Episcopal Church in US approves same-sex weddings [CWN]

[Duane1966]

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.

The above is a quote from justice Kennedy.

Is there an ethical argument that could be made by the state to deny marriage between two brothers, or a father and a son, or a father and a daughter? Would there be a reason to deny a marriage certificate to someone and their clone? Does a marriage have to be between two humans, or would a human and a robot qualify (without a doubt in the next 50 to 75 years robotic technology will be at the point that a robot that looks and functions almost exactly like a human will have been created)? What reason can the state have to ban polygamy?

On the religious side of things.

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so

The above quote is from Mt. 19. The some that are incapable of marriage, who is Jesus talking about?

 

[outremer]

Ho boy.

I hope this is good news for the Anglican Ordinariate.

It seems like conversions have drastically decreased to the Ordinariate since 2012. Do they actively seek to bring Anglicans into the Catholic Church?

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by ericc View Post
Does this church do weddings for homosexual (blood) brothers? Anything to prevent them from doing it? Or incestuous marriages? There is nothing really to stop it from “progressing”.

I would imagine legal wedding certificates would qualify who an Episcopal priest or deacon would sacramentally marry.

The law only governs which “marriages” are recognized legally. In the US the government does not - yet - regulate sacraments, though that is coming. (Hilary Clinton has already said we have to change “our” religious beliefs on abortion. You can be sure they will try to control “sacramental” access too).

But while the government will pressure the Catholic Church to expand marriage criteria, it probably won’t restrict the TEC from expanding beyond where the government is now. As long as no church performed “sacramental” same sex weddings, the government might be somewhat reluctant to pressure this to happen. But now that one church does offer this “sacramental” service, the government can say this is the sort of thing all churches can potentially do. So RC churches that refuse to offer the sacrament can be sued, and/or lose their tax exemption.

The actions of the TEC provide “cover” for politicians who can now say “We are all for Christianity; we just won’t put up with those groups like the Westboro Baptist, or RCC, who hide their bigotry behind the walls of churches”.

For starters, they say that all TEC clergy have the option of refusing to perform these ceremonies, or not. Is there anyone who believes that exemption will last more than a year? Is there anyone who thinks there won’t be gradual expansion of TEC weddings far beyond just the 2 same-sex adults standard?

If the government goes after the RCC, do you think the TEC will speak up for religious liberty and ecumenism; or remain silent?

 

[commenter]

It seems like conversions have drastically decreased to the Ordinariate since 2012. Do they actively seek to bring Anglicans into the Catholic Church?

From what I have read of the Anglican Ordinariate, they are focused on proclaiming the Catholic Faith. If that causes them to grow, so be it. If that causes them to shrink - and in today’s society it might - so be it.

 

[GKC]

Originally Posted by ericc View Post
Does this church do weddings for homosexual (blood) brothers? Anything to prevent them from doing it? Or incestuous marriages? There is nothing really to stop it from “progressing”.

The law only governs which “marriages” are recognized legally. In the US the government does not - yet - regulate sacraments, though that is coming. (Hilary Clinton has already said we have to change “our” religious beliefs on abortion. You can be sure they will try to control “sacramental” access too).

But while the government will pressure the Catholic Church to expand marriage criteria, it probably won’t restrict the TEC from expanding beyond where the government is now. As long as no church performed “sacramental” same sex weddings, the government might be somewhat reluctant to pressure this to happen. But now that one church does offer this “sacramental” service, the government can say this is the sort of thing all churches can potentially do. So RC churches that refuse to offer the sacrament can be sued, and/or lose their tax exemption.

The actions of the TEC provide “cover” for politicians who can now say “We are all for Christianity; we just won’t put up with those groups like the Westboro Baptist, or RCC, who hide their bigotry behind the walls of churches”.

For starters, they say that all TEC clergy have the option of refusing to perform these ceremonies, or not. Is there anyone who believes that exemption will last more than a year? Is there anyone who thinks there won’t be gradual expansion of TEC weddings far beyond just the 2 same-sex adults standard?

If the government goes after the RCC, do you think the TEC will speak up for religious liberty and ecumenism; or remain silent?

Yep, and concurrence, to this, generally. The RCC won’t be the only target, of course, just the most prominent. My bishop’s sermon was on this, Sunday.

 

[GKC]

It seems like conversions have drastically decreased to the Ordinariate since 2012. Do they actively seek to bring Anglicans into the Catholic Church?

