Same Sex Marriage - best outcome for Anglican Communion

[JohnStrachan]

While this topic might engender curiosity for the multitude of RCs here, I am primarily directing the question to Anglicans. I’m also not seeking moral castigation here. I realize the vast majority of RCs can’t even begin to fathom same-sex marriage. It is what it is in the Anglican context.

We have been grappling with this issue for some time. In Canada, our General Synod will have a penultimate vote on this matter in July. I say penultimate because theoretically the debate could go on fo ever. For those unfamiliar with Synodical governance, changes to our canon require a triple majority in two successive Synods. That is to say the house of Bishops, Clergy and Laity must all vote affirmatively twice.

At General Synod in 2016, the vote to change the marriage canon passed easily among clergy and laity, but only by 1 vote among bishops. This time round 5 new Episcopal Offices have been added as part of our reconciliation process with Aboriginal People. The Aboriginal Bishops have oversight of vast territory with relatively few people (say 50,000). Our Aboriginal Bishops tend to vote as a bloc - and none of the support same sex marriage. So you see where this is likely headed: the change to the Canon will be halted and the Aboriginal Bishops “blamed” for failing to acquiesce to the majority.

If the marriage canon does not pass, some will be hurt. If it does pass, others will be hurt. Some suggest the motion be rescinded an individual diocese’ can opt for the “local option.” This is to say that certain parishes within those diocese’s that want to participate can be assigned to provide same-sex marriage. This would in accord with the thinking that we are episcopally lead, synodically governed, but locally adapted.

Enough said. Those of you in the ECUSA or ELCA or elsewhere might be able to shed light on your experience.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I don’t see a question in here anywhere, so I don’t fully know how to respond, but a couple points:

If the marriage canon does not pass, some will be hurt.

This is incorrect. These people would be hurt by a policy endorsing sin.

If it does pass, others will be hurt.

See above.

In reality, no church is capable of providing same-sex marriage, because there’s no such thing as same-sex marriage except as a legal construct. It’s not a real marriage.

 

[1ke]

Those of you in the ECUSA or ELCA or elsewhere might be able to shed light on your experience.

My experience is: I crossed the Tiber from ECUSA in 1992 for similar schizophrenic doings related to female clergy.

 

[Al1234]

We cant reduce everything to feelings. People may indeed be hurt. A woman in my own parish complained that she was hurt and excluded because she was not married and some parishioners renewed their wedding vows. She has asked that we deist from doing this again. So now those of us who did that and got our marriages blessed are a source of hurt to someone else. I find that totally bizarre and I don’t believe that we should entertain that kind of sentiment.

I am deeply concerned about this trend. Changing Gods natural law to avoid someone who lives outside of it feeling hurt just does not make sense as an argument to me.

I think that there will be a chastisement which humanity will seriously regret if we carry on on our current trajectory. I believe our Lady who has said in many recent apparitions that we should repent, pray the rosary, do penance and live holy lives.

I know that sounds conservative - so what?

 

[phil19034]

A woman in my own parish complained that she was hurt and excluded because she was not married and some parishioners renewed their wedding vows.

I know this is off topic, but I have to respond to this…

In my parish, someone came up with an equally bizarre response to a program we wanted to implement in the parish.

We wanted to come up with a program for married couples.

So someone complained, “but that excludes people who are not married.” Our response was practically “you’ve got to be kidding me! All of our programs are for individuals, but we have nothing for marriage enrichment. Are we supposed to ignore marriage enrichment because some people are not married?!?”

Their complaint was finally ignored. It’s honestly amazing what people will complain about these days since everything is about “feelings” and few people use logic anymore.

 

[Al1234]

It is off topic in a way - but illustrates a good point on how we have replaced logic with “feelings”. This is exactly why I think the Anglican Church (which I was previously part of) has entered into dangerous grounds. I don’t believe that God wanted to establish a church which is run on Democratic lines. You only have to look at what the Israelite’s did while Moses was up on the mountain to get a sense of where popular opinion might get you. In this sense I think SSM is just one of our modern Golden Calves. Just saying.

 

[PJH_74]

Enough said. Those of you in the ECUSA or ELCA or elsewhere might be able to shed light on your experience.

I can respond from the ELCA perspective. The ELCA voted in 2009 to allow same-sex individuals to be ordained without a previous condition of celibacy. The ELCA also marries same-sex couples. What was the effect? Some individual congregations left association with the ELCA after the 2009 vote. But one must also view this with respect to how Lutheran Churches are structured. The individual churches unto themselves are allowed to set their own association. The ELCA is the only Lutheran church that even has Bishops in the USA, even then their authority is limited to potential assignment of pastors to a specific congregation, conformance of a congregation’s charter, etc. Even the title of Bishop is only assigned to those currently holding the office. Bishops do not take an additional vow when assuming the position, they remain vowed to the assignment of sacrament and word much as a Catholic priest or regular Lutheran pastor.

