A Massachusetts priest will succeed Bishop Gene Robinson as New Hampshire’s next Episcopal bishop.
A delegation of clergy and lay people chose the Rev. A. Robert Hirschfeld of Grace Church in Amherst from a field of three nominees. Votes were cast Saturday at St. Paul’s Church in Concord.
Let’s see. One candidate is a divorced female. Another is a practicing homosexual. The “winner” is a nice-looking younger guy who apparently has certain non-canonical and non-doctrinal ideas about Christian marriage:
[blockquote]In the spring of 2006, I initiated at Grace Church a “wedding fast.†I asked the vestry and parish to support me in a moratorium from presiding at any wedding until we came to some resolution about the jarring practice of performing weddings for heterosexual persons, even those who have no affiliation with the community, while maintaining that homosexuals are disqualified from such blessings.[/blockquote]
Withholding a sacrament for THAT reason?
Just the sort of guy who can bring about healing with the GAFCON-FCA folks.
NH is a small diocese. I wonder how they will pay his salary. VGR could at least earn a living from lectures and books.
One can only pray that God will equip him for his new ministry, open his blinded eyes, unstop his ears, and soften his hardened heart.
They are certainly still headed down the same road.
Ralph, I looked up the website of Grace Church in Amherst and found information about weddings. Based on what it says, and I have pasted it below, the clergy of this parish are not withholding the sacrament of marriage from a heterosexual couple. What they are refusing to do is sign the couple’s marriage license which apparently, in MA, can be done by any friend of the couple if they are willing to pay the government 25 dollars to be a JP for a day.
Also, I’m unclear as to why you claim that his decision is uncanonical since the canons state that clergy can refuse to marry a couple for any reason they wish.
I am clear, however, about the rest of your post. Prayers abound for NH and I think it says a heck of a lot that the people did not elect another homosexual bishop. Maybe it will be a change for the better.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS:
In order for the marriage to be legally valid, the couple needs 1) to obtain a Certificate of Intention to Marry (the wedding license) and 2) to designate a person who is or can be authorized by the Commonwealth to sign the certificate. The Town Clerk of any town within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can assist the couple in obtaining the necessary documents, which should be obtained at least 60 days before the wedding.
For reasons explained below, clergy members of Grace Church will no longer sign the marriage license. Instead, the couple can choose a friend or relative to perform this function. In order to become a “Justice of the Peace†for a day, the person must fill out an application from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth. The completed application should be mailed at least 6 weeks before the date of the wedding, along with a $25 processing fee. For complete details and to download an application, visit the Website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (http://www.mass.gov/) and search for “One Day Marriage Designation Instructions.†If you prefer, you may instead arrange for a Justice of the Peace to sign the marriage license. The marriage license can be signed during the wedding ceremony after either the Declaration of Consent or the Exchange of the Marriage Vows.
The clergy of Grace Church have decided to refrain from signing marriage licenses for several reasons. Separating the “secular†from the “sacred†elements of the wedding service removes the priest’s role as a functionary of the State, thus allowing us all to honor with more integrity the Constitutional separation of Church and State. It also allows us to acknowledge with deep regret that Episcopal clergy are not at this time authorized by our denomination to solemnize the marriage between couples of the same sex. The clergy of Grace Church are, however, fully committed to engaging every liturgical and pastoral resource that is canonically available to us in order to assure gay and lesbian couples of our support and of our desire to include them more fully in our parish’s mission to restore all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, to unity with God and each other in Jesus Christ.
Where in either the Massachusetts Constitution(if that Commonwealth has one) or in the US Constitution does it say anything re: the separation of church and state?
And performing the ceremony but refraining to sign the license is a hair-splitting cop-out.
It is interesting to me that we are now just grateful they elected a nut rather than a gay nut. Louie Crew is now officialy center/moderate inTEC.
[blockquote] “Based on what it says, and I have pasted it below, the clergy of this parish are not withholding the sacrament of marriage from a heterosexual couple. What they are refusing to do is sign the couple’s marriage license …” [/blockquote]
Oreo, you appear to have missed the point of Ralph’s post, which was not focussed on the precise mechanics of what the parish is doing, but the reason why they are doing it. He even capitalised this, but you still missed it.
Further, Ralph reacted quite reasonably to the priest’s own words, which referred to a moratorium on “presiding” over wedding services.
[blockquote] “Also, I’m unclear as to why you claim that his decision is uncanonical since the canons state that clergy can refuse to marry a couple for any reason they wish.” [/blockquote]
Why should you be unclear? Of course priests are given latitude to make their own decisions on certain matters – the buck has to stop somewhere. But it is assumed that the priest will do so responsibly and in accordance with Christian doctrine. Withholding marriage as a protest against the lack of “gay marriage” is at odds with Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian tradition. It has no support within Canon Law of any kind and is therefore clearly non-canonical, as Ralph wrote.
[blockquote] “and I think it says a heck of a lot that the people did not elect another homosexual bishop.” [/blockquote]
That might be so if the primary orthodox concern is with homosexuality. But it isn’t. Homosexual “marriage” and ordination of practicing homosexuals are merely symptoms of a far deeper issue, which is liberal teaching. From that perspective, there doesn’t appear to be any real difference between this nomination and that of V G Robinson.
MichaelA, I was responding to Ralph’s words that the priests of this parish were withholding a sacrament. Out of curiousness, I went to the website to see if it were so. My response to Ralph was not meant to be interpreted as a challenge to his brief posting, it was meant to be a point of edification. Being clergy myself, you cannot convince me that the sacrament of marriage is valid only when I sign the license. Therefore, I maintain that Ralph is wrong based on how I have interpreted his brief sentence.
There are a lot of things that we use to assume about the Episcopal Church that are no longer true. We may disagree with the priests of this parish for doing what they are doing, but we cannot claim that what they are doing is uncanonical based only on what we assume they should do. The canons give them the leeway; how they act on those canons may be immoral or not make any sense, but it is still canonical. Therefore, I maintain that Ralph is wrong in this regard, too.
Lastly, when I made the comment about it saying a lot about their people not electing another homosexual bishop, I did not mean to imply that they have suddenly changed their mind about various positions, liberal teachings, or issues. At best, we can hope that the people decided to elect the best person of the three. At second-best, we can hope that the people decided that having a homosexual bishop did not pan out for them as a diocese as they had thought. Recall how often VGR was away from his diocese… And perhaps they grew tired of being in the limelight.
But that is all speculation.
The quote is from the bishop-elect himself. It shows how he thinks about and reacts to this controversial issue. Since it went into his profile, he was apparently proud of it.
Cutting through all the rhetoric leading up to GC, let’s remember that the TEC canons, and the BCP (the Marriage rite itself, and the catechism) explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Furthermore, TEC has no doctrine stating that homosexual practice isn’t sinful or defiling.
It would appear that this bishop-elect believes that men should be able to marry men, and that women should be able to marry women. Besides being non-canonical and non-doctrinal, it…just…ain’t…right. Especially for someone in Holy Orders, who made certain promises about doctrine at his ordinations.
In any case, if TEC bishops are going to authorize such “unions,” then GC needs to change the canons, the BCP, and formulate a doctrine that homosexual practice isn’t sinful and defiling. Then, everything will fall into place. Over the cliff, yes, but it would at least be coherent. The Tangerine Queen presided at the so-called “marriage” of two women in Boston in open defiance of TEC doctrine, at the diocesan cathedral.
While I’m not presently grateful for the outcome of this election, I pray that God (not the devil) will equip him for this ministry.
Good answer Ralph.