“Bruno: You have asked whether we will continue the process of General Convention. The fact is that we have never authorized same sex unions.”

Bruno has conducted at least one ‘blessing of homosexual relations” himself, in 2004. Is he lying, forgetful or using Clintonian English?

For the record: http://www.malcolmboyd.com/twothousand.htm

Now the London Telegraph is saying that up to five dioceses will move over to the oversight of an African primate. Petre doesn’t say who, but if he’s right (and that’s a big ‘if’), my hunch is Orombi:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/25/wchurch125.xml

Just so you know, Gordian, that story is already posted below this thread just a little ways.

Stand Firm has a round up of links about various bishops’ statements on same-sex blessings, and examples of SSBs.  Here’s the link:

“Same Sex Blessings—Who Us?”
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6286/

Also, for the record, here is Susan Russell’s statement on her blog last night about the Dio. of LA “policy” on blessings:

As for the policy on blessings in the Diocese of Los Angeles (should inquiring minds want to know and given the number of press calls and emails I’ve gotten I assume they do):

My understanding is that permission from the bishop for the blessing of a same-sex union is not required in the Diocese of Los Angeles as we are understood, as presbyters, to be providing pastoral care to the couple under our pastoral oversight. That’s what happened at All Saints, Beverly Hills last week and that’s what will happen at All Saints, Pasadena next month (and lots of other parishes inbetween.)

Should the national church, through the appropriate process of consents by both houses sitting in General Convention authorize liturgical rites for blessing then that issue will be revisited by the Bishop of Los Angeles. In the meantime, flowers are ordered, organists arranged for, best men and women suited up and life goes on—the primates notwithstanding.

http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2007/09/lions-and-tigers-and-rumors-oh-my.html

Kendall,
Here http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3832
it says, At one point in response to a question by a reporter from The New York Times, Bishop Bruno said “same-sex blessings do not occur in my diocese with my permission.”
and
When contacted by The Living Church, the Rev. Susan Russell, associate rector at All Saints’ Church, Pasadena, and president of Integrity, clarified the apparent contradiction.

“Same-sex blessings occur in the Diocese of Los Angeles all the time,” she said listing several parishes including her own at which same-sex blessings had recently been performed. “We don’t ask for permission because Bishop Bruno has told us that he cannot give it until General Convention approves an official liturgy. He has told us that we are free to exercise appropriate pastoral care” for parishoners.

John, the point is that appopriate pastoral care should not include same sex blessings.  But it does in many dioceses.

So why do the bishops not admit this truth and say many of them want it to be this way?

Bishop Bruno is turning out to be quite the comic relief in this movie.

#7, My comment was made to sharpen Kendall’s point that we’re seeing this movie again. The movie being about the distinctions amongst approved rites, blessings with bishop’s approval, and local pastoral response (which, depending on your perspective, may or may not include blessings).

The Bishops have the power and authority to halt this if they wanted to.  Failure to act to stop this practice is to authorize it and to pretend otherwise is a shabby lie.  The Primates know what is going on and they will not be fooled by this dissembling.  The only this this sort of thing does is give us an insight into the character of these men.  As much as I disagree with Russel+ at least she is honest on this issue.

Considering some of the crazy things that priests bless - houses, fox hounds, pets, flowers, ships - I can’t believe you all are so up in arms if someone wants to pledge themselves to one individual and ask God’s blessing upon them.  I suppose you’d prefer that gays play into your stereotypes and never be monogamous?  Don’t you have a larger issue you should be battling - look at the numbers released from the NYTimes this weekend about the rapidly falling number of marriages that are lasting these days. 
I attended a ceremony this past weekend for two gay friends who had their renewal of vows on the occasion of their 40th anniversary together (43 actually, since they didn’t have a church blessing until after they had been together for 3 years).  Don’t worry neither the original nor the current service was in an Episcopal church.  Anyway, made me question if I’ll ever be experiencing the same service with any of my newly married heterosexual friends.  Are my friends who have been together for 40 years such a threat to your own marriages?  I don’t understand how that could be.  If they are, then I also would have to question just how legitimate your own relationships are.
Have any of you ever attended a blessing of two individuals of the same gender?  My guess is ‘no.’  Similarly, I would guess that most of you so opposed to this don’t have any gay friends (that you know of).  What is it going to take for you to recognize that gays and lesbians aren’t monsters on the prowl to destroy your lives?

#11 : So many basic errors in logic and reasoning in your post, one hardly knows where to start. The issue is really very simple. You think homosexual sex acts can be good, most of us here think they’re sinful and endanger the salvation of those who practice them.
So can you avoid the ad hominems and non sequiturs and address this?

