When a new state law goes into effect June 1 that grants legal recognition to same-sex couples, clergy in the Diocese of Chicago are permitted to use a rite called “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Holy Union” [PDF].
The rite also has its roots in General Convention’s Resolution C056 in 2009, which said that bishops, “particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church.”
The diocese has sent its clergy a 29-page document consisting of a theological reflection by the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey D. Lee, Bishop of Chicago; guidelines for solemnizing holy matrimony and holy unions; a question-and-answer discussion; and the rite itself.
Because a “Union” is of course not a “Marriage.”
Wink, wink, nod, nod…say no more.
Based on what this article reports, the 29-page document is deeply confused on whether clergy in the diocese will have the right of conscience to decline marriage to two men or two women.
It says both:
(1) “It shall be within the discretion of any Member of the Clergy of this Diocese to decline to solemnize any Marriage or Civil Union.”
(2) “These rites are never withheld” by a priest from a couple solely on the grounds that they are two men or two women.
NEVER WITHHELD is extremely strong language and is clearly binding on all clergy in the diocese. Even a reappraiser should agree that the document needs to be rewritten so that it either clearly supports a conscience clause or clearly requires clergy to NEVER withhold these rites from a gay couple.
This has happened elsewhere. When the power to impose the new order is attained, the eager believers show more of their hand than perhaps is wise. The first stage having been achieved, the later stages are advertised in advance: condemnation, conformity, exclusion, erasure. When it is pointed out, the “offending” language is retracted, “protecting” conscience for a time. However, the trajectory is clear and inevitable. When one believes that the Holy Spirit is doing a “new thing” and on one’s side, the justification is ineluctable.
The liturgy is nicely done. Much better than the absurd one occasionally used in my diocese, which I publicly objected to at a gathering of most of the clergy on two points: 1. this is forbidden by both Scripture and the entire 3000 year old Judaeo-Christian interpretive tradition and therefore null and void; and 2. for an organization (oops! ‘church’) which purports to exalt respecting the dignity of every human being to a baptismal promise and yet do a separate but equal thing or a separate and unequal thing vis a vis straights and gays/lesbians and matrimony is hypocritical in the extreme.
Which advisor on the basis of logic was taken to which circle of the Inferno despite an absolution for his advice to sin to which Pope? – and, who, upon his transport to his eternal abode was advised by his devil, “You did not think me a logician, did you?”
Dante was so observant and men have changed not one whit.
Jon, clearly the *discretion* in mind refers to the decision to be employed as an Episcopalian cleric. Yup or nope?
Jon (2),
“Never withheld” would probably imply that if a particular priest objected to performing the rite him/herself – s/he could do so, but would also need to arrange for another priest who was willing to preside.
Having a little experience in military chaplaincy, this was a similar model used there (in the Navy). We were to provide for specific religious needs, even those outside our faith community or our personal convictions – if we objected, we were required to find another chaplain who could meet the need.
I’m guessing that’s what’s meant here.
Fr. Darin Lovelace
St. John’s Anglican Church
Park City, UT