MASSACHUSETTS: Episcopal Diocese may quit marriages
Same-sex debate drives Mass. plan
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff
October 8, 2006
In a novel approach to the tensions that have accompanied the same-sex marriage debate in many religious denominations, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts this month will consider getting out of the marriage business.
A group of local Episcopal priests, saying that the gay marriage debate has intensified their longtime concern about acting as agents of the state by officiating at marriages, is proposing that the Episcopal Church adopt a new approach. Any couples qualified to get married under state law could be married by a justice of the peace, and then, if they want a religious imprimatur for their marriage, they could come to the Episcopal Church seeking a blessing from a priest.
The approach, radical for the United States, is commonly practiced in Europe. The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, which covers the eastern part of the state, has scheduled a vote in three weeks , at its 221st annual convention. A similar proposal was tabled at the Episcopal Church's general convention this summer; in Massachusetts, it is thought to have a better chance of passage because the clergy is more liberal.
Episcopal priests in Massachusetts have been particularly engaged in the issue of gay marriage, because the diocese here has been strongly supportive of gay rights, but the national church's regulations define marriage as a heterosexual institution. The local bishop, M. Thomas Shaw , a supporter of same-sex marriage, has decreed that local Episcopal priests cannot sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, but can bless those couples after they are legally married by clergy of another denomination or by a civil official.
"I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks," said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth. Lloyd is one of five Episcopal priests sponsoring the resolution.
"Right now, we can only offer blessings for gay folks who are married, and it's not fair," she said. "The church moves slowly to make changes in canon law, so what can we do in the meantime? This is something good for the diocese to wrestle with."
The resolution would declare diocesan convention's desire that, starting in January 2008, Episcopal marriages be presided over by an agent of the state, and not Episcopal clergy, whose role would be limited to blessing a married couple. That is the system currently in place for gay and lesbian couples at Episcopal churches. In some cases, the civil and religious ceremonies both take place in the church; the couple can bring a justice of the peace, or a minister of another denomination, who signs the state marriage license and pronounces the couple married, and then the Episcopal priest blesses the couple. In other cases, the civil and religious ceremonies take place separately.
The resolutions will be discussed at regional meetings starting Friday, and then voted on Oct. 28, on the second day of a two-day convention that will draw an estimated 800 voting delegates, clergy and lay, to Trinity Church in Boston. If approved, it would be up to Shaw to decide what steps to take next. Shaw has taken no position on the resolution and declined to comment.
The resolution is one of several stemming from the gay marriage debate that will face Episcopal convention attendees. Emmanuel Church in Boston has asked the convention to ask the national church to formally allow Episcopal marriage rites to be used for same-sex couples in states where same-sex marriage is legal. And three priests have put forward a resolution under which the diocese would ask the Legislature to vote against a proposed ballot measure that would overturn same-sex marriage; the Legislature is scheduled to meet Nov. 9 to take up that ballot measure.
The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts is among the most supportive in the country of gay rights, but there remain a handful of clergy and congregations opposed to same-sex marriage. Several local conservative parishes are grappling with whether to attempt to formally dissociate themselves in some way from diocesan leadership, and some are so alienated that they are not planning to attend the diocesan convention, so it is not clear how strongly opposition will be voiced.
"I'm not excited about this at all," said the Rev. John (Jack) Potter , rector of St. John's Church in Franklin. Potter, who said he opposes same-sex marriage "on Biblical grounds," said he believes Episcopalians would be unhappy with a two-step wedding process.
"My understanding of Christian marriage is that it is something that has, certainly with imperfections, been part of our life from the beginning, and now to suggest that we have to have a civil magistrate perform part of the wedding is totally inappropriate and contradictory to our tradition," said Potter, who said he has not decided whether to attend the convention. "They cite that this is how it's done in Europe, but when I look at the secularization in Europe, and the obvious attempt to sideline the Christian faith there, I'm not too excited about that as an authority."
Since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage in 2004, religious denominations have been struggling with whether to allow clergy to officiate at such nontraditional ceremonies. Some liberal denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Reform and Reconstructionist movements of Judaism, allow full clergy participation; more conservative denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox church, and Orthodox Judaism, prohibit such participation. But many mainline Protestant denominations have been debating how to balance the desire of some clergy and parishioners to proceed with same-sex marriages with traditional teachings, and often clear church rulings, barring the sanctioning of such unions.
