Death by government

Posted on by
5

As I was listening to the news while driving home this afternoon, there were a couple of items whose startling juxtaposition clearly escaped the sensibilities of the announcer. The first was the tragedy of a “suicide crisis” in Attawapiskat, followed closely by a lament that not all the recommendations of a committee investigating government assisted suicide would find their way into law.

Evidently, we have reached some kind of bizarre consensus where do-it-yourself suicide is a Bad Thing, but suicide through government sponsored execution is a Good Thing.

From here:

Attawapiskat suicide crisis subject of emergency debate in House

NDP MP Charlie Angus opened the emergency debate on the Attawapiskat suicide crisis by calling for a groundswell of political will that will put an end to Band-Aid solutions for the problems facing Canada’s First Nations.

[….]

“When I think that there are communities in our country where … young people in groups are deciding that there is no hope for their future, we must do better, we have to find a way to go forward,” said Philpott.

And here:

The Trudeau government won’t be taking a permissive approach to medically assisted dying in new legislation to be unveiled as early as next week, The Canadian Press has learned.

Sources, who aren’t authorized to speak publicly about the imminent bill, say it won’t adopt some of the most controversial recommendations from a special parliamentary committee.

[….]

It will not allow people diagnosed with competence-impairing conditions like dementia to make advance requests for medical help to die, which the committee advocated.

Nor will it include mature minors, to whom the committee recommended extending the right to choose assisted death within three years.

Some priests likely to marry same-sex couples even if marriage canon change fails to pass

Posted on by
4

Fred Hiltz has suggested that even if the vote to change the Marriage Canon fails to pass at General Synod, some priests will ignore the fact and go ahead with same-sex marriages anyway. Although Hiltz frames it as “civil disobedience”, I am left with the impression from the article below that, by mentioning it at all, he is dropping a broad hint to liberal dioceses as to how they should proceed.

The same strategy was adopted by the national church in 2010 when at the General Synod, while approval was not given for dioceses to start blessing same-sex unions, it was understood that many dioceses would still do so. And they did. An easy solution for Hiltz, since he was absolved of responsibility and liberal dioceses got what they wanted.

In 2010 we had the local option for same-sex blessings, along with the assurance that there would be no same-sex marriages.

In 2016 we will have the local option for same-sex marriages along with the assurance that no priests will be compelled to perform them.

In 2022 we will have…. well, you get the drift.

Some bishops have expressed concern about the possibility that some priests may go ahead and marry gay couples in the event that a resolution changing the marriage canon to allow same-gender marriages is rejected at General Synod this summer, said Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

“If it’s not approved, then, as we sometimes, say…there could be some ‘civil disobedience’ on the part of clergy and parishes, and the bishops are going to have to handle that, because all of us that are ordained make a solemn promise to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Anglican Church of Canada,” Hiltz told the Anglican Journal April 12. Hiltz made the comments during an interview on the House of Bishops meeting last week, April 4–8.

Asked to clarify if by “civil disobedience” he meant same-gender marriages in defiance of a “no” vote, Hiltz replied, “That’s a possibility. Bishops are aware of that. We’re mindful of our need to reach out to those who are going to be hurt or offended by a decision of General Synod.”

Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland steadily closing churches

Posted on by
5

Or, to use voguish Ecclesi-Speak, it is repurposing them. If the bishop does manage to find a purpose for his churches it will be a first for the ACoC, an organisation that has been meandering aimlessly in a theological wilderness of solipsistic ecclesiolatry for decades now.

From here:

The Anglican Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland will discuss ways to develop greater community partnerships under the possibility of repurposing or divesting themselves of their current inventory of property and buildings.

Bishop Geoff Peddle says this month’s Synod will examine the ongoing process of decided what they keep with them “on the journey forward.”

Four parishes in Trinity South recently closed their churches, choosing instead to amalgamate into the repurposed Epiphany Elementary school in Heart’s Delight-Islington.

Bishop Peddle says they have seven parish churches in the St. John’s area, and they’re working with parishes on how to reshape themselves into the future.

Synod takes place April 21 to the 24 in Mount Pearl and St. John’s.

More here.

Gratias agimus tibi

Posted on by
1

From Bach’s Bm mass. Posted only because it is the pinnacle of the musically sublime.

I think Karl Richter’s interpretation of Bach’s choral and orchestral works is the best of the best; I know some think that contemporary, supposedly more authentic, versions are better – but I really don’t care. I don’t suppose Karl Richter does either, since he is dead.

Canadian bishops all get a copy of Michael Coren’s new book

Posted on by
5

Coren’s book about how he came to support same-sex marriage has been distributed to all Canadian bishops – as if they needed any encouragement in that direction. Here is Michael Bird’s response:

book

Coren hopes it will do “some good”, as if such a thing were likely to result from a rather disgusting betrayal of his former principles:

Capture

There is a Facebook group for those who want to see the Marriage Canon changed

Posted on by
61

Like-minded same-sex marriage enthusiasts have set up a Facebook group to encourage one another in their desire to see a Marriage Canon change to accommodate same-sex couples. As of this writing, there are 1269 members. In the spirit of full inclusion, it is a closed group, so you can only see what is going on if you join. I did and here is the stated purpose of the group:

As administrators of this group, we want to reiterate our purpose because we have more than doubled membership over the past couple of days. It’s important that we are all on the same page and that we continue to promote a safe space where people can be free to express their thoughts, feelings and emotions.

