Introducing same-sex marriage could lead to the church being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, the church claimed in a potentially explosive submission in response to the government's consultation on gay marriage, which closes on Thursday.To get the churches out of the marriage business altogether sounds like a good idea rather than an explosion to me. France does it rather well, with the religious ceremony of blessing (if desired) following the legal marriage in the registry office. But I digress.
I'll let the English speak.
Giles Fraser is "spitting blood".
The Church of England says it is against gay marriage. Not in my name
I am furious about this ridiculous and unrepresentative statement from the Church of England on gay marriage
....
The church is no more a cartel of moral wisdom. And those of us who still stick with it – though there are days like today when this is increasingly hard – do so in the hope that it can be called back to a deeper moral seriousness that is not in hoc to bourgeois notions of respectability and prejudice.
Read the entire opinion piece. As you see, Giles does not mince words.
Colin Coward is upset (to say the least!).
I woke this morning to the R4 Today programme’s news headlines about the Church of England’s response to the Government’s equal marriage consultation. I felt so angry. The Church has achieved another set of disastrous headlines thanks to its ill-considered submission. The Church looks like an institution in panic and crisis, terrified that the lesbian and gay hordes are about to breach the defences and destroy marriage in one decisive strategic move.As you may or may not know the Danish Parliament recently approved same-sex marriages in churches in Denmark.
Layanglicana says, "Bring on the Vikings!"
I know the first Viking invasion gave them rather a bad name (for raping, looting and pillaging, not to put too fine a point on it).There you have it - the word from England.
But that was after they had been cooped up for weeks in a long boat. The 21st century version would, I am sure, choose Easy Jet, and be only slightly irritable as a result. A pint or two of lager and half a roasted sheep ought to mollify them sufficiently to be able to deal with the powers that be at Lambeth. And after all we don’t want them too amenable, the whole idea is to let them show who is boss.
As a humble former colonial, I have a nerve to even think of offering an opinion, much less post on the matter on my wee blog, but here goes. What in heaven's name does the 13 page document sent to the English Parliament have to do with the Gospel imperative of The Two Great Commandments to love God and love our neighbor and the Golden Rule to do as we would be done to? Archbishops and senior bishops of the Church of England, answer me that.
UPDATE: Another voice from England - Erika in the comments...
Hear, hear!the real disaster is what the publication has said to the members of the CoE itself.
- a small group of us claims the right to make public pronouncements on your behalf.
- we do not have to stick to the truth if it doesn't suit us. You may remember that we strongly opposed civil partnerships, but we will now launch a PR campaign trying to make those who don't remember this believe that we actually love gay people in a very cuddly way.
- we believe that everyone in this land should be bound by our definition of marriage, all the 98% of people who don't go to church but who are included in our elevated idea of ourselves as ministering to everyone in our parishes. And so we reserve the right to define marriage for all other faiths too and for all agnostics and atheists.
- we do not need to make the slightest warm pastoral noise about caring about the spiritual wellbeing of gay people. We can just casually dismiss their relationships as friendships without content. If we really believed that God creates them like this but that for some reason, baby Jesus cries if they hitch up, we would be full of sympathy and we would try what we could to make their God imposed loneliness more bearable. But, actually, we don't give a stuff as long as they don't threaten our order of things and keep quiet in their sinful moral morass.
THAT is what this document is saying and it's saying it to its own members.
Which is why I, for one, have had enough and have now left the church. I shall watch it with mild interest from the sidelines to see if it ever joins civilised society again.
Good evening from a cold and wet English June. I seem to remember learning that this was called 'the pathetic fallacy', beloved of Romantic poets. But I'm not so sure it is a fallacy and the weather has been so miserable the last few days that it is as if Heaven herself were weeping at the folly of the Church of England.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I tried to lighten the mood a little with my Viking piece, but it is an uphill task. It is extremely hard to remain a detached observer. What on earth can possibly happen next?
I am so grateful that we have other Anglicans outside England who sympathise with our predicament. Even if you think we have all gone stark, staring mad!
