tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post5268390878641328996..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Incoherent HypocrisyTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-44701217844624265942014-02-17T16:42:57.450-05:002014-02-17T16:42:57.450-05:00Erika, I really wonder if the church can stop prie...Erika, I really wonder if the church can stop priests from marrying once it becomes legal. They seem to have created a tangle that doesn't help them one way or the other, either as discipline or doctrine. Seem my later post for the details...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-62304992490897880602014-02-17T15:14:50.818-05:002014-02-17T15:14:50.818-05:00Fr Ron,
I think blessing Civil Partnerships would ...Fr Ron,<br />I think blessing Civil Partnerships would have delayed the crisis but no more than that. Priests in particular tend to regard marriage highly and were always more likely to want to marry than be civil partnered.<br /><br />The other interesting thing to watch will be what will happen to civil partnerships. There is currently a government consultation process about their future. This ends on 17 April, and then there will be a parliamentary debate whether to keep them as an option for same sex couples, whether to open them to same sex couples, or whether the abolish them entirely.<br /><br />Can the church stop priests from seeking the legal security of marriage once the CP option is no longer available to them?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-80881359098739774012014-02-17T10:35:07.232-05:002014-02-17T10:35:07.232-05:00Thank you, Fr. Ron.
The question of how to move ...Thank you, Fr. Ron. <br /><br />The question of how to move forwards seems to revolve to some extent on the meaning of "lawful" in the phrase "all things lawful" when it comes to disciplining clergy who may balk and get wed. Is a pastoral direction, or even a direct admonition not to do something which is legal under the law of the state and not expressly forbidden under the law of the church, a "law." Being an American I am not familiar with the intricacies of English law beyond knowing how intricate it is! So the questions are:<br /><br />Does this Pastoral Guidance have the force of law?<br /><br />Is there a canon or other actionable statement in place already forbidding a cleric entering a same-sex marriage?<br /><br />And if neither of these be true, does the disciplinary language of "in all things lawful" fail to meet the standard of justice and equity. From the cases cited above, it would seem not.<br /><br />Please note I did not cite Article XXXXII as a "legal" point as I do not know the standing of the Articles in English church jurisprudence. (Though I'd be interested to know if they still have any application. After all, the P.G. cites the 1662 marriage liturgy.) I was instead highlighting the principle that from the time of the Article marriage was held to be a matter of conscience for the individual to frame (at the time) his life in a godly fashion.<br /><br />As to marriage being a matter of doctrine, in the absence of reference in the creeds and the catechism, one might then bring in the Article on the Sacraments, which holds marriage to be "an estate allowed." One could argue that same-sex marriage is not "allowed" by Scripture, but the argument that it is expressly forbidden is not definitive, and to cite another article, only that which can be "proven" can be mandatory. In short, one can allow what cannot be proven, but only require what can be.<br /><br />Sorry to bash away on the Articles, but it does seem to me we need a sort of Traditional Anglican Settlement to all of this, by allowing diversity and letting God sort out all the rest...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-62282489632903617942014-02-17T04:48:34.676-05:002014-02-17T04:48:34.676-05:00Thank you, Tobias - especially for the reminder of...Thank you, Tobias - especially for the reminder of Art.32, re the possibility of clergy marriage. My big problem about the Bishops' Statement is that it refused the Pilling advice about allowing for a 'Blessing' on Civil Partnerships. If the Bishops had allowed this in the first instance, there may not have been, now, the clamour for Same-Sex Marriage in Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-17689610106101623832014-02-16T12:55:05.504-05:002014-02-16T12:55:05.504-05:00Thanks, Simon; and for reminding me of the "w...Thanks, Simon; and for reminding me of the "weave" in the actual verse... a good bit of alliteration by good William B. (one of my favorite poets).<br /><br />And WSJ, that is very likely. You'll be sending me back to my copy of Bicknell to check out the backstory. There is likely a bit of Lutheran influence in this (besides the Mrs.) given the Lutheran attitude towards the civil estate...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-85173360091841008102014-02-16T12:39:35.981-05:002014-02-16T12:39:35.981-05:00I don't remember who wrote the original versio...I don't remember who wrote the original version of Article XXXII (I probably have a history of the Articles around somewhere, but I'm too lazy to try to find it), but I can't help but think that the backstory includes Cranmer's marriage while he was in Germany trolling for support for Henry's annulment. When he came back to England it was apparently "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for a while. On the other hand, he did marry the woman, which clearly "served better to godliness" than taking her as a mistress (which Margarete presumably would have refused to be). If we taught church history honestly, we would recognize that we have been flexible about many things over the centuries. The English bishops need to get over themselves. (As do we all.)WSJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09712152737422347034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-51117964133641627782014-02-15T18:20:09.569-05:002014-02-15T18:20:09.569-05:00Oh yes, Tobias, thank you.
For those not familia...Oh yes, Tobias, thank you.<br /><br /> For those not familiar with Blake's original (Auguries of Innocence) it reads thus:<br /><br />The Harlot's cry from Street to Street <br />Shall weave Old England's winding sheet.Simon Sarmientohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08542580457322446190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-20625920256589778822014-02-15T18:05:29.636-05:002014-02-15T18:05:29.636-05:00Thanks all.
Adrian, I share your perspective, and...Thanks all.<br /><br />Adrian, I share your perspective, and can only give thanks I am not a member of the Church of England, lay or ordained. Were I, I think conscience might well call me to withdraw. As it is, I delayed entering the ordination process in my own church until it was abundantly clear that my ordination would not have to be under a "don't ask, don't tell" regime.<br /><br />The C of E seems to me to be taking a step backwards to the era of duplicity. I could well see principled ecclesiastical disobedience (on the grounds that the Church is disobeying its own rules, in terms of Article XXXII (noted above) as well as Article XX (in that it is requiring something that cannot be proven from Scripture.) I suppose a form of hopeful entryism is also possible, but the whole thing stinks.<br /><br />I'm reminded of Blake, whom I would amend as follows, "The Bishops' cry from street to street, will be the Church of England's winding sheet..."Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-18260603967828851582014-02-15T16:10:47.475-05:002014-02-15T16:10:47.475-05:00Whatever the claimed reasoning, the fact is that i...Whatever the claimed reasoning, the fact is that institutionally the Church covers ground that is contradictory, and it is also contradicting directly the settled if new secular view of marriage. These bishops are also taking account of maintaining relationships with some viciously homophobic Churches. Whether it is true or not, the stance seems to be that they are all agreed on their narrow definition of marriage.<br /><br />If this is true, and the next two years of 'discussions' are already wasted, then surely people who have a different view of Christianity ought to leave.<br /><br />It's not as if there are not other Churches, and people are free to move about and change. They have varieties of orthodoxies however understood. Some of them even have bishops.<br /><br />If the Church was compulsive, like the State, then there would be no option but to protest, but this Church seems to have set out its (admittedly duplicity-laden) boundaries and surely it has that right.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-18486465622357584322014-02-15T16:06:54.633-05:002014-02-15T16:06:54.633-05:00You know, i did not cry this morning when I read t...You know, i did not cry this morning when I read the bishops' allegedly pastoral statement, so used am I to episcopal waffling; but your reading makes me want to wail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-3875266731542119992014-02-15T14:01:39.423-05:002014-02-15T14:01:39.423-05:00Brilliantly put, Tobias, thank you.Brilliantly put, Tobias, thank you.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.com