As part of the final convulsion accompanying his metamorphosis from conservative Christian to liberal substitute with a homosexuality obsession, Michael Coren will be preaching at a queer Eucharist this week. I imagine there will be tears and maudlin apologies for his pre-Epiphany benightedness for those interested in such things,
The motion to change the marriage canon to accommodate same-sex couples is unlikely to pass at the Anglican General Synod in July, so liberal Anglicans are looking for ways to circumvent the vote.
Michael Coren, who may or may not have inside information on the machinations of the post-Christian contingent of the Anglican Church of Canada, has elucidated in this article a hitherto unexplored way of twisting Scripture to justify the unjustifiable:
In Canada, the most plausible hope is probably some sort of creative compromise where the canon is amended to allow for a marriage liturgy that would include same-sex couples, based around a theology inspired by Acts 10. This is the passage where the Roman centurion Cornelius is accepted by St. Peter, who says, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” The Kosher laws are no longer required; God’s plan extends to all. Applied to sexuality, God’s love is for all: Jew and gentile, straight and gay.
It’s far from ideal, but the reality is that equal marriage simply won’t be achieved in the short-term. If an amendment satisfies enough people and is purely optional it might, just might, be acceptable to all sides. As such it could enable the Canadian church to avoid the treatment handed to the Americans.
Coren’s book about how he came to support same-sex marriage has been distributed to all Canadian bishops – as if they needed any encouragement in that direction. Here is Michael Bird’s response:
Coren hopes it will do “some good”, as if such a thing were likely to result from a rather disgusting betrayal of his former principles:
This shouldn’t come as a complete surprise, since most of his other reasoning faculties abandoned him, too, when he converted to liberalism. In this predictably tendentious article about the Canterbury Primates’ gathering, he calls ACNA “a small group of Anglicans”.
ACNA presently has over 100,000 members and an average Sunday attendance of over 80,000, numbers that approach, if not exceed (who knows, the ACoC is too shy to publish statistics) those of the entire Anglican Church of Canada – to which Coren has just joined himself.
Up to now small groups of Anglicans, including a fringe in Canada, have left the communion over more progressive positions around sexuality, and while there has never been a central authority or leadership resembling that of Roman Catholicism, there is now a severe risk of a formal break between the Western churches and many of those in the developing world. What has traditionally been a loose but warm collective could become an absolute separation.
The “fringe in Canada” would be ANiC, the Christian version of Canadian Anglicanism.
Having departed the Roman Catholic Church for the Anglican Church of Canada, Michael Coren, once the darling of the right, has consummated his liberal metamorphosis by writing an article for the Anglican Journal.
Not wishing the favour to be reciprocated, I will refrain from attempting a Coren psychoanalysis, something that others have been unable to resist, speculating that he is suffering from mental problems – a contention that may yet be fulfilled as he intends to become a priest in the ACoC.
I hesitated to write this article since I think Coren is a decent, kind and generous man; and that may be part of why he has taken a diametrically opposite view of so many things he once claimed to believe, starting with same-sex marriage or, to use the cliché he used to deride, equal marriage. He has offered no new arguments to support his newly enlighten state, preferring instead, to rehash the transparently nonsensical gibberish that liberal churches have been churning out for decades.
I suspect his kindness towards his gay friends has resulted in a foggy sentimentality that has overwhelmed his capacity to think clearly. That and, perhaps, rebellion resulting from an innate perversity that causes a person to eventually turn against any organisation to which he belongs once he finds himself surrounded by people who agree with him.
Coren was a strong supporter of my church and the other parishes that left the ACoC over the blessing of same-sex marriages, a stand that he would now categorise as homophobic. During a debate on his old CTS TV program between Diocese of Niagara and ANiC clergy, one of the Diocesan clergy wanted to bring up the issue of homophobia; Coren would not allow it (the request occurred in a break) because, he said, it would shut down discussion. Coren himself now uses the word to produce that result.
