THE DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA MOVES FORWARD (OR NOT) ON SAME-SEX BLESSINGS

Whereas, the Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston stated in his pastoral address to the 215th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia:

“I do regret that, in this address, some important matters in our common life will seem to be slighted while others are omitted, such as the several topics arising from the debate on sexuality. But I look for us to address these issues thoroughly in regional forums in 2010. It is unfortunate that some of the weightiest deliberations that come before us cannot be adequately and justly dealt with in the very short time allowed by Annual Council....”

All of the resolutions which passed and the entire text of Bishop Johnston's address to the 215th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia on moving forward (or not moving forward) on same-sex blessings may be found at the diocesan website.

Below are the resolutions which address the matter of same-sex blessings. My first question is whether the same standards apply in deciding whether a blessing is given to a same-sex couple as would apply for a heterosexual couple.

Resolved, the 215th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia recognizes that:

1. Our clergy and people remain divided over the wisdom and theology of blessing same gender relationships, as well as how much weight to give to the views of others in the Anglican Communion about these issues, particularly to views from those with whom we are in mission partnership;

True, surely.

2. The growing differences between Christian and Civil understanding of marriage and relationships create immediate pastoral issues for our clergy and congregations;

True. As states move forward to approve same-sex partnerships and same-sex marriages, immediate pastoral issues will arise.

3. There are numerous same-gender couples in our diocese engaged in long-term monogamous relationships who have engaged in productive and vital ministries for the proclamation of the Gospel. Many of these couples strongly desire the church’s blessing of their relationships;

True again. And why is it so difficult to decide that ALL faithful, monogamous couples have a right to equal treatment in the matter of blessings?

4. These issues deserve to be collectively addressed in an orderly, careful, and deliberate way assisted by appropriate legal and canonical experts; and

"[O]rderly, careful", yes, but not with long delays. Equality delayed is equality denied.

Recommends that:

1. Our Bishop is asked to empanel a group of clergy and lay people, including attorneys admitted to practice in Virginia and recognized experts on canon law, as well as knowledgeable clergy and lay representatives of a variety of theological perspectives on the issue of blessing same-gender relationships.

Form a committee. That's one way to delay making controversial decisions. Not to decide is to decide against blessings for same-sex couples for the present and the immediate future.

2. Such panel shall recommend consistent standards to be written into diocesan canons so that, if services of blessing same-gender unions are authorized, our clergy and people have a clearly understood and enforceable set of rules to guide the application of clergy discretion in providing pastoral care to same-gender couples seeking such blessings.

I expect that the standards are for the protection of clergy who don't want to preside at same-sex blessings. Who would want a clergy person to preside over their wedding if that person did not want to be there? A downer, surely.

3. In formulating these recommendations, the following issues may be addressed (based in part on General Convention Canon I.1.18 and I.1.19):

(a) Whether individual members of the clergy have the right, as a matter of theological principle, to decline to conduct any such service, without adverse disciplinary consequences or personnel action;

Are clergy presently forced to conduct blessing ceremonies? I don't think so. Why must the matter be taken up?

(b) Whether individual members of the clergy have the right to decline to conduct such a service for a particular same gender couple, without adverse disciplinary consequences or personnel action, similar to the current rule for clergy asked to conduct weddings;

Same answer as above.

(c) The age, capacity and degree of kinship, if any, of the parties;

Other than following the civil laws, are these matters under consideration for blessings of heterosexual couples?

(d) The effect of prior marriages or unions blessed by a licensed clergy person or registered with civil authorities, the responsibility to any former spouse or partner in such union, and responsibility to minor children of any prior marriage or union;

Same as above.

(e) The appropriateness of advance medical screening, if any;

Same as above.

(f) The effect of any legal union or marriage entered into between the parties in another jurisdiction;

Yes, the question should be settled for the sake of the couples who were married or granted a civil-partnership in another state.

(g) The appropriate role of the Bishop for advanced review of any proposed blessing of a specific same-gender couple;

Does the bishop do an advanced review of blessings for couples of the opposite sex?

(h) Review of financial arrangements to protect the parties in the absence of state law presumptions governing married couples, presumptions intended to protect the weaker party from potential exploitation, oppression, or improvident action by the other party in the relationship;

I'd be quite surprised if such reviews are required of heterosexual couples.

(i) Other factors listed in the General Convention canons for marriage, Canons I.1.18 and I.1.19, including the baptismal status of the parties, the commitment to life-long union, the voluntariness of consent, the absence of coercion, fraud, mistake of identity of the other party;

Apply the same rules as for heterosexual couples.

(j) The minimum time line between notification of the clergy of a desire to obtain such a blessing and the performance of the ceremony;

Same as above.

(k) The number of witnesses and the record-keeping requirements for the clergy and any congregation involved;

Same as above

(l) Any requirement for written affirmation by the couple that the commitment is to a life-long union;

Same as above.

(m) Any statement of the theological basis for the union to which the partners are to subscribe;

Same as above.

(n) Provision to address possible dissolution of a blessed same-gender relationship, including the considerations of factors enumerated in Canon I.1.19 to address marriages which are in distress or which have been terminated by a civil court, as well as the circumstances, if any, under which another same-gender relationship may be blessed where both partners to an earlier such relationship remain living;

Yes, provision would need to be made for this eventuality.

(o) The restriction in the General Convention canon on marriage in the church to heterosexual couples;

I thought the resolutions were about blessings.

(p) Whether any blessing service for same-gender union may be used in lieu of marriage for heterosexual couples under any circumstances, and if so, what those circumstances are;

I wonder how this resolution will play out.

(q) How these might apply to all members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans-gendered community;

Will the blessings apply to ALL in a big tent kinda way?

(r) Any other factor deemed important by the panel.

Whoa! Will the panel meet the deadline with the "Any other factor" in the resolution?

3. If the Bishop appoints such a panel, the panel shall strive to deliver its report (including proposed canonical language) to the Executive Board by All Saints Day, 2010, in time for careful and orderly consideration of its recommendations by the 216th Annual Council of the Diocese. The panel is not to opine on whether the blessings of same-gender unions should be authorized, but it is to set forth its canonical recommendations to govern blessing such relationships if such services of blessing are authorized.

No opining, ya hear!

4. The consideration of any authorization for Virginia clergy to enter same gender unions should be deferred until after consideration of the preceding process.

Wait, wait, wait. Stay in your sacrificial place.

Are these resolutions the Virginia diocese's attempt at separate but equal? Separate is never equal. Seems to me that the panel could save themselves a lot of time if the members decided to apply the same rules across the board for same-sex and opposite-sex couples whenever possible. Of course, there will be a few exceptions. As to the wording of the liturgy, slight changes in the blessing, such as instead of saying "this man and this woman", say "this man and this man" or "this woman and this woman" and - voila! - problem solved. To me, certain of the resolutions are unnecessary and, in some instances, demeaning to same-sex couples.