Meeting from Feb 7-12 at the Mariannhill Conference Centre in the Diocese of Natal, the bishops released a pastoral letter at the close of their meeting confirming they were at an impasse.
They noted that Archbishop Thabo Makgoba had “taken a lead in bringing concerns to us from the dioceses in the Western Cape with regard to the pastoral care of persons who have entered into civil unions or are considering doing so.”
However, they noted this was “not a matter of legitimising same-sex unions but of care for worshippers who are already in them,” the bishops said, adding that “our Church does not consider any relationship to be marriage unless it is the historic relationship of a man and a woman uniting, ideally for life.”
Perhaps I am being cynical but I have started to recoil any time I hear church hierarchy throwing around the term “with regard to the pastoral care.” I am finding that becoming more and more a cop out of “we lack moral courage stand up and tell someone that they might be morally wrong,” with the term “pastoral care” becoming a wink and nod to the elephant in the room.
Archer- In England and America, the term “pastoral care” has been abused and redefined to mean “perform same sex blessing” while waiting for such blessing to be added to official liturgies. The statement by the South African bishops makes clear that they mean it in a more traditional sense- ie- that they will continue to minister to gay people, but not endorse, celebrate or sanctify the behavior.
Yes, I’d agree this is the money phrase:
“…the bishops said, adding that “our Church does not consider any relationship to be marriage unless it is the historic relationship of a man and a woman uniting, ideally for life.â€
That’s better and more direct than I’ve heard some put it.
And the first two comments bear out good points, similar to what I’ve said before that some clergy’s “pastoral care” on this score might include a referral to Redeemed Lives, albeit anathema to the revisionistas. At my church these conversations do not include such referrals unless people request them–however, as far as “blessings” of gay relationships go, and/or calling them “marriage”, then the response to that is a clear “love you, and you are welcome to participate here, but NO”.
And we all know that, for some, that is not good enough; hence the time to start yelling about “justice” and assuming a posture of victimhood, despite the fact that my rector has, at times, also refused to do “straight” weddings outright or not without extensive professional counseling; and of course does not bless anyone’s adultery or polygamy, either.
In my peon and literal view, the endgame should be, that if people want to make any sort of run around traditional Christian teaching, then they should cease considering themselves Christians and move to other faiths. It would be more honest.
Bookworn, that is exactly what they are doing. The faith they are moving to is the Church of Me. In America, this is a congregation of one which is all that is required for a full membership. Fortunately for all Americans, that are as many such churches as there are potential members, so the system is inclusive. This province is capable of an indefinite expansion. Is this not a stroke of luck? This is the first and great commandment, that thou shalt love thyself with….
sigh. Larry