We want to clarify for everyone who is part of this group our intent in coming together here as stated in our description …

“This is to be a forum for support and to encourage each other as we head into this important conversation. Many continue to feel hurt and excluded; others are wanting to continue working for justice, respect and dignity for all as equal members of the body of Christ … the living out of our baptismal covenant. Pray for wisdom and the grace of God through the Holy Spirit as we continue this prophetic mission and ministry for equality for all, and especially our LGBTQ community!”

We trust that everyone who is here as a member of this group shares this purpose and desires this outcome.

The last sentence confirms that dissenters are unwelcome, a fact whose accuracy was reinforced after I posted this:

I’m opposed to changing the marriage canon but thought I would join the group to see if anyone has said anything that might change my mind. They haven’t.

The reply:

I was under the impression that people who have joined this group understood that Jesus loves everyone, all inclusive. I’m all for healthy debate but I’m unsure if that is possible in this situation.

So, as you can see, with full inclusion, no debate is possible.

Very shortly after posting my comment I was booted out of the group by the moderators.

I feel so excluded.

Marriage canon change vote unlikely to pass, so what’s to be done?

Posted on by
12

A process as trivial as voting doesn’t stop liberals; if liberals don’t get their own way through a vote, obviously the rules will have to change to make voting redundant. The important thing is to discern what the spirit is saying to the church – the spirit of theological liberalism, that is.

From here:

Council of General Synod (CoGS) unanimously agreed March 12 to send to the upcoming General Synod a draft resolution prepared by the Commission on the Marriage Canon changing the Anglican Church of Canada’s law to pave the way for same-sex marriage.

At the same time, however, CoGS said that while it is legally obliged by General Synod 2013’s Resolution C003 to send the same-sex marriage motion to General Synod 2016, it has also considered “the possibility of other options.”

In a message to the church,  CoGS said, “The General Synod may discern a legislative option is not the most helpful, and if so, we faithfully hope that through dialogue at General Synod an alternate way will emerge.”

CoGS did not indicate what these “other options”  might be, but the message was clearly a response to an earlier statement it received from the House of Bishops that a vote to allow same-sex marriage was “not likely to pass in the Order of Bishops.” In their statement to CoGS, the bishops had also questioned whether “a legislative procedure is the most helpful way” of dealing with the issue of gay marriage.

[….]

In its statement to the church, CoGS also said,  “We recommend the greatest pastoral response possible, allowing same-sex couples to be fully included in the life of our church with full and equal access to its liturgies and pastoral offices.”

The wording of this last sentence was cause for much debate on the floor of the Council when it was presented to members for approval. The original draft had read, “We must permit the greatest pastoral response possible, allowing same-sex couples to be fully included in the life of our church with full and equal access to its liturgies and pastoral offices,” and some CoGS members felt this came too close to telling General Synod how it should vote.

“When we do this, when we say, ‘You have full access to the liturgies and pastoral care,’ we’re saying, ‘Go ahead and marry,’ ” said Bishop Larry Robertson, of the diocese of the Yukon, expressing an opinion also stated by Archdeacon Terry Leer, of the diocese of Athabasca. “I cannot and will not accept that.”

Fred Hiltz is tired of talking about sex

Posted on by
2

Hard to believe, I know.

From here:

“I long for a time in our church when there is as much attention and conviction and passion and voice and action from the rooftops about sexual exploitation, about gender-based violence, human trafficking for the sex trade, missing and murdered Indigenous women, pornography, religiously-based violence around the world, our violence against creation itself, and the greed and the reckless consumption that drives it,” said Archbishop Fred Hiltz.

The irony in all this is that Hiltz wants to direct the passions of the Anglican Church of Canada towards things over which it has absolutely no influence or control and in which it has no expertise, while at the same time being unable to come to a decision on whether to change its own marriage canon – something that has been a church speciality for 2000 years.

A fitting parable of ecclesiastical impotence.

CoGS meets in camera to discuss marriage canon change

Posted on by
3

The Council of General Synod is meeting in private to discuss the marriage canon change proposal; they don’t want anyone to see the fur fly.

From here:

Given the communication from the House of Bishops at the end of February, the Planning and Agenda Team for the Council of the General Synod suggested to members of the Council that conversation be conducted in camera for two hours of their agenda today. This move was to ensure that members could process and work through the House of Bishops communication and to speak freely and without reservation.

The author of the article above goes to great length to tell us what in camera means.

Don’t pay any attention. In 1944 Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a play called In Camera. In the play, three damned souls are locked in a room in Hell to be each other’s torturers.

That’s what is really happening.