Ironically, he once suggested that I consider the Roman Catholic Church, an idea I turned down even in the unlikely event that they would have me. It wouldn’t have been a total loss, I suppose: I could have started a new blog – RC Samizdat. I asked him some time ago – before he became a Catholic – why he didn’t become an Anglican; “because I get tired of arguing with atheists in the pulpit” was his reply. He must feel more comfortable with that now.
Michael Coren now declares that he is an Anglo Catholic; I doubt that he will feel at home as such for more than a decade or so. I’m quite sure this doesn’t apply to Coren, but I keep thinking about the comment in Brideshead Revisited, made to Charles Ryder by his cousin Jasper on beginning university: “Beware of the Anglo-Catholics—they’re all sodomites with unpleasant accents.”
Here is the article:
Did I swim the Tiber or was it a walk to Canterbury? Not sure. It felt at the time more like some sort of ersatz inferno. I suppose I have a certain media profile and was until relatively recently known as a very public Roman Catholic. My 2012 book on Catholicism (Heresy, McClelland & Stewart) had been on the Canadian bestseller list for 10 weeks; I was named columnist of the year for my work in The Catholic Register and had been given numerous awards by Catholic groups. I was one of Canada’s most high-profile champions of Catholicism.
The separation was gradual, of course. While I never swayed from Catholic theology—and continue in my adherence—I began to question, then doubt, then reject Roman Catholic teaching on papal supremacy, authority, contraception and especially homosexuality and equal marriage. On the latter, I simply could no longer glue myself to a church that described gay relationships as sinful and disordered and caused so much pain to so many good, innocent people.
It was rather like a ball of theological wool unravelling. As soon as it began, it was difficult to stop it. The glorious irony of all this is that as my questioning of Roman Catholic teaching developed, so did my faith and my love of God. It wasn’t lack of belief that drove me from Rome but the very opposite. Partly out of respect for the Catholic church, I could no longer receive its sacraments and call myself a Roman Catholic while rejecting so many of its values and views. I know many Catholics remain in their church while doubting or even denying, but that wasn’t for me.
Around 18 months ago, I began to quietly worship at St. James Anglican Cathedral, to meet with various Anglicans and to read Anglican theology. Then I started to regularly attend my local Anglican parish, then I was formally received—a photo of the event was posted online, and the inferno I mentioned began to ignite.
It was a noble infamy, but it still stung. In the space of one week, I lost three regular columns and 13 speeches. No matter. What did matter were the attacks on my children, the fact that people trolled their Facebook pages and alleged that they were gay—irrelevant to me and to them, but the attacks were intended to hurt. It was written that I was a thief, an adulterer, a liar and was mentally ill. Such fun!
But what I found was so much greater than any suburban persecution. Within Anglican Catholic orthodoxy, I could pursue socially liberal ideas; within a church of mingling theologies, I could be respected as a Catholic and respect those with different ideas and call them brothers and sisters; within Anglicanism, I could reach out in Christ’s beauty to all people, irrespective of sexuality or religion, and love everything about them.
I have never been happier or felt more motivated as a Christian than now. The nastiness refined me; my new faith defines me. Regrets? Oh yes. That I didn’t do this a long time ago.
Michael Coren is exercising his newly minted liberalism in the Anglican Church of Canada, a denomination that will probably temporarily suit him well considering his about-face on just about everything he stood for when he wrote “Why Catholics are Right” – or, as he should retitle it, “Why Catholics used to be Right”. I doubt that he’ll be permanently happy in the ACoC: some time ago, when asked why he didn’t become an Anglican he replied, “I’m sick of arguing with atheists in the pulpit”. An exaggeration of the type, as this article will attest, that annoys him when employed to poke fun at the dizzying oscillations of his public persona.
Here are some highlights:
The change was to a large extent triggered by the gay issue. I couldn’t accept that homosexual relationships were, as the Roman Catholic Church insists on proclaiming, disordered and sinful. Once a single brick in the wall was removed the entire structure began to fall.
