Gay clergy expected to suffer for a unity that clearly doesn't exist. Again.
"Q. Are clergy permitted to conduct a blessing of a same-sex marriage?"
"R. There is no provision in the Book of Common Prayer or other authorized liturgies of the church for the blessing of a same sex marriage. In addition the service known as A Form of Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage (pages 431 ff) presupposes the civil marriage of a man and a woman as husband and wife and cannot be used in this context."
Sorry, but this is balderdash.
What an extraordinary Alice-in-Wonderland world we inhabit, where we are being told (by the Church) that we should NOT pray blessing on people and their relationships.
There may not be liturgy in place, but why should a local church need to pray and bless in liturgy alone? Are all our prayers in liturgy? Are all our thoughts, intents and expressions of love in liturgy?
If a local church and local priest want to bless a newly married couple, and pray for them, as they embark on all the challenges of their future lives... if a local church wants to affirm support and solidarity with this couple in their new (and legal) lives... it's not a matter of having to do things liturgically.
The local church can just bless them.
And in the view of so many people in civil society who we care to evangelise, they should.
Marriage is precious, marriage is costly, marriage hurts, marriage is joyful, marriage is covenant, marriage is sacrifice.
And for a local church community to stand by the side of newly marrieds, and love them, and yes indeed seek that their lives should be blessed...
How extraordinary if we should not wish to do that.
May the grace and blessing of God be on those who marry, who commit to the journey - the often hard journey - of married life.
So, will clergy and bishops who disagree collude with the statement or take any principled stand other than more talking or more typing? More years of compromise and sacrificed integrity is a high price to pay. Set up TEC(Ireland) if you want to act on your principles with integrity
I didn't read this with the same eyes as Susannah.
The Northern Irish "Reform" group have exercised considerable control and this letter marks a significant change in tone and outlook, as their hasty and peevish response makes clear.
Apart from the legal performance of a marriage and without an appropriate liturgy, this says carte blanche .... and no threat to marrying clerics.... extraordinary! Well done Ireland .....
I understand from my friend Martin that the Welsh legal sub committee has been considering the canonical position of Anglican clerics who marry there ....
We remain unable to marry anyone !
More guesswork required by those clergy who don't 'restrain' themselves but go ahead and enter a same-sex marriage. I do wish these mealy-mouthed 'pastoral' statements would call a spade a spade and set out exactly what the likely consequences are for such clergy.
All the bishops in the Church of Ireland cannot ignore the large conservative evangelical dioceses in N Ireland.
"we encourage a restraint for the sake of unity"
Again, lifting up the gospel of unity over the Gospel of Jesus. And pretending that there's unity over the anti-gay position, despite the fact that inclusive marriage came about via a democratic process.
MLK had something to say about asking the vulnerable to bear the burden of injustice for the comfort of others. In this case, asking gay clergy to bear the incredible burden of exclusion in the most personal area of their lives in order to satisfy bigots. Jesus never seemed to go along with bigotry...
"and no threat to marrying clerics"
I read it that way too.
Evidently this is what has Reform reacting badly.
"Q. If I am asked to attend a same-sex marriage, should I go?
R. The decision lies with the individual who will bring to this decision criteria of friendship and conscience, following personal prayer and reflection." - C. of I. Bishops' statement -
Sounds rather like the recent statement of Pope Francis on the issue of 'Inter-Communion' which involved the place of private conscience in matters of pastoral concern. Not bad!
"MLK had something to say about asking the vulnerable to bear the burden of injustice for the comfort of others."
He did. But given that Dr Martin Luther King was willing to upset the established order in the name of justice and truth, how welcome would he be in the Church of England these days?
So presumably CofI now has a similar position to CofE — we may bless nuclear submarines, but we may not bless legal marriages.
Interested Obsever - those looking for welcome and pensions will sacrifice principles to be in the club.... MLK took risks for his principles
"those looking for welcome and pensions will sacrifice principles to be in the club"
Indeed. But it's interesting how the club can be flexible when it's its own members being given the benefit. For example, by many conservatives' standards, Nick Holtam is an adulterer or bigamist: he is married to a woman whose husband is still alive, and the legitimacy of their relationship depends on a divorce. A divorce! Shocking! I wonder if Justin Welby thinks of him as an adulterer, or as a fellow bishop? So if the rules can be changed to make Nick Holtam acceptable to Justin Welby's moral fervour, why can't the same apply to bishops contracting marriages to men rather than to divorced women? The answer is, of course, homophobia.
"Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved."
I have no wish to tread on the toes of the moderators of TA; obviously you are at liberty to include whatever you deem appropriate; but the long-standing limit to comments of 400 words seems to have been quietly forgotten, especially in respect of those from one contributor in particular. Three recent comments have almost been articles in their own right being of 777, 905 and 1201 words each. I'm not suggesting that the content wasn't good, simply that, in my view, they were too long to be classed as "comments".
The piece by "Reform" is rather unpleasant, isn't it? Essentially it argues that people who disagree with them on what is, in the general sweep of religious belief, a minor and narrow point aren't proper Anglicans and (I think) aren't even proper Christians.
I expect the long posts were mine, RPNewark - and I suspect they crept in over the holiday period when the moderators have plenty of other pressures and things to attend to. So I alone should take the blame for their length. To be honest, I didn't count the words, and just wrote and sent them off. But I take the blame for being too wordy. I will try to adhere to the 400 word limit in future.
I think Susannah is too harsh; there is no prohibition on blessing a marriage, merely the observation that our prayer book is inadequate in this regard. Prayer is explicitly permitted, if not required, as an essential of pastoral ministry - a rare positive note. However, I don't know how very easy it will be for a cleric who decides to enter a same-sex marriage. I do think the tone is generally cautious; I imagine the liberal response to the appalling CofE position may have had an impact, so keep up the good work here!
I just adapted the Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage from the BCP to cover a same-sex marriage. It took me about two minutes. The objection in the letter is bogus, as the author could work out for himself in less time than it took me to adapt the Prayer.
FWIW, here's access to TEC's liturgy, passed in 2012 for Same-Sex Blessings. It was altered slightly by many diocesan bishops to use for marriage until June, 2015.
I can't find the 2015 version for marriage yet. It was passed by General Convention in June and is a slightly revised version of the 2012.
Straight people are being encouraged to consider using this liturgy as well. The 1979 BCP still has vestiges of medieval property rights. It's beautiful and sacramental. It is the result of years of excellent work by a Task Force on Marriage.
Some priests have simply altered language in the BCP. I like this new liturgy better. We used it and had the whole Anglo-Catholic works.
So creating lovely and theologically strong liturgies is not really a big problem.
I am seeing, however, that my marriage does make for a problem in communication. While I know that straight conservatives would not like to think of themselves as being rude or homophobic, denying that my marriage is sacramental marriage is denigrating it. It isn't only an Anglican thing. Every country that has equal marriage will have some churches doing the marriages, or doing blessings of civil marriage. So the opportunity to be rude to larger populations of people grows...
" Every country that has equal marriage will have some churches doing the marriages,"
As I have said on several occasions, a pretty good way to set your moral compass - not only for Christians, or the faithful more generally, but for everyone - is to ask "what is the Quaker position on this?"
"At their Yearly Meeting in York in 2009, Quakers in Britain sought a change in the law so that same-sex marriages can be prepared, celebrated, witnessed, reported to the state, and recognised as legally valid, without further process, in the same way as opposite-sex marriages are celebrated in Quaker meetings."
Not being forced. Not being pushed. But pushing: ahead of the law, not behind it, looking for more, not less, love. As I say: set your moral compass from the Quakers, and you won't go far wrong.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.