Perhaps someone could clear this up for me. How do gays in the church view sin? Do they acknowledge themselves as sinners before God? All this gay wedding stuff made me wonder.
I copy below an important section from the [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20051206radio5.cfm?doc=73]interview[/url] of the Archbishop of Canterbury by Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 Live, transcribed by Fulcrum, 6 December 2005.
The key quote from Rowan Williams, which is particularly pertinent to the service at St Bartholomew-the-Great, is: ‘We don’t want orders of service which, if you like, run up to the frontiers of marriage and then just pull back a little bit.’
[blockquote]Rowan: Well, the guidelines issued by the House of Bishops are quite clear. If a priest wants to enter into a civil partnership, then he or she has to give an undertaking that this is not an active sexual relationship, because I don’t think it’s proper that the Church should have its doctrine and discipline changed by the decision of the State. That’s the bottom line there.
Simon: Do you think these couples who are going to have a civil partnership shortly and have some kind of ceremony – do you think that they should be able to have it blessed in church, or there should be some kind of ceremony which would give blessing?
Rowan: Well, again, the Bishops of the Church of England have said, no, they don’t think that is appropriate. It’s partly because, I don’t think any of us would know quite what we were blessing in any particular instance. The danger of making…
Simon: …presumably you’d be blessing two people who are saying publicly that they want to commit themselves to each other for the foreseeable future – same as in a wedding.
Rowan: A wedding includes rather more than that. A wedding is between a man and woman. It has the possibility, normally, of family. It’s a social fact. It’s got two thousand years, or more, of theology behind it. And I think what the Archbishops of the Anglican Church said, a couple of years ago when they met, was: ‘You need to be clearer about having a theology before you have a service – or something like that.’ So, I think it’s right to hold back on that. We don’t want this confused with marriage, at the moment. We don’t want orders of service which, if you like, run up to the frontiers of marriage and then just pull back a little bit. It’s a very complicated issue, and I think how people deal with it pastorally, in individual cases, is going to be difficult.[/blockquote]
In considering the liturgy, the service at St Bartholomew-the-Great was designed to be ‘performative’. It was designed to create a bond by the words used and was not merely thanking God for what had been accomplished beforehand. This is very significant in that it mimiced ‘marriage’ and stepped way beyond any authorised ‘Service of Blessing After a Civil Marriage’.
“We don’t want this confused with marriage, at the moment.”
Timing is everything.
Any fool can see what the logical consequences of accepting homosexual relationships must be – it’s only a matter of time before you arrive at your destination. Everything else – convoluted drivel about ‘civil partnerships’, alleged ‘blessings’ of what Jesus Christ has forbidden, maunderings about ‘the spirit’ – is deluded and deluding. ‘Let your yes be yes and your no be no.’
I am concerned with the phrase “with my body I thee worship” as used in this ceremony. In the marriage of a man and a woman, does this not have sexual connotations? What about the same connotations between two male partners? Or this union intended to be asexual?
Interesting and very telling!
[blockquote]Church of England spokesman Lou Henderson said the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion’s spiritual leader, was unlikely to make any public comment about the controversy.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367191,00.html]This should be its own thread[/url]
Mere blasphemy. Gene Robinson ended his marriage in a eucharist, making it the Divorce Supper of the Lame. This mocks every Christian marriage in the last 2000 years. Anglicans have been thoroughly anesthetized. No theological reflexes left. Including gag.
It’s become very common for an Anglican who converts to the Orthodox Church to be asked just *how* and with *what words* they were baptized, since the rite is so often screwed up (or absent). Now if a married couple convert (assuming the primitive arrangement of one of each sex, no more, no less) they will have to be interrogated about their wedding; pre or post-June 2008?
As predicted, this isn’t about same sex couples having what normal couples have, it’s about making sure they no longer have it.
[blockquote]I am not bothered about the ‘rules’ because they are only guidelines.[/blockquote]
Fr. Dudley must have watched the Pirates of the Carribean one time too many I’d say!
[blockquote]Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not. And thirdly, [b]the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.[/b] Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.[/blockquote]
And this isn’t a marriage? Just”alleg ed?” Oh, give me a break. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. This is a flagrant challeng e, and this is just what it ws meant to be. These wretched creatures have said, “The ABC and his cronies will not respond to this challenge and we will walk away scot free. From then on, its a piece of cake for all of us.” Larry
I think you’ll find the jurisdiction over this matter falls to the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres and he has already taken the first step that should lead to Fr. Dudley being disciplined.
driver8,
What exactly would the discipline of these clergy be? A Slap on the wrist and “don’t do it again”? Suspension? What exactly? And Iam assuming that the discpiline incude the “newlyweds?”
