Anglican Schism on Gay Bishop and SSM

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

The homophobes aren't taking all this immorality lying down (so to speak):

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/01/splinter... Anglicans come together[/url] [lol, that's a good headline too...]

quote:

Two parishes that broke away from the Anglican Church of Canada over same-sex marriage are coming together in St. John's this weekend to hear about the support their movement is garnering across the country.

The splinter group doesn't agree with the blessing of same-sex marriages, an issue being hotly debated by the church. ...

Harvey said there is an effort to create a new Anglican body in North America — one that will represent the beliefs of orthodox Anglicans who are against current liberalization of the church.


"Church unity" seems a lot less important to the rascals than to the mainstream which wants to avoid pissing them off.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I blog extensively on issues related to this at simplemassingpriest.blogspot.com

More information can be found at sites like thinkinganglicans.org

In any event, the point of my "Rome wasn't dismasntled in a day" is that Anglicanism has always been moving away from Rome and towards a non-papal catholicism.

As in:

I am an Anglican.
I am C of E.
I have a perch
in Holy Church.
I'm Protestant and Catholic and Free.
Neither Presbyterian, nor Methodist,
Nor a Baptist, flecked with foam.
I am an Anglican,
several steps ahead of Rome.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Meanwhile, in England...

Former oil executive to be new Archbishop of Canterbury - Bishop Welby was an executive of an oil company before becoming a priest. He has been a bishop for only a year.
 
Anglican Church’s New Leader Vows to Seek Reconciliation
 
excerpt:

  Soon after Prime Minister David Cameron announced his appointment, Bishop Welby, 56, a former oil company executive, made it clear that he endorsed earlier church statements criticizing government plans to legalize same-sex marriage.   :mad2
 
“But I also need to listen very attentively to the L.G.B.T. communities and examine my own thinking carefully and prayerfully,” he added, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups.
“I am always averse to the language of exclusion,” he said, apparently seeking a middle ground in the debates, which have split Anglicans from Africa to America. “Above all, in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed in honesty and in love.”
 
He said at a news conference, “We must have no truck with any form of homophobia in any part of the church.”   

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

 
“But I also need to listen very attentively to the L.G.B.T. communities and examine my own thinking carefully and prayerfully,” he added, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups."

I think it's a breath of fresh air for a public figure, especially a church leader talking about points of dogma, to admit that he might be wrong and is considering other possibilities.

Remember, he's not just dealing with people pushing for reform, but forces resisting it which threaten to tear his church in two. I am hopeful that that admission that he might be mistaken leads him to a good decision.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

 Well, he can't be any worse last the last guy.  I was sick of Rowan Williams a long time ago.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think it's a breath of fresh air for a public figure... 

More like a breath of fresh air drifting in over empty pews, where in the UK they're 4th from the bottom in attendance across Europe.

Trends in UK Church Attendance

Unionist

I deliberately opened this old thread - with fond memories of Hephaestion and Boom Boom. 

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/anglicans-ga... Anglicans vote down same-sex marriage[/url]

The MSM loves "news", but not context.

Even if this resolution had passed (and the Anglican Church requires 2/3 majority in three separate bodies before it will recognize human rights, apparently), it would have had to be affirmed at a 2019 General Synod.

And even if that happened in 2019 - it would only have the effect of allowing same-sex marriages to be "blessed". That is, clergy could still not actually perform the marriage.

Remind me again why this dinosaur church split from Rome?

Oh yeah, right, some king hated his wife.

Caissa

The interesting thing is that the marriage canon does not explicitly forbid same-sex marriage. I believe you find that some of the more progressive dioceses will be performing same-sex marriages in the very near future.

Same-sex marriages have been blessed in many Anglican dioceses for years. This motion was to change the marriage can to specifically mention and permit same-sex marriages.

quizzical

Anglican United here is busy be against a rainbow sidewalk.

2 years from now the same church would be in support imv.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Remind me again why this dinosaur church split from Rome?

Evidently so we could have something else to mock and look down our noses at. 

One of the comments in that article describe this situation as heartbreaking, and I agree. Though it is another reason for them to keep fighting.

Quote:

The bishops voted 68.42 per cent in favour of the resolution, and the lay delegates voted 72.22 per cent in favour. However, the clergy voted 66.23 per cent, just missing the percentage needed.

Tell me, when the majority that wanted this to pass succeed next time should we be happy for them, or is it just one less piece of ammunition for pointing out the things they are doing wrong?

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Tell me, when the majority that wanted this to pass succeed next time should we be happy for them, or is it just one less piece of ammunition for pointing out the things they are doing wrong?

