Hold up a sign to declare your opposition to it.
Here is Anglican Primate, Fred Hiltz, doing his bit to stamp out sexual and gender-based violence.
The BDSM community must feel so excluded.
The alternative to this vacuous ecclesiastical virtue signalling might be to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ – you know, the real one where Jesus wants to transform us, not the watery ACoC version dedicated to affirming us and all our desires no matter how murky.
Wondering what St. Paul would think of a church considering marrying people of the same sex is akin to pondering whether Karl Marx would approve of Walmart. Any Christian whose thought processes are still anchored in the reality our familiar old four-dimensional space-time continuum knows the answer. It is the one thing Paul and Marx would have in common: the strength of their respective loathing for same-sex activity and Walmart.
Yet, here we have Fred Hiltz seriously – at least, I assume this article is not an elaborate exercise in exploring the outer limits of poor taste in Anglican jokes, it’s sometimes difficult to tell – asking exactly that:
Hiltz made the comment in an address that began and ended by wondering what St. Paul might think of the church, what advice he might give it and how he might pray for it.
On the church’s deliberation over changing its marriage canon to allow same-sex marriage, for example, Paul might remind it of his counsel to the Ephesians to be “humble and gentle and patient with one another, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:2-3),” he said.
In an interview with the Anglican Journal, Hiltz said it was partly the idea of the importance of good leadership in the church at this point in its history that had prompted him to imagine what the apostle might think if he were to look at it “with a penetrating eye.”
[…..]
Hiltz concluded his address by speculating that St. Paul might pray for the Canadian church as he prayed for the Ephesians, “that we understand the incredible greatness of God’s power—that we might have power to comprehend how wide, and how long, and how high and how deep is God’s love for us in Christ; that we be filled with that knowledge and in and through it live our lives and do the work to which God calls us.”
There are presently three Canadian dioceses that have performed same-sex marriages and at least another three which plan to – assuming, after scouring the land, they can find some willing couples. Others will undoubtedly follow.
This is all happening before the vote in 2019 to finalise approval of same-sex marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada. If it seems chaotic, it is because it is: Fred Hiltz says he has no authority to prevent it, Michael Bird and other bishops have cheerfully declared they can proceed because no one can find anything in the canons that says they can’t and, even though synod has pronounced same-sex marriage a matter of theology, Bird et al. have effectively said, no it isn’t it’s pastoral.
Considering the energy, time and passion invested in this, and the ensuing mayhem, it would be reasonable for an outsider to assume that there are thousands or, at the very least, hundreds of same-sex couples clamouring to be joined in unholy matrimony in an Anglican church. But no: there have been eight so far.
Eight! That’s 0.000044% of the population; on the positive side, it a beautiful illustration of how effective the ACoC’s efforts to be relevant are to average Canadians.
Read it all here:
Since the first reading at General Synod 2016 of a resolution to allow for the solemnization of same-sex marriages, eight couples have been married in three Anglican Church of Canada dioceses—with more planning on walking down the aisle in the coming year.
Four weddings of same-sex couples have taken place in the diocese of Niagara, three in the diocese of Toronto and one in the diocese of Ottawa, according to the offices of the respective diocesan bishops. Toronto and Ottawa also noted that several other same-sex couples in their dioceses are in the process of preparation for marriage.
Bishop Mary Irwin-Gibson, of the diocese of Montreal, said she is currently going through a discernment process with four same-sex couples considering marriage.
Bishop Logan McMenamie, of the diocese of British Columbia, announced at a diocesan synod in autumn 2016 that he will “move forward with the marriage of same-sex couples in the diocese” on a case-by-case basis. When the Anglican Journal contacted his office in March 2017, no same-sex couples had yet approached the diocese about the possibility of marriage.
Following the first reading of the motion to change the marriage canon (church law) of the Anglican Church of Canada to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples—which was initially, but incorrectly, declared as being defeated in a vote—several bishops publicly announced they would nonetheless marry same-sex couples.
Niagara Bishop Michael Bird, Ottawa Bishop John Chapman, Toronto Archbishop Colin Johnson, then Huron Bishop Bob Bennett and then Coadjutor (now diocesan) Bishop Linda Nicholls all stated that they would marry same-sex couples as a pastoral measure, citing an opinion by General Synod Chancellor David Jones, that the marriage canon as it stands does not actually bar same-sex marriage.
Following discovery of a voting error, which showed that the motion had actually passed its first reading, Bird, Chapman and Johnson said they would still go ahead with same-sex marriage. However, Bennett and Nicholls issued another statement, clarifying that their diocese was “committed to ongoing consultations” as required by the same-sex motion. At press time, no changes to diocesan policy regarding the marriage of same-sex couples had been made.
Justin Welby met with Pope Francis for more ecumenical dialogue recently. The conclusion was that the denominations are still divided.
A great deal of expense and carbon emissions could have been avoided by a close inspection of the invitation list. It included Fred Hiltz from Canada who, not only has no influence over healing divisions between Catholics and Anglicans, but has spent most of the time during his tenure in his own denomination promoting division in it. Justin Welby, seemingly eager to learn from the colonies, is about to follow suit.
What a waste of time, energy and resources.
From here:
While the decision by some provinces in the Anglican Communion to accept the ordination of women and same-sex marriage have posed new obstacles to formal unity between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, a common declaration issued by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Pope Francis October 5 reaffirmed their commitment to ecumenical work.
“While…we ourselves do not see solutions to the obstacles before us, we are undeterred,” the declaration says. “We are confident that dialogue and engagement with one another will deepen our understanding and help us to discern the mind of Christ for his church.”