RE: “. . . that should lead to Fr. Dudley being disciplined . . . ”
I yield to everybody else’s better knowledge of the COE, but I find it hard to believe that there will be any discipline at all, unless we are watering down the meaning of the word “discipline” to mean some hearty “tut-tutting” . . .
If so, it would certainly make the COE awfully awfully rabidly conservative in comparison to TEC.
There is the range of possible penalties. Without knowing anything about disciplinary case law I could imagine that e) might be the sort of thing we would be looking at.
[blockquote]Types of penalty
(1) One or more of the following penalties may be imposed on a respondent upon a finding that he has committed any misconduct, namely—
(a) prohibition for life, that is to say prohibition without limit of time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders;
(b) limited prohibition, that is to say prohibition for a specific time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders;
(c) removal from office, that is to say, removal from any preferment which he then holds;
(d) in the case of a minister licensed to serve in a diocese by the bishop thereof, revocation of the licence;
(e) injunction, that is to say, an order to do or to refrain from doing a specified act;
(f) rebuke[/blockquote]
I think disciplining the “honoured couple” may be much more tricky. Firstly because I’m not sure that one party, the doctor from New Zealand, is recognized as a minister by the CofE at all. If he has not gone through having his orders recognized then it may be that he is not subject to CofE Canon Law at all. Secondly because I half recall reading that the other party is moving to New Zealand.
Thirdly, receiving a blessing is not mentioned, as I recall, in the Bishops’ Guidelines. Rather clergy are prohibited from giving blessing to civil partnerships. Hence it might be hard to find grounds on which to complain about the clergy couple being blessed. (It’s considerably easier to complain about the priest who gave the blessing as he clearly broke the Bishops’ regulations). Perhaps something general such as a complaint about conduct unbecoming a clerk in holy orders – but it would be very hard to show that IMO – it’s too general a charge.
Finally, clergy are permitted to enter civil partnerships on the condition that they have assured their bishop that their relationship is celibate. Thus if the two partners did not inform the Bishop of London it may be possible for a formal complaint to be made on that ground. In general I imagine in the CofE that kind of thing would be dealt with by a quiet chat. Yet as they elected to ostentatiously break the Bishops’ Guidelines there may be more will to respond in a more forthright manner.
Thus here are more uniformed thoughts:
1. 1 partner may be outside the reach of CofE Canon Law altogether.
2. The other partner might perhaps most easily be disciplined for not informing the Bishop of his civil partnership (if such is the case). Of course, if he did inform the Bishop – there is no ground for complaint at all.
3. One might complain that receiving such a blessing is itself evidence of conduct unbecoming a clerk in holy orders and so grounds for a complaint – but I think such a complaint may be a waste of time.
[blockquote]The Times understands that liberals are considering a legal challenge to guidelines that rule against blessings for civil partnerships but sanction a pastoral, prayerful response when gay couples enter a civil partnership.[/blockquote]
If [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4142107.ece]this[/url]
this story is true it seems the politicization of the church, which the CofE bishops have struggled manfully to restrain, is about to leap across the Atlantic in a big way.
In view of the use of the Prayer Book phrase “with my body I thee worship,” if the partner told the bishop that the relationship is celibate, that statement is flatly false.
How odd things are today. Time was when spending a night together was proof positive of sexual congress, but now, when two men live together in a civil union, this is not considered proof of sexual activity.
I am reminded of Pirates of the Caribbean when it talks of the Pirates’ Code: well they’re more like guidelines……
When I objected to the HoB Pastoral Statement my Bishop “reassured” me with that they are “only guidelines”. And this has been widespread. See the statement from RW above and his use of the word “guidelines”. What they mean is ‘it would be mighty embarrassing and slightly inconvenient to us at the moment if you were to do this; our suggestion is that you don’t do it, please’.
So (#16 driver8) if any of those sanctions are used in this case, it’ll be a miracle. Even now the Bishop of London’s staff will be running around to try and find a way to overlook this. It is all part of the strategy of holding the CofE together.
It’s why we so badly need GAFCON.
Perhaps someone could clear this up for me. How do gays in the church view sin? Do they acknowledge themselves as sinners before God? All this gay wedding stuff made me wonder.
Thanks, Peter.
I copy below an important section from the [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20051206radio5.cfm?doc=73]interview[/url] of the Archbishop of Canterbury by Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 Live, transcribed by Fulcrum, 6 December 2005.
The key quote from Rowan Williams, which is particularly pertinent to the service at St Bartholomew-the-Great, is: ‘We don’t want orders of service which, if you like, run up to the frontiers of marriage and then just pull back a little bit.’
