Diocese of Toronto publishes Pastoral Guidelines for the Blessing of Same Gender Commitments

Posted on by
3

Read it all here:

The following guidelines are presented in order to offer a generous pastoral response to stable committed same gender relationships in our diocesan family seeking a blessing of their commitment. The guidelines were formed after consultation with a Commission of clergy and laity across a variety of theological perspectives and opinions seeking to recognize the sensitivity of the issue while being pastorally appropriate. In our discussions, we have seen that there is great diversity among parishes that are opposed to same gender commitments, similar to the diversity found in parishes that are in favour. Recognition of this diversity affirms that parishes which hold similar viewpoints on this subject are not to be painted with one brush, and represent the rich breadth of life in parishes, with parishioners who are theologically astute and deeply committed Christians. The diversity of our diocesan community demonstrates that we are called to witness to the faith in a variety of ways, and though such witness is rooted in differing interpretations and understanding of holy scripture and the tradition, they are recognizably Anglican.

The exercise is obviously being undertaken as an experiment to see how it goes. Or, to put it less kindly, to see how vehement the opposition is (not very, most of those who still care have already left), whether it is likely to provoke sanctions from on high (unlikely, since it uses the weasel designation of “pastoral”) and whether, by hammering the wedge in a little further, the opposition is worn down a little more (probably):

Permission to be given to a few selected parishes – The diocesan bishop will designate a limited number of parishes to be given permission to bless people in same gender commitments.

Criteria for selection:

a. The Diocesan Bishop will select the parishes to be considered for permission

b. Parish will have demonstrated a process of prayer, education, consultation, discernment and consensus development that widely engages the parish community.2

c. When the Priest, Churchwardens, and Advisory Board/Parish Council feel that consensus has been reached, the Churchwardens will write a letter to the Diocesan Bishop outlining the process and decision reached and request permission be granted.

d. The Priest will separately communicate his/her support of such a decision and concurrence that the parish is ready to participate in accordance with these guidelines. If either the priest or Churchwardens do not concur then the process ceases.

e. The Diocesan Bishop, at his discretion, may grant permission to one or more of these parishes.

f. Permission will be given for a two year period. At the end of that period, permission may be renewed or withdrawn after review.

g. Permission is granted for the clergy/parish relationship at that time. When a cleric leaves a designated parish the designation will be revisited with the Diocesan Bishop upon the appointment of a new cleric.

h. The Area Bishop will be kept informed through the process and consulted prior to a final decision.

i. The parish will be expected to report annually to the diocesan bishop through the office of the Area Bishop indicating the number of blessings and offering evaluative remarks on the significance of the practice for the mission of the parish.

Those in a same-sex relationship don’t have to be civilly married to receive a blessing:

Same Gender Blessings – This pastoral response is extended to couples in our midst who seek to live in mutual love and faithfulness in a stable, long-term committed relationship. A blessing may be made available to couples who are not civilly married as the blessing is not considered to reflect, or to be understood as, marriage.

a. The blessing of any same gender relationship is expected to be part of an existing pastoral relationship with a priest and local congregation.

b. At least one of the couple should be baptized.

Clergy who disagree with same-sex blessings are still required to implicitly condone them through referrals:

Clergy who object to blessing same gender relationships will be asked to exercise pastoral generosity by referring same gender couples seeking a blessing, if requested, to the Area Bishop.

And let’s be sure we all understand that this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Nothing at all. One step at a time.

In order to be clearly distinguished from a marriage liturgy, the act of worship will NOT include the following:

i. An exchange of consents. It is presumed that participation in this service is sufficient consent.
ii. Opportunity for public legal or canonical objections. However the officiating priest may not bless the couple if either is legally married to someone else.
iii. A declaration of union.
iv. No rite of civil marriage will be conducted in the context of the blessing act of worship.
v. No signing of a marriage register will take place.
vi. A nuptial blessing – understood as any of the prayers found on page 567 of the Book of Common Prayer (1962) or on page 534-535 and 548 – 549 of the Book of Alternative Service (1985) or any blessings found in the marriage liturgies of other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

h/t to my underpaid research assistant.

