Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

Sexual discrimination in the Diocese of Niagara

Posted on by
4

Michael Bird’s latest statement on same-sex marriage informs us that he intends to adhere to this:

Accordingly, and in concert with several other bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, it is my intention to immediately exercise this authority to respond to the sacramental needs of the LGBTQ2 community in the Diocese of Niagara. In the absence of any nationally approved liturgy, I am authorizing The Witnessing and Blessing of a Marriage and The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage 2 for use in our diocese. These newly created rites of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America may be used for the marriage of any duly qualified couples. Clergy intending to use these rites will, for the time being, be required to notify the Bishop’s Office in advance.

In practice, this means marrying two people in a “committed adult same-sex relationship”. The problem is, Bird also says he intends “to respond to the sacramental needs of the LGBTQ2 community in the Diocese of Niagara”. The rite Bird intends to use “may be used for the marriage of any duly qualified couples”. Not threesomes.

The “B” in LGBQT2 represents bisexuals. In order to fulfil his – God given, Bird would claim – nature urging him to have sex with both a man and a woman, a bisexual has to marry two people.

It pains me to say it, but bisexuals will be discriminated against in the Diocese of Niagara.

The Anglican Church of Canada opens Pandora’s marriage box

Posted on by
5

In justifying his pressing ahead with same-sex marriages even when it appeared the vote to allow them failed, Michael Bird said:

In the words of David Jones, the chancellor of General Synod, our current marriage canon “does not contain either a definition of marriage or a specific prohibition against solemnizing same-sex marriage.” At the same time, it is clear that our Anglican conventions permit a diocesan bishop to exercise episcopal authority by authorizing liturgies to respond to pastoral needs within their dioceses, in the absence of any actions by this General Synod to address these realities.

So, according to its chancellor, the Anglican Church of Canada recognises no canonical definition of what marriage is or who can marry whom. Some time ago, the Diocese of Niagara used to chant this incantation at every available opportunity: “draw the circle wide, draw it wider still”; the more they chanted, the more people fled.

Now, it seems, the marriage circle has been drawn so wide that, providing there is a “pastoral need”, anyone can marry anyone – or thing.

A woman could marry a horse, a man could marry a goat, or a pillow or himself. We are assured by the ACoC chancellor that there is nothing in the canons that prevents this – so why not? Personally, I’m delighted to see that there is absolutely no prohibition against solemnising a union between a man and his guitar; none at all!

There are two ways to render something meaningless: one is to make it mean nothing, the other is to make it mean anything.

Bishops start worrying about unity after marriage canon vote

Posted on by
7

Considering dozens of parishes have left the Anglican Church of Canada since 2008, numerous dioceses and their bishops have sued parishes and individuals over property ownership and hurt feelings, and a number of high profile clergy were inhibited by their bishops, it’s about time that someone started worrying about unity. Unfortunately, since most of the bishops now wringing their hands are liberals who were – and still are –  the cause of the disunity, all this tearful posturing accomplishes is illustrate the contempt bishops have for their flocks who, they must think, will fall for it all – again.

From here:

Canadian Anglican bishops have begun to respond to General Synod’s provisional vote on same-sex marriage in starkly different ways: a number have called for prayers, some announced they will now allow religious weddings for same-sex couples and others have expressed anxiety about unity in the church.

Melissa Skelton, bishop of the diocese that set the ball rolling in our current Canadian Anglican dystopia, condescendingly implies that those who disagree with same-sex marriage, do so only because they are “not ready”, not because they have good reasons for disagreeing. The condescension continues when she asks how the ACoC can “continue to make room for their point of view in a sensitive and caring way”. I suppose it will continue as it started: conservatives will be herded into fundamentalist ecclesial ghettos, out of sight and mind; a few tame residents will occasionally be let out for good behaviour and paraded before diocesan synods as a show of inclusivity.

Bishop Melissa Skelton, of the diocese of New Westminster, said she was “relieved” by the vote, which she said gay and lesbian people would see as an affirmative step. However, she added in an interview, “In my province, and among my friends in the House of Bishops, I’m very concerned for those who feel that they’re not ready for that. How do we continue to make room for their point of view in a sensitive and caring way?”