"This resolution is for us in the Episcopal Church, but I think it will have ramifications for our brethren in other denominations, by raising questions about our acting as agents of the state," said a sponsor of the resolution, the Rev. Robert (Skip) G. Windsor . Windsor said the resolution really has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage issue, but is about concerns over the separation of church and state.
Windsor and Lloyd both said that, under the current system, many couples seek to have church weddings because they like the setting . They said they hoped that if the church stopped officiating at marriages, couples that sought a religious ceremony in addition to the civil procedure would be doing so as a reflection of faith.
Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com
Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company
END
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| AnglicanVa | Posted: 2006/10/8 19:44 Updated: 2006/10/8 19:45 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/28 From: Locust Grove, Va Posts: 40 |
I read VirtueOnline everyday, but seldom comment on articles. This however, is the clear sign of the end of the Episcopal Church in America. When the church stops performing marriages, which is one of the oldest traditions in the bible and the core of family, then all is lost. That's when you stop being a church. Church is about families and the blessing of families. It takes a church community to support families and help it grow. When the church stops creating families, then what future does it have? I'm so mad, I can't even write anymore, because nothing I can say can do justice to my thoughts on this matter. Prayer is all that comes to mind and the knowledge that a new anglican order is being formed in America that supports marriage and families
|
| Philippa | Posted: 2006/10/8 19:53 Updated: 2006/10/8 19:53 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/8/28 From: Posts: 489 |
Oh, isn't that special. This is no more than Shaw playing "hide the agenda"...I won't reflect on the crass, inherent pun. Such a brand of passive-aggressive hair-splitting ultimately will still benefit no one on the world Anglican stage.
Interesting that the good bishop declined to comment for this article and supposedly has no opinion on the resolution for this; in 11/05 he celebrated the "Nuptial" Eucharist for John Finley and Stan McGee at Church of the Redeemer/Chestnut Hill after they were "wed" by a State Senator. Of course, the Boston Globe thoroughly left out the fact that this stuff still violates the Windsor Report in full. I guess the Diocese of Massachusetts no longer wants to be part of the Anglican Communion after all. No sweat off us traditionalists... In Christ, Philippa |
| Damascus | Posted: 2006/10/8 20:07 Updated: 2006/10/8 20:19 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/9/26 From: Republic of Karelia Posts: 640 |
I hope that the Diocese of Massachusetts does stop doing marriages. This will be just another nail in their coffin. The Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge has already adopted the policy of not allowing any marriages in the campus chapel because they were not allowed to perform same sex weddings. This diocese is completely under the sway of the gay pressure groups. From their closeted gay bishop Tom Shaw on down, the leadership of this diocese is more than happy to inconvenience the normal 98% for the sake of the deviant 2%. Perhaps the nitwits in the pews will start to wonder what the deal is when their children are denied a church wedding in order to make the sodomites feel "included".
Given the fact that after an initial surge, the pace of same sex marriages in Massachusetts has slowed to a trickle, this seems like an especially stupid idea. You would have thought that with years of pent up demand, we would have been just inundated with people wanting to make lifelong commitments. That really hasn't been the case. The fact is that this whole issue has always been more about normalizing the gay lifestyle than it ever was about a lot of gays desiring to be in lifelong, monogamous relationships. This may become a moot point as there is a substantially better than average chance that after the November 2008 election, Massachusetts may be out of the same sex marriage business. Even in loony Massachusetts, there was never a groundswell of public support for this. This was a court imposed event and was met by the electorate more with resignation than excitement. There is still a substantial portion of the electorate who is vehemently opposed to same sex marriage and it is likely that their voices will be heard. Although the Boston Globe has been an unabashed cheerleader for same sex marriage, it isn't clear the public opinion has followed. It is always curious to me that when Tom Shaw is out lobbying for same sex marriage in Massachusetts, it never occurs to the Globe reporters and columnists to ask if he has some conflict of interest. It seems like it would be due diligence for them to disclose that he is far from being a disinterested party. This is especially true given the fact that he is in a monastic order (the Society of Saint John the Evangelist) that is widely known to be loaded with practicing homosexuals. This is despite the fact that they have taken vows of chastity. The more ludicrous the behavior of the revisionists dioceses in ECUSA becomes, the easier of a decision it becomes for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Global South primates about how to respond to them. For all of the talk that revisionists do about "listening," the only people who seem to get listened to are a shrill minority of deviants. |
| Damascus | Posted: 2006/10/8 21:57 Updated: 2006/10/8 21:57 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/9/26 From: Republic of Karelia Posts: 640 |
For those of you who may not be familiar with what Phillipa is referring to, here is a link to an article that discusses this.