Anti-Covenant zealots are “latter-day little Englanders”

Posted on by
1

The Anglican Covenant has drawn fire from an Anglican anarchist contingent which is reluctant to be tied down by such trivia as dogma and creeds. Their website is populated with endorsements from the usual suspects, including a double-barrelled Canadian pomposity consisting of the Revs. Malcolm French and Alan Perry.

The Rev Gregory Cameron, who was on the committee that drew up the covenant, has their number, though, and has characterised them as “latter-day little Englanders”. Very perceptive.

From here:

[C]ritics of the plan, which is known as the Anglican Covenant, claim it would cede control over the affairs of the Church of England to a foreign authority for the first time since Henry VIII.

The covenant was deemed necessary after international criticism from conservative Anglicans followed the ordination of the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2004.

Two liberal groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, have launched a campaign against the covenant plan, which they say is overwhelmingly backed by traditionalists.

The critics ran an advertisement in the Church Times claiming that the plan represented a move to install an “authoritarian leadership” and “the biggest change to the Church since the Reformation”.

However, the Bishop of St Asaph, the Rt Rev Gregory Cameron, who was on the committee that drew up the covenant, described the opponents as “latter-day little Englanders”.

World War 2 in the Church of England

Posted on by
Reply

From the BBC:

The Bishop of Lewes has been criticised for comparing the debate over the ordination of women bishops to the outbreak of World War II.

The Rt Rev Wallace Benn told a Church conference of Anglicans that he felt there was “real serious warfare just around the corner”.

The bishop said the Church of England into which he had been ordained was “not the same Church today”.

Supporters of women’s ordination said the bishop’s views were “demeaning”.

Speaking at the Reform conference of conservative Anglicans in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, the bishop said: “I’m about to use an analogy, and I use it quite deliberately and carefully.

“I feel very much increasingly that we’re in January of 1939.

“What we must not do is create a phoney war, but we need to be aware that there is real serious warfare just around the corner.”

Christina Rees, of Women and the Church (Watch), said the bishop’s views were “demeaning”.

Whatever one’s view of the legitimacy of women bishops, the above comment from Christina Rees is at least useful for the light it sheds on how liberals think: they don’t. Whether Ms. Rees finds opposition to lady bishops demeaning or not is beside the point. The truth is, there are two factions at war with each other in the worldwide Anglican Church. One holds to the orthodoxy of 2000 years of Christian understanding, the other wants to adopt innovations that – the orthodox would claim – make the Church less than Christian.

For all of Rowan Williams’ Hegalian finagling, the two factions can’t coexist within the same organisation: they are diametrically opposed to one another. Lady bishops are the tip of the iceberg; the Anglican Communion is already at war with itself and Christina Rees along, with her cohorts, should open her demeaned eyes and recognise that what Rev. Wallace said is true. It is going to get much worse.

We don’t need no stinkin’ covenant

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the sum total of the argument to be found on a new site proclaiming “Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity”, a phrase whose oxymoronic message is aggravated by the uneasy proximity of “Anglicans” and “Unity”.

Anglican churches are being asked to adopt a so-called Anglican Covenant that seeks to bind them more tightly to one another and to codify procedures by which future disputes within the Anglican Communion will be resolved.

We believe that this covenant is ill-conceived. In response to the reputed “crisis” in the Communion, drafters of the covenant have favoured coercion over the hard work of reconciliation.

Of course, if it is only a “so-called” Covenant, not a real one and the crisis is only a “crisis” by repute, why even bother to set up a so called No Anglican Covenant Coalition? Must be because we don’t need no stinkin’ covenant.

Christopher Hitchens answers his own riddle

Posted on by
Reply

The riddle:

‘Can you name any moral action or ethical statement that could be made or performed by a believer but could not be made or performed by an unbeliever?’