Primate Fred Hiltz is unable to prevent his bishops performing same-sex marriages

Posted on by
22

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.

Conservative reaction to marriage canon vote

Posted on by
3

From ANiC bishops:

14 July 2016

We the Bishops of the Anglican Network in Canada are truly saddened by the decision made by the Anglican Church in Canada at their 41st General Synod to change the Canon (and definition) of Marriage. This action is clearly in contrast to the scriptural teaching of marriage and moves the Anglican Church of Canada apart from the Anglican Communion worldwide.

To knowingly vote to change the Canon of Marriage only months after the Archbishops of the Anglican Communion have voted to impose sanctions on the United States’ Episcopal Church for making the same decision is clearly in defiance of biblically faithful Anglicans worldwide – to say nothing of the evident disdain for the authority of God’s Written Word.

Having lived through this tearing of the Anglican fabric, our hearts go out to all biblically faithful Anglicans in Canada.

Bishop Charlie Masters
Bishop Stephen Leung
Bishop Trevor Walters

From conservative bishops still within the ACoC (who really really should think hard about moving to ANiC):

To all the faithful in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion

At its recent General Synod the Anglican Church of Canada took the first step in changing its Marriage Canon to allow for the solemnization of same sex marriages by its clergy.  The entire process, beginning with the hasty vote in 2013 and concluding with the vote and miscount this past week, has been flawed and has inflicted terrible hurt and damage on all involved.  We absolutely condemn homophobic prejudice and violence wherever it occurs, offer pastoral care and loving service to all irrespective of sexual orientation, and reject criminal sanctions against same-sex attracted people.

Though the change to the Marriage Canon would require a second vote in 2019 in order to come into effect, some bishops have vowed to proceed with same sex marriages immediately, contrary to the explicit doctrine and discipline set out in our constitution, canons and liturgies.

In passing resolution A051 R2 the General Synod has taken a further step in ordaining something contrary to God’s Word written and imperils our full communion within the Anglican Church of Canada and with Anglicans throughout the world. We believe that our General Synod has erred grievously and we publicly dissent from this decision.  Resolution A051 R2 represents a change to the sacrament of marriage inconsistent with the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition of the Church Catholic and the Book of Common Prayer.  This would be a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of the Anglican Communion on the doctrine of marriage. Sadly, this complicates relationships within the Anglican Church of Canada and as a Province with the Anglican Communion.

We unambiguously reaffirm our commitment to
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all,
his body, the Church Catholic,
the Anglican Church of Canada,
the Anglican Communion,
the scriptural, traditional and catholic definition of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman as set out in both the Book of Common Prayer and the Book of Alternative Services, and the pastoral care of all within our jurisdictions and the communion.

The Resolution as carried does not provide adequate protection for the consciences of dioceses, clergy and congregations.  We are concerned for all those of a traditional conscience on marriage within the Anglican Church of Canada.

We call on our Primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury to seek ways to guarantee our place within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion.

We ask for your prayers.

+Stephen, Bishop of Algoma
+David, Bishop of The Arctic

+Darren, Suffragan Bishop of the Arctic
+Fraser, Bishop of Athabasca

+William, Bishop of Caledonia
+Michael, Bishop of Saskatchewan

+Larry, Bishop of Yukon

And from the Anglican Communion Alliance (used to be Anglican Essentials):

Events of the afternoon of Tuesday, July 12, have produced a different result from what we posted last evening. It was discovered that The Ven. Dr. Michael Thompson, General Secretary of the Anglican Church of Canada, was incorrectly categorized with the laity when, in fact, he is a clergy person. This additional one vote from the clergy produced the two-thirds majority necessary to pass A051-R2, the resolution to change the marriage canon to include gay and lesbian couples.
How will the one-third clergy who voted against amending the canon respond? It is early days and this new doctrinal transformation needs time to sink in. We invite you to continue in earnest prayer for the bishops, clergy, and laity of our Anglican church.

