, “that’s how the Spirit moved in their camp. In ours He’s moving differently but no less mightily.” Sad.

  4. robroy says:

    [blockquote]…has ordained more gay and lesbian clergy than any other…[/blockquote]
    Others from the diocese have said, it is extremely difficult to seek orders if you are “just a straight white male.”

    I don’t know how institutionalists can honestly believe that we can come to resolution without a parting of ways. Many (most?) of these clergy are homosexual first and Episcopalian a distant second. We now have an opportunity to do this. Take advantage of it. There will not be another opportunity.

  5. the roman says:

    Surreal…Fellini comes to mind.

  6. Hakkatan says:

    The PB said, “”The pastor’s job as shepherd is to mind the whole flock,” Jefferts Schori said, referring to a biblical parable of a shepherd who goes searching for one lost sheep. “I am continually, prayerfully reminded of those who are wandering off. The job of the church is to reach ever wider to include the whole.”

    When the Shepherd searched for the sheep, he brought it back to the fold. He did not just say, “The whole wilderness is my fold; therefore the sheep is no longer lost.”

    Jesus also said, “[The good shepherd] calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.” in John 10:3-4. Later on, in John 14:23-24, he said, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father who sent me.”

    Jesus went to the margins to find the lost sheep and to bring them back, not to hold up the margins as a place to live.

  7. Br. Michael says:

    Jesus searched for lost sheep to bring them into the kingdom. He didn’t join them and approve of what they were doing.

  8. Paula Loughlin says:

    Jesus did not sit with sinners to give them a big badge of approval for their behavior. He sat with them to show them God’s love. To tell them that they were loved in spite of their behavior. That this love was so great that should they repent and ask for forgiveness God who is both just and merciful would welcome them into His Kingdom. He realized that there was more love for God in the tears of a repentent sinner than in all bragging of the proud temple goer. He came to reconcile us to God not to reconcile God to our sins. His coming amongst sinners was and still is an act of Grace. A Grace meant to free us. But in a church that no longer believes in Scriptural sin there is no need for Grace. So Jesus is no more than a cosmic therapist. It would be laughable if souls were not in danger of eternal damnation.

  9. Rolling Eyes says:


  10. robroy says:

    Kendall and elves, could we do away with the condescending “yawn” remarks? Rollin’ eyes, Susan Russell, etc., you show yourselves to be a$$es.

  11. saj says:

    “There’s such a long history of splitting that it would be a sign of the Spirit’s movement if he were able to gather them into a coherent whole,” she said.

    I agree with #3 and the PB. This is one of the very few things she has ever said that I do agree with. The response to the “splinter’s” statement this week in the way that the trinity was articulated is just one example of the challenge of a unified “conservative” anglicanism. Another example is WO. I personally pray that such a unified presence is achieved — and I believe that it can be — but …….. if it is going to happen we “conservatives” are going to have to broaden our umbrella. At this time the “odds” are definitely in the PB’s court.

  12. Rolling Eyes says:

    Robroy, my “Yawn” was a jab at people like Susan. Ya know, a joke.

    Looks like we’re not the only ones who come across as an a$$…

  13. Mathematicus says:

    I agree with #1, but would add that I think someone needs to print this out and slap it down on ++Williams’ desk and say to him, “I think you need to read this.

  14. Stuart Smith says:

    Ms. Schori parrots a long line of misconstruals of Jesus’ hanging out with peopole on the margins.
    Jesus was criticized for eating with tax collectors and notorious sinners. Since these critics were eaten up with the Sin of pride, Jesus defended the tax-collectors and notorious sinners from the hypocrites. However, he did not say what Ms. Schori seems to claim he would say!
    And what *did* he say?
    Did he say:
    “All of these people are God’s children and need to be accepted and received as they are. I have come to set them free from the prejudice and hate-speech which has made them think that they are second-class, sinful, or broken and diseased. Fear not, little flock, your shepherd takes you as you are and celebrates how you live!’

    Or, did he say:

    “It is the sick who need a physician, not the well! I have come to call sinners to repentanc, not to call the righteous!”

  15. Cennydd says:

    The primates are gonna have a field day with this announcement! Look out, KJS!

  16. Ad Orientem says:

    [blockquote] “The church in the West has lost its way,” the Right Rev. Robert Duncan, the bishop of Pittsburgh, said on Friday, in announcing the new coalition. “The church in the ‘Global South’ is utterly clear about what it is to follow Jesus Christ.”[/blockquote]

    So is the Church in the East.