A generous pastoral response to people married to their cats; if that doesn’t fill the pews, nothing will.
From here:
Barbarella Buchner is still married to her two cats after 11 years and is now living on the Spanish island of Lanzarote.
On January 9 2004, she tied the knot with her two male felines, named Spider and Lugosi, after breaking up with her (human) partner of seven years.
Barbarella Buchner sounds like bishop material to me.
The Anglican Church of New Zealand is “exploring ways” to offer blessings to same-sex couples. Rev. Charles Hughes has noticed that without going through abnormal hermeneutical contortions to make the Bible say what you might like it to say, it roundly condemns homosexual activity, making it an unlikely candidate for a liturgical blessing. So he is leaving along with his congregation.
The rector’s bishop, Ross Bay, has acted with the all the charity that one has come to expect from bishops: he has revoked Hughes’ licence to minister as an Anglican priest.
Next will come the split, the battle over buildings, the freezing of bank accounts and more revoked licenses – all for what? Pacifying a noisy contingent of Anglican homosexuals determined to have their own way come what may.
From here:
An Anglican pastor has quit the church and is taking his congregation with him after the governing body moved ahead with plans to bless same-sex relationships.
Charlie Hughes, the former vicar of St Michael’s in Henderson, says he cannot reconcile the decision of the church to recognise same sex relationships with his ordination vows.
He said the vows were a pledge to uphold the constitution of the Anglican Church. The constitution states it is “not lawful to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written”.
“It’s not because we have a problem with people who are in a same sex relationship but because of the commitment we have to shaping our lives around the teachings of the Bible,” Mr Hughes said.
[….]
The Bishop of Auckland the Very Reverend Ross Bay told St Michael’s parishioners that he understood there would be “confusion and even anger” over the situation.
He said Mr Hughes had spoken of making a decision of conscience.
“I respect his decision and so have accepted the inevitable consequence that his licence as vicar must lapse as a result.”
The Anglican Church in New Zealand is proposing to develop liturgies for the blessing of same sex couples. The familiar caveat that priests who disagree will not be compelled to perform such blessings is present, although I wonder if the church will defend them if they are sued over the issue.
The Synod document is entitled “A Way Forward”, a strange epithet considering this has cause strife, division and disintegration everywhere it has been tried before, a fairly sure indicator that it is A Way Backward.
The document employs the usual condescending tone to those who think “the blessing of same-gender relationships is contrary to scripture”. Apparently, they “will continue to have integrity within the Church”, as if theirs was the view that needed such reassurance or as if Scripture and 2000 years of Church teaching were not perfectly clear on the issue.
The mincingly patronising synod statement can be found here:
1. This General Synod/Te Hīnota Whānui resolves to appoint a working group to bring and recommend to the 62nd General Synod/Te Hīnota Whānui:
(a) A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is contrary to scripture, doctrine, tikanga or civil law, will not be required to perform any liturgy for the blessing of same-gender relationships, will continue to have integrity within the Church, and will remain compliant with the parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction;
(b) A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is consonant with scripture, doctrine, tikanga and civil law may perform a yet to be developed liturgy for blessing same-gender relationships in a manner which maintains their integrity within the Church, is compliant with the parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction, and can remain in communion under scripture, doctrine and law; including
(i) A proposal for a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships;
(ii) A process and legislation (whether church or parliamentary) by which a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships may be adopted;
In spite of assurances given during the 2010 Anglican General Synod that the ACoC was not approving the local option (each diocese decides for itself) for the blessing of same-sex unions, many dioceses have done just that. The latest to do so is the Diocese of Rupert’s Land.
Here (page 5), you will find a regurgitation of the, by now, familiar litany explaining why the diocese feels compelled to do something that 60 million Anglicans believe they should not do. The Diocese has prepared a “protocol”:
The Bishop and clergy of Rupert’s Land have completed preparation of a protocol for the pastoral practice of blessing same-sex unions. The protocol says why same-sex unions may be blessed in Rupert’s Land parishes and how this should be done.