The document has nothing to do with any of the things you suggest. Nor is it meant to. It is one response to a consultation. The consultation is on a proposed change in law and they have responded with legalities. Yes, it is detestable to those of us who are inclined otherwise and yes it is ridiculous/arrogant to claim it is 'the' C of E response when the vast majority of its adherents have not been asked for an opinion. The neccesary action is for C of E members who think it is bollocks is to respond to the consultation personally and point out that the hierarchy does not speak for them... The document is a good deal of smoke and mirrors legally and a bit of sabre-rattling too, trying to frighten people with the possibility of disestablishment. Nothing like overvaluing your importance.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw
ReplyDeleteHere!
I blogged about this as well. I think that it's actually a public relations disaster more than anything else. The reaction here to the implied threat of the Church of England seeking to be disestablished over this is, "Bring it on! Go for it!" If the Church believes that the English people as a whole would be terrified of disestablishment it should now know that in general no one cares about it except the priests and bishops. The Twitter sh*tstorm that followed this sentiment about disestablishment should have disabused them of the notion that people will turn around and say, "Of course we don't want same-sex marriage, if that means the C of E will not be the Established Church anymore! We've come to our senses now!"
ReplyDeleteWhat terrifies the Church is that, were registrars given the power to witness same-sex marriages, no matter how much the Church tried to stop it some C of E priests (who are registrars of marriage by virtue of their ordination and office) would just go ahead and register same-sex marriages no matter what the bishop said. And how would it look if the priests were turned over to the Civil Arm by the bishops to be prosecuted for registering a same-sex marriage? The Inquisition used to do that kind of thing, and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
As to how this will affect the process of choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury, it will bring home to the Crown Appointments Committee the importance of having someone at the helm who is a good communicator, able to keep the Church from stepping into a steaming pile of mess like it did this morning. John Sentamu is not that man. Nick Baines (Bishop of Bradford) is.
On Radio 4 this morning, Bp. Stevens of Leicester tried to defend this statement, came out with the immortal phrase "I have many gay friends" (Not any more, Bishop!) and tried to use a natural law defense (How can a same-sex marriage be consummated in the same way as a heterosexual marriage--which is not valid in law until it is consummated?) What a moronic statement to make. The bishops would not deny marriage to a couple where the groom, a decorated Afghan war veteran who lost his "wedding tackle" to an IED, say, could not consummate the marriage. If they tried it, they'd find out what the public really thinks of the C of E.
At the end of all this, same-sex marriage will be passed by the House of Commons, the House of Lords will either try to block it and itself be overruled, or will pass it by a slender whipped majority. And the Church of England will have to explain why, after all that, it really doesn't want to be disestablished, please, pretty please Mr. Cameron.
Lay Anglicana, I'm so sorry about your miserable weather.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what the problem is for the CofE. The senior bishops are an embarrassment to the whole church. The Roman Catholic bishops here in the US are hyperventilating about birth control coverage in their health insurance plans. We sympathize because we have our share of ecclesiastical crazies who try to influence public policy for the worse over here.
theme, I checked your link. The CofE is a church representing the Body of Christ in England. Does that completely slip their minds as they demean members of their own flock?
ReplyDeleteNothing like overvaluing your importance.
Heh, heh.
Chris, the response to the consultation is surely a public relations disaster...as though the church needed another. As to the threat of disestablishment, according to what you and themethatisme say the response in England would be a group yawn. I have to wonder if the archbishops and the senior bishops have lost their collective minds.
ReplyDeleteI hope what you say about positive effect on the process of the CNC choosing the next ABC is right, and the members realize that Sentamu is not the man for the job.
I think the bishops may have jumped the shark this time, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteAnd I wonder if we might not be seeing one or two episcopal "outings" in response to this.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time when the CoE (and the state) considered that almost the only valid weddings in England to be those performed by the the CoE. In 1753 common law marriages were no longer recognized; only marriages by by the Church of England were valid (except for Quakers and Jews who were permitted to have weddings according to their own rites). It wasn't until 1836 that civil weddings were allowed and so groups like Unitarians or Roman Catholics could be married by their own ministers (one could also go outside the country to get married, e.g., Scotland or France).