Tom Shaw Performs Nuptial Mass For Same Sex Couple I find it especially interesting that the two "newlyweds" met at a Mass at the Cowley Brothers (SSJE) monastery. This is the Episcopal monastic order that Bishop Tom Shaw is a member of. It is notorious in the Boston area as a place for young gay men to "hook-up." |
| warmac9999 | Posted: 2006/10/8 22:51 Updated: 2006/10/8 22:51 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/2/16 From: Posts: 1463 |
When the church stops performing marriages, which is one of the oldest traditions in the bible and the core of family, then all is lost.
------------------------------------------------------ The ecusa has completely abandoned spirituality, and one of the significant signs of such abandonment is the abandonment of the sacred marriage. At this point, there is really very little reason to attend an Episcopal church other than for sociability with left wing politicians (ministers). If you are interested in being a Christian, then you need a different church. The decline of Christian Europe is directly attributable to the kinds of ideas pouring out from the left which is well represented in Massachusetts. One final point: The church is a spiritual community of like-minded and like-hearted believers in God. When it ceases to perform that function it is dead. |
| JimMcNeely | Posted: 2006/10/9 6:19 Updated: 2006/10/9 6:19 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/4/7 From: Posts: 699 |
While I am no fan of Shaw or TEC Diocese of Massachusetts, I agree that clergy need to get out of the marryin sam business.
I will be honest: I LOATHE most of the weddings I do. Why? Because the people who come to me are hoping I will provide a government service for them, not a sacramental one. When I tell them to get a justice of the peace, they get offended - as if having a non-religious government official makes their marriage somehow less important to God or something. I have also had people inform me that performing their marriage is my legal duty and threatened to contact my commander for charges of dereliction of duty! I now have a policy that requires couples to give me six months of counseling before I will even make a commitment to marry them. They must prove to me that they are interested in pursuing a godly family life before I will consent to do the wedding, and will perform the ceremony only if they agree to use the rites of the Church. I think taking clergy out of the marrying business is the right thing in 90% of the weddings I see. Most people don't want Christ and the Church involved in their lives anyway...which may explain the 50% divorce rate... -Jim+ |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2006/10/9 18:06 Updated: 2006/10/9 18:06 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6863 |
Jim+, I agree that marriage counselling is appropriate. When my wife and I became engaged, we were both in the Air Force, and at that time, we were required to appear before our commanding officers for a sort of "marriage counselling," and I'm sure you're aware of that.
Marriage counselling is required at our current mission, and the same applied at our former parish. The average time was six months at our former parish, and is at the discretion of our vicar of our present mission. My point is that it should be a requirement at ALL parishes and missions. No exceptions. Cennydd |
| rossi | Posted: 2006/10/9 20:11 Updated: 2006/10/9 20:19 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/18 From: Redcar, England Posts: 639 |
Jim and Cennyd you are right, here in England, weddings are the main source of income for many Parish Churches. I love you two men.
|
| Joe of the Mountain | Posted: 2006/10/9 20:22 Updated: 2006/10/9 20:22 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/1/3 From: Posts: 3472 |
Quote:
"I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks," said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth. Lloyd is one of five Episcopal priests sponsoring the resolution. Oh what a surprise to see yet another preistess behind gender-blurring confusion and hatred of human differences. When will the feminazis finally receive their heavenly rewards and leave us in peace? Oh actually our Lord already addressed this matter: "Surely they have their reward" already, here on earth. Enjoy your trouble-making Ms Lloyd. Enjoy it while it lasts. |
| Anggrl | Posted: 2006/10/9 20:26 Updated: 2006/10/9 20:26 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/7/30 From: Posts: 176 |
will be honest: I LOATHE most of the weddings I do. Why? Because the people who come to me are hoping I will provide a government service for them, not a sacramental one. When I tell them to get a justice of the peace, they get offended - as if having a non-religious government official makes their marriage somehow less important to God or something. I have also had people inform me that performing their marriage is my legal duty and threatened to contact my commander for charges of dereliction of duty!