The “protocol” is quick to point out that:
Different Anglicans and different parishes hold different convictions on this point, arising from differing interpretations of scripture and tradition.
It omits to mention that the number of Anglicans – or, indeed, Christians – worldwide that agree with the diocese’s interpretation is miniscule.
“Diversity” is honoured – probably because conservatives contribute most of the money and, for that reason, the diocese can’t afford to chase them out – much as it might secretly want to:
Diversity of views is honoured and appreciated. Congregations and individuals are called to show pastoral generosity to one another. No cleric and no parish is required to participate in same-sex blessing.
Clergy opposed to blessing same sex couples will have to refer them to the bishop who will then refer them to clergy who have seen the light and are not opposed. So recalcitrant clergy might just as well get with the program since it’s going to happen anyway:
Clergy opposed to same-sex blessing should refer couples to the bishop.
Let’s be clear, though, that this is not a “marriage”, even though it bears an uncanny resemblance to one:
In order to be clearly distinguished from a marriage liturgy, the rite of blessing for a same-sex union will not include an exchange of legal consents, an opportunity for objections, a declaration of union, a rite of civil marriage, a signing of the parish marriage register or a nuptial blessing.
Repeat after me: “this is not a marriage.”
A recent Anglican gathering in Auckland New Zealand spent most of its time pondering the various possible combinations of sexual activity between humans, while stoutly maintaining that sex is unimportant in the life of the church.
As an aside, it seems that in New Zealand at least, Indaba is out and hui is in. Considering the topic that dominated the hui, the urban definition might be more fitting.
You can read a summary of the proceedings here; in such a wealth of nonsense, it is difficult to single out a particular part for special attention. But, in discussing her gay brethren, there is this from Bishop Victoria Matthews:
“It is possible, I believe, to argue that a blessed union of man and woman or really any two or more people is able to bear fruit in a number of different ways.
Clearly, Victoria Matthews – who is Canadian – wants to disabuse anyone of the illusion that the Anglican pansexuality juggernaut will stop at blessing same-sex couples. Next will come the blessing of polyamorous relationships – and who knows what after that. Yes, Victoria, there is a slippery slope.
The Diocese of B.C.:
In 2010 I was asked by Synod to implement the blessing of same sex unions in the Diocese at
a time that I thought to be appropriate. I was asked to issue guidelines and a rite to be used.Attached below are the Guidelines for the Blessing of Same Sex Unions in the Diocese
of British Columbia. I am authorizing the blessing rite of the Diocese of New Westminster for
use in this Diocese, not a specific British Columbia rite.
As every other Canadian Anglican bishop who has authorised same-sex blessing rites, Bishop James Cowan is careful to call it a blessing rite, not a marriage.
Similarly, here, on page 2, the Diocese of Huron’s Keith Nethery bemoans the fact that journalists are unable to make the distinction between blessing a married homosexual couple and actually marrying them:
As an aside I can be all but 100 per cent certain that there isn’t a main stream reporter any where capable of understanding the difference between a Blessing and a Marriage – trust me I have tried to explain it to them.
Nethery doesn’t give journalists the credit they deserve for seeing through the mincing sophistry in which the Anglican Church Canada conceals its true motives, the better to befuddle the unwary. After all, homosexual marriage is legal in Canada and the ACoC clearly believes such “marriages” are a legitimate expression of marriage; if they didn’t, they could hardly bless them. So why doesn’t the Anglican Church of Canada stop the hypocritical harping on the fragile distinction between blessing something that has already been done and actually doing it?
Because that’s how pusillanimous Anglican clergy operate. When a rector wants to move a piano from one side of the church to the other, he moves it one inch per week; it takes a year to reach the other side but no-one notices.
The Church of Scotland has succumbed to the spirit of the age and is in the process of deciding to approve the ordination of clergy in same-sex relationships and the blessing of same-sex couples.
