The Diocese of Toronto has decided to proceed with same-sex marriage even though the vote to change the Marriage Canon to permit such marriages was defeated at general synod.
In a masterstroke of ingenuity, the diocese has found a way to get around this inconvenient obstacle. We don’t have to change the marriage canon; all we must do is reinterpret it to mean something other than what is clearly stated in the canon.
The diocese has entered the murky realm of post-truth ecclesiology.
From here (my emphasis):
From this sharing and listening, we will gather what we’ve heard into our diocese’s message for the Council of General
Synod when it meets on Nov. 23-25, and to General Synod itself.
This is what we are considering:
• Declare that Canon XXI (On Marriage in the Church) applies to all persons who are duly qualified by civil law
to enter into marriage. (This is an interpretation of the Canon, not a change to the Canon.)
• Change wording to be gender neutral (i.e. “the parties to the marriage”).
• Opt-in process. (Noting that no cleric is required to marry anyone.)
• Must be authorized by the diocesan
bishop.
Sigh. One might just as well say “gender-neutral marriage”. Note that the combination of “applies to all .. duly qualified by civil law” and “the parties to the marriage”, NOT “the TWO parties to the marriage”, logically implies something. Should the civil law decide that “number-neutral” is as valid as “gender-neutral”, and why should it not take that additional step I ask in Socratic mode, that “the Church” being referred to “On Marriage in the Church” will march in step. That is, decide that polygamists – they will be renamed polyamorists, and only aging curmudgeons in catacombs will whisper hateful illegal words about “adultery” and “fornication” – not be denied the blessings of a church marriage if the secular world comes to not denying them the certificate.
Back to “applies to all .. duly qualified by civil law”. i elided “persons”. What if the traditional and orthodox reasons for insisting on “man and woman”, now considered invalid in civil law and to be so for church law, following some future extension to invalidity of the number two, were to be followed the invalidity of “persons”. That is, if a man can marry a man, a woman a woman, then, further. if a person could marry more than one other person – and why not ? – then why should someone/something not be able to marry .. (you get the idea, to spell it out might be considered pornographic) ?
Sigh. I tire of making the “number-neutral” point, which I have done here a few times, as much as I tire of asking people who call themselves Christian what on earth (and in heaven) Christ meant by, using binary gender wording, “and the two shall become one flesh”. The most sincere answer I have got from a “same-sex marriage”-tolerant church-attending Anglican is “I don’t know”. I think I do.
The ACoC continues in its rapid descent into apostasy. Tragically the so-called bishops have lost ALL intentions of following the vows they made at both their ordination and consecration and have chosen to worship the “god of political expediency” and will continue to deceive the laity until the laity see the facts and cease all contributions and offerings. I sincerely that the formation of the ACNC and ANIC who do indeed uphold the authority of Scripture despite the actions of the ACoC including the eviction of genuine Christians and the legally stealing of properties.