Neil Patterson ViaMedia.News General Synod: What Would Compromise Look Like?
[You can read the Hereford Diocesan Synod motion referred to in this article here.]
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Abuse of LGBTIQ+ people in Ghana and Living in Love and Faith
and Time to confront the crisis of a decadent Christianity
I totally disagree with Neil Patterson. This is no longer about having a service available, this is about safety: LGBT Christians need to be able to go into any Church of England church and have their sexual orientation, relationships and gender/sex oriented recognised and accepted.
I think institutional Christianity has been associated with the privileged and powerful for a long time now. I don’t think anything really has changed other than for some of us our ability to see it.
The situation envisaged by Neil Patterson already exists in relation to divorcees. Ministers have a discretion to marry divorcees and can decline for reasons of conscience.
However since ++Justin conducted the wedding of the Sussexes I suspect the general impression is that the C of E will marry any adults provided the couple comprises one male and one female. Ministers seeking to apply the guidance to enquire into the reasons for the breakdown of the previous marriage must find it quite awkward.
Some of the ministers applying a conscience clause to other people’s requests have had no issue getting married in church themselves after a divorce. Their clergy friends have been all too willing to go ahead with marrying them. It is no wonder people generally think it is one rule for one and another for everyone else. I know people who found it offensive when ++Rowan blessed another royal marriage despite both parties being involved in the break up of each others relationships. It seems to depend on your bank account, influence and who you know. It is little wonder people… Read more »
It’s not only ++Rowan who is willing to set church teaching aside for heterosexuals, especially heterosexual royalty.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/05/archbishop-of-york-endorses-pre-marital-milk-testing
Thanks for the link -there is so much wrong with that statement it is crude and reveals a lot about the mind set of the speaker. At least Rowan didn’t refer to one half of the couple in those terms. You couldn’t make it up.
I understand ++ Rowan offered a blessing rather than the full marriage service for that reason. It started with the General Confession from the Prayer Book Communion:-
We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness which we … most grievously have committed… provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
I can understand the pastoral dilemma these situations pose for the clergy. However I suspect many will see it as a postcode lottery. It depends on whether your particular Vicar applies the rules in a certain way.
It was a service of prayer and dedication following a civil marriage. The service which had been authorised by the bishops and it was noted at the time Rowan wore a black chimere rather than cope and Mitre. Things have moved on now and a full marriage service may be offered. Some clergy concerns might have been alleviated if at a second marriage the preface was reworded to reflect this. I believe this was considered but rejected, though has been the route taken by other Anglican provinces ( eg South Africa) and would have to some extent mirrored Orthodox practice.
“I know people who found it offensive when ++Rowan blessed another royal marriage despite both parties being involved in the break up of each others relationships.” That was particularly true for many in the U.S. who supported ordination and marriage for clergy in same-sex partnerships. While all this was going on for “another royal marriage,” Rowan was lambasting Gene Robinson and the entire TEC for authorizing his his election as a bishop. In fact, Rowan went out of his way to be overtly rude to American Episcopalians. Meanwhile, all is well for royal heterosexuals so long as they publicly repeat… Read more »
I think it’s reasonable to say that Abp Rowan did no more for the Prince of Wales and his wife than the CofE rules allow, and as many parish clergy do for couples remarrying after one or other of them has been divorced. The royal couple were not treated differently from other couples by the Church, whether for better or for worse.
I’m sorry if I didn’t make my point clear. The point is not that Rowan gave “special” treatment to a opposite-sex couple. The point was the conspicuous disparity in treatment between an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple. That of course reflected the then policy of the CofE.
And of course it still reflects the policy of the CofE. And if the recent postings about bishops’ prurient and intrusive questions to Jeffrey John about his sex life (or lack thereof) are any indication, the rudeness remains as well.
I agree with Kate, and am very uncomfortable with Neil Patterson’s blog post. It seems to favour compromise above personal integrity and honesty, and a quick fix solution for the Church of England above pastoral care and love for gay couples.
This is the kind of fudge which has left the C of E with a very unsatisfactory position for women clergy vis a vis male ones – for the sake of compromise.