As I posted, during the lengthy discussions that followed the proclamation of
Anglicanorus Coetibus, the expectations of both the absolute immediate numbers coming, and the likely numbers, over time, were being exaggerated. The target for the immediate response would be those remnants in the Anglican world who had resisted the decline of the faith, to that point and who could, finally, affirm what the RCC requires to be affirmed, to make the jump. Over the previous 35-40 years, as things went from bad to worse, the Anglicans most likely to depart already had - to the Continuum, the Orthodox, other liturgical churches, and the RCC. The initial influx represented the remnant, and was bound to taper off. How it goes from here, I wouldn’t know, but I would not expect another surge.And as to actively seeking to bring Anglicans in, the RCC, it seems to me, is wary of the charge of sheep-stealing. Opening the door to the fold a little wider, as was done, OTOH…

Whenever TEC does something mindboggling, my traditionalist, Continuing, Anglo-Catholic parish usually gets a visit or two from that rare creature, a disillusioned Episcopalian. Got two yesterday.

 

[commenter]

Whenever TEC does something mindboggling, my traditionalist, Continuing, Anglo-Catholic parish usually gets a visit or two from that rare creature, a disillusioned Episcopalian. Got two yesterday.

I bet for every disillusioned one that visits you, there are many others disillusioned who stay put. The atrocities that you, rightly, still regard as “mindboggling” are now perceived by many as “one more annoyance”. People in the pews get used to the envelope being pushed just a little farther each year. (“Well, since we already were blessing same sex unions anyway, and since the government legalized SSM, maybe it’s better to have it in church, rather than city hall”). What should be mindboggling becomes just one more accommodation. But this accommodation makes it easier for the government to push the envelope farther; which triggers a further accommodation by the TEC. Mainstream churches, the media, and government are enmeshed.

There is a permanent lobby in most churches that constantly inches towards secularism. Each “hill” they capture is simply a stepping stone to advance towards taking the next hill. In Roe vs Wade and the current Supreme Court decision they and their allies outside the churches helped redefine “justice”; it is no longer an absolute, but can be whatever they want it to be. They won’t be satisfied with SSM, I hate to think what further things they have in mind.

I am tempted to bring up that old cliche about the frog, slowly getting lulled in a pot of water comfortably warm, but gradually getting hotter, to boiling.

 

[Contarini]

As I posted, during the lengthy discussions that followed the proclamation of
Anglicanorus Coetibus, the expectations of both the absolute immediate numbers coming, and the likely numbers, over time, were being exaggerated. The target for the immediate response would be those remnants in the Anglican world who had resisted the decline of the faith, to that point and who could, finally, affirm what the RCC requires to be affirmed, to make the jump. Over the previous 35-40 years, as things went from bad to worse, the Anglicans most likely to depart already had - to the Continuum, the Orthodox, other liturgical churches, and the RCC. The initial influx represented the remnant, and was bound to taper off. How it goes from here, I wouldn’t know, but I would not expect another surge.And as to actively seeking to bring Anglicans in, the RCC, it seems to me, is wary of the charge of sheep-stealing. Opening the door to the fold a little wider, as was done, OTOH…

Whenever TEC does something mindboggling, my traditionalist, Continuing, Anglo-Catholic parish usually gets a visit or two from that rare creature, a disillusioned Episcopalian. Got two yesterday.

I presume your use of the word “rare” is ironic? Because if anything, my experience is that it’s illusioned Episcopalians who are relatively rare. . . .

 

[Contarini]

The law only governs which “marriages” are recognized legally. In the US the government does not - yet - regulate sacraments, though that is coming. (Hilary Clinton has already said we have to change “our” religious beliefs on abortion. You can be sure they will try to control “sacramental” access too).

She didn’t say it quite like that, and I don’t think she was talking about government coercion, but about where she wanted society to go.

For starters, they say that all TEC clergy have the option of refusing to perform these ceremonies, or not. Is there anyone who believes that exemption will last more than a year?

Oh, I think it will last longer than a year. I am not optimistic about it lasting more than a few decades. Based on the precedent of women’s ordination, I would say probably 20-30 years, but given the history ofcivil gay marriage and the acceleration of demands for compliance in the broader society, that may be a far too conservative estimate. The pattern laid down with women’s ordination–which I suspect is what the current leaders of TEC want to follow–is that they are fine with being tolerant of older clergy who can be expected not to “know better,” but if it looks like younger clergy are coming up still clinging to these “discredited” beliefs, then things may get uglier. But again, given how the broader society is changing, it’s possible that the pressure will build before that. Definitely more than a year, though.

