As tax evaders are drawn to tax loopholes, so Anglican bishops are attracted to canon law loopholes. Although the resolution to change the marriage canon failed to pass at synod, resolution A101-R1, adopting the document A Word to the Church, did pass.
The document has this statement:
Affirmation #2
Diverse Understandings of the Existing Canon
We affirm that, while there are different understandings of the existing Marriage Canon, those bishops and synods who have authorized liturgies for the celebration and blessing of a marriage between two people of the same sex understand that the existing Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage.
In other words, bishops who are already marrying same-sex couples claim that they can do so because the existing canon does not prohibit them; so they can continue. And a motion affirming that idea has been passed.
This is what we’ve come to in the Anglican Church of Canada: do anything you like as long as you can’t find a rule that tells you not to.
I note that in spite of the current controversies enveloping the Catholic Church, there is no developing controversy surrounding its positions concerning Marriage or even female clergy. The practice of celibacy of the Priesthood could be changed, much like it was in the 14th century- but only because it’s not a matter of doctrine. Same sex marriage and female priests can never be considered because the Catholic Church contends it hasn’t the authority to alter doctrine and that’s always been its position.
Some Protestants insult and criticize the Catholic Church with invective and insults that are almost always old and inaccurate. One of the slights I’ve not heard in 30 years is: “Rome never changes”.Thank God she never changes doctrine.
“Not passing the resolution is not the same as passing the opposite resolution.”
March 16, 2019, Inner Sanctum,COGS, Chancellor Jones.
In the Higher interests of not ‘developing’ doctrine Rome would welcome such casuistry.
Classic revisionist reasoning.
More like developmentally disabled reasoning—the elephant in the room is developmental disability and mental illness. It’s complete nonsense.
“those bishops and synods who have authorized liturgies for the celebration and blessing of a marriage between two people of the same sex understand that the existing Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage”
Marriage is between one woman and one man, that is by common law/common reason. The statutory modification of these terms by act of parliament and/or by court decision enabled by a statutory court (the Judges in England sat by patent from the Sovereign, they were not statutory judges, they were judges by custom) does not change what the term means by common reason, that is. Marriage is a term like water, it is not amenable to redefinition by parliament. Parliament could legislate that ethanol is water, but that does not make it so, it would mean that parliament had legislated a falsehood.
These are false marriages, for tax purposes. The whole issue is a tax issue, as well as some sort of desire to “destabilize” the “patriarchal, sexist, imperialistic, white supremacist” church, I have talked to one priest who can give no better account of why she is addicted to this mindscrewing other than “it destabilizes assumptions,” as though that were not like a poorly socialized 4 year old knocking down sandcastles because she can.
But the crisis is in part that these people are excellent at driving others away—they often have mental illnesses and inability to control their affect, so they lash out at anyone who disagrees with them about political institutions like marriage. They do not understand respectful disagreement. Or even that crying is not a good argument. How many of the young “delegates” at the synod’s argument was basically “you do this and I’ll be sad.” Some of them even threatened, more or less, suicide. If you’re suicidal, it’s because of you, it is downright abusive to try to draw others into your drama. The Church is not a psychotherapy institution for suicidal LGBQT people.
It is true it drives people away, especially families with children and teens, right? And they don’t seem to care that as a whole the Anglican Church is dying. So, it’s one thing to make space for everyone, it’s quite another when the Church becomes about political ideology instead of Jesus.
As I have stated in another report on this issue the apostate so-called bishops will continue in their false doctrine with absolutely no concern for the GOSPEL or the authority of Scripture. They have come to believe that their white collar and purple shirt gives them authority to flaut the SCRIPTURES. The ACoC will only continue in its descent into apostasy until these apostates are removed from office. A truly Christian Church fully adheres to the authority of Scripture and not to the opinion of any so-called bishop.
“.. understand that the existing Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage.”
The existing Canon speaks of “of the union of man and woman in”, “husband and wife”, and “a man and a woman”. (Those words being the exact phrases to be deleted and replaced by “the parties to the marriage” in the now-failed revision to accommodate same-sex so-called “marriage”.) If someone “understands” that those words “do not prohibit same-sex marriage”, then perhaps they also “understand” that the laws of thermodynamics “do not prohibit” perpetual motions machines, similarly re laws about gravity and levitation by mere wishful thinking, basic economics and unlimited spending via credit, lying through your teeth daily and not being caught at it, robbing banks forever and ever and not ending up in jail, etc. Final example: ACoC synod uttering total absurdities and not having the attendance at ACoC churches asymptotically approach such a near-zero figure that closure of those churches is inevitable.
The unspoken – by deceit – rationale of this `Word to The Church`is that the Resolution to amend the marriage canon and its Scriptural verbiage was to have carried;
then, as night follows night, all of those Clergy, Bishops primi inter pares, who have been an anti-Scriptural law unto themselves in these matters could claim it now is lawful.
The above picture speaks a thousand words.
Let me get this straight: the resolution affirms that “those bishops and synods who have authorized liturgies for the celebration and blessing of a marriage between two people of the same sex understand that the existing Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage.”
But, on the other hand, the bishops who understand the existing Canon as not prohibiting same-sex marriage, have a “heart [that] aches with lament and [a] soul [that] is filled with anguish” (source: Susan Bell) because the Canon was not changed to redefine marriage.
Why are bishops and synods blubbering over leaving the Canon intact if it already means what they want it to mean? Unless, of course, these bishops and synods know the Canon cannot objectively mean what they claim is their “understanding” of it, which would appear to show that these bishops and synods are shameless, bald-faced liars?
Alternatively, perhaps these bishops and synods belong to a variant of the theological “positive confession” movement, in which the mere act of affirming a “truth” makes it a reality. By merely affirming that the Canon does not prohibit same-sex marriage, it is so. In this case, it’s not clear why the agreement or affirmation of other people is needed or why the absence of unanimity should lead to weeping, sackcloth and ashes.
Or maybe it’s simply an ad hoc act of redefining-words-to-suit-oneself not unlike Alice in Wonderland: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’ Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/humpty-dumpty-philosopher-of-language-2670315
In this scenario, the word “understanding” may be used by the bishops and synods to mean “intentional misunderstanding.”
Maybe a synodal meeting is needed to clarify our understanding of the bishops’ use of the word “understanding”?