tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post7695572374814274341..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: 2018 General Convention, Day 6Daniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-4357056018173933752018-07-10T11:47:11.385-04:002018-07-10T11:47:11.385-04:00Paul Hartt
If the rector is protected from penalt...Paul Hartt<br /><br />If the rector is protected from penalty for declining to preside at SSB/M in his or her parish, why did the amended B012 deliberately axe the section that assured freedom from canonical penalty? Does one have discretion only to be later potentially penalized? This ambiguity very much needs clearing up.Paul Hartthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17211349825936891967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-37935191513788217202018-07-10T03:40:21.783-04:002018-07-10T03:40:21.783-04:00The inside strategy is what exactly? I would say E...The inside strategy is what exactly? I would say EDSC followed it. Others with legal ability should have (EDOD)or could (Springfield). <br /><br />But I have retired from TEC and am living in France. I guess that is the outside strategy.<br /><br />On topic. It appears that B012 sets up a conflict between rectors who can stand aside personally from direct involvement, but who have to allow ss marriages to be undertaken in their parishes if requested.<br /><br />If the HOB doesn't get rid of this, it will be yet one further slow burn.<br /><br />Michael Berry, as written, yes. Parishes in dissenting dioceses get to have ss marriages. They are overseen by another bishop. How the diocese as diocese is affected by this I don't think anyone can predict.C SEITZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10882147136972147630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-5477678483106497182018-07-09T19:30:36.656-04:002018-07-09T19:30:36.656-04:00ENS has this story: https://www.episcopalnewsserv...ENS has this story: https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2018/07/09/general-convention-moves-one-step-closer-toward-sacramental-marriage-equality/<br /><br />If I understand this correctly, and I may not, the amended resolution says that if a rector wants to do a same sex marriage and his Bishop refuses to allow it, the rector may uses one of the trial same sex liturgy and proceed anyway ignoring his Bishop.<br /><br />While this is called a compromise I see little compromising about it.Michael Berryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16053154167623446182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-31702451431517582472018-07-09T15:34:11.412-04:002018-07-09T15:34:11.412-04:00Chris Seitz,
In TEC, the house always wins. So muc...Chris Seitz,<br />In TEC, the house always wins. So much for the inside strategy.Dale Matsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12975212053636312471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-81495181059703622242018-07-09T12:35:27.684-04:002018-07-09T12:35:27.684-04:00My prediction:
1) BO12 clarifies that rectors can...My prediction:<br /><br />1) BO12 clarifies that rectors cannot be held hostage to resolutions of GC; canons assure this;<br />2) so parishes cannot themselves insist on all LGBT couples can be 'married', as seems to be implied by B012;<br />3) DEPO is gone<br />4) Bishops' role vis-a-vis the diocese is now changed<br />5) BCP is en route to change, beginning now.<br /><br />Conservative Bishops are the big losers when the dust settles, and the disruptions begin in dioceses.<br />C SEITZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10882147136972147630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-69752074478116537272018-07-09T03:03:28.179-04:002018-07-09T03:03:28.179-04:00Thank you for your reflections, Bishop. I invite y...Thank you for your reflections, Bishop. I invite you to see the situation less drastically. While the B102 amended version is not what you hoped for, I think it is a better path to compromise. Placing a congregation under alternate oversight deeply damages the very idea of an episcopal diocese. I don't like the idea. I much prefer the amended version's alternative that a Bishop can exempt themselves from the authorization of just those marriages, providing oversight there rather than in general. This seems to me to be more apt, so as to not divorce a Bishop from their parishes. Thus if a same-sex couple appears in your diocese, they are not excluded from the sacraments of the church, though they will be excluded from your blessing on their marriage. That seems acceptable, allowing you to preserve your teaching and action, while they can avoid disenfranchisement by geography. Think about it from the point of view of theology. I'm a high-church, theologically orthodox member of the Diocese of California, which does not particularly specialize in the high-church or the orthodox. Should I be disenfranchised from sound preaching and teaching just because I live in California and not in Tennessee? No. I have every reason to demand of my priests and bishops here a higher preaching and teaching as same-sex couples do to demand access to the sacraments in your diocese. If my bishops and priests do not want to teach a full doctrine of the atonement, then I absolutely would petition for additional instruction in those areas from someone who will so teach. <br /><br />This is how we preserve not only diversity in the church, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, undermine homogeneity in the church. You were elected because your diocese is largely homogeneous in its theology, just as my bishop was elected because my diocese is largely homogeneous. This is bad. My diocese sorely needs conservatives, and your diocese sorely needs liberals, precisely so that we can balance each other out (and better learn how to live together). Please think and pray on this and see if you can help lead our church to more reasonable compromises for ALL Christians in the United States province of the Anglican Communion.decorus_veritashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04571259975263380538noreply@blogger.com