My own bishop from Indiana, Ed Little, is about to retire. Which is too bad, because he’s been one of the main leaders of what remains of the conservative faction in TEC. He’s a gracious, holy man and everyone respects him. No one is going to want to humiliate or coerce him. But he really will be gone within a year. . . .

Is there anyone who thinks there won’t be gradual expansion of TEC weddings far beyond just the 2 same-sex adults standard?

I really don’t know about that. I would not be surprised if polyamory were eventually accepted, but I don’t think it’s as inevitable as many conservatives claim. I think the arguments against sibling incest made by pro-gay-marriage people make absolutely no sense (it all rests on the bad effects of inbreeding, which a) implies eugenics, and b) only applies to marriages that procreate). But people can go on for quite a while believing things that don’t make sense. I think the question in the broader society (and in all realism, where the society goes there TEC goes, which as many are pointing out is the basic problem and the main reason I can’t identify myself as Episcopalian any longer) is whether a case can be made that practitioners of incest or polyamory are an “oppressed sexual minority.” It’s easy to see the appeal of that argument in the case of gays and “transgender” folks. Harder perhaps in these other cases, but I’m not sure it’s as impossible as liberals are now claiming. (They’re blithely announcing “no one is born polygamous,” which I think is at best a highly dubious claim.) We’ll see.

If the government goes after the RCC, do you think the TEC will speak up for religious liberty and ecumenism; or remain silent?

I don’t know. Some bishops and clergy will. I suspect that the denomination as a whole will not. It may be different under Curry, but from his handling of the situation in NC after 2003 I’m not too optimistic. (To be fair, my rector, whom Curry eventually forced out, approached the issue in some very flawed ways–in retrospect he was quite domineering and controlling apart from this specific issue, and he certainly alienated a lot of people, including one couple who later became Catholic and always accepted the orthodox position on homosexuality, so a case can be made that Bishop Curry just did what he had to do. But still, I was disappointed in Curry, whom I had enthusiastically supported for bishop originally.)

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I presume your use of the word “rare” is ironic? Because if anything, my experience is that it’s illusioned Episcopalians who are relatively rare. . . .

No, Episcopalians who, as the water continues to approach the boiling point, actually consider leaping (and occasionally do leap) from the pot (and sometimes wind up with folks like me), I reckon as disillusioned Episcopalians, from whose eyes the scales have dropped, and for whom whatever glamour held them in thrall (hyperbole, theoretically possible) has dissipated. They are as rare as unicorns, in my area, in my experience. That is, the Episcopalians who accept the current realm, accept it with open and celebratory eyes (to create an image I can’t quite grasp, but that seems useful).

The rare folks who do drop by, some in passage, some to roost, may express themselves as “I kept my eyes closed to what was happening as long as I could” or " I could not pretend anymore" or “something about a bridge too far”. The folks who stay aboard I reckon as illusioned, as to what is going on. Or, possibly not, say perhaps illusioned as to whether what is going on is a Good Thing. But illusioned. Then disillusioned, and a few of them stop to see what we might be. A handful.

So I see it.

 

[GKC]

I bet for every disillusioned one that visits you, there are many others disillusioned who stay put. The atrocities that you, rightly, still regard as “mindboggling” are now perceived by many as “one more annoyance”. People in the pews get used to the envelope being pushed just a little farther each year. (“Well, since we already were blessing same sex unions anyway, and since the government legalized SSM, maybe it’s better to have it in church, rather than city hall”). What should be mindboggling becomes just one more accommodation. But this accommodation makes it easier for the government to push the envelope farther; which triggers a further accommodation by the TEC. Mainstream churches, the media, and government are enmeshed.

There is a permanent lobby in most churches that constantly inches towards secularism. Each “hill” they capture is simply a stepping stone to advance towards taking the next hill. In Roe vs Wade and the current Supreme Court decision they and their allies outside the churches helped redefine “justice”; it is no longer an absolute, but can be whatever they want it to be. They won’t be satisfied with SSM, I hate to think what further things they have in mind.

I am tempted to bring up that old cliche about the frog, slowly getting lulled in a pot of water comfortably warm, but gradually getting hotter, to boiling.

Are you familiar with a cartoon, of a couple of old CoE duffers, in a back pew in the parish church, with the caption “I tell you Chauncey, they change one more thing in this Church, and I’m giving serious thought to what action I will take”, while a Roman orgy proceeds in procession toward the area set aside for the human sacrifice?