Mark, surely if the Bishop’s think that what you say is right, then they should openly and forthrightly say so and openly authorize ssbs.  They have that authority given them in the BCP.  Don’t you think they should be honest and forthright?  Don’t you think they should give a resounding “No” to the Primates?

THANK YOU Father Matt for response #12! My mother has been saying the same thing as #11, and I never had succinct/cogent answer. (I hope that I have your permission to quote you. With appropriate references, of course!)

Indeed, I think the Bishops should just say to the Primates - we value you, we respect you, but we disagree with you.  We won’t tell you how to run your churches in Africa - you don’t tell us how to run our churches in the U.S.  However, we can both agree that God loves both of us, Jesus died and rose for both of us, and the world needs to know more about God’s love for His creation.  And, I support bishops who don’t want to allow them in their diocese, and support those who do allow them.  It’s the Bishops’ calls - each diocese is quite unique with its own pastoral issues.

Matt - I would fully support you if you were required to perform a same sex blessing and refused to do so.  I would fully support you to follow your conscience and your understanding of “the fall” to never allow a gay couple inside the door to your church.  You have that right as a shepherd to your particular people to do so.  I may disagree, but you have that right.  Why are you so worried about a small gathering of families and friends who want to bless the union between two people?  Would you prefer that they gather and ask God NOT to bless the people?  And, for what it’s worth - it’s not blessing sexual action itself—no more than a marriage is all about legitimazing the husband’s right to now have sex ad infinitum with his wife.  It’s about people.  I assume you’re married with a gazillion kids - is there not something special about your wife to which you were attracted to her?  Something about her that set her apart from all other women?  I assume so.  It’s the same for gay relationships - it’s not just because it’s any random person who will finally provide a sexual outlet for the other.  Instead, there’s attraction, interest, companionship, and love.  If all relationships were based on nothing more than sex, well then that I would agree is pretty sad.  Now I’m seeing what the problem in the dialogue here - when you think of gay people you’re not thinking of people, you’re just thinking about the sex they have? 

Gordion - if you think homosexuality is sinful and endangers the salvation of those who practice them - then in the name of all that is Holy - don’t do it!!!!  Thus, according to your logic you’ll be assured of your own salvation.  That’s the simple answer for your stated simple question.

Gordion - if you think homosexuality is sinful and endangers the salvation of those who practice them - then in the name of all that is Holy - don’t do it!!!!  Thus, according to your logic you’ll be assured of your own salvation.

...and vigorously oppose those who lead people astray.

If I were that NYT reporter, I’d be pretty ticked at Bruno for lying to me.  Apparently, Bruno never got the memo on it not being good to lie to reporters.  And had the blogs not taken apart that lie pretty quickly, the reporter might have published something embarrasingly wrong.

Ok all.  Time out.  Mark Johnson, Gordian, Rob-Roy, et al.  This is not a thread to discuss homosexuality or to debate whether you are for or aganist SSBs.  This is a thread about the TEC bishops and what seem to be all too frequent discrepancies between their actions and their words, and/or all too frequent occurrences of obfuscation.

—elfgirl

My apologies.  I accept the blame for leading the thread astray.
Re: Bishops.  I think Bishop Bruno’s comment at the press meeting yesterday probably had to be heard to be understood in his context.  Nevertheless, admittedly, he could have chosen his words better and simply stated, “I don’t allow any same sex blessing in my diocese without my express permission for each one.”  However, am I correct in saying that I read somewhere earlier that even that’s not the case?  I do agree, just come clean, say what you do—and why you do it.  I don’t think hiding behind a bushel helps.

#20, apology accepted Mark,  Many thanks.

About your comment on +Bruno.  First, please note, the verified transcript (From TAPE) of his comment is:
“It does not happen in my diocese with my permission”

you can listen to it yourself here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6294/

In fact, I think what you suggest (about +Bruno’s explicit permission for each blessing ceremony) is the opposite of the reality, at least if Susan Russell’s statement is accurate.

http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3832
http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2007/09/lions-and-tigers-and-rumors-oh-my.html

+Bruno seems to be trying to manufacture “plausible deniability” as many are calling it.  Giving his priests free reign and claiming to be uninformed as to what they are doing.  Unfortunately, that however is destroyed by the fact that he is on the record as having officiated at at least one blessing ceremony in his diocese (as documented by a statement to press and a picture).
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/say-what.html

+Bruno is playing games.  He has not given express permission.  However he know thay are taking place and he has the authority to prohibit them which he has not done.  This is the same as giving permission.
Witnesses often try this sort of thing in court, and believe me the Judge or and/or jury does not buy it.  Moreover the witness looses credability for whatever else he is testyfing about too.