I know lots of Anglicans (I'm married to one), and I can't think offhand of a single one that I would describe as a homophobe. Likewise with the significant majority of my friends, neighbours, co-workers, co-trade unionists who identify as "Catholic".

It's these institutions which are medieval and rotten to the core. Not their adherents. How else could they require a 2/3 vote (in 3 bodies) to recognize same-sex marriage?

Discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation is unlawful in Canada, in matters of employment, lodging, the provision of public services, and - in the case of gender - contrary to the Charter in all matters of law and government. Not just immoral (which I would forgive the Anglican and Catholic churches for not caring about). Illegal. Yet, these churches (as well as many others) are allowed to say "no" to couples based on their gender. In Canada, in 2016.

There's no doubt that the autocrats running these organizations are feeling the pressure and changing. That pressure is coming from their own adherents. One wonders why those who preach the word of God should need to taught basic morality by their flocks, instead of taking the lead.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Same-sex marriages have been blessed in many Anglican dioceses for years. This motion was to change the marriage can to specifically mention and permit same-sex marriages.

Caissa, I apologize, I think I misunderstood based on media reports. Though I still haven't seen the text of the resolution, I'll gladly take your word that the motion was not just to bless same-sex unions, but to put same-sex marriage on the same footing as opposite-sex.

But could you confirm my impression that even if it had passed, it would not have come into effect before being "affirmed" in 2019?

6079_Smith_W

What do you mean, institutions? Who voted here? Some rotten-to-the-core whatever it is you are pointing at that had a bunch of superdelegates? No. It was the lay members, the clergy, and the bishops. And your autocrats (the bishops) voted 68 percent in favour. It was 0.8 percent of clergy who held this back.

And internationally it isn't "the autocrats" who are responsible for this schism; it is a division among the members and clergy. Sorry, but the class thing doesn't actually apply in this case. If you want to make a gross generalization that applies, it is more traditional and reform, urban and rural, and developed and developing.

 As for the law, churches have an exemption. As do provinces (by a different mechanism) with their notwithstanding clauses. That is the law.

 

Caissa

To answer your question, the marriage canon would not have been changed until being affirmed in 2019. What would happen on the gorundd, and what will now happen on the ground, is anybody's guess.

ETA: The current marriage canon: images.anglican.ca/pdf/handbook/221_canon_XXI.pdf

Caissa

Anglican Diocese of Ottawa to permit same-sex marriages.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/anglican-diocese-ottawa-same-sex-ma...

Unionist

And Mary Irwin-Gibson, bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Montréal, says:

Quote:
"... I will be allowing some same-gender marriages to happen after I've discussed it with the clergy, and when the clergy come to me individually."

 

Caissa

The irony is that passing the motion would have lead to the same results. Not all diocese would have had same-sex marriages performed in them.

Caissa
Unionist

Nice save!

Caissa

The Chancellor has also opined that ther is nothing in the current marriage canon that precludes same-sex marriage.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

What do you mean, institutions?

I mean, the church, which requires a 2/3 majority in order to recognize human rights that are universally recognized in all jurisdictions of Canada. 

Quote:
Who voted here?

I don't care. How dare they "vote" as to whether to treat same-sex couples like real human beings?

Quote:
Sorry, but the class thing doesn't actually apply in this case.

Straw man factory? Who said anything about "class"?

Quote:
If you want to make a gross generalization that applies, it is more traditional and reform, urban and rural, and developed and developing.

I want to grossly generalize and condemn any institution in our society that considers homophobia as an acceptable viewpoint.

Quote:
As for the law, churches have an exemption.

They can discriminate in hiring based on skin colour? Gender? Disability? They can buy an apartment block and restrict occupancy based on religion, national origin, sexual orientation? No Indigenous people or Jews or Irish need apply? They can buy a supermarket chain and only sell to heterosexual cis customers?

If that is the case, then it's a pretty powerful argument to have their "exemption" torn up - with an official apology to follow.

Quote:
As do provinces (by a different mechanism) with their notwithstanding clauses.

Do you know of any province which has invoked the notwithstanding clause with respect to Section 15 of the Charter? That's the only section which is remotely relevant to this conversation.

As for same-sex marriage, provinces and territories can't "opt out" of the definition of marriage, whose jurisdiction is exclusively federal (as per the reference to the Supreme Court).

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
IT PASSED IN A RECOUNT!!!!!!!!!

According to that article, had there been no recount, or no irregularity found, the "no" side would have won by ONE VOTE. 

quizzical

i say good on the delegates who insisted on seeing a paper copy of their electronic voting.

swallow

Congratulations to the many Anglicans who fought so hard for this, for so long. 

It gets better, I guess. 

[url=http://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PA2... Proud Anglicans pic, Toronto Pride[/url]

Pages