Bishops Weigh Authorizing Local Same-Sex Blessing Rites: TLC 7.14.09 July 15, 2009
Posted by geoconger in 76th General Convention, Living Church.trackback
The House of Bishops moved one step closer towards authorizing local pastoral rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, debating Resolution C056: Liturgies for Blessings.
Set down for action on the Supplemental Calendar 3 for the sixth business day on July 13, the resolution was the first order of legislative business in the morning session of July 14.
The Bishop of Missouri, the Rt. Rev. Wayne Smith, offered C056 to the house on behalf of the Committee on the Prayer Book, Liturgy and Church Music. He said the committee had a number of resolutions to consider and consolidated them into C056 as an “omnibus resolution.”
Speaking for the Committee, Bishop Jeffrey Lee of Chicago said the resolution “calls for the development of rites for blessing and a theological rationale” for same-sex unions.
The resolution “helps to define ourselves in relation to the Anglican Communion.”
The Rt. Rev. Dean Wolfe of Kansas cautioned the house against offering aggressive amendments. “Sometimes it takes very little,” he said, to “move us from agreement to division.” He asked the bishops to practice a “generous orthodoxy” to the conservative minority who might be troubled by same-sex blessings.
The Suffragan Bishop of Maryland, the Rt. Rev. John Rabb offered an amendment that was originally offered as a minority committee report by the Bishop of Alabama, the Rt. Rev. Henry Parsley. The Parsley amendment sought to alter language that offered blanket permission for a “generous pastoral response” to same-sex couples, to one confining it to states that had adopted same-sex marriage or civil union laws.
The Rt. Rev. Otis Charles, retired Bishop of Utah, objected to the amendment, saying it was an “attempt to narrow and limit” pastoral care along state boundaries. The Bishop of San Diego concurred, noting that the amendment would relate pastoral generosity to geography.
Bishop James Adams of Western Kansas asked Bishop Smith of Missouri if pastoral generosity included liturgical blessings. Bishop Smith replied that the committee had considered adding a specific provision for liturgies, but believed it best not to enumerate the forms pastoral generosity might take so that “liturgies could be included” without being named.
The “reality of marriage of same-gender couples is coming to you soon,” Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire told the house, objecting to the conditional language of the resolution. The word ‘may’, “implies a bishop might not do so,” he said, adding that “I would argue that all of us are about providing generous pastoral responses.”
However, the Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard, Bishop of Florida, told the House “what we don’t need is a resolution instructing us to be pastorally generous.”
The Bishop of Lexington, the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls, opposed the Parsley amendment, saying it “relies implicitly” on the bishop for implementation. Bishop Marc Andrus of California said he too was opposed, as “pastoral responses are occasioned by pastoral needs.” The Bishop of Maryland, the Rt. Rev. Eugene Sutton, asserted that “generosity for a few is not generosity.” Following further debate, the amendment was put to a vote and failed.
The Bishop to the American Convocation of Churches in Europe also offered an amendment, one that would soften the language of the resolution by deleting the request for formal study and development. “A lot of theology has been done by liturgists without recourse to wider theological considerations,” Bishop Pierre Whalon said, adding that he “did not want to continue that practice.”
Bishop J. Neil Alexander of Atlanta said he “saw no evidence that Eucharist or baptism” waited “upon a committee” before it was celebrated by the Church. “Collecting and analyzing rites is part of the theological work,” he said. Bishop John Chane of Washington also objected, saying “now is the time to have this formal discussion” on rites for same-sex blessings.
The Acting Bishop of the Rio Grande, the Rt. Rev. William Frey, questioned whether it was permissible to permit gay blessings when it was not authorized by the Book of Common Prayer. “How can we give permission to violate the Constitution,” he asked.
Bishop Clifton Daniel of East Carolina rose to ask the conservative bishops in the house to speak, noting that none save Bishop Frey had to that point risen to speak. The “silence is ominous,” he observed, adding “I need your voice to inform my conversation.”
Bishop Peter Beckwith of Springfield rose to Bishop Daniel’s challenge, saying he opposed the resolution. “Why waste time? Why waste my time. Why waste your time?” with these debates, he asked. “I believe this is another clear instance of the church being shaped by the secular culture rather than the secular culture being shaped by the church.” He said this “takes us farther away from the Windsor Report,” and asked the chairman for a roll call vote upon the conclusion of debate.
Bishop Stacy Sauls then offered what he called his “most important thing I have ever said” to the house. “Thirty-six years ago, our church responded to secular culture by allowing divorced persons to remarry,” adding that “remarriage after divorce was the moral equivalence of adultery.” He argued that this was a greater change to the nature of marriage than same-sex blessings, and urged the House to support those gays and lesbians who “seek to live in a morally equivalent way.”
The Presiding Bishop prorogued the session until July 15 for further debate and a final vote.
Comments»
No comments yet — be the first.