Posted on 12/01/2009 2:42:55 PM PST by markomalley
As of Nov. 29, clergy of the diocese may solemnize marriages for all eligible couples, Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE has announced. The decision comes after a long discernment process leading up to and continuing after the action of General Convention this past July allowing that “bishops, particularly in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage is legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.” The full text of Bishop Shaw’s statement follows.
Christian marriage is a sacramental rite that has evolved in the church, along with confirmation, ordination, penance, and the anointing of the sick, and while it is not necessary for all, it must be open to all as a means of grace and sustenance to our Christian hope. I believe this because the truth of it is in our midst, revealed again and again by the many marriages—of women and men, and of persons of the same gender—that are characterized, just as our church expects, by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, and the holy love which enables spouses to see in one another the image of God. In May of 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opened civil marriage in our state to same-gender couples. That ruling set up a contradiction between what civil law would allow and what our church’s canons and formulary state, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And so, for more than five years now, while faithfully waiting for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to act in response, we in the Diocese of Massachusetts have been living at some cost with an imperfect accommodation: Our clergy have not been allowed to solemnize same-gender marriages, but they have been permitted to bless them after the fact. In July of this year, the 76th General Convention adopted resolution C056, “Liturgies for Blessings.” It allows that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”
Your bishops understand this to mean for us here in the Diocese of Massachusetts that the clergy of this diocese may, at their discretion, solemnize marriages for all eligible couples, beginning Advent I. Solemnization, in accordance with Massachusetts law, includes hearing the declaration of consent, pronouncing the marriage and signing the marriage certificate. This provision for generous pastoral response is an allowance and not a requirement; any member of the clergy may decline to solemnize any marriage. While gender-specific language remains unchanged in the canons and The Book of Common Prayer, our provision of generous pastoral response means that same-gender couples can be married in our diocese. We request that our clergy follow as they ordinarily would the other canonical requirements for marriage and remarriage. And, because The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage in The Book of Common Prayer may not be used for marriages of same-gender couples, we ask that our priests seek out liturgical resources being developed and collected around the church. We also commend to you the October 2008 resource created by our New England dioceses, “Pastoral Resources for Province I Episcopal Clergy Ministering to Same-Gender Couples,” available at www.province1.org.
We have not arrived at this place in our common life easily or quickly. We have not done it alone. This decision comes after a long process of listening, prayer and discernment leading up to and continuing after General Convention’s action this past summer. Our Diocesan Convention recently adopted a resolution of its own expressing its collective hope for the very determination that your bishops have made. Even so, we know that not all are of one mind and that some in good faith will disagree with this decision. Our Anglican tradition makes space for this disagreement and calls us to respect and engage one another in our differences. It is through that tension that we find God’s ultimate will.
We also know that by calling us to minister in the context of this particular place and time God is again blessing our diocese with a great challenge by which we might enter more fully into that ethic of love which Jesus speaks to us through the New Testament. It is an immeasurable love given for all. We are being asked to live it, all of us, children of God, each with equal claim upon the love, acceptance and pastoral care of this church, so that the newness and fullness of life promised through word and sacrament might be for all people and for the completion of God’s purpose for the world. /s/ M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE
Advent I, November 29, 2009
I’m so glad that I live in the Diocese of San Joaquin.
solemnize marriages?
More like sodomize...
Next it will be three-somes or perhaps siblings. They just want to show how loving and caring they are in The Church of What’s Happenin’ Now.
And pressing the accelerator to boot.
Are you talking about the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin?
The same one that, at their last diocesan convention, held in October, 2009, approved resolutions including the following?
- Resolution R-09-05 (Affirmation of Resolution C056) - Passed ("Resolution C056 calls for a pastoral response from the Church with regards to the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples in various civil jurisdictions.")
- Resolution R-09-04 (Affirmation of Resolution D025) - Passed ("While Resolution D025 affirms the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the world-wide Anglican Communion, it also acknowledges the context in which the Episcopal Church’s ministry is exercised. It therefore calls that gay and lesbian people called to ordained ministry, be allowed equal access to the Church’s discernment process.")
- etc
Could you explain, exactly, why you are so glad??
Sometimes I am not so proud of my church. This is certainly one of those times, even though I am from a different diocese.
Our diocese split off from the Episcopal Church and realigned with the Southern Cone, taking most of our church buildings with us. The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is playing a huge role in conservative Anglican efforts here in the US.
For all intents and purposes, our bishop is a thorn in the side of the Episcopal synod. The provisional Episcopal Diocese that's been set up here it trying desperately to get our church properties.
So yes, I'm quite proud to live in the Diocese of San Joaquin. :-)
They can’t be doing this and using the same version of the New Testament I have read - or which has been used for the past 1,600 years or so.
The Episcopal Church has become the Church of the Holy Queers. Belief in God, the doctrine, and liturgy of the Church is optional; you only need embrace the fashionable thinking of the left. I wish them well, but this is not a church, it is a political debating society wherein the debate has been settled in favor of liberal dogma.
