From Canada.com
TORONTO (CP) - Canadian Anglican bishops issued a pastoral statement Tuesday that essentially rejects the blessing of same-sex unions but acknowledges there will be further votes on the matter when the church's governing body meets next month.
....
"Not all bishops can conceive of condoning or blessing same-sex unions," the statement said. Feheley said there are 41 active bishops in Canada and a "substantial majority" voted for the statement.
The bishops say they recognize that the provisions of the statement are less than a blessing of same-sex unions or marriage.
But they add that it is "a Gospel imperative to pray with the whole people of God, no matter their circumstance."
For example, the statement suggests a parish, with its bishop's knowledge and permission, could pray with a civilly married gay or lesbian couple that wants recognition of their union and celebrate a eucharist with the couple.
....
Also, "we hope no baptized Christian will be denied communion or confirmation because of being in a committed homosexual relationship or because of their marital status."
The bishops say the ministry of gay and lesbian clergy in the church is "deeply valued and appreciated."
"We acknowledge the pain and conflict that many of you live with daily in your ministry in Christ."
Gay and lesbian couples, along with their children, are fit for Baptism and Communion, but not for a nuptual blessing. However, they can have prayers and a Eucharist, if the bishop permits. Is this truly a step forward? Perhaps, but the logic here escapes me. I am pleased that the bishops acknowledge "a Gospel imperative to pray with the whole people of God, no matter their circumstance."
And from the Anglican Journal, we see the result of the bishops' statement for Shawn Sanford Beck:
Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck, an Anglican priest in the diocese of Saskatoon who recently declared that he intends to marry gay couples if asked and who was asked by his bishop to reconsider his position by March 31 or risk losing his license to minister, has resigned his position.
“To my knowledge, the Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck has not presided at a same-sex blessing or a same-sex marriage. Accordingly, I issued Shawn a short-term licence effective April 1, 2007. Shawn has chosen not to accept licensing and has returned the licence to me,” said Bishop Rodney Andrews in a statement. “He has subsequently resigned his position with the Saskatoon Native Ministry.”
In the absence of a licence from the bishop, Mr. Sanford Beck is now considered “On leave without permission to officiate,” said Bishop Andrews.
....
In an open letter, Mr. Sanford Beck said the church’s ban on same-sex marriages and blessings “is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust.”
You may wonder why I, a humble Episcopalian in the pew in south Louisiana, write about this? It's been taken up and written about by my betters. I write because I think this is a lame response by the Anglican bishops of Canada, and because I hate that the ministry loses Shawn, who appears to be a good man and a good priest. I have been praying for him and his wife Janice since their story first came to light. I pray that this good man finds his way back to service in the ministry.
I write because I hope that the bishops of the Episcopal Church will take a different approach. What are the chances that they will? Slim, I'd say. Perhaps they will not even go as far as the Canadian bishops.
What I'd really like to see is for the church to get out of the marriage business altogether. The clerics inserted themselves into the process rather late in Christian history. Let the civil authorities handle it, and if the couple wants prayers afterwards, then the church can do that. That would settle one major controversy within the church.
Mimi, I agree with you 100% about the Church getting out of the legal marriage license business... and have maintained this view for many years even though I have gone ahead and begrudgingly signed many a marriage license after officiating. Let people do the legal part at a civic office, and THEN come to the church for the blessing of the union. Or more accurately, acknowledge in a religious ceremony the *already-existing* blessing of God on that couple. If the state will not do the legal part for some of us, that does not prevent the church from publically recognizing the couple's union as an existing state of blessedness in the eyes of God. As has been said by others, no "blessing" is really needed... but rather the public proclamation of God's pre-existing blessing of the commited, loving relationship.
ReplyDeleteIntegrity Canada had this response.
ReplyDeleteAs for me - seeing "we hope no one will be denied baptism or communion" instead of a strong "no Christian shall be denied" makes me weep.
That should read NO ONE shall be denied.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I'm pleased you agree. What got me to thinking about church weddings was the movie, "Four Weddings and a Funeral". I thought the movie was quite funny, but the spectacle of those godless couples marrying in the beautiful old churches and chapels and having prayers and blessings that they very likely did not particularly want, put me off a bit.
ReplyDeleteI was always taught that the minister simply presides and does not "marry" the couple. They marry each other.
God blesses whom he/she wills.
Ann, "we hope no one will be denied" from those who have the power to say "no one shall be denied" is part of what I found lame.
What I can't work out is why folks who are fit to be baptized and be given Communion are not fit to receive a blessing on their union.
Assorted churches have no problem blessing dogs, ferrets or nuclear subs (so that they not be called "Corpus Christi", which is pushing it), so why not ....
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, where do we go for Alternative Primatial Oversight the next couple of weeks?
Lapin, perhaps the primate of OCICBW will issue a directive to his adoring fans about where they can go to bitch and moan about his absence and just generally to bitch and moan.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI pulled my last comment. Hardly language to post to a lady. Sorry. Revisited a good English crab cake recipe last night (this IS possible - there are fine crabs, Dungeness type - no messing around with those tiny, mouth-full, creatures - in UK waters). It includes mashed potatoes. Sounds bizarre, but it works.
ReplyDeleteI see that some folks - I won't name names - are already suffering withdrawal symptoms from being forced off their daily dose of OCICBW.
ReplyDeleteIsn't he, though? I'm considering it. On a more serious level, I've also headed over to a wonderful Down-Under expatriate Yorkshire broad who runs an incredibly detailed website on historic - mainly UK - food, called "The Old Foodie". 18th & 19th c. grub is no way to loose weight, something to which I need to give serious consideration, but ... A goodly slice of south eastern US food has its origins in 17th & 18th c. British food - Louisiana less so, of course - so it's of interest from that aspect, as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://theoldfoodie.blogspot.com/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere's churches in the US that have actually stopped signing marriage licenses as the pastors recognize that if they do, it's blatantly discriminating others in their own congregation. So, to make things fair and equal, they'll perform ceremonies for gay or straight couples, but no licenses will be signed.
ReplyDeleteOh, and check out this movie I just saw, God & Gays: Bridging the Gap. There's a great line in there from one of the interviewees about marriage. It's a great movie. Check it out at www.godandgaysthemovie.com/documentary.