I use the cliche myself, in this case, before I read your post, in my immediately preceding one. I learned it in college. IOW, I am in agreement with you. Those who stay who might eventually depart, as the temperature rises, may cling to the illusion “but this is my Church. I can’t let them take it from me” as the last illusion.

 

[mjwise]

It seems like conversions have drastically decreased to the Ordinariate since 2012. Do they actively seek to bring Anglicans into the Catholic Church?

I think at one point the ordinariate thought they were going to bring hundreds of congregations over, but last I looked on their parish finder, they weren’t even up to 40, and a number of those aren’t really parishes but places where there’s occasionally an Anglican service. Dissatisfaction with one church doesn’t necessarily mean you necessarily want to be a minor cog (if you’ll pardon the expression) of the RCC. There are also practical and major governance differences that are quite different between Episcopal parishes and RC parishes.

 

[commenter]

I think at one point **the ordinariate thought **they were going to bring hundreds of congregations over, but last I looked on their parish finder, they weren’t even up to 40, and a number of those aren’t really parishes but places where there’s occasionally an Anglican service. Dissatisfaction with one church doesn’t necessarily mean you necessarily want to be a minor cog (if you’ll pardon the expression) of the RCC. There are also practical and major governance differences that are quite different between Episcopal parishes and RC parishes.

Thought?
A lot of the criticism of the Ordinariate has been that they supposedly “thought” they were going to bring in a lot more people than they have so far. The reality is they had no realistic idea how many, if any, people were going to join it! How could they, nothing like this had been done before. (This is like when the pope visits a country and draws the largest crowd in that country’s history, the commentators say “Ha, they thought double that number would come, but they didn’t get that crowd”).

Relative to a typical US diocese, the numbers of laity so far is not large, the numbers of priests and men training to be RC priests is very large.

 

[commenter]

I use the cliche myself, in this case, before I read your post, in my immediately preceding one. I learned it in college. IOW, I am in agreement with you. Those who stay who might eventually depart, as the temperature rises, may cling to the illusion “but this is my Church. I can’t let them take it from me” as the last illusion.

Here’s some reasons IMHO:

1. We put millions of dollars into this church property. We aren’t going to hand it over.
2. My parents were married, and I was baptized, in this church.
3. The pastor in our small town doesn’t agree with our liberal diocese or TEC. I am here to support that pastor.
4. I have ministries here; a few young people look up to me. I can’t let them down. I can do more participating in a denomination that has an impact. I influence the liberals here. (My allowing them to breathe the same air that I do supposedly helps them).
5. Change is hard.
6. OK, maybe the Left has won the last 47 votes in a row on significant issues at the parish and diocesan level. But is the glass really half empty, or half full?
7. Isn’t that light coming, at the end of that tunnel?

 

[GKC]

Thought?
A lot of the criticism of the Ordinariate has been that they supposedly “thought” they were going to bring in a lot more people than they have so far. The reality is they had no realistic idea how many, if any, people were going to join it! How could they, nothing like this had been done before. (This is like when the pope visits a country and draws the largest crowd in that country’s history, the commentators say “Ha, they thought double that number would come, but they didn’t get that crowd”).

Relative to a typical US diocese, the numbers of laity so far is not large, the numbers of priests and men training to be RC priests is very large.

The process by which Anglicanorum Coetibus came into being was a very lengthy one, involving discussions with a group of Continuing Anglican Churches, over 15 years or so, as to how a reconciliation might come about. This primarily involved the Traditional Anglican Communion, and was a very complicated story that I don’t want to go over again. An estimate of how many Anglicans likely would be involved, often mentioned, was over 400,000. This number always confused the rest of the Anglican world. The key event that produced AC, though, wasn’t anything involving the Traditional Anglican Communion, but a visit to Rome by several CoE bishops, in (IIRC) 2009, faced with the imminent fact of the CoE moving to place miters on female heads. The English bishops asked for a lifeline, to come aboard, with some form of their Anglican patrimony. This triggered the long stalled process that the Traditional Anglican Communion had been trying to achieve. But, in fact, very little of the TAC took advantage of it. Which I had predicted; it was not a popular movement in the TAC, but a top down driven effort, led by a number of their bishops. I don’t know exactly how much of the TAC came aboard, but its US component, the Anglican Church in America, only had 1-2 bishops and perhaps a dozen +parishes, part of one diocese, to come. Details are fuzzy. But it was far below the talk circulated over the years.

