ARE ANGLICAN PRIMATES prepared to overlook private blessings of same-sex couples, just not public ones?
“No way,” says a leading conservative archbishop.
But ”“ as one version of the story goes – a high-ranking Anglican official gave the nod to private blessings in speaking with an Episcopal bishop before American prelates responded to the primates (provincial leaders) in September. Moreover, the official was said to have based his okay on a claim that the Church of England also has a policy permissive of non-public homosexual blessings.
The official in question – Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) ”“ told TCC the report is “not quite accurate,” maintaining that he stressed the language of the 2004 Windsor Report and primates’ requests in speaking with the bishop in question – Washington Bishop John Chane. He also said it was “extremely unlikely” that he would have mentioned practice in the Church of England.
Bishop Chane commented little on his conversation with Kearon, but confirmed to TCC that there are differing interpretations on the matter of same-sex blessings within the Episcopal House of Bishops (HOB) – a fact that again calls into question claims by some Anglican Communion officials that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has “given the necessary assurances” on the matter.
Is sin in private different from public sin? Yes, but it is still sin.
One would call this Byzantine, except that’s insulting to the Orthodox.
I don’t doubt that the CoE official gave a nod and a wink to TEC given the Coe tolerance of such matters, viz, the ABC’s private/secret mass.
Private SSBs masquerading as “House Blessings” have been a feature of Anglo-Catholicism, even fairly conservative and traditional Anglo-Catholicism, for decades. Insofar as this has all been under the radar, I don’t know of any instance of discipline of a priest for conducting a service like this.
“Are Private Same-Sex Blessings Okay?”
Such blessings by an ordained Anglican clergyman are not “Okay” until the Anglican Communion synodically concludes that they are “Okay.”
This has been commented upon on this and other blogs ‘ad infinitum’ and the question always begs, “What else can be blessed?”
Let’s see adult and non-adult sexual relationships, polygamy, man and woman sexual relationships outside of marriage, term-limited marriage contracts, man and beast relationships, open marriages, etc?
[blockquote] [i]Such blessings by an ordained Anglican clergyman are not “Okay†until the Anglican Communion synodically concludes that they are “Okay.â€[/blockquote][/i]
So if or when the AC synodically concludes they are okay, that will make it okay? —Not when it contradicts Holy Writ.
AnglicanFirst (#5) – Why can’t the Chruch bless my gluttony? God made me this way and I have an innate desire to be “filled with good things.” Why can’t I fill myself with all the “good things” I want? Why can’t the Church bless what I want to eat.
How about blessing my greed. This is simply an extention of my gluttony, but focused outside of my stomach.
How about blessing my sloth. Again, God created me for pleasure and work is simply not pleasurable!
I think the Church should bless my Anger – which arises from my God-given sense of justice (albeit often personally focused).
Envy is just another name for personal injustice. It’s not that I want what others have, I find it unjust that they have it and I don’t. I think the Church has been too strict with envy (and anger and pride and sloth and lust and greed and gluttony).
I demand that the Church bless whatever behaviors I find that make me more the person I feel I have been created to be.
/sarcasm.
When we select to bless one sin, then shouldn’t we bless them all? It does not matter if the sin is private or public. Gluttony is gluttony whether I sneak the food in my office so no one sees or I got to the All you can eat pizza place and have 10 slices of pizza.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#4 that really is the tragedy of Anglo-Catholicism in the CoE. It came to affirm the Tradition in everything except doctrine and ethics.
Insofar as such things are done have been done secretly over the last two or three decades how could anyone be disciplined? Indeed, even if clergy have been reprimanded (eg instructed to stop giving such blessings by their bishop) how would the wider church know?
Reply to #6 who said,
“So if or when the AC synodically concludes they are okay, that will make it okay? —Not when it contradicts Holy Writ.”
I agree with your statement and if the Anglican Communion ever were to synodically agree to bless sin, then the Communion will have morphed into an unScritural and unChristian entity.
At that time maybe a better name for that morphed entity would be the Communion of the Humanly Blessed Carnal Pleasures.
Are private same-sex blessings okay? Absolutely NOT!!
Who is Kearon’s superior? Kearon has been caught making all sorts of statements on behalf of “the Communion” and asserting that he knows the mind of the ABC, which I highly doubt. Kearon needs to be disciplined, i.e. fired.
What all this means is that every word in the Anglican Covenant better be defined and absolutely nailed down. Definitions, as we see above in the article, cannot be assumed. TEC has a long habit of giving words new meanings and not telling any one.
Is there really any such thing as a private act done by the Church? If a Priest performs a blessing he or she does so not by their own authority, but by that of Jesus Christ and His Church and it seems to be an oxymoron to call such things “private.”
If a person (a priest or anyone else) claims to give a private blessing, acting on their own authority–then what exactly is the point?
same-sex unions = sin. Nuff said!