[blockquote]Rowan: Well, the guidelines issued by the House of Bishops are quite clear. If a priest wants to enter into a civil partnership, then he or she has to give an undertaking that this is not an active sexual relationship, because I don’t think it’s proper that the Church should have its doctrine and discipline changed by the decision of the State. That’s the bottom line there.
Simon: Do you think these couples who are going to have a civil partnership shortly and have some kind of ceremony – do you think that they should be able to have it blessed in church, or there should be some kind of ceremony which would give blessing?
Rowan: Well, again, the Bishops of the Church of England have said, no, they don’t think that is appropriate. It’s partly because, I don’t think any of us would know quite what we were blessing in any particular instance. The danger of making…
Simon: …presumably you’d be blessing two people who are saying publicly that they want to commit themselves to each other for the foreseeable future – same as in a wedding.
Rowan: A wedding includes rather more than that. A wedding is between a man and woman. It has the possibility, normally, of family. It’s a social fact. It’s got two thousand years, or more, of theology behind it. And I think what the Archbishops of the Anglican Church said, a couple of years ago when they met, was: ‘You need to be clearer about having a theology before you have a service – or something like that.’ So, I think it’s right to hold back on that. We don’t want this confused with marriage, at the moment. We don’t want orders of service which, if you like, run up to the frontiers of marriage and then just pull back a little bit. It’s a very complicated issue, and I think how people deal with it pastorally, in individual cases, is going to be difficult.[/blockquote]
In considering the liturgy, the service at St Bartholomew-the-Great was designed to be ‘performative’. It was designed to create a bond by the words used and was not merely thanking God for what had been accomplished beforehand. This is very significant in that it mimiced ‘marriage’ and stepped way beyond any authorised ‘Service of Blessing After a Civil Marriage’.
Maybe this is the key quote:
“We don’t want this confused with marriage, at the moment.”
Timing is everything.
Any fool can see what the logical consequences of accepting homosexual relationships must be – it’s only a matter of time before you arrive at your destination. Everything else – convoluted drivel about ‘civil partnerships’, alleged ‘blessings’ of what Jesus Christ has forbidden, maunderings about ‘the spirit’ – is deluded and deluding. ‘Let your yes be yes and your no be no.’
I am concerned with the phrase “with my body I thee worship” as used in this ceremony. In the marriage of a man and a woman, does this not have sexual connotations? What about the same connotations between two male partners? Or this union intended to be asexual?
Of course it is sexual in meaning. Here’s some more about the priest who took this mock wedding which is disturbing if true, libellous if false (and the London Telegraph is very upfront about it):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2135081/Controversial-vicar-investigated-after-Anglican-church's-first-gay-'wedding‘.html
Interesting and very telling!
[blockquote]Church of England spokesman Lou Henderson said the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion’s spiritual leader, was unlikely to make any public comment about the controversy.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367191,00.html]This should be its own thread[/url]
The Great St Bart’s Rite: ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Goat’
Prescient.
Mere blasphemy. Gene Robinson ended his marriage in a eucharist, making it the Divorce Supper of the Lame. This mocks every Christian marriage in the last 2000 years. Anglicans have been thoroughly anesthetized. No theological reflexes left. Including gag.
It’s become very common for an Anglican who converts to the Orthodox Church to be asked just *how* and with *what words* they were baptized, since the rite is so often screwed up (or absent). Now if a married couple convert (assuming the primitive arrangement of one of each sex, no more, no less) they will have to be interrogated about their wedding; pre or post-June 2008?
As predicted, this isn’t about same sex couples having what normal couples have, it’s about making sure they no longer have it.
Fr. Dudley is reported to have said:
[blockquote]I am not bothered about the ‘rules’ because they are only guidelines.[/blockquote]
He’ll find he is gravely mistaken about the legal force of Bishops’ Guidelines. Breaching them is potentially a disciplinary offence.
[blockquote]I am not bothered about the ‘rules’ because they are only guidelines.[/blockquote]
Fr. Dudley must have watched the Pirates of the Carribean one time too many I’d say!
[blockquote]Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not. And thirdly, [b]the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.[/b] Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.[/blockquote]
And this isn’t a marriage? Just”alleg ed?” Oh, give me a break. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. This is a flagrant challeng e, and this is just what it ws meant to be. These wretched creatures have said, “The ABC and his cronies will not respond to this challenge and we will walk away scot free. From then on, its a piece of cake for all of us.” Larry
I think you’ll find the jurisdiction over this matter falls to the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres and he has already taken the first step that should lead to Fr. Dudley being disciplined.
driver8,
What exactly would the discipline of these clergy be? A Slap on the wrist and “don’t do it again”? Suspension? What exactly? And Iam assuming that the discpiline incude the “newlyweds?”
