As the invitation notes: the diocese “welcomes and affirms people of all gender identifications and sexual orientations.”
The distinction between affirming people and affirming anything and everything they feel inclined to do is one that appears to be lost on the Diocese of New Westminster.
I take that back. Anyone who succumbs to the temptation of building an oil pipeline or who indulges in “resource extraction” will definitely not be invited to a service at the cathedral to celebrate his achievement. Unless he is gay and a Buddhist.
From here:
Celebrate God’s gift of diversity by marching with your Anglican sisters and brothers in the 2013 Vancouver Pride Parade!
All are welcome — GLBTQ people, friends, family and allies — to join us in the continuing work of creating an Anglican faith community that welcomes and affirms people of all gender identifications and sexual orientations.
Our Pride festivities (which you may join at any time during the day) will include:
8am: Worship at Christ Church Cathedral’s 5th Annual Pride Day Service.
9am: Post-worship brunch at the Cathedral with your fellow marchers.
10 to 11:30: Making our way from Christ Church to the start of the parade. (Location details to follow.)
12noon: MARCHINGALL AGES: Ours is a family-friendly group… bring kids, strollers, wagons, scooters, bikes and trikes. Decorate them if you have time! And, child or adult, be sure to dress your bright, festive best!
“Ours is a family-friendly group… bring kids, strollers, wagons, scooters, bikes and trikes. Decorate them if you have time! And, child or adult, be sure to dress your bright, festive best!”
Maybe they will arrange for the kids in strollers, and on wagons, scooters, bikes and trikes, to be right behind or in front of a group of naked paraders such as were shown in pictures a few topics back. Then maybe the Director of Child Protection will apprehend the kids. Maybe that will wake somebody up, hopefully the parents. Then maybe the Diocese of New Westminster will get sued for complicity in arranging for children to be put into that situation. Maybe the paraders will even get arrested for indecent exposure etc.
Nah. Won’t happen.
Yes, get the dykes on bikes to line up the tykes on trikes.
https://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/anglican-church-of-canada/anglicans-in-the-toronto-pride-march-2013/#comment-73897
Of course, if Vincent doesn’t mind, why should you?
How in the hell did I end up in that post? I never name anyone out of nowhere like that, do I? What is wrong with you all?
I find it is best to just ignore people who are more interested in name calling and baiting than in real discussion.
By the way, are Anonomous and Lisa the same person? You have a remarkably similar writing style.
Some I missed the contribution to “real discussion” you were making here, Katie.
LOL I rest my case.
Just saving time.
The Grand Pooh-Bah of New Westminster, Wanabee Bishop Elliot does not welcome kids in his Cathedral.
When we lived a block away on W. Georgia we could walk to church on Sunday, and as I am slightly deaf [but do not read sign language] we used to sit front right [opposite side to the signing interpreter in those days.]
When our son was born we were asked by Elliott to stand at the back because the baby [who either slept or breast fed, was distracting the officiant [presumably Himself].
Don’t know if it was homosexual breast envy or just his child loving nature. Now, he wants to pack his Anglican presence at the Gay Parade with other people’s kids?
All I can say is DO NOT ELECT ELLIOTT BISHOP OF NEW WESTMINSTER!
OK, let’s test their commitment to “diversity”. Let’s attend, carrying placards saying homosexuality is a sin.
How long before the police were called?
I am always amused by those who boast of virtues – in this case tolerance – which in fact they do not possess, and make a boast of not possessing.
I find the liberals to be very tolerant, but only of people whom they agree with.
The Anglican Church of Canada is facing extinction with maybe less than 350,000 members remaining, maybe… and most of them are over sixty. What if Ingham and Elliott and others agenda is not quite what it seems? What if they have a unique plan for Canadian Anglicanism: the GLBT Church? Bear with me while I elaborate…
Lets assume that somewhere around 3% of the population identifies themselves as gay/lesbian and another 1% as transgender/ bisexual.
That gives us 4% or in Canada’s case 1,400,000 GLBT people in the country. During the last decades researchers have been very cautious, because, they say, it is a private matter and people do not respond truthfully to surveys. Id est that figure could be very conservative, with in reality 2 to 3 million GLBT people, or more, resident in Canada.
Stay with me here as I develop my theory, but firstly how do population demographics relate to the Anglican priesthood. How many Anglican priests are GLBT people? Look at Bishop Gene Robinson, how typical is he? He masqueraded as a heterosexual for years, married with two children and came out in 1986. Dean Peter Elliott masqueraded as a heterosexual for years and came out with much drama in 2005; Hiltz and Ingham are in heterosexual marriages; have not spoken of their sexual orientation; however, they are both politically and socially pro GLBT. There are many others on both side of the Anglican closet door.
Some years ago I was discussing some of this with an friend who is a priest in the Church of Ireland: I suggest that if all the homosexual priests were to leave the Church would be decimated. He started to choke on his Jamesons and for a moment I thought we’d lost him, but he slowly regained his composure and I started to apologize, but he held up a hand palm outwards, “Malachy, me boy”, he said, “He who keeps his tongue keeps his friends, but if all the homosexual priests were to leave the Church, then there would be no Church of Ireland.”
So maybe I have misjudged Hiltz, Ingham, Elliott et al and their real plan is to save the Anglican Church of Canada by hijacking it in its entirety. Pretty weird is it not? Imagine, then the few heterosexual priests would have to divorce their wives, or take vows of celibacy, or marry homosexual partners and keep their real identity “in the closet.” Perhaps they could adopt their own kids and cast off their wives as easily as Robinson did.
In the end, I still believe it is all about money and power.
Was it Terry who said, “Jesus wept.” [John 11:35]
Hello Malachy,
Your numbers are likely not too far off. I remember seeing a report on Census numbers from both Canada and the UK regarding the percentages homosexuals and bi-sexuals. From what I remember the numbers were almost identical, and of the general populations:
1.5% were homosexual
an additional 1.5% were bi-sexual
(I am going from memory here so the numbers may not be exact, but am pretty sure of being darn close).
So we have a total of approximately 3% of the general population being sexually deviant. (How accurate these Governments’ census numbers are is a matter for another debate. But I think it safe to conclude that the 10% amount put forward by some lobbyists is not accurate.)
It is possible, and I think likely, that people such as
Hiltz do see this as some sort of social justice issue. Towards that end they have introduced radical changes to our denomination. To me this is getting things backwards. The effect has been to change the Church in order to suit secular society. When the true mission of the Church is to encourage people (usually individually, and as members of a secular society) to change themselves in order to have a closer relationship with God.
Or to put it another way…
Why is our Church now expending so effort on affirming the wants and desires of this world, when it should be promoting the ways of God?
This has the sound of old stories about “men in dresses”.
“What if they have a unique plan for Canadian Anglicanism: the GLBT Church?”
The United Church has already tried that. How’s that going?
Dammit, John! How did I miss that?
Statistically, the UCC is heading for extinction too, but the CAW is fighting God to keep the priest’s pension fund safe…
Ridiculous, isn’t it? The United Church of Canada had just about everything going for it.
I always thought that they tried to be ‘Everything for everybody…’
In one of his famous quotes, Winston Churchill nailed that one, did he not?