This, I suppose, will suit those who remain in the Episcopal Church. That is, until fashion changes and they find themselves cast aside in favor of the new belief system.
They are such wimps that they only started recognizing “gay marriage” when the state said it was OK. Like good little lap dogs. What about in states that don’t allow it? Are they gonna make a stand for all their gay members?!
I hate that the Church won’t marry folks unless they get gubberment’s permission (which is less than worthless). I think it has led many to look to the gubberment to define marriage, much to the detriment of the institution.
Freegards
Unfortunately, you are largely correct. The sad part is that there is a lot to be said for traditional Anglicanism, particularly in regards to its worship.
I do have worries for the souls of even believing Christians who remain in the Episcopal Church much longer, as God does not tolerate those who are lukewarm in their faith. Fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, faithful believers ARE doing something. They’ve been organizing a new Anglican Diocese of North America, which is aligned with the conservative Anglican bishops from South America. I don’t know what the long term prospects are but at least something is being done.
I keep my hopes high, personally. There is, of course, always the possibility that conservative Anglican churches might decide to move towards joining with the Catholic Church under the Anglican Use or towards joining the Orthodox Church using the Rite of St. Tikhon, although both of those raise new issues.
The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, continues down its path towards irrelevancy.
You should be more specific to avoid confusion in the future ;-)
So, are you under that Ugandan primate? (Orombi is his name if I recall correctly?) How do you all interface with Canterbury? Does any of Rowan Williams' flakiness impact you all (female bishops and the like)? Any reaction locally to the recently released Anglicanorum coetibus?
I probably should have. A lot of this stuff has occurred just over the past couple of years. Sadly, I am mostly just returning to church after a bit of a long hiatus and admittedly am not in the thick of things. I'd imagine, however, that this stuff makes for interesting reading, even for non-Anglicans (I am assuming you are Catholic).
So, are you under that Ugandan primate?
No, we are connected to the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America - Latin American bishops from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. They are conservative much like some of the African bishops.
How do you all interface with Canterbury? Does any of Rowan Williams' flakiness impact you all (female bishops and the like)? Any reaction locally to the recently released Anglicanorum coetibus?
I sadly personally cannot answer these questions for most of the diocese or even my parish - my current focus is on the basics, such as trying to get my prayer life going again, reading Holy Scripture, and dragging myself into church on Sunday to put my backside into the pew in the first place. The fundamental yet most important things.
I can speak for myself on the second and third questions, however. To be perfectly blunt, I personally am not fond of priestesses and high priestesses. Those are pretty much what I consider to be the proper terms for female priests and bishops and they better reflect the paganism which tends to be espoused by such. Case in point - Katharine Jefferts-Schori, the presiding "bishop" of the Episcopal synod. That woman gives off a spiritual vibe that quite gives me the willies.
I was not familiar with Anglicanorum coetibus but I thank you for sharing it. It seems like a proper step in the right direction were dioceses to go back to Rome. Frankly, I am not sure how much of an impact that will have in the long run. Even among conservative Anglicans there are beliefs that don't quite fall within the realm of acceptable Catholic orthodoxy. Without going into the why's or wanting to start a debate here, some, such as myself, aren't just a bunch of pseudo-Catholics looking to become full Catholics so long as we can maintain an Anglican identity. There is a Protestant outlook underlying quite a few of our views. For example, I do think you will find that while there is an appreciation for Sacred Tradition not found in most Protestant Churches, you will also find a belief that Holy Scripture, insofar as it reflects that Tradition, is its supreme measure. While things not explicitly laid out in Scripture might very well be true, possible, or good, belief in such is not held as necessary for salvation. I mean, you will those such as myself who see Confession as a sacrament and a good thing who will turn around and tell you that we don't see it as necessary so much as a grace by which we are strengthened when our own faith is found lacking in the efficacy of our private confessions!
My point in all this, however, isn't to debate these matters so much as to show that there are still real theological differences between Anglicans and Catholics despite the significant similarities in the forms of our worship. I think those differences are probably deep enough to prevent the Catholic Church from accepting all of us in full communion. This is likewise the case with Anglicans and the Orthodox Church. None of this is to say that you won't find pockets of Anglicans who really are "Catholics without a Pope" so far as their beliefs go, but such are not necessarily representative of the whole.
Correct
My point in all this, however, isn't to debate these matters so much as to show that there are still real theological differences between Anglicans and Catholics despite the significant similarities in the forms of our worship. I think those differences are probably deep enough to prevent the Catholic Church from accepting all of us in full communion. This is likewise the case with Anglicans and the Orthodox Church. None of this is to say that you won't find pockets of Anglicans who really are "Catholics without a Pope" so far as their beliefs go, but such are not necessarily representative of the whole.
Hopefully the issues could be resolved. But I am glad to see that you all are preserving the degree of orthodoxy that you have. Y'all are in my prayers nevertheless.
I guess some religion is better than no religion? Not that it’s any of my business of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.