ReplyDeleteWhen the 1836 act was debated:
Mr. Arthur Trevor defended the amendments which had been made by the House of Lords in the Marriage Registration Bill. He conceived that the Bill, in its original shape, was one of the most deadly blows that had ever been aimed at the Established Church.
(the amendments were dropped, the act passed)
Layanglicana says, "Bring on the Vikings!"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Tracie the Red will be happy to join in. ;-p
*
Episcopal Cafe called this decision "ridiculous", I called it tragic. Maybe tragidiculous?
*
"The Episcopal Church in England": an idea whose time SHOULD come?
TheMe
ReplyDeletethe real desaster is what the publication has said to the members of the CoE itself.
- a small group of us claims the right to make public pronouncements on your behalf.
- we do not have to stick to the truth if it doesn's suit us. You may remember that we strongly opposed civil partnerships, but we will now launch a PR campaign trying to make those who don't remember this believe that we actually love gay people in a very cuddly way.
- we believe that everyone in this land should be bound by our definition of marriage, all the 98% of people who don't go to church but who are included in our elevated idea of ourselves as ministering to everyone in our parishes. And so we reserve the right to define marriage for all other faiths too and for all agnostics and atheists.
- we do not need to make the slightest warm pastoral noise about caring about the spiritual wellbeing of gay people. We can just casually dismiss their relationships as friendships without content. If we really believed that God creates them like this but that for some reason, baby Jesus cries if they hitch up, we would be full of sympathy and we would try what we could to make their God imposed loneliness more bearable. But, actually, we don't give a stuff as long as they don't threaten our order of things and keep quiet in their sinful moral morass.
THAT is what this document is saying and it's saying it to its own members.
Which is why I, for one, have had enough and have now left the church. I shall watch it with mild interest from the sidelines to see if it ever joins civilised society again.
Lapin, as I see it, the bishops in the Church of England and the Roman Catholic bishops in the US jumped the shark some time ago. I don't understand why so many failed to take note.
ReplyDeleteErp, the group of men who now label themselves the Church of England call the civil marriage proposal presently under under consideration "The greatest threat to the church in 500 years." Who is right?
JCF, a TEC flying bishop here and there in England might be welcomed, but we will never do it, and probably rightly so.
Erika, I would like to bump up your manifesto to an update to my post, if you don't mind.
Thank you for correcting my spellings, Mimi!!
ReplyDeleteErika, it was the least I could do. ;-)
ReplyDeletehttp://themethatisme-conscientisation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/cofe-response-to-equal-marriage.html
ReplyDeleteThought about it a bit now.
Yes dear, I'm already reading your post and liking it immensely, especially "men's bits are designed to fit ladies bits and you shouldn't be doing anything else with that arrangement." That stopped me cold. I'll go finish reading now and report back. Here's a clickable link to your post. You should learn how to do hyperlinks, theme.
ReplyDeleteOh I know how to do them, but for some time now Blogger just won't let me. If I try to include them in a comment it rejects the comment.
ReplyDeleteWell, as you see, they work for me. Do you insert quotation marks before and after the web address? The missing quotation marks had me stymied for a spell, because quite a while ago, they were not necessary.
ReplyDeleteYes, but I got so bored of retyping everything I haven't had a go for a while.
ReplyDeleteIt is fun diving into Hansard. Apparently the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was another danger (these acts required that holders of most government positions/military officers be conforming members of the established church). Disestablishment of the church in Ireland and Wales was another danger (Chesterton had a rather scathing poem on one MP's overwrought words about the evil of disestablishment for the Church of Wales).
ReplyDeleteErp, one wonders if the group of senior bishops dove into Hansard. I'll look for Chesterton's poem. Today is his feast day in the Episcopal Church.
ReplyDelete