Saint Francis in the Fields, Harrods Creek, Kentucky, responds to General Convention

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Read it all.

Filed under:

7 Comments
Posted August 2, 2012 at 8:15 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Br. Michael wrote:

Good for them.  Clear and to the point.

August 2, 1:18 pm | [comment link]
2. Ralph wrote:

Another resolution (D091) amends the marriage canons so that they refer to “two people” rather than “a man and a woman.” It was passed in the last few hours of con- vention and although the recommendation that accompanied the resolution suggested that it be referred to the Task Force on the Study of Marriage, the actual text of the resolution says nothing to that effect.

???

August 2, 1:19 pm | [comment link]
3. MichaelA wrote:

“The Episcopal Church is following a destructive path that is contrary to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Christian church. This parish—along with the minority who issued their dissent at General Convention—will not follow them. We will continue to stand firm in the faith once delivered along with the majority of the world’s Anglicans and Christians who do not accept the innovations of our denomination.  Our clergy and vestry unanimously adopted the Indianapolis Statement (see page 5) on July 24 as a clear statement of where we stand.

This is not something we’re going to dwell on. If you agree with the decisions of General Convention but you’ve generally felt comfortable worshipping here, you can expect that not much will change in that regard. We will continue to be a safe place where you and your children and grandchildren can be nourished in Christ and equipped to share His love and grace with a lost and hurting world.” 

Its good to see the wardens and vestry taking a public stand on this.  That sends a message to TEC that simply deposing or driving out the rector won’t help - its the congregation who are committed to orthodoxy and opposed to the foolish emanations from GC.

It also gives the priest added clout when he witnesses to his bishop and fellow clergy in the diocese - there can be no insinuations that he is a just a lone, rogue element.

August 2, 9:10 pm | [comment link]
4. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

The wording of D091 from the General Convention Official Website is this:
D091 TOPIC: CANONS
Amend Canon I.18.2(b) and Canon I.18.3(e-f) (Marriage)
PROPOSER
Bass-Choate, The Rev. Yamily
ENDORSED BY
Houghton, Mr. Neil; Woodhouse, Ms. Susan
SPONSORED BY
PAGE NUMBER(S) FOR REFERENCE
Blue Book: p. N/A; Constitution & Canons: p. 58-59
HOUSE OF INITIAL ACTION / LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
HB / Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music
CURRENT FILING STATUS
Filed
REVIEW STATUS (PB&F, CONSTITUTION, CANONS)
N/A; N/A; not yet reviewed
RESOLUTION TEXT
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That Canon I.18.2(b) be amended to
read as follows:
(b) That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual
union of two people a man and a woman, entered into within the community of
faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be
lifelong.
And be it further
Resolved, That Canon I.18.3(e-f) be amended to read as follows:
(e) “We, A.B. and C.D., desiring to receive the blessing of Holy Matrimony in the
Church, do solemnly declare that we hold marriage to be a lifelong union of
husband and wife two persons as it is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
(f) “We believe that the union of husband and wife two persons, in heart, body,
and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given
one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is Godʼs will, for the
procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.

EXPLANATION
No clergy person is ever required to officiate at any marriage that they don’t support. Even so, many clergy and
bishops are facing the difficult pastoral reality that the canons of this church prevent them from exercising
their ministries in civil jurisdictions where marriage equality is a reality. In six states (Connecticut, Iowa,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) and in Belgium (representing twelve dioceses and a
part of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe) local laws and church canons now conflict. This
problem will continue to grow between now and the next General Convention. Both Maryland and Washington
await implementation of a law passed by their legislatures and signed by their Governors. California awaits the
completion of legal process; same-gender marriage is currently lawful though marriage certificates are not
being issued. This amendment would allow bishops in these jurisdictions who wish to offer generous pastoral
response to same gender couples to do so without that conflict.
Printed: Thursday, August 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM. Page 1 of 1

August 2, 9:13 pm | [comment link]
5. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

Sorry, the scripting on this blog is bad. Wherever “husband and wife” and “man and woman” appear, it is crossed out and “two persons” is added.

August 2, 9:15 pm | [comment link]
6. Ralph wrote:

Did this pass, or did it not?

If it, did, it might be interpreted as a bona fide doctrinal change.

August 2, 9:54 pm | [comment link]
7. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

I am unclear what exactly happened here. On the official General Convention website, the resolution is listed as:
“Amend Canon I.18.2(b) and Canon I.18.3(e-f) (Marriage)
Action is to Concur (Refer to a CCAB)”
reference: http://www.generalconvention.org/gc/resolutions?by=number&id=D091
I don’t know what that means exactly because it was proposed by the “Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music” Committee. CCAB stands for Committees, Commissions, Agencies & Boards. I would logically presume that the resolution would then be referred back to the appropriate commission (I presume the liturgical commission since it came from the Church Music committee) for further review. Seeing as it is recommending a canon change, I don’t know if that means it would be referred back to the Committee in charge of canons and such or to Standing jurisprudence committee. The resolution itself does not seem to say where the resolution is to be referred to.

At the very least, it is not an official doctrinal change, at least at this point. It is a mind of the house resolution being referred back to some committee somewhere. What happens at this point, I have no idea.

August 2, 10:24 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): (FT) John Gapper—NBC shows perfect logic but a prime time farce

Previous entry (below): Olympic badminton scandal claims China’s rising star

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)