The bishop of London said Sunday he would order an investigation into whether two gay priests exchanged rings and vows in a church ceremony, violating Anglican guidelines.
The priests walked down the aisle in a May 31 service at one of London’s oldest churches marked by a fanfare of trumpets and capped by a shower of confetti, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reported.
The bishop, the Right Rev. Richard Chartres, said such services are not authorized in the Church of England. He said he would ask the archdeacon of London to investigate.
A call placed with the archdeacon was not immediately returned.
Britain officially recognizes civil partnerships but the Church of England’s guidelines say clergy should not bless such unions.
Any honest investigation ought to be very quick indeed.
And the likelyhood that the “investigation” will incur any kind of real discipline is… 0.
[blockquote]
The bishop of London said Sunday he would order an investigation into whether two gay priests exchanged rings and vows in a church ceremony, violating Anglican guidelines.[/blockquote]
See [url=http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/06/15/gay-wedding/ ]Peter Ould’s line by line analysis[/url] of the wedding. The officiant is stating, “Oh no, it was just a blessing of a civil union.” Baloney! And, of course, even a blessing of a civil union goes against what are described as “strict guidlelines” by CoE officials.
[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]
No comment?! Does public silence here constitute assent? You would think the spokesman would say the Archbishop is waiting until a full investigation is completed before making any comment. What is up with Williams? Is he really completely in the bag for the TEC agenda?
Someone somewhere else said, and I paraphrase so forgive me, that we complain over and over again about procedures and canons and constitutions not being followed here in the U.S. But, at lest the Brits are following their procedures here. I too, think we need to be patient and wait upon the Lord and the process that the CofE has in place and keep the whole sorid affair in our prayers for God’s grace, wisdom, and discipline to be done. We need to step back as spectators and allow them to do the necessities in their procedures and watch prayerfully. Remember, this is Britian and not the USA! I hold out the hope that they will do better than our HofB, HofD, et al
It’s a bit hypocritical to be placing any judgement on them thus far since we can’t even get anyone in our own bishops & priests deposed for denying that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life as well as breaking every canon they can to push their own agenda!
ODC,
I agree with you that the process and procedures in place need to be followed, but I think it is folly not to have the CoE’s public spokesman say that Williams will be issuing a statement after the investigative process is complete. If I think about this with my conspiratorial side, I conclude that the parties to this “blessing” knew full well that no investigation could be completed by the time GAFCON or Lambeth occurred and they set the timing of their “blessing” specifically as a provocative act to force the issue to a head and cause the maximum pressure on the reasserter side to issue an ultimatum and/or publicly state there is a schism. I believe they hope that this will have the effect of causing the reasserters to publicly remove themselves from the Anglican Communion so the TEC party can take full control.
Daniel,
I will not deny your opinions and observations above. I agree but I just don’t think that hammering the prodecure in England is helpful.
I do wonder though…..with all the money being spent on lawsuits here in the U.S. by 815 and on other things that are coming down the pike such as having to maintain seudo dioceses like Remain Episcopal San Joaquin monetarially, how much money can TEC be able to really give to Canterbury? The money train will eventually drivel up I would think and especially with all the departures that have already occurred and those about to occur and those on the horizon afterwards. That is money TEC will never see but they seem to have an abundance at this time for lawsuits, and maintance of seudo dioceses…..or do they?
The Archdeacon is one of the people authorized to make a formal complaint that the priest violated the canons. Remember that the Church of England as an established church has more legal hoops and more power over the clergy than the Episcopal Church. In the late 19th century clergy went to jail for having lit candles on the altar and wearing eucharistic vestments. Some things have changed but not all.
What is there to investigate? They performed a gay wedding. Guilty. Nuff said. Keep it simple.
Why of course we must investigate and study and discuss and communicate and form a commission and check on the brand of socks they were wearing and whether their parishes are provided organic wafers and we must display all manner of prayerful patience—AS ALWAYS when the radical left makes one of its revolutionary moves. And of course if ABC were to make a statement most of us poor clods would be unable to understand his ethereal pronouncement.
