The Church of England has come up with a "Let’s try to please everyone!"-solution to the problem of Anglican homosexual clergy and the gay clergy’s desire for "marriage." "Okay," sez the Church of England, "You can marry but you must remain celibate continent!"
"The Church of England is to allow gay clergy to enter into civil partnerships but only if they promise to abstain from sex, according to guidance issued yesterday.
"It has been drawn up to clarify the Church’s position on the Civil Partnerships Act, which will offer same-sex couples a legal status similar to marriage when it comes into effect on Dec 5.
"In a ‘pastoral statement’ [scare quotes in the original], the House of Bishops said that clergy would be able to take advantage of the Act, but only if they reassure their bishops that they will uphold Church teaching. Clergy were also told that they should not offer formal services of blessing for couples who had been through a civil partnership ceremony, but they could pray with the couple."
I find it fascinating that a church created because of one man’s sexual indiscretions and rationalizations for his immoral behavior has constantly been at the forefront of the liberal Christian "sexual revolution" and the rationalization by some Christians of sexual behavior traditionally recognized to be immoral.
Michelle,
I don’t think that the current situation in the CE has much to do with Henry VII; I suspect it is the result of the general liberalism in the western world which has affected all churches to a greater or lesser degree.
I gather that the COE in Africa is fairly conservative.
“I find it fascinating that a church created because of one man’s sexual indiscretions and rationalizations for his immoral behavior has constantly been at the forefront of the liberal Christian “sexual revolution” and the rationalization by some Christians of sexual behavior traditionally recognized to be immoral.”
First to allow (and founded for) divorce and remarriage.
First to allow contraception.
One of the first to allow female “priests”.
First to appoint an openly gay bishop.
First to allow openly gay bishops to live with their lovers under the guise of celibacy…
What next?
Also, I thought we were to avoid the near occasion of sin. Doesn’t living with your gay partner in a marriage of sorts put one at an extreme risk of falling into temptation and then some?
SJ: you meant Henry VIII.
MICHELLE: We have to start helping people to keep two terms clear: “celibate” means NOT MARRIED, and “continent” means NO SEX. They are not interchangeable concepts or terms, and confusion on this point is causing considerable problems in others areas.
JIMMY: the preview option still does not work here. FWIW.
Steve makes a good point. Unfortunately, even more unCatholic proposals than the ones identified in the post are favoured in many churches with variegated histories. And while the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterium officially rejects this kind of nonsense, what the average member of the RCC in the pew hears from their clergy and religious is often very different.
It should also be noted that, strictly speaking, even from a conventional RC theological perspective, what Henry VIII did not break the sacramental continuity of the C of E, since his only ecclesiologically significant act was to reject Papal supremacy and make himself the earthly head of the English Church “as far as the law of Christ allows” — whatever that means. (Doctrine in general was untouched.) It is normally posited that the creation of a new church, as opposed to the schism of a pre-existent one, occured after Henry’s death and was not achieved on a settled basis till Elizabeth I’s reign.
Henry sought and received (from the Abp of Canterbury) an annulment, not a divorce. Ironically, the C of E has for most of its history since the Reformation had the most stringent marriage discipline in Church history. Why? Because it inherited and accepted the general Western teaching on the indossolubility of sacramental marriage, but had no procedures for annulment at all! So, it did not have the Eastern “economical” approach or the Western canonical pathway to recognise a fault in the marriage ab initio. Strange but true. Indeed, if it had had the latter, the Anglican CS Lewis would probably have had no problems in marrying Joy Davidson, since there were probably numerous grounds on which to annul her former marriage.
M.K.+
Doing Henry VIII proud
Telegraph | News | ‘Marriages’ but no sex for gay clergy
The Church of England is to allow gay clergy to enter into civil partnerships but only if they promise to abstain from sex, according to guidance issued yesterday.
1. So what pre…
This makes no sense whatsoever. If there is one thing that defines homosexuality and the homosexual identity it’s homosexual sex.
Strange.
This last weekend a long standing friend of mine bacame a Catholic. he was an Anglican who finally tired of all these “firsts”.
Did Henry VIII actually establish the Anglican Church?
He broke with Rome, but recognized the Eucharist, didn’t displace bishops, etc., right?
His son, really Protestant and never really a ruler since he was 9 or so and other people ruled for him, was ruler of a Church that didn’t look much like the Anglican one, from what I’ve read.
Mary Tudor re-established the RC Church.
Jane Gray (well, who cares?)
Elizabeth took out all bishops and put in her own, thus abolishing the line of succession, right? Wouldn’t that make *her* the founder of the Anglican Church?
Note to self: read previous poster’s comments before posting own.
Dr. Peters, thanks for the suggestion. I’ve made the edit.
We have to be careful with the “firsts” in Christianity because there are so many denominations. As an example, I’m pretty sure the Methodists have held this position (you can be in a Homosexual cohabiting relationship just as long as you don’t have sex) for at least 15 years. I know this because the associate pastor at the Methodist church I grew up in left the ministry because he thought that position was unreasonable to gay people (himself being gay).
I’m sure there was some denomination that endorsed birth control before the Anglicans did (I don’t know for sure or which one however).
What we can more likely say is that they’re on the leading edge of these movements or the first promeninent/large denomination to do so with a sufficient amount of publicity.
Okay everyone, it’s time to play Anglican Twister!
As the participant, you represent the Anglican Church; and the spinner, the changing of the times! Ready? Here we go!
Left foot moral integrity!
Left hand practicing homosexual priests!
Right hand revisionist history!
Right foot pride for ancient traditions!
You look like a giant pretzel! Ha ha ha! Isn’t that zany, kids? Can’t wait to see where the spinner lands next!
“MICHELLE: We have to start helping people to keep two terms clear: “celibate” means NOT MARRIED, and “continent” means NO SEX.”
No, actually “neuter” is the word that means NO SEX. The word “continent” means no *coitus*, which is quite a different thing. A continent person continues to have sex, that is, to be male or female.
(Sorry to be pedantic, but one of my pet peeves is the constant use of the expression “have sex” as a synonym for “copulate,” when in fact we all “have sex” all the time, in the sense of being either male or female. I understand that “have sex” in its figurative sense is short for “have sexual intercourse,” which in turn is a euphemism for “copulate.” But when we use terms in a figurative sense and forget the literal meaning of those terms, we risk solecisms such as the absurd statement that continent spouses are sexless.)
Okay, Seamus, we get the point. So what you are saying is that I will have sex tonight, whether I like it or not.;)
So, does “incontinent” mean that one has coitus, or that one should pick up a box of Depends® on the way home?
I thought “neuter” meant “no GENDER” (as in languages), not “no SEX”. I’m really no expert on languages, though.
The distinction I made is well attested in theological and canonical literature. We ignore that distinction (as opposed to some others that have been suggested here) at real risk to clarity of thought and actual pastoral practice.