As the governor of New Hampshire signed a law May 31 establishing civil unions for same-gender couples in the state, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson said he will not direct Episcopal priests in the diocese to bless same-gender unions, letting priests decide that individually.
Robinson attended the ceremony in Concord during which Gov. John Lynch signed the bill. The new law allows same-gender couples to apply for the same rights as married people as early as January 2008. Same-gender unions from other states also will be recognized if they were legal in the state where they were performed.
New Hampshire will be the fourth State to offer civil unions and the first to do so without a court order or threat of one.
Great Anglican ‘live-and-let-live’ response from Gene Robinson. Exactly what the situation required. Exactly what in practice will always happen.
How about letting priests decide whether to invite boundary-crossing bishops?
No, he won’t “require” his priests to perform these ceremonies. But the diocese of NH has already been purged of any priests who would be likely to refuse. And believe me, if someone complained to VGR that his/her priest would not perform such a ceremony, there would be no “live and let live.” There would be a private dressing down of the priest by VGR – and the priest would be called a bigot and “hateful.”
If everybody can just “live and let live,” then the primatial and diocesan hierarchies should be abolished as expensive relics.
Not quite what I understand a moratorium to mean.
“Great Anglican ‘live-and-let-live’ response from Gene Robinson” [#1].
No, a betrayal of the Anglican Via Media, which Bp. Stephen Neill aptly summarized as follows:
“Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach, and we will teach it; show us anything in our teaching and practice that is plainly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it.” http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/3358
It’s easy to be magnanimous now, in advance of a critical 9/30 deadline, still working hard to secure his own invitation to Lambeth, and secure in the knowledge that his allies own the institution lock, stock and barrel. As for what might happen a year or two from now, after the last conservative card has been played, I advise any orthodox priest left to inventory your marketable skills and update your resume. Hiring a lawyer couldn’t hurt, either.
LOL at Pageantmaster.
Pageantmaster, This would be a “mor-e-torium” or perhaps, “more-atorium” or even “mor-at-’em”, wouldn’t it?
Phil,
You are of course quite correct in your analysis. I marvel at the capacity of Episcopalians for self delusion. It reminds me of the famous joke “I swear Mildred, one more crazy thing and we are out of here!” How often has that been heard over the last 25 years? Still some have seen the writing on the wall and are moving on. My Godfather saw the coming crisis and was one of the original supporters of the Affirmation of St. Louis.
ICXC
John
Speaking of the Sept. 30 deadline, this is like using the gas pedal to respond to a blue light in the rear-view mirror.
#9
Ha! “‘Moratorium?’ I thought you said “more of ’em!”
Follow up:
Of course my Godfather is now Orthodox.
ICXC
John
AO – Glad to hear it. And, along those lines, did you hear the one about the women priest who converted to Islam and remained a cleric in good standing? I wish I were joking. It’s a good thing I’m not, because it isn’t funny.
“woman,” not “women,” sorry
Phil,
No I missed that one. Deo Gratias
ICXC
Ad Orientem
#8,#9,#12 seems to mean “Look – no hands”
And yet he did not authorize public rites for same sex blessings – all that was asked by Windsor. If we have a problem with the tacit “local option” then you have a problem with the Church of England itself – in which case you probably don’t want to be Anglican
I’m very happy being an Anglican thank you Brian from T19. By the way do you live here or are you a mascot or something?
If we have a problem with the tacit “local option†then you have a problem with the Church of England itself…
Let me begin by noting that I am NOT Anglican. But to the point… Since when is there a “local option” to heresy?
#18 Why Brian, you old fundamentalist, you! Despite your protestations to the contrary, your dirty little secret is exposed once again. 🙂
Hmmm….kinda like Gene respected those who could not accept his ministry as bishop?
{Yawn}
I’ll belive it when I see it. But I believe our friend NancyNH has hit the nail on the head.
Consider the following statements:
Then consider the background against which they have been made.
Then consider the justification being put forward for their acceptability:
Then consider that the people reading this are those whose first language is not necessarily English; and even for those whose first language it is, the parsing of what Iago called the “super subtle Venetians” may be what we in England would call “too clever by half”
I have heard the jibes at the CofE, but have never heard a statement by a CofE bishop such as this one.
Is it honest? Or is it too clever by half?
To all of you appeasers at GC2003 (and following GC2003) who thought: “I don’t want to stand in the way of who/what the people of NH want in their bishop”, this is the Pandora’s Box in which you helped BLOW the lid off. THAT focus on polity, and NOT scripture brought us to this place.
In the meantime, the Bishop of Newark has asked those “willing” to perform same sex blessings to add their names to a list which the diocese will make available through its official GLBT ministry. (Oasis).
I wonder what nice surprises the Bishop has in mind for the handful who refuse?
Let’s see now…each parish priest can set the policy on a practice that mortifies the vast majority of Christendom. You know, every day I waft my burning mint leaves toward the deity/higher power of my choosing, and give thanks that we are Anglicans, and not like those silly congregationalists.
Good Lord in Heaven, the hand-wringing, the angst, the rending of garments that I witness here! Would the Episcopalians please stand up? Ah. I thought so. Only a few.
#27,
Your post is prescient, because in ten years the Episcopal Church will be a small, fashionable redoubt for older women and their homosexual friends.
None Sense
WE are hiearchical
And so very farcical
In our attention to conscious!
If it’s properly formed
It’s too patriarchical
And not acceptably cultural
And must be reformed
To suit “I” individual.
But if it is material
We are NOT congregational
We are most fundamental
Canonical and altogether legal
In our form.
“Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson said he will not direct Episcopal priests in the diocese to bless same-gender unions, letting priests decide that individually.”
English is “almost” my first language, since it was the language of instruction in my country’s educational system. But as I read his statement, if you “don’t direct” but “allow”, I understand Robinson’s argument to mean that he did not “authorize” same-sex blessings.
It is a very lame attempt to technically comply with Windsor’s request. What is surprising (and sad) is that it is an abandonment of episcopal authority over priests in his diocese.