“We are taught that the first principle of moral theology is obedience to conscience, and I ask each of you to embrace that principle, and with it the ethic of respect for the conscience of those who disagree with your own.”
Can this _really_ be true?  I’m no moral theologian, but I thought one of the fundamental assumptions of Christian moral theology was that, as a result of the Fall, our consciences are impaired.  If obedience to conscience is the first tenet of moral theology, then what do we need Scripture, Tradition, Reason (or Primates) for?

“The second principle of moral theology is to inform your conscience to bring it, if possible, into line with the teaching of the Church. And here careful listening using the Anglican approach of Scripture, Tradition and Reason will be helpful.”

This also struck me as a truly bizarre statement.  If conscience trumps the teaching of the Church, why should we bother bringing our conscience into line with the teaching of the Church?  In fact, we are told only to do so “if possible.”  What does that mean?  After all, one can always defer to a higher authority, even if one does not feel it in one’s gut.  In fact, it is completely rational to defer to an authority one has confidence in, on the grounds that the authority might know more about the subject than you do.  But if one is only going to bring one’s conscience into line with the teaching of authority when “possible,” where does one draw the line?  I suspect that in practice, the line is “where I really really really _feel_ very strongly about this.”  Scripture, Tradition and Reason then become props to buttress the opinions you already hold, rather than true guides in forming those opinions.

The theme for this 38th General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada is “Draw the Circle Wide.”

and among the guest mentioned are the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu in the blue corner and in the red corner Kearon, Jefferts-Shori and Bonnie Anderson.
All very interesting and perhaps inclusive.

But the homosexuality issue will be communion breaking, in spte of his opinion. Indeed, his opinion strikes me as clearly designed to defuse or refocus the issue in the hopes that its effect can be mitigated. We have heard this often from this side of the wall, that the homosexuality problem is overblown, all out of proportion, and should be minimized. But it won’t happen, because the problem is exactly a big and potent as the last few years has shown it to be - and TEC has made it what it is.  LM

See Franz’s argument. What he is pointing out is this, that the speaker is hoping to avoid the establishment of standards, for they are by nature exclusive. Drawing the big circle is a commonplace image, but if everyone is inside - which is the perfection of the argument - then being inside becomes meaningless. Inside what? What does inside mean in this case?  LM

“There is a crack in everything.
That’s how the light gets in.”

Yeah, but when there is a crack in the foundation, that’s how the house falls in.

the snarkster

This first statement about homosexuality: “Certainly one of the most difficult items for our discernment will be the question of how to proceed on the issue of same-gender relationships.” says it all. When something is clear in the Bible (i.e. the sinfulness of homosexual behavior) it doesn’t require discernment about how to proceed on same-gender relationships…it requires repentance, submission and obedience to the LORD (as do all sinful behaviors) not to culture, the world, special interests or even the almighty personal idol of conscience, as this leader suggests.

Conscious is formed.  Else what is all the “consciousness raising” about?  And conscious can be improperly formed or properly formed.  Then it can be erroneously obeyed or correctly obeyed.  However, conscious does not come first.  The Bible and the Church form conscious.  An excellent essay at zenit.com on this subject.

#7
zenit.com appears to be a website for a construction company in Italian or something.

I’ll take a crack at this, but don’t hold me to it (how’s that for teflon morality?)
The good Archbishop of all Canada seems to have his training in Moral Theology from a Roman Catholic philosophical base, where the individual’s conscience becomes the authoritative base.  Part of the Reformation’s work, and this includes England, was to change the basis of moral theology to a conscience defined by Holy Scripture (I may be stretching it here, but the Reformation era “conscience” might be defined also as an individual’s ability to “reason”).  Thus, the first principle of moral theology from a Reformed position would be “RIGHT reason”, and the corollary (before even getting to a second principle) would be the development of that “right reason” in the Word of God, both as written, and as informed through one’s “relationship” with Jesus Christ.
It is not simply interpretation of the Scripture, but RIGHT interpretation; not simply reason, but right reason; not simply a faith, but Right Faith.  (there’s more here to say about Aquinas, and the Greek philosophers, and virtues, etc., but I would just confuse myself trying to say anything in summary).

This changes everything.  As to Bishop Hutchinson’s first and second principle of moral theology, and the attending “ethic of respect” (which in my reading only ends as rationalism), there is a built-in resistance of “who I am” to “who you are.”  The “I” becomes central and dominant; the second principle’s only purpose is to hope to mitigate the “I” - already in place.
Further, the application of certain biblical texts, such as “serving one another”, has the implied affect of denying the conscience of the first “I” for the sake of the other, effectively 1) destroying the first priniciple for the “serving” person, or 2) in favor of the first principle, being willing to listen but only as long as one has the patience.
A profoundly scripturally-based moral theology (which I believe the Anglican Reformers attempted to argue versus their Roman   opponents) means that instead of many, many individuals each armed with a first principle submission to their own conscience (you can see how such an elaborate scheme of conversation at a national convention would end in dismal failure to hear “from the Holy Spirit”), ...instead of that…..you would find any number of individuals, few or many, gathered to converse on a common “conscience” (if you will) of the Word of God, prepared to reason Rightly.
Thus, by even defining moral theology with its first principle couched in human philosophical terms, the Primate counsels the Canadian Synod to distraction, frustration, yielding to more passionate/stronger voices simply for ANY path out of the morass, and finally a concluding failure to come to understand (and rejoice in) the Truth in Unity as revealed through the Holy Spirit, a true Mind of the House.

Let us pray for direct influence and impartation of the Holy Spirit as THE winsome Word spoken and adhered.

RGEaton

Deja Vu, my bad!  It should be zenit.org

Here’s the Papal address I had in mind:
http://zenit.org/article-19136?l=english

It is well worth the read.