Episcopal Bishop William Love’s opposition to same-sex marriage in defiance of the recent 78th general convention of the Episcopal Church that affirmed marriage equality has roiled the Albany diocese and caused parishioners to quit the Cathedral of All Saints in protest.
In a July 18 pastoral letter in response to last month’s convention and June’s historic Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing nationwide rights for same-sex marriage, Love cited a Book of Common Prayer definition of marriage as a “solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman.”
Love was among just seven out of more than 100 bishops across the United States who flouted the convention’s stance and publicly opposed same-sex marriage.
Blocked by the pay wall. Subscription required.
Try here:
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Episcopal-bishop-s-opposition-to-same-sex-6432304.php#page-1
Prayers for Bishop Love and also for those led by the devil to oppose him.
I couldn’t read the article because I’m not a subscriber. But what an absurd headline! What created a “rift”? Not Bishop Love’s position on marriage, but the strange and erroneous doctrines coming out of the last General Convention.
Pax Christi!
Chuck Bradshaw+
Bishop Love’s letter created nothing. The Canons of the Diocese of Albany and the Book of Common Prayer clearly define marriage as being the lifelong union of a man and a woman. This was true before the Bishop’s Pastoral and remains true afterwards.
There is nothing here that has not been taught in the Church for two millennia.
Ralph- same result- blocked unless I subscribe.
A more useful link may be to the diocesan website, where the letter itself is published-
http://www.albanyepiscopaldiocese.org/
Of course, Canon King is correct. However, the headline is correct as far as it goes- the vast majority of the bishops and the deputies of TEC have determined that it has a new theology and practice, and Bishop Love is outside of that theology and practice. Therefore, Bishop Love, by straddling the fence, instead of bowing to the will of the majority of the convention, has created a rift. He and others were supposed to quietly surrender and “make provision” to see to it that, whether the bishop and majority of the diocese personally approved or not, everyone in their diocese who wanted to participate in a gay wedding could do so. And, unfortunately, Bishop Love has acquiesced on that latter point:
“Those gay and lesbian couples who, in spite of all that has been said above, still want to and believe they should be married, can take advantage of the provisions allowed for in General Convention Resolution A054. I will work with the bishops of the surrounding dioceses to assist them in doing so. I have, in fact, already begun conversations with the bishops of Vermont and Central New York. Whatever provision is ultimately decided upon will not violate Diocese of Albany Canons 16.1 and 16.2. ”
So, the bishop will arrange gay marriages, and (must, it would seem) recognize them as legitimate after the fact (since the couples will be returning to their home parishes as “married” couples, but will not perform them himself, and would prefer they happen outside the boundaries of his diocese.
This is where the “Communion Partners” fell off the wagon years ago, beginning with Bishop Little in Indiana. “It’s OK, as long as I don’t personally have to do it” is not “guarding the faith once delivered.”
20 paragraphs of pretty good moderate theology undone in paragraph 21.
TJ
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Episcopal-bishop-s-opposition-to-same-sex-6432304.php
worked for me, after I clicked on the little book shaped “reader mode” icon on the navigation bar and refresh. I’m using Firefox.
There were a number of comments by objectors, including one by a lady who had taught Sunday School at the Cathedral for many years. My reaction was that the church did not need someone who couldn’t teach agree with the Bible teaching Sunday School. Another likened it to the segregation she had known back in SC, which I found to be ridiculous.
Black or white skin is not a choice, but believing in the Bible or not is.
So those choosing to not believe segregate or excommunicate themselves by their own will.
Thanks Marie,
It does work in firefox, but not my other browsers.
TJ
Don’t forget that the makers of Firefox, the Mozilla group, are a bunch of hate-filled anti-religious bigots who chased their founder and new chairman (Brendan Eich) out for a donation he made 6 years earlier to oppose gay marriage in California (proposition 8).
If you insist on using it, and supporting people that despise you, please change the search engine that Firefox uses from Google so that Google doesn’t send Firefox any money for search referrals, which is Firefox’s largest source of revenue. This is done by clicking the magnifying glass up in the search box by the address field, and clicking “change search settings.”
Please consider using Chrome, IE, or Pale Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
#8- I did not forget, which is one reason I was not using Firefox in the first place. I do find it interesting that going through Chrome brought me to a paywall, while using Firefox did not.
Hmm. Safari gives me the pay wall. IE doesn’t work on Macs, and Chrome is Google, yes? No good choices here. I guess I can live without the article.
I agree with TJ about working to get “gay” marriages somewhere else. When he refers people and assists them he’s complicit. This is hand-washing.