Other Anglicans certainly did come, a few Episcopal parishes, and others. The total numbers I’ve never been able to discern; not counting any existing Anglican Rote parishes folded into the Ordinariate, I think maybe 150+ priests, and a couple of thousand lay persons. Any figures otherwise, of new entries directly tied to AC would be greatly appreciated. Again, it was a long and complex story, and I’ve not been following over the past 2-3 years.

NB: this relates to the American Ordinariate, primarily

 

[GKC]

Here’s some reasons IMHO:

1. We put millions of dollars into this church property. We aren’t going to hand it over.
2. My parents were married, and I was baptized, in this church.
3. The pastor in our small town doesn’t agree with our liberal diocese or TEC. I am here to support that pastor.
4. I have ministries here; a few young people look up to me. I can’t let them down. I can do more participating in a denomination that has an impact. I influence the liberals here. (My allowing them to breathe the same air that I do supposedly helps them).
5. Change is hard.
6. OK, maybe the Left has won the last 47 votes in a row on significant issues at the parish and diocesan level. But is the glass really half empty, or half full?
7. Isn’t that light coming, at the end of that tunnel?

Quite right, Chauncey. Among the many reasons.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would imagine legal wedding certificates would qualify who an Episcopal priest or deacon would sacramentally marry.

So if the Supreme Court is OK with it or the statues in some local jurisdiction is OK with it, they can be depended upon to be OK with it? That isn’t what you mean to say, is it?

 

[ericc]

ericc;13103282:

Does this church do weddings for homosexual (blood) brothers? Anything to prevent them from doing it? Or incestuous marriages? There is nothing really to stop it from “progressing”.
ComplineSanFran;13103328:

I would imagine legal wedding certificates would qualify who an Episcopal priest or deacon would sacramentally marry.

In what way can a marriage of same sex be sacramental? They can’t be joined as one. It is not God approved. It is not Biblical. There is no tradition. You don’t need the church to ok it. A civil marriage would do or just a contract of obligations or some modified nuptial agreement. Why bring God into something which he will never agree? Although I haven’t seen it, is someone going to ask God to bless this thingy? Ask God to bless crudely speaking but true nevertheless , this sin?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

So if the Supreme Court is OK with it or the statues in some local jurisdiction is OK with it, they can be depended upon to be OK with it? That isn’t what you mean to say, is it?

What I meant to say is that if two people cannot be legally married in their state, the Episcopal Church would not marry them sacramentally. That would be the determining factor. Obviously, the clergy officiating, on behalf of the Church, would have other criteria beyond their legal status.

With all the talk about siblings wanting to marry or a person wanting to marry an animal or an inanimate object (which is head-bangingly ridiculous), none of that is legal, nor will it be legal, nor will the Episcopal Church even begin to take it seriously.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

ComplineSanFran;13103328:

In what way can a marriage of same sex be sacramental? They can’t be joined as one. It is not God approved. It is not Biblical. There is no tradition. You don’t need the church to ok it. A civil marriage would do or just a contract of obligations or some modified nuptial agreement. Why bring God into something which he will never agree? Although I haven’t seen it, is someone going to ask God to bless this thingy? Ask God to bless crudely speaking but true nevertheless , this sin?

EricC, I haven’t seen the wording yet from General Convention - it was only approved last week. But once we get the wording of both Canon Law and the Liturgical changes to the texts of the Marriage Office, I can certainly post them here.

The Marriage Office IS sacramental. And the changes to include same gender is what our own ‘Magesterium’ - our Bishops and governing body - has decided. Just as they decided that Ordination as a sacrament was opened to include women. Just as they decided to do many things as part of the Tradition and Reason of the Faith. It is where our two branches of the Church differ, but nonetheless, it is now real and a part of the Church. Lutherans will follow, since we now have a alliance with them sacramentally. And Protestant denominations will begin to made decisions about it too.

I do understand that the Roman Catholic teaching about marriage is different. It involves very specific dictates. But that is no longer the case for other branches of the Church.

It will take some time for both the legal and the religious elements of same gender marriage to settle in, but I believe it will. Families are different now (and have been for some time) and this will be normalized in time. I don’t know what the RCC will do. It will be interesting to see how parishes incorporate gay families. I see some of that here in San Francisco, where of course the LGBT population is much larger. Our parishes are quite diverse.