General Secretary, Michael Thompson changes his story

Posted on by
26

Yesterday, Michael Thompson issued a statement explaining what caused the chaos surrounding the marriage canon vote. I wrote an article casting doubt on the plausibility of the explanation; subsequently, David Virtue picked up the story and republished it in VOL.

In yesterday’s statement, Thompson explicitly says the error was caused not by his being categorised as a layperson but by his being placed on the non-voting clergyman list (my emphasis}:

It was at that point that Mr. Copeland, the person supporting the electronic voting, discovered that it was in fact my own vote as General Secretary that had been overlooked in the electronic count. Initially, we thought that it had been miscoded as a lay vote, rather than as a clergy vote. We have since been provided, by Mr. Copeland, the list from which the electronic voting was coded, a list prepared by my office. That list described the General Secretary as “clergy, non-voting”. Data-on-the-spot simply coded the information that my office gave them.

Now, he is claiming the opposite: that, although his office placed him in the non-voting column on a spreadsheet, before synod started, Data on the Spot did not “simply code[d] the information that my office gave them”. The contention now is that Thompson was entered as a voting lay member manually by Data on the Spot’s J.P. Copeland. Copeland says he has no record of who requested the manual change or how it was entered incorrectly.

That invites the questions:

  • Who spotted the initial error?
  • Who created the second error?
  • Who requested the change?
  • Was it the second JFK gunman? Elvis?
  • I know it’s Anglican, but are we really being asked to believe that so much incompetence is concentrated into one small office?

As much as I dislike conspiracy theories, I cannot help being just as suspicious now as I was before the second explanation emerged.

From here (my emphasis):

The error, according to Thompson,  originated with an Excel spreadsheet compiled by his office, which listed him and General Synod Chancellor David Jones as being non-voting members of General Synod. The spreadsheet had listed Thompson as “clergy, non-voting.” According to the Constitution of General Synod, both the general secretary and the chancellor have full voting privileges.

“This was an error that took place in my office,” Thompson said in an interview with the Anglican Journal. “It is not an error that was caused by the electronic voting. It is a mistake that we made…[Data-on-the Spot] simply took the information that we gave them and accurately coded it into their electronic system.”

Thompson had previously issued an apology on the floor of General Synod in which he noted that the “good order of General Synod is my responsibility as general secretary…[and] I want to apologize to the General Synod for the confusion that has been caused.”

The issue of Jones’s and Thompson’s voting privileges was brought to light the day before synod began, said J.P. Copeland, integration specialist for Data-on-the-Spot (DOTS), the electronic voting services provider contracted by General Synod to manage the voting by clickers. When Thompson was manually added to the list of voting members, however, he was wrongly coded as a layperson, instead of as a member of the Order of Clergy—a fact that was discovered only after a printed list of how General Synod members had voted was examined.

“It was literally like a hand addition that was communicated to me,” Copeland told the Anglican Journal, speaking of the request to have Thompson added to the voting list. “I don’t have a record of where it came from, who told me what, or whether I heard improperly or whether I read it improperly.”

Something fishy in the marriage canon vote recount

Posted on by
12

General Secretary, Michael Thompson has released a statement on what went wrong on the first count of the marriage canon vote.

You can read the whole thing from the link above, but let’s focus on this part:

It was at that point that Mr. Copeland, the person supporting the electronic voting, discovered that it was in fact my own vote as General Secretary that had been overlooked in the electronic count. Initially, we thought that it had been miscoded as a lay vote, rather than as a clergy vote. We have since been provided, by Mr. Copeland, the list from which the electronic voting was coded, a list prepared by my office. That list described the General Secretary as “clergy, non-voting”. Data-on-the-spot simply coded the information that my office gave them. This error took place in my office, and I take responsibility for it. We were more than well-served by Data-on-the-spot. In fact, without Mr. Copeland’s prompt attention, I am not sure that we would have discovered the nature of the error and had a chance to understand and correct it.

Thompson is telling us that his vote was “overlooked” because he was categorised as a non-voting member of synod.

The computerised voting system was supplied by Data on the Spot. For an idea of how the system works, take a look at the video here. You will note that “each clicker device has a unique and secure serial number”. That means that the data gathering program would have, as part of its input, a database of serial numbers correlating to each person’s name.