RE: “. . . that should lead to Fr. Dudley being disciplined . . . ”
I yield to everybody else’s better knowledge of the COE, but I find it hard to believe that there will be any discipline at all, unless we are watering down the meaning of the word “discipline” to mean some hearty “tut-tutting” . . .
If so, it would certainly make the COE awfully awfully rabidly conservative in comparison to TEC.
There is the range of possible penalties. Without knowing anything about disciplinary case law I could imagine that e) might be the sort of thing we would be looking at.
[blockquote]Types of penalty
(1) One or more of the following penalties may be imposed on a respondent upon a finding that he has committed any misconduct, namely—
(a) prohibition for life, that is to say prohibition without limit of time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders;
(b) limited prohibition, that is to say prohibition for a specific time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders;
(c) removal from office, that is to say, removal from any preferment which he then holds;
(d) in the case of a minister licensed to serve in a diocese by the bishop thereof, revocation of the licence;
(e) injunction, that is to say, an order to do or to refrain from doing a specified act;
(f) rebuke[/blockquote]
Thank you driver8! I will pray that the Lord’s will will be done and His judgement will be the one chosen for this most blasphemous act.
I think disciplining the “honoured couple” may be much more tricky. Firstly because I’m not sure that one party, the doctor from New Zealand, is recognized as a minister by the CofE at all. If he has not gone through having his orders recognized then it may be that he is not subject to CofE Canon Law at all. Secondly because I half recall reading that the other party is moving to New Zealand.
Thirdly, receiving a blessing is not mentioned, as I recall, in the Bishops’ Guidelines. Rather clergy are prohibited from giving blessing to civil partnerships. Hence it might be hard to find grounds on which to complain about the clergy couple being blessed. (It’s considerably easier to complain about the priest who gave the blessing as he clearly broke the Bishops’ regulations). Perhaps something general such as a complaint about conduct unbecoming a clerk in holy orders – but it would be very hard to show that IMO – it’s too general a charge.
Finally, clergy are permitted to enter civil partnerships on the condition that they have assured their bishop that their relationship is celibate. Thus if the two partners did not inform the Bishop of London it may be possible for a formal complaint to be made on that ground. In general I imagine in the CofE that kind of thing would be dealt with by a quiet chat. Yet as they elected to ostentatiously break the Bishops’ Guidelines there may be more will to respond in a more forthright manner.
Thus here are more uniformed thoughts:
1. 1 partner may be outside the reach of CofE Canon Law altogether.
2. The other partner might perhaps most easily be disciplined for not informing the Bishop of his civil partnership (if such is the case). Of course, if he did inform the Bishop – there is no ground for complaint at all.
3. One might complain that receiving such a blessing is itself evidence of conduct unbecoming a clerk in holy orders and so grounds for a complaint – but I think such a complaint may be a waste of time.
[blockquote]The Times understands that liberals are considering a legal challenge to guidelines that rule against blessings for civil partnerships but sanction a pastoral, prayerful response when gay couples enter a civil partnership.[/blockquote]
If [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4142107.ece]this[/url]
this story is true it seems the politicization of the church, which the CofE bishops have struggled manfully to restrain, is about to leap across the Atlantic in a big way.
In view of the use of the Prayer Book phrase “with my body I thee worship,” if the partner told the bishop that the relationship is celibate, that statement is flatly false.
That may be so – but you would need to provide evidence that could stand up in a Tribunal to show it to be false – which might be difficult!
How odd things are today. Time was when spending a night together was proof positive of sexual congress, but now, when two men live together in a civil union, this is not considered proof of sexual activity.
Don’t miss Peter Ould’s follow-up post on the theology behind the liturgy that was used:
http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/06/15/gay-wedding-the-theology/
I am reminded of Pirates of the Caribbean when it talks of the Pirates’ Code: well they’re more like guidelines……
When I objected to the HoB Pastoral Statement my Bishop “reassured” me with that they are “only guidelines”. And this has been widespread. See the statement from RW above and his use of the word “guidelines”. What they mean is ‘it would be mighty embarrassing and slightly inconvenient to us at the moment if you were to do this; our suggestion is that you don’t do it, please’.
So (#16 driver8) if any of those sanctions are used in this case, it’ll be a miracle. Even now the Bishop of London’s staff will be running around to try and find a way to overlook this. It is all part of the strategy of holding the CofE together.
It’s why we so badly need GAFCON.