I refused to base my entire world view and theology, as so many active Catholics do, around abortion, contraception and sex rather than love, justice and forgiveness.
I am not a Roman Catholic but I am quite sure that Catholic theology does not rest on a foundation of opposing homosexuality, contraception and abortion, nor do active Catholics have that as a basis for their personal – not that there should be any such thing for a Roman Catholic – theology; the fact that Coren refers to “my theology” is in itself suspicious. As I mentioned above, this is an exaggeration so ridiculous, it is laughable – and yet it does appear to be the bedrock upon which Michael Coren has decided to base his denominational allegiance.
Frankly, it was tearing me apart. I wanted to extend the circle of love rather than stand at the corners of a square and repel outsiders. So I quietly and privately drifted over to an Anglican Church that while still working out its own position on many social issues, is far more progressive, open, relevant and willing to admit reality.
“Extending the circle of love” is an Anglican Church of Canada speciality. The motto of the General Synod of 2007 was “Draw the circle wide, draw it wider still”. It goes without saying that the further the circle of love is extended, the fewer people want to be in it. The openness and relevance of the ACoC has driven more people out in less time than any competing crackpot approach in the history of the church.
Michael Coren is obviously restless. As St. Augustine said: “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee”; I hope that he finds that rest – I’d be surprised if he finds it in the arms of the ACoC.
It’s all here, although the nub of it seems to be:
I could not remain in a church that effectively excluded gay people. That’s only one of the reasons, but for someone who had taken the Catholic position on same-sex marriage for so long, I’d never been comfortable with that even though I suppose I was regarded as being a stalwart in that position. But I’d moved on, and I felt a hypocrite. I felt a hypocrite being part of a church that described homosexual relations as being disordered and sinful. I just couldn’t be part of it anymore. I could not do that. I couldn’t look people in the eye and make the argument that is still so central to the Catholic Church, that same-sex attraction is acceptable but to act on it is sinful. I felt that the circle of love had to be broadened, not reduced.
I have a strong suspicion that he won’t be particularly comfortable being an Anglican either; luckily there are about 21,000 other Christian denominations still to try.
On April 23rd Michael Coren was received into the Anglican Church of Canada at St. James Cathedral, Toronto. On the face of it, this seems a little schizophrenic since it was not too long ago that Catholics were Right. Still, of late, Michael has become increasingly rickety on homosexuality, a wobbliness that will slide much more easily into the doctrineless ACoC than into Roman Catholicism.
The NDP, champion of the disadvantaged and those who cannot fend for themselves – well, except for unborn babies – is supporting a publicly funded Ottawa sex exhibition aimed at children; and paedophiles. The theory is, apparently, that the younger a child is told about sex the older he will be before he tries it for himself, a contention so ludicrous that it should be beyond even the NDP’s embrace – but no.
From here:
Controversy over a raunchy sex exhibit at an Ottawa museum erupted in the House of Commons Thursday.
The Museum of Science and Technology is hosting the program, Sex: A Tell-All Exhibit, a show crafted for school trips by the Montreal Science Centre and costing $800,000. It’s on loan to the capital for a year.
An NDP MP accused the ruling Tories, who have criticized the exhibit’s content and cost, for being “prudish.”
The exhibit includes a climax room with a round leather bed, red drapes, and a video showing aroused genitals while audio plays of a man describing an orgasm.
There’s also a naming post asking students for alternative terms for penis and vagina. Words like c— and p—y are used for women’s genitalia, and c–k and d–k are used for men’s. The words are displayed in large text on a screen.
Wooden dildos sporting various condoms include descriptions like “for the chocolate lover” for flavoured ones, and “for those long winter nights” for ones that heat up.
Listening posts offer advice to students on everything from anal sex to getting abortions without parental knowledge. The show was created for those 12 years old and older with input from sexologists.
Here is what Michael Coren thinks about it:
