The voting on the marriage canon change is only just over and the Diocese of Niagara bishop, Michael Bird, has already declared that he intends to ignore the vote and go ahead anyway. He claims that “several other bishops” will do likewise, confirming the prediction by Fred Hiltz that, if the motion fails, there will be “civil disobedience”.
Somehow Bird has managed to squeeze from the absence of any motion or canon explicitly forbidding same-sex marriage, the idea that he has tacit authority to proceed. In other words, anything not expressly forbidden by the canons is permitted. As Ivan Karamazov almost said: “If the Canon does not exist, everything is permitted.”
Why did they bother with a vote in the first place? Why even have a synod?
The rule of chaos begins in the Anglican Church of Canada; perhaps I should say “continues”.
From here (my emphasis):
STATEMENT BY THE BISHOP OF NIAGARA
The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has narrowly voted against a change in the marriage canon that would have enshrined equal marriage within our national canons. This decision is deeply regrettable and inconsistent with the ever more inclusive witness of our Church that has inspired this synod’s theme: “You are my witnesses” (Isaiah 43).
The Report of the Commission on the Marriage Canon, ‘This Holy Estate’, provides a sound and compelling mandate to move forward with an understanding of the sacrament of marriage that is inclusive for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Over the past few months I have heard from an unprecedented number of faithful people from across the Anglican Church of Canada expressing support for this vision which upholds the dignity of every human being. I am also mindful that it has been over a decade, in 2004, that our Church affirmed the “integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.”
In the words of David Jones, the chancellor of General Synod, our current marriage canon “does not contain either a definition of marriage or a specific prohibition against solemnizing same-sex marriage.” At the same time, it is clear that our Anglican conventions permit a diocesan bishop to exercise episcopal authority by authorizing liturgies to respond to pastoral needs within their dioceses, in the absence of any actions by this General Synod to address these realities.
Accordingly, and in concert with several other bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, it is my intention to immediately exercise this authority to respond to the sacramental needs of the LGBTQ2 community in the Diocese of Niagara. In the absence of any nationally approved liturgy, I am authorizing The Witnessing and Blessing of a Marriage and The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage 2 for use in our diocese. These newly created rites of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America may be used for the marriage of any duly qualified couples. Clergy intending to use these rites will, for the time being, be required to notify the Bishop’s Office in advance.
I offer this witness to the transformational power of God’s inclusive love while acknowledging the considerable differences that exist within our beloved Church. My sincere hope is that God’s grace will inspire all Canadian Anglicans to continue to break bread together in the days ahead. I want to say, as a bishop charged with guarding the faith, unity and discipline of the Church, that I solemnly pledge to do my part to ensure that this is indeed the case.
Please join me in praying for God’s constant presence, guidance, and comfort as we move forward. Pray for our Church: local, national and universal; as its discernment continues on this matter. And my dear friends pray especially for the global LGBTQ2 community that continues to face unjust and often horrific discrimination, oppression and violence for openly being the people God created them to be.
The good thing about this is it clearly establishes these bishops as being in rebellion, even against their own house.
I was afraid that this would be the result based on the Chancellor’s opinion posted with the General Synod document. I read through Canon XXI and it is true that, other than a few sentences that use the words husband and wives, there is nothing that specifically says that marriage in the union of one man and one woman in the Canon. However, I disagree with the Chancellor’s interpretation that this means that there is no prohibition of same-sex marriage. The Canon refers to Scripture passages that describe marriage and it is also important to consider the legislative intent of the members of Synod when Canon XXI was passed. It will not matter, of course, but it would be good for people to write letters of objection to the Chancellor’s interpretation of Canon XXI.
Based on that opinion, it pretty much opens the way to any redefinition. Next up 26 people, their dog and pet goldfish. Well, nothing in the Canon says you can’t, so…….