A kind reader e-mailed us the link to a new entry on the diocese of Saskatchewan website. It is a letter to the Canadian House of Bishops concerning its statement on pastoral care to same-sex couples in response to the Canadian General Synod’s call for further theological reflection on these matters.
Here’s how the diocese of Saskatchewan website introduces the letter:
In a letter that is likely to lead to calls for review within the House of Bishops of its April Statement on pastoral care to same-sex couples, theologian John Hodgins argues that celebrating Holy Communion for civilly married same-sex couples, while withholding a nuptial blessing, severs and undermines the unity of the Eucharist. Fr. Hodgins’ courteous letter is exceptional both for the force of its argument and its impartiality regarding the same-sex issue. His concern is with the nature of the Church.
Here’s an excerpt from the letter:
In time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and over centuries, the official role of solemnization and recording of vows was assumed by the Church in many places. The Celebration of Marriage was instituted as “a public service of the Church” (BAS p. 526). For the first half of Christian history, however, many contend that the only blessing of Christian marriage and other relationships of professing Christians (holy orders, religious life, etc) was in the context of the Mass.
For good reason, only those committed to Christ in faith would celebrate their professions or states of life at the Eucharist with the clear understanding that only that which was inherently blessed by God and in conformity with sacred Scripture and tradition was to be celebrated in the Sacrament of Unity. Christ is the Sacrament of God. In the Holy Eucharist we share communion in Christ’s life and blessing. This is the single and unified source of liturgical blessing in the Christian community. No blessing may be added which is not inherently present within the dominical Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The suggestion that a further blessing may be added or withheld from those in a civil union or other relationship, apart from the blessing that is inherent in the Holy Eucharist, is to confuse the issue and to detract from Christ’s unique blessing. To presume that a bishop or priest might somehow add to the Sacrament or withhold pronouncing God’s blessing upon any person, state or relationship beyond what is celebrated in the Eucharist is to suggest a development of doctrine which is not within the jurisdiction of any single body of Christians.
As John W.B. Hill has pointed out in his essay, A Theology of Blessing and Liturgies of Blessing, “The mere pronouncement of a blessing can be seriously misunderstood if we forget that we are a eucharistic people. Blessing is not a power we wield but a gift we celebrate.” To be theologically consistent, then, the blessing of God celebrated in the context of the Holy Eucharist is complete. No other blessing may be added or withheld.
In summary: Provision for a celebration of relationships which presumes or indicates that the Holy Eucharist is lacking in some way and so may allow for or require a further blessing by a priest or bishop is fundamentally contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Such a provision inherently undermines the doctrine of the Church with regard to Sacrament. The concept of ”˜blessing’ as set apart from or in addition to the expression of God’s love and friendship in the Holy Eucharist contradicts the nature of the Sacrament.
The notion of an additional blessing pronounced or withheld apart from the Eucharist celebrating a relationship is not in conformity with the formularies of the Church. For example, the BCP and BAS both allow for the celebration and blessing of a marriage outside of the Eucharist but the BAS rubric clearly states that “Where both bride and bridegroom are entitled to receive communion, it is desirable that the form of service in which the marriage rite is incorporated in the celebration of the eucharist be used.” (BAS p. 527). There is no provision, however, for the celebration of the Marriage Eucharist which precludes the blessing of the relationship because blessing is inherent within the Eucharist. To sever or undermine the unity of Eucharist and blessing contradicts the very nature of the Eucharist which is the fullest expression of God’s blessing.
In fact, Eucharistic celebrations of the sort proposed in the Statement would easily be misunderstood as attempting to do indirectly what has not been approved. At the same time, withholding a blessing, would indicate that such an extraordinary blessing (outside of the Eucharistic celebration) is in some way superior to, or in addition to the singular blessing of God in Christ which is celebrated most completely in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
For these reasons I respectfully request that the instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships in the Statement to General Synod (2007) be withdrawn.
John L. Hodgins
Chatham , Ontario
Theologian Hodgins is quite correct in his assertions.
I have two regrets.
The first regret is that his entire theological argument is placed in the context of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Thus his argument is inapplicable to the revisionists.
The idea of Eucharist involving a Supernatural activity has been shown to be pre-scientific by the revisionists. And they now claim that Science is the dominant paradigm and the lens through which all human activity is to be viewed.
The second regret is that his most excellent analysis will not even be read by its intended recipients.
Too true, mathman, too true. How it grieves!
T
You may be right, but this is too trenchant am exposition not to be read by those for whom it is most important. They will ignore what it says, or obscure the argument with all manner of qualifications, but they will read. If only in this, that they follow the blogs too and probably cannot escape this essay everywhere. Still, this is as cogent a performance as I have seen in some time, and I rather think it takes come courage.
What does BAS stand for? Larry
By the bye, one way or another, this forces the Canadian hand, for this is essentially a put-up-or-shut-up proposition, is it not?
I do love the Dio. of Sask. Tony Burton (bishop and webmaster of said Dio.) is a cool customer, as it were, and his shrewdness is amazing. But mathman is very correct in his analysis. Perhaps, +Tony could take Hodgins’ letter and staple it to his fellow bishops foreheads.
“BAS” = Book of Alternative Services