Thompson is claiming that he was designated (and, therefore, his clicker was designated) in the database as a non-voting member of synod. Any computer program worth anything would immediately flag this as an error as soon as the non-voting member used his secure clicker in an attempt to vote. The marriage canon vote was at the end of the synod. How many times had Thompson already used the clicker before this in other votes? Why was the error not flagged before the marriage canon vote?

Either the Data on the Spot programmers have some serious problems with missing error routines in their computer code or….. there is something very fishy going on.

There should be a thorough third party audit of the whole process.

Michael Bird proceeding with same-sex marriages before the canon is changed

Posted on by
3

The Niagara bishop, Michael Bird, has confirmed that he will begin same-sex marriages three years before the marriage canon change that permits him to do so. No surprise there. Anglican chaos in action.

From here:

Notwithstanding the reversal of the resolution’s outcome, I am committed to my promise to our diocese and local LGBTQ2 community to continue to walk along the path of full inclusion and to immediately proceed with equal marriage.

More reaction to the marriage canon vote

Posted on by
12

Bishop William Anderson asks the interesting question (since the motion has to pass a second time in 2019 before the canon is actually changed): “Does this mean in fact that they are going to withhold consent for the marriages until this passes second reading in three years?”

I’m sure we already know the answer to that. And if we don’t Bishop John Chapman is only too happy to enlighten us.  Full steam ahead for the Diocese of Ottawa; other bishops will follow suit:

My intention is to honour my previous statement of July 11, 2016 and allow, with my permission, those clergy wishing to preside at a same sex marriage. I felt comfortable proceeding before the issue with the electronic voting system had been presented, because we did have the support of the Synod minus one clergy vote only. And, pastorally it is the right and proper thing for us to do. It is inclusive; it is hospitable, theologically sound and just.

Anderson goes on to note that chaos will undoubtedly follow – I agree, although I would say “more chaos” – and some bishops have made themselves “mini popes” concocting their own doctrine. I hope he doesn’t get sued.

From here:

Bishop William Anderson, diocese of Caledonia
They did what they had to do in terms of trying to correct the record so I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is that last night when the thinking was that the vote got in the way, a number of bishops announced that they were simply going to ignore the results, they were going to defy the decision of synod and… go ahead and approve [same-sex] marriages.

Well, today, the situation is reversed, with the correction of the record, so the question I would be asking is, “Does this mean in fact that they are going to withhold consent for the marriages until this passes second reading in three years?”

I think this process has been immensely destructive of the unity of our church. I think people are going to go away wounded and if the dioceses that said they’re going to go ahead anyway now will go ahead even though now they have won the vote, it further exacerbates the contempt for our synodical process. I think we’re in for a period of chaos and I think that’s not going to be helpful for the church.

Q: What will you be telling your diocese?

The practical side of it is pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe that it was not an honest error, a technical error, and so the vote is what the vote was. People need to deal with that.

I think the bigger problem is the one that flows from all the dioceses that said last night they were simply going to go ahead. What that says to my people is, “Well, we have a process where this has to pass at two successive synods, but some dioceses have decided they’re just going to go ahead, anyway.” Which begs the question, why are we even involved in a synodical process in deciding something like this if, to be very cynical, some bishops are going to make themselves mini popes who can decide doctrine on their own?

To my considerable surprise, it seems that the Anglican Journal has relocated Michael Bird to Ottawa. He, too, plans to ignore the fact that the canon can’t change before 2019 and will go ahead:

Bishop Michael Bird, diocese of Ottawa
Obviously, I can’t help but be grateful for the resolution passing because it’s not a vote, behind that are the witness that we give as a church to LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning] community and their friends and their families. That is welcome news to me.

[…..]

Q: Are you still going ahead with same-sex marriages in your dioceses?

I haven’t changed my mind on that at this point. This has just happened so I haven’t really given much thought yet about what the next [steps are]… I will be talking to some of our senior staff and seeing how, if any way, this will alter that. But at this stage, I basically made my decision now and I’m going forward with it.