Fabian socialism, baby. They use our legitimate processes against us.
This is all fun in a knock about way – and I enjoy a bit of it myself – but if you want to actually find out the disciplinary processes that are laid down in English law google Clergy Disciplinary Measure. The bishop has to follow its processes or whatever decision is made can and will be challenged on human rights grounds. Unlike in TEC the rights of those against whom allegations have been made are respected. I hope you’ll agree that even those who are guilty are entitled to defend themselves in a hearing at which evidence can be presented.
In fact, if you look at the Clergy Disciplinary Measure you’ll see that in very real ways CofE bishops have considerably less power over disciplinary matters than their TEC conterparts.
The new and improved method of clergy discipline may be found in a diagram [url=http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/clergydiscipline/diagram.rtf ]here[/url]. The text is found [url=http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/clergydiscipline/ ]here[/url]. In particular, the bishop must respond within four weeks whether the offense is worthy of investigation and may suspend the priest during the investigation period.
If interested in filing a complaint to the bishop of London, the form may be downloaded [url=http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/clergydiscipline/form1a.rtf ]here[/url]. As driver8 has pointed out, to file a complaint about clergy, you must be a church warden at the parish or someone with a “personal interest” where by the later, they state [i]”For example, you would have a proper interest, if you have personally observed or experienced the alleged misconduct.”[/i] I would argue if you went to church this morning, you have experienced the misconduct because it affects the entire church.
I should say that the bishop has already stated there will be an investigation, so apparently the filing of the complaint part of the procedure seems to have been taken place. Thus, the officiant could be suspended tomorrow while the investigation is on going.
Some background about David Lord at his ordination as deacon can be found on page 2 of this newsletter
http://www.hn-ang.org.nz/data/news_sermons/newsletters/churchalive/ChurchAliveMar06.pdf
I understand he has now given in his licence.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4585977a10.html
It does make you wonder though, whether this is a “don’t ask, and don’t marry” situation — ie was it alright with his Bishop for him to live with another man, just so long as he didn’t embarrass the said Bishop by going public.
#15:
“Happy is he that found, and finding was not heedless;
Happy is he that found, and happy the friend that was with him.
So won Philip his bride:
They are married and gone to New Zealand.”
– A. H. Clough, The Ballad of Tober-Na-Vuolich
This can hardly have come as a total surprise. According to the miscreant vicar there have been ‘negotiations’ including at least one letter exchanged with the Bishop of London.
Listening to the BBC interview with him I was struck by his parsing of the word “offer” which he took to mean he could not offer marriages or blessings but could respond “pastorally” if asked. The same dishonest use of language we heard from the Bishop of London when he told London Synod that there would be no gay eucharist at St Peter’s, Eaton Square only for the communion to take place at another church with Episcocrat connections in his diocese.
Meanwhile what action has been taken. Well promptly from the other side of the world the Bishop of Waikato in New Zealand and ex-rev Lord issued a statement that they had arranged that Lord would lay aside his orders.
And from London? No evidence of any prior action having been taken by +London, no suspension of the priests while investigated. No statement.
And Canterbury? ‘not expected to comment’
What do they make CofE bishops of – [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blancmange]blancmange?[/url]
#15:
So should we now praise D. Lord?
Or will opposition peter out and a cowl be drawn over this dudley attack on the Anglican faith by a marten?*
(* from Chambers: marten, n., a weasel with valuable fur)
Dear Pageantmaster, we appreciate you helping us Yanks to understand all things British. Perhaps readers might get a better understanding of blancmange if they watch [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMCNltgrs1U ]Monty Python’s exlplanation[/url] rather than a wikipedia article?
The officiant is saying this wasn’t a provocative act and that it wasn’t a marriage. If the zookeeper labels the creature that has feathers and quacks as a swan, I don’t think any of us are deceived. The officiant simply is adding mendacity to his list of sins.
#19 Thanks Dr Dr Rob Roy – that was a good laugh for Monday morning. How’s your tennis?