My own experience is that most ELCA congregations have adopted a statement of inclusion to LGBTQ persons, however however the actual reaction to real people walking in the doors is a bit spottier.

 

[JonNC]

My own experience is that most ELCA congregations have adopted a statement of inclusion to LGBTQ persons, however however the actual reaction to real people walking in the doors is a bit spottier.

It is a shame how they have it backwards. They should welcome with open arms, and just as they lovingly encourage heterosexuals to avoid sexual acts out of marriage (Christ in Mark 10), so too lovingly encourage LGBT to Chastity.

 

[JohnStrachan]

It is a shame how they have it backwards. They should welcome with open arms, and just as they lovingly encourage heterosexuals to avoid sexual acts out of marriage (Christ in Mark 10), so too lovingly encourage LGBT to Chastity.

This point gets totally over looked doesn’t it? We are all called to chastity, gay or straight.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I once considered becoming Anglican. In love with your traditions, but this is one thing that deterred me.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is a shame how they have it backwards. They should welcome with open arms, and just as they lovingly encourage heterosexuals to avoid sexual acts out of marriage (Christ in Mark 10), so too lovingly encourage LGBT to Chastity.

This point gets totally over looked doesn’t it? We are all called to chastity, gay or straight.

Chastity, and love of our neighbors.

 

[GKMotley]

I applaud your prudence and caution.

 

[jschwartz]

The ECUSA handling of this issue has been disastrous. When all these dioceses and bishops left, in many cases for ACNA/GAFCON or Rome, it was heartbreaking. I do think at the end of the day that faithful Christians with conservative views ought to remain in mainline denominations, even if just for purposes of diversity and witness. And I say that as someone who has been generally accepting of LGBT people. In fact, this is a reason why I’m Episcopal.

 

[commenter]

faithful Christians with conservative views ought to remain in mainline denominations, even if just for purposes of diversity and witness.

The impact of conservatives’ diversity and witness on the mainlines is likely wildly over estimated.

The presence of the orthodox pastor and laity helps attract would-be orthodox young people to this denomination. But the young adult’s denominational attachment will continue when they move to another city, or when this pastor is replaced.

The good pastor gives good sermons, but laity (drawn to him) are affected by denomination in Sunday School, on mailing lists, by identification with denomination unorthodox positions in the media. They may remain in the increasingly liberal church after the good pastor is gone.

 

[TomH1]

I have no idea what is going on in the Anglican ‘Church’ other than it has always been mistaken in trying to be all things to all men. It is rather preposterous that this ecclesial community makes the claim to be part of the Catholic Church. To me there can only be one option available to individual Anglicans with orthodox faith and that is to leave their Anglican denomination and join the Catholic Church. If they wish to preserve their heritage they can join one of the ordinariates established by His Holiness Benedict XVI.

 

[GKMotley]

Oh, I can think of other viable options.

 

[rightness]

I have no idea what is going on in the Anglican ‘Church’ other than it has always been mistaken in trying to be all things to all men. It is rather preposterous that this ecclesial community makes the claim to be part of the Catholic Church. To me there can only be one option available to individual Anglicans with orthodox faith and that is to leave their Anglican denomination and join the Catholic Church. If they wish to preserve their heritage they can join one of the ordinariates established by His Holiness Benedict XVI.

It definitely appears to me that Anglicanism is breaking apart because they are trying to retain their congregation numbers through inclusion, even if it means reinterpreting the Bible to fit their view, inclusion of sin. The populist, modern world wants “female equality”? Have female priests and bishops. The populist, modern world wants “rights for same-sex persons”? Have homosexual priests. In the end, it only hurt Anglicanism further, but this has prompted a part of Anglicanism to get closer to Catholicism, which I find to be a good thing.

It can even be said that when Anglicans declared birth control to be licit in extreme circumstances at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, that was the beginning of their decline as they fell into social pressures. When Pope John XXIII commissioned a study on birth control, when the results came in favour of birth control, Pope Paul VI, in all his wisdom, rightfully rejected the findings and wrote the Humanae Vitae, and, today, we are seeing the devastating results of birth control in our society and how Pope Paul VI was right.

To conclude, the more sins certain liberal Anglican churches become, the further the entirety of Anglicanism declines. If there is one thing that makes people believe in their religion, it’s unity. Hopefully, all come back to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because we need to show the world we are united in the Body of Christ.

 

[GKMotley]

On the whole, not bad.

 

[Iamleah.leclerc]

If you trust that Jesus Christ will save you from being perished you will not go to hell if you are gay.The only way of going to heaven is believing that Jesus Christ will save you because he died on the cross for you.He died for our sins to be forgotten