Not all agree. Rev. Dr. William Philip doesn’t, so his church is losing its building, Bibles, hymn books and an organ.
What do the liberals want with Bibles?
From here:
The minister of St George’s Tron in Glasgow has preached his last sermon in the building, before the Church of Scotland seizes the premises.
The congregation, which has been meeting in its Buchanan Street venue for more than 70 years, split from the Kirk in June over the ordination of openly homosexual ministers.
Since then St George’s Tron has been embroiled in a legal dispute about its building, which has recently undergone a £2.6 million refurbishment paid for by its members.
Last Wednesday, law officers appeared at the church prayer meeting demanding the return of bibles, hymn books and an organ.The minister, Rev Dr William Philip, described the Kirk’s actions as “shameful”.
He said: “Having law officers disrupt a church meeting and intimidate a church is something we associate with China or former Soviet dictatorships but is the last thing we expected from the so-called national Church.”
From here:
The blessing of civil marriages between same-gender couples can now take place in diocese of Rupert’s Land parishes that wish to offer them.
Approximately a third of the Anglican Church of Canada’s 30 dioceses now have moved forward with same-sex blessings, an issue that has deeply divided Anglicans in Canada and worldwide.
The 2010 meeting of General Synod, the church’s governing body, did not approve the so-called local option allowing dioceses to grant same-sex blessings. But it recognized that the local option has been exercised by some dioceses and may be used in the future without the approval of the national church.
The reason the “local option” – allowing dioceses to make their own decision on whether to permit same-sex blessings – was not approved at the 2010 general synod is because it would have earned the Anglican Church of Canada a slap on the wrist from Canterbury – albeit a mild one.
To avoid this, the local option was not sanctioned – in the full knowledge that dioceses would make up their own minds anyway. It was an act of cowardice, a passing of the buck, an exploration of a deeper hypocrisy.
As the malaise spreads, it seems pretty clear – to me at least – that the fragile, forlorn hope nursed by naïve conservatives that the Anglican Church of Canada might eventually repent has degenerated into wilful self-deception. Short of a sovereign act of God, the ACoC is charging headlong into the abyss: get out now before you are sucked into the gaping maw created by its gadarene plunge to perdition.
From here:
Members of the Anglican Diocese of Saskatoon recently voted to bless same-sex marriages, a policy that must still be approved by church bishops.
In this video Jim Comar – an Anglican man who is “married” to another man – notes that the Anglican Church has been “hampered by what we consider sin”. The entire human race is hampered by sin but, of course, that’s not what he meant. Comar is upset that if the church views his sexual activity as sinful, it puts a cramp in his style, so he wants the church to modify its teaching, freeing him to romp in unfettered homoerotic bliss. And it appears he is getting his wish.
[flv:https://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/videos/Same-sexSaskatoon2.flv 600 400]
Has been published:
The Blessing of the Marriage
The people remain standing. The couple kneel, and the celebrant says one of the following prayers.
Most gracious God, we give you thanks for your tender love in sending Jesus Christ to come among us, to be born of a human mother, and to make the way of the cross to be the way of life. We thank you, also, for consecrating the union of two people in his name. By the power of your Holy Spirit, pour out the abundance of your blessing upon this couple. Defend them from every enemy. Lead them into all peace. Let their love for each other be a seal upon their hearts, a mantle about their shoulders, and a crown upon their foreheads. Bless them in their work and in their companionship; in their sleeping and in their waking; in their joys and in their sorrows; in their life and in their death. Finally, in your mercy, bring them to that table where your saints feast for ever in your heavenly home; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever.
Reading the liturgy reinforces the grotesqueness of calling a same sex union “marriage”. It does violence to Mark 10:6-7, makes a mockery of marriage and a laughing-stock of the putative church.
A diocese that is unable to see such a cheap counterfeit for what it is, is no longer entitled to call itself a Christian church.
