May 31, 2005
THE LION WILL LAY WITH THE LAMB, AND WE WON'T INVESTIGATE MISSING LAMBS:
Church to let gay clergy 'marry' but they must stay celibate (Times of London, 5/29/2005; via The Anchoress)
Homosexual priests in the Church of England will be allowed to "marry" their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior bishops, led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury....Under the proposal, a priest intending to register a civil partnership would inform his or her bishop in a face-to-face meeting....
Some bishops, however, are uncomfortable about subjecting their priests to the proposed interviews.
One said this weekend: "We all have clergy in gay partnerships in our dioceses and there is a genuine reluctance on the part of a number of us to make their lives more difficult."
The Church of England seems to be devoted to eliminating all suffering, including the suffering entailed in meeting with a bishop. The reporter neglected to ask the bishops how they reconcile this goal with Jesus's call to "take up your cross and follow Me" (Luke 9:23, Matt 10:38 and 16:24). The orthodox view is that the absence of suffering is a characteristic of the world to come, not this world of sin and sadness; so that the hope of creating heaven on earth is less realistic even than the hope of creating gay "marriage" without sex. Anglican theology appears to be more optimistic. Posted by Paul Jaminet at May 31, 2005 12:20 PM
They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex.
So, lying is now a prerequisite for being an Anglican priest?
Posted by: David Cohen at May 31, 2005 12:32 PMWhat David said. This is disgraceful. These knuckleheads aren't even pretending to follow orthodoxy (of any kind) anymore. All they have to offer is some soggy acceptance of most any act.
I didn't leave the Episcopal Church - the Episcopal Church left me.
What David said. This is disgraceful. These knuckleheads aren't even pretending to follow orthodoxy (of any kind) anymore. All they have to offer is some soggy acceptance of most any act.
I didn't leave the Episcopal Church - the Episcopal Church left me.
A week or two ago, David had a post about liberalism not existing as a coherent political philosophy, but rather an aesthetic. When I first read the post, I mistakenly substituted in my mind anaesthetic for aesthetic. It took me a few seconds to realize that *either* word worked well, as modern liberalism is about palliatives, anodynes, and thumb-sucking in general.
The Anglican Church has simply co-opted this viewpoint, and driven it to its extreme. Heaven forbid (in the unlikely event they actually believe in Heaven) they should actually require something substantial of their adherents.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at May 31, 2005 1:05 PMThis must be making some of the Bishops themselves nervous, ie. Gene Robinson.
Posted by: Genecis at May 31, 2005 1:54 PMBeing an established church, the Anglican Church must ultimately be a slave to fashion. As many have pointed out, America's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was meant to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around.
Posted by: Guy T. at May 31, 2005 2:21 PMGuy T
Aw, lay off them. They're just a little confused. They thought it said "Religion shall make no law respecting congress."
Posted by: Peter B at May 31, 2005 3:11 PMGuy: Many have said it but many would be wrong. The "Establishment Clause" was meant to forbid the federal government from interfering with official state religions that existed at the time in several states. It was not until the incorporation doctrine was invented that the Establishment Clause applied to the states.
Posted by: Bob at May 31, 2005 4:44 PMGuy - Excellent point. Established religions must surely take on the views of the lawmakers, and the lawmakers of the voters. You can't testify to the truth if you're obliged to speak an average over the views of all the people.
Posted by: pj at May 31, 2005 5:10 PMPeter: LOL
Posted by: David Cohen at May 31, 2005 10:02 PM> It was not until the incorporation doctrine was invented that the Establishment Clause applied to the states.
Sounds plausible enough. All right, then, it wasn't foresight but Providence. :)
Posted by: Guy T. at May 31, 2005 10:06 PMPeter:
That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 1, 2005 10:06 PMThe Church of England seems to be devoted to eliminating all suffering.
To the contrary. It would seem that the ruling under discussion causes righteous anger and massive suffering across the board. It seems quite probably that there will be no one, of any persuasion, of any opinion, who will not be upset here, except perhaps those who honestly delight in sadism and/or masochism.
Wait a minute...
Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 2, 2005 10:30 AM