The answer:

‘Here is my attempt to win my own prize. When Lech Walesa was starting his work in the Polish shipyards and the Polish Militia and the outer ring of the Polish Army were closing in on Gdansk, he was interviewed with his then fairly small group, and he was asked: “Aren’t you frightened, aren’t you afraid? You’ve taken on a whole powerful state and army – aren’t you scared?” And he said: “I’m not frightened of anything  but God or anyone but God.”
‘This came back to me, I thought, well, this meets my two criteria. It’s certainly a noble thing to have said, a distinguished thing to have said, and I certainly couldn’t have said it. So it does meet both my criteria.’

From here

Anglicans and "gender violence"

Posted on by
1

What peculiarly grotesque act does that phrase seek to describe? Well it seems fairly obvious to me: what could do more violence to gender than to corrupt its essence by surgically forcing it to conform to its opposite. To be transgender is to commit gender violence.

Too simple, I fear. Although having a sex change operation isn’t yet a sacrament, being transgendered is a preferred entry point into Anglicanism.  Apparently, “gender violence” means “violence against women”.

From here:

For the first time in recent history, three Episcopal women’s groups have come together to ask the church to participate in 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. In 2010, the 16 days begin on November 25, International Day against Violence Against Women, and end on December 10.

A worthy cause, no doubt, but why does it have to be called “Gender Violence”? I’m thinking of forming an Anglican men’s group that will campaign against the Devil and her violence towards language.

52 Christians murdered in Iraq

Posted on by
4

From here:

Iraqi security forces stormed a Baghdad church where militants had taken an entire congregation hostage for four hours, leaving at least 52 people dead, including a priest, Iraqi officials said Monday.

It was not immediately clear whether the hostages died at the hands of the attackers or during the rescue late on Sunday night in an affluent neighbourhood of the capital.

The incident began when militants wearing suicide vests and armed with grenades attacked the Iraqi stock exchange at dusk Sunday before turning their attention to the nearby Our Lady of Deliverance church — one of Baghdad’s main Catholic places of worship — taking about 120 Christians hostage.

Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, the deputy interior minister, said 52 people were killed and 67 wounded in the bloodbath. Officials said at least one priest and 10 policemen were among the dead. Many of the wounded were women.

The Daily Mail notes: “The group, which is linked to al Qaeda in Iraq, said it would ‘exterminate Iraqi Christians’ if jailed militants were not freed.”

It seems that those ubiquitous generic “militants” have been a bit naughty yet again. Better not call it what it is: the mass murder of innocent worshipping Christians by cowardly Islamist terrorist thugs – we wouldn’t want to provoke an outburst of uncontrollable Islamophobia.

Fred Hiltz, Katharine Jefferts-Schori and assorted trendy bishops wrung their collective hands in horror at the mere prospect of someone igniting a Koran; one wonders what they will do to express their disapproval of Christians being murdered by followers of the Book That Wasn’t Burnt? Nothing, I imagine – it’s called asymmetrical commiserating.

The “Jesus was HIV-positive” sermon

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

“Today I will start with a three-part sermon on: Jesus was HIV-positive,” South African Pastor Xola Skosana recently said in a Sunday church service.

The words initially stunned his congregation in Cape Town’s Khayelitsha township into silence, and then set tongues wagging in churches across the country.

Some Christians have been outraged, saying he is portraying Jesus as sexually promiscuous.

HIV is mainly transmitted through sex, but can also be spread through needle-sharing, contaminated blood, pregnancy and breastfeeding.

However, as Pastor Skosana told those gathered in the modest Luhlaza High School hall for his weekly services, in many parts of the Bible Jesus put himself in the position of the destitute, the sick and the marginalised.

It hardly needs to be said that the premise of this sermon is idiotic. Jesus had compassion for “the destitute, the sick and the marginalised”, but he wasn’t sick, destitute or marginalised himself: he didn’t become a leper, he healed lepers. And, had HIV been in existence, he would have healed those who contracted it – even if they had contracted it using the preferred method.