7 Responses to “Canadian Anglican decision”

1. 1 DH  on Jun 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

   As an Anglican (Ugandan diocese), those Anglican churches which decide to go against blessing these unions will have no choice but to change to another diocese within the Anglican church.

2. 2 Bene Diction  on Jun 25th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

   DH:
   You are the only person I have ever banned from this blog.

   You are welcome to comment, I will ban you again if you cross the line. Are we clear on that?

   It is my understanding this remains a juristictional concern for the Anglican Church.
   I am asking for clarification on the Canadian decision.

   http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/06/25/anglican-gay-070625.html

3. 3 joseph  on Jun 25th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

   Good question Bene.
   My sense is that there is an implicit understanding that it has not been shown to be in conflict with core “order and discipline” of the ACC. And this is where it will get difficult. I’m sure there will be a variety of interpretations of this: the motion on doctrine passed, but the motion on practice failed.

4. 4 Bene D  on Jun 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

   I’ve no doubt you’ll have a parade of your tribe asking harder questions.:^(

5. 5 saint  on Jun 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm

   Bene, I said on my blog last night that everyone will continue to do what they feel like.

   And it seems I will be right.

6. 6 Jack  on Jun 28th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

   I would have to answer your question with another question. What would a bishop do if a female priest were to live with a man to whom she was not married?

   This, BTW, is not entirely hypothetical. It is not “core doctrine” that priests must be single or married, “in the sense of being creedal”. However, it has been part of the discipline of the Church.

   Here is the nub of the problem. Much of what we hold as discipline in the church is not creedal — it is part of our Christian tradition and is informed by Scripture and is certainly important. I, for one, would hold that both the priest living without benefit of clergy and the one who “blesses” same sex unions should both have their licenses withdrawn.

   We shall see if one discipline is enforced while the other is not, and by which bishops. My guess is that there will be a number of ‘liberal’ bishops who will just turn their heads the other way.

7. 7 Bene Diction  on Jun 28th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

   It’s a good question.

   I would assume the Anglican Church powers that be would deal with it the same way they would discipline a male priest living with a woman who is not his legal wife. Or a male of female priest found to be commiting adultery.

   A priest blessing congregant relationships (in Canada same sex unions being civil/legal) is no different than blessing re-marriage of heterosexuals.

   We are talking about couples that are legally recognized.
   The Anglican Church isn’t forcing clergy that believe blessing would violate their oath of office and standing with God out.

   I am not Anglican, I’m trying to tread respectfully - the United Church decision hasn’t caused division.

   A court ruling came down today in the US about who owns the property of a break-a-way congregation (Uganda-California) Billions of dollars are essentially at stake. It’s about power, not people. 

   Are the Canadian Bishops are attempting to keep inevitable property disputes out of the courts by looking away?

   I’ve found Walter Wink’s writing thoughtful.
   http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink