I note the article says, “If approved, it will then be up to Bishop John Chapman to make a final decision on whether the practice will be allowed.”

And Bishop Chapman is thought likely to ...?????

She’s wrong about Ottawa being the first diocese to do this - New Westminster was.

I think, actually, since the New Westminster decision to bless same sex union preceded the 2005 Canadian marriage equality action Ottawa IS the first to approve blessing same sex marriage. Details on “the diocesan website”

Montreal meets next week to consider similar action.

Apparently the synod and the bishop believe that they have the power and authority to do this, and are unconstrained by any views or enactments of the Canadian Anglican church as a whole. Can anyone correct me on this?

Canwest story:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fceb7518-8305-4641-9a4e-a4ffdf40579f&k=80346

Many bishops believe that they have the power to authorize same-sex rites. Whether they actually have that power is open to debate. Whether they do or don’t as a matter of church polity, nothing will happen to them if they proceed with these authorizations. This year’s synod showed that the nature of ACC polity is totally confused, with the church being unable to decide whether approval of same-sex blessings would reguire a two-thirds vote of each house in 2 consecutive synods (the opinion of the St. Michael report) , a 60% vote of one synod (the primate’s recommendation) or a simple majority. The simple-majority rule was applied at the synod not after a decision that it was the correct standard, but after parliamentary procedural maneuvering left it as the default standard. So the bishops have the de facto power, whether they have come by it lawfully or not.

Thanks for the link, Toral1. From the story cited:

In June, the Anglican Church of Canada made seemingly contradictory decisions when it ruled that same sex blessings do not contravene core doctrine, then refused to allow local dioceses to decide for themselves how to handle the issue of gay marriages.

The writer of this news article felt that the diocesan synods and bishops had been denied the authority to decide.

I can see the confusion. I am praying for the Church in Canada.

I should add that General Synod 2010 will revisit this issue. General Synod 2010 passed resolution C003 asking the Primate to ask the Primate’s Theological Commission whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a “faithful Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine”. This gets to the nub of the matter, avoiding the technical and legalistic definition of “core doctrine” which caused so much confusion at GS 2007. The PTC will report, I would guess with majority and minority reports, and GS 2010 will be asked to approve or reject these reports. It remains possible that the PTC will advise that SSBs are not a faithful development of doctrine and GS 2010 will approve that report.  I am unclear whether dioceses could then continue to authorize SSBs with impunity. But the expectation is that GS 2010 will declare SSBs a faithful development of doctrine and authorize SSBs outright

From the Anglican Journal article : http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/ottawa-votes-yes-to-same-sex-blessings/

“Robin MacKay, chancellor (legal advisor) of the diocese of Ottawa, told the Anglican Journal that the motion approved by diocesan synod was legal. He said that although the national General Synod did not approve the motion affirming the authority of dioceses to offer same-sex blessings, “it doesn’t affirm the opposite.” He said the motion “doesn’t deny the jurisdiction of bishops to (allow) same-sex blessings; it’s just that General Synod failed to act in that area.” “

Other chancellors have advised otherwise in other dioceses. (By some miracle of symmetry, chancellors always seem to come to whatever legal conclusion supports their bishop’s theological position.)

Let’s see - 177 blind as a bat - 97 whose eyes are still functioning.