[….]
Representing Canada were Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, and Bishop Dennis Drainville, of the diocese of Quebec.
Once the vote to change the marriage canon to permit same-sex marriage passed at General Synod, a number of bishops released a statement expressing their disagreement with both the process and the outcome. They also reaffirmed their commitment to stick with the Anglican Church of Canada come what may, a resolve that does little to fortify any influence they may think they have.
Now Fred Hiltz has responded to the statement. He makes his support for same-sex marriage quite clear and, reading between the lines, in spite of protestations to the contrary, I can’t believe there will be much tolerance for dissent.
From here:
While he affirmed the bishops’ commitment to offer “pastoral care and loving service to all irrespective of sexual orientation,” he noted that for many LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) Anglicans, “pastoral care” would include the solemnization of their marriages—which the bishops have expressly said they will not do. “For me, my brothers, the question you ask is really a question for all members of the church. To what extent can we and will we make room for one another? To what extent will we pastorally accommodate one another?” Hiltz said in his letter.
The bishops are, rightly, worried about the conscience clause:
Hiltz also challenged their claim that the resolution, which contains a conscience clause, “does not provide adequate protection for the consciences of dioceses, clergy and congregations.” He asked the bishops to explain what such protection would look like, and how it would apply for those in their dioceses who are in favour of same-sex marriage.
One answer to Hiltz might be this: when a bishop or clergyman refusing to marry a same-sex couple is either hauled before the Human Rights Commission or is civilly sued, the ACoC must pay for his legal defence. Of course, that won’t stop liberal bishops refusing to hire orthodox clergy or making their lives so disagreeable that they quit for a saner environment – but some things are too much to hope for.
The truth, I suspect, is that Hiltz has no interest in stopping a bishop performing same-sex marriages because he is entirely sympathetic to the idea. A plea of impotence is rather convenient for him since he hopes it will absolve him from any culpability that could result in consequences imposed by the next up the chain in ecclesiastical eunuchs, Justin Welby.
From here:
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, says he understands why some bishops have chosen to go ahead with the solemnization of same-sex marriages, even though the marriage canon (church law) cannot be officially changed until it is voted on again at General Synod 2019.
He also stressed that he has no jurisdiction over diocesan bishops to stop them from doing what they want on the issue.
“As primate, I have no authority to say to a bishop, ‘You can’t do that and you must not do that,’ ” he said.
Fred Hiltz, as perceptive as ever, has realised that, whichever way the vote over same-sex marriage goes in July, some people will leave aggravated. A vote for will upset the few remaining conservatives and a vote against will upset the disproportionately high number of homosexual clergy. This is all a repeat performance of the lamentations and appeals for unity that accompanied the voting over same-sex blessings in prior synods. Then, as now, the so-called unity is bogus. Also bogus were the assurances that same-sex blessings would not lead to same sex marriage. Does anyone truly believe that priests will not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages if the vote goes that way?
Hiltz has as much as admitted that the whole synod exercise will be a vacuous farce since, even if the same-sex marriage motion is voted down – as it probably will be – dioceses will go ahead with it anyway.
Still, at least the synod will be green, that’s the main thing.
From the Anglican Journal:
“No doubt in this synod there will be some stress and some strain, but I hope and pray that in the grace of the waters of baptism in which we have been made one with Christ, that we will be able to continue to do our work in synod and that we’ll know that in the midst of it all, we are, in fact, members one of another.”
This General Synod, the 41st in the history of the Anglican Church of Canada, is expected to be momentous, involving as it does a vote to change the church’s canon (law) on marriage.
“That’s a fairly huge issue for our church, so I think people who come to this General Synod will rightly have some anxiety about that,” says General Synod Deputy Prolocutor Cynthia Haines-Turner, in another video released by the office of General Synod.
It also seems likely that, whichever way the estimated 269 delegates assembling in Thornhill, Ont., July 7–12 vote, the impact will be felt in Anglican churches across Canada. In an April 12 interview, Hiltz told the Anglican Journal that bishops are concerned that clergy and parishes may decide to leave the church if the vote is not acceptable to them. (Avowals to this effect have also been made by followers of the Journal’s Facebook page.) Hiltz also said he believed some clergy, if faced with a “no” vote, might decide to marry same-sex couples anyway.
As a fitting summary of the mess, Hiltz utters two tautologies followed by an appeal from the Beatles:
Hiltz said that as he reflected recently on the upcoming General Synod, the words from an Anglican night prayer came repeatedly to mind: “What has been done has been done. What has not been done has not been done. Now let it be.”
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.”
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.
It appears that Anglican Church of Canada bishops are having a difficult time keeping their stories straight on exactly what happened at the recent House of Bishops Meeting.
In Anglican-speak, this is called walking together.
From here:
The head of the Anglican Church of Canada says a bishop in eastern Newfoundland has made inaccurate statements about the church’s internal debate over the blessing of same-sex marriages.
Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, primate of the Canadian wing of the church, is challenging Bishop Geoff Peddle’s assertion that the church is unlikely to allow the practice because indigenous bishops and the people they represent are opposed to the idea.
Peddle’s comments were made earlier this week during an interview broadcast across Newfoundland and Labrador by radio station VOCM.
He could not be reached for comment today.
Hiltz says the church’s 45 bishops in Canada have made it clear they are unlikely to reach the two-thirds consensus needed to change the church’s rules at its next General Synod in July.
However, Hiltz stressed that it would be inaccurate to suggest that the church’s three indigenous bishops are largely responsible for that position, saying there are plenty of non-indigenous bishops who also hold conservative views.
