|
|
May 31, 2005Ok, you can get married, but NO SEXOnce again, instead of offering clarity, the Church of England confounds. HOMOSEXUAL priests in the Church of England will be allowed to “marry” their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior bishops, led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m a little surprised at the blatantly sexist and insensitive language in that paragraph…what about lesbian priests and their girlfriends, why did the writer of this article fall back on patriarchal language when discussing an enlightened church which ordains females? They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex. The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. Yeah, good luck with that. The Midwest Conservative says it’s a predictable happening. Maxed-Out Mama had a good comment that I wanted to highlight: It is remarkable to contemplate that a supposedly sane church leadership could propose such a thing. One notable feature of this is that it offends every human being involved in the church. One obvious point is that this policy encourages people to lie - indeed, it tells them they must. The stupidity of the reasoning given is obvious. The church is a subsegment of society; legal rights in society don’t translate to rights to hold a ministry within the church. I’m sure in England women have a legal right to be exotic dancers, but does that mean the C of E must allow their female ministers to pick up extra cash by strip-teasing at the local joint? There is a live, vibrant and growing Anglican church, but it is not the one associated with this leadership. I foresee a broader schism in the church between the orthodox and the revisionists; the two camps can no longer have any confidence in one another. I’m sure, knowing MOM, that she’ll eventually write a bang-up post on this at her own site. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/05/31/ok-you-can-get-married-but-no-sex/trackback/ 12 Responses to “Ok, you can get married, but NO SEX” |
May 31st, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Maybe I’m just an ignorant Roman Catholic, but I was under the impression that sex was a *requirement* of marriage. I also thought that marriage was necessary to support the production of *children*.
As a matter of fact, marriages that are not *consummated* can be immediately anulled.
So how DO homosexuals consummate a “gay marriage”? *shudder*.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:11 pm
It is remarkable to contemplate that a supposedly sane church leadership could propose such a thing. One notable feature of this is that it offends every human being involved in the church.
One obvious point is that this policy encourages people to lie - indeed, it tells them they must. The stupidity of the reasoning given is obvious. The church is a subsegment of society; legal rights in society don’t translate to rights to hold a ministry within the church.
I’m sure in England women have a legal right to be exotic dancers, but does that mean the C of E must allow their female ministers to pick up extra cash by strip-teasing at the local joint?
There is a live, vibrant and growing Anglican church, but it is not the one associated with this leadership. I foresee a broader schism in the church between the orthodox and the revisionists; the two camps can no longer have any confidence in one another.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:38 pm
So much for avoiding the occasion of sin.
May 31st, 2005 at 1:20 pm
MaxedOutMoma:
>I’m sure in England women have a legal
>right to be exotic dancers, but does
>that mean the C of E must allow their
>female ministers to pick up extra
>cash by strip-teasing at the local
>joint?
Don’t give them any more ideas.
Like I said over at getreligion.org, the Archbishop is not following the First Rule of Holes. As a matter of fact, he’s probably just brought part of his communion closer to Rome.
It was marriage that separated England from Rome; it may be “marriage” that brings part of back.
May 31st, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Anyone else sense a line being drawn in the sand? I’m not just talking about the Church of England or their American affiliates. It just seems like the line between what is the gospel and is not the gospel is getting starker.
May 31st, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Why would anyone want to be Anglican anyway? That’s like Catholicism for the “poor”. The C of E is a farce, run by socialists (at best), empty churches, founded by a lecherous, murderous monarch. The sooner it vanishes, the better.
May 31st, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Anchoress, my agony prevents much comment at this point. Try to imagine my feelings - what if Rowan Williams or someone of his ilk had been chosen as the next pope? The pain is real. Trying to separate myself from the church in which I was baptized, confirmed, took my first communion, buried my father and my grandmother - oh, the pain. But this is such an evil and heartless policy that I can not pretend not to see what is being done here. The tragedy is that it abuses the very people it pretends to help; it twists their vows and makes them lie in front of the church, the church that is supposed to be the body of God in the world.
Oh, God will forgive those who are genuinely deluded into this if they only ask for guidance and mercy, but God will not be merciful without a sincere repentance and atonement to the people who can offer this as a “solution” when they should be offering the comfort of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of God.
TheLeague, that was my thought exactly when I first read the news article. But then I thought that fortunately no Catholic pope has yet been chosen that would accept a union with this type of church leadership. So the functionaries of the C of E will remain as a memento mori. In a way perhaps this is good; it will serve to remind the Cardinals of the Catholic church when next they meet to choose a Pope that this specter too could be all that remains of them if they choose to walk this path.
Gerald, there is a vivid and lively Anglican church. The face of it is brown, poor, orthodox and devout. In short, much like the face of international Catholicism. It is centered in Asia and Africa. Africa now sends its missionaries to the pagan of the ECUSA in America. The irony is considerable.
May 31st, 2005 at 9:01 pm
MOM - I felt much like this when the pedarasty scandals broke out in my church…but I chose to look at it as a poisonous boil that had to be lanced, for the good of the church. I’m not sure how to speak to you in your pain, but I know it is real, and I am sorry for it.
May 31st, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Anchoress, I am afraid this gangrene rather than a boil. Thanks for the kind words.
May 31st, 2005 at 10:52 pm
The CofE is now officially run by people who are bonkers! May God’s wrath abide on the moral degenerates running the roost and may God’s blessing reside on those who fight this cancer in the body. And may all who are causing such occasions of sin come to repentance, led by the chastisement of the Lord upon them.
Time for nice words is past. It’s time to pull an Elijah and call down fire.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:42 pm
The pain is real. Trying to separate myself from the church in which I was baptized, confirmed, took my first communion, buried my father and my grandmother - oh, the pain.
You brought tears to my eyes. Thank you for expressing what I feel so eloquently. I never seem to have the words.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:53 pm
I hope the African part of the Anglican Communion takes this as a sign to dump Canterbury once and for all. (Perhaps merge with Rome? No Pope, not even Borgia, ever messed with the deposit of faith.) Williams has always been pro-homosexual even before he was appointed (why the Queen agreed to him I’ll never know, then again, for years she let her own son brazenly fool around with another man’s wife). And now there’s talk that he’s commissioning a new Bible translation that replaces words like “wife” with “partner”, deletes references to homosexual behavior being a sin, etc.