http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148665,00.html
I figured I would put this article here since there will be many not so happy people about this.
I am not sure what to think. I guess I knew it would happen.
Wow. This kind of surprises me–I’ll be very interested to hear what the rector of my parish has to say about it on Sunday. One of the things that drew me to this particular church was the sense that people could hold a variety of theological beliefs but still be united in a common mode of worship. So much for that, I guess…
Well, that’s all well and good unless it’s about those horrible gay people…
Except that it’s not about those horrible gay people pure and simple, since gay congregation members are still to be welcomed and offered pastoral care and all that. Let’s not bake this too brown.
Yeah, but the most important human relationships in their life won’t be blessed or acknowledged, and if they choose to live in such a relationship they better not aspire to any kind of ordained leadership position.
Unfortunately that is the case. The Anglican church (in particular it’s West Indian and African wings) has a position on this. The US and Canadian churches have chosen to diverge from this position. That means they are no longer part of the communion of anglican churches.
It is a peculiarly American trait that thinks religion is a negotiable thing.
Of course! That’s why only the Episcopal Church in the US was to leave as well, and also why the Eames report was such a black-and-white condemnation of us! :rolleyes:
Actually I was more thinking of the Catholic church in America and it’s strange ideas around things like abortion and contraception.
There are fundamental differences between the way the Roman Catholic church is organized and the way the Anglican Communion is organized (there’s no single authority in the Anglican Communion, for one…) that make comparisons between the two on this manner meaningless.
I will admit that, while I have no actual dog in this fight, not being Episcopalian (or even Christian, for that matter), I AM, after all, a member of the class in question (being gay). And I have SUCH a problem seeing this as anything but black and white, right and wrong, white hats and black hats. The American churches and their sympathizers worldwide are trying to treat ALL of their members as equals. They’re trying to recognize that gay folk fall in love and have relationships that are just as profound and deep and meaningful as straight folk. They’re the good guys, the white hats, the nice ones.
The worldwide Anglican Communion and the bitter grumblers in America, on the other hand, are fighting to retain the discrepancy and discrimination that’s been the Christian answer to homosexuals for centuries. They’re refusing to acknowledge the love that two people can feel for each other if they both happen to be the same sex. They’re holding us back out of some outmoded, archaic, rigid view of what it is that homosexuals feel. They’re the bad guys, the reactionaries, the black hats, the Neanderthals, the troglodytes.
Here I stand. I can do no other.
Some of the members of the church may feel that way, but you’d be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of priests who’d speak in favor of abortion. You certainly won’t find someone in any position of leadership being very vocal about it.
Meanwhile, the Anglican Church’s appointment of a gay bishop was done via the leadership of the church, not by the members, and it infuriated many members of the US churches, to the point of debate over whether particular parishes should withdraw from that church. I don’t see much of a comparison between the cases.
This is the America I was always glad to see: stepping forward in the name of progress, tolerance and diversity even if it meant pissing off other countries who are blinded by their authoritarian barbarism and mumbo-jumbo.
It is sad that America has largely become the backwards, socially retarded conservative of the industrialised world, but I unreservedly congratulate the US and Canada here. I wish that the Churches of Europe, Australia, East Asia and everywhere else in the democratic world would have the guts to follow their example and leave the homophobic voodoo shamens who reject the ordination of homosexuals to their own tin-pot “global communion” from their hateful, poisoned chalice.
The American church teaches that we should “respect the dignity of every human being” – but after a comment like that, owl, I’d be willing to make an exception for you. :mad:
Our position is founded in “And the second is like unto it: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And in “Judge not, lest thou be judged. For with the judgment you mete out, you too will be judged.” And in, “Whatsoever you wouldst have another do unto you, do thou likewise unto him.”
Thank you, JayJay. You’ve captured exactly how I feel.
Horse patoot! I’ve posted in several threads how a gay bishop was elected and ratified by representatives of the membership. And I’m not going to repeat the facts here. Go search it out.
I have no really detailed idea what the right footers are up to here, but in general it seems pretty simple.
There is a group of people who set out to live by a series of rules. Some are imposed by an outside authority (ie the bible) and others are a matter of agreement (ie the way that things are set up and adminstered). If you are not in agreement with the rules and practices of this group, you are not a member, and why would you want to be one?
The Anglican church has a position on homosexual clergy and marriage. Whether they are right or wrong is actually immaterial here. What matters is that a group within that larger group found itself fundamentally at odds with the majority and felt that it could no longer be a part of that group.
Tell that to King Henry VIII.
Yeah, “the Anglican Church” has a position on homosexual clergy and marriage – we accept the first, have local option on the second, in the American church. You may have heard about 1776? It went for the church, as well as the state. The sole relevant legal document on the subject that matters internationally is an advisory resolution called Lambeth 1.10, passed by the Lambeth Conference in 1998.
Erk, my apologies; I had RC Church on the brain and forgot that the membership of the Anglican Church does in fact get a say in such things. However, other parishes have expressed their disapproval of that, correct?
No problem, and please excuse my snittiness – I’ve seen one too many anti-Episcopal Church posts on various boards lately to be mellow about what looked like another one. :o
True. Somewhere between 10% and 30% of national membership disapprove, depending on whose figures you work with. Skammer has posted at some length on their position, which he holds a nuanced version of.