I now have a policy that requires couples to give me six months of counseling before I will even make a commitment to marry them. They must prove to me that they are interested in pursuing a godly family life before I will consent to do the wedding, and will perform the ceremony only if they agree to use the rites of the Church. Fr. Jim, I'd like to share my story as an encouragement to you. Dh & I married 20 years ago this month. I look back & realize that we were about the most clueless 2 people to ever marry! (g) I was pretty much somewhere between being an agnostic & weak Christian. I got married in an ECUSA because I was somewhat raised Episc & because the church was a beautiful place for a wedding. Stained glass windows, awesome pipe organ, historic church, etc. And it WAS a beautiful wedding. I was, I"m sure, one of those people who didn't give a whole lot of thought to the sacramental aspect of a church wedding. I just couldn't think of a better place to get married! Anyway, the whole point of this is that, of course, God acts through the Sacraments even when we humans are clueless. I have come to have a closer walk with God over the years, have been blessed with 2 wonderful children & have had a good marriage despite some very rocky times. So please don't become discouraged. God acts in those marriages even when the people getting married are complete idiot! LOL. (We had some pre-marriage counselling but it was a joke, for the most part.) |
| Anonymous | Posted: 2006/10/9 20:43 Updated: 2006/10/9 20:43 |
|
When marriage is recognized as a legally and constitutionally protected entity, the church has no further business in the "legally binding" making of a marriage. Nor should any other religion, ideology or creed. The state has got enough clerks and judges to look after all of that.
Apart from that, I really fail to understand what's the fuss about this, however late, sensitive decision by the Mass. diocese. |
|
| Causidicus | Posted: 2006/10/9 23:14 Updated: 2006/10/9 23:14 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/7/3 From: Posts: 1095 |
What the Church does regarding marriage is not and should not be a matter of civil law. The Church, not the State, created the concept. There is no "federal preemption" of religious practices unless, of course, the state is busy about the business of enforcing a state run religion. That is not permitted here by ancient and widely accepted Constitutional prohibition. Except, it seems, in Massachusetts where the state enforces humanist philosophy by law.
|
| HowieG | Posted: 2006/10/10 2:25 Updated: 2006/10/10 2:25 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/7/1 From: Central Massachusetts Posts: 231 |
I don't understand why anybody is confused or surprised by the actions of a few moonbat revisionist so-called priests. Massachusetts has some of the most looney dolts around, including a number from Cambridge divinity (note lower case d), that this proposal is just another agenda driven scam to ram down everybody's throat. The revisionist can not conduct gay marriage in an Episcopal Church, so they are trying the next best thing (in their eyes): If we can't marry adam and steve or ruth and sara, then lets have a temper tandrum and stop doing weddings.
Fortunately there are a number of Network parishes in the DoM for those who believe in the sanctity of Marriage. I do hope that this number grows. If these heretics get their way, do not forget that these people are from Massachusetts, the home of the Kennedy and Kerry moonbat patrol. They will soon demand that the rest of the TEc (cult) stop doing weddings as well. And finally, NEVER EVER believe what is written in the Boston Globe. This is the same newspaper rag that printed faked porno pictures and claimed that they were examples of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. (The Glode never checked them out before hand.) H |
| JimMcNeely | Posted: 2006/10/10 6:35 Updated: 2006/10/10 6:35 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/4/7 From: Posts: 699 |
Anggrl,
Thank you for sharing your story. I rejoice with you that the Episcopal Church was the place where the Sacrament of Marriage was able to work in your lives, and that your new life produced much fruit (in so many ways!) It seems to me, however, that this is the exception that proves the rule. Yes, there are times when a church facility becomes a sacrament for non-believers. But I find that happening rarely. One could even recommend that unbelievers should take the Eucharist in the hopes that they could find converstion within the redeeming grace of that sacrament. I think we need a serious re-think about the whole sacrament of marriage in relationship to the state. In short, I no longer want to be an officer of the state, I want to preside at worship. To me this means that couples are coming into their new lives as husband and wife as Christians ready to embrace the sacramental nature of matrimony by choice and not by accident. That is why I won't marry people that are not believers who understand wish to follow the sacramental nature of what I do as a priest of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I believe that "the world is my parish." But I believe that certain acts of the Church are reserved only for those who are converted, taught, and surrendered to Jesus Christ. To me, the sacrament of matrimony is one of them. -Jim+ |
| wnpaul | Posted: 2006/10/10 20:02 Updated: 2006/10/10 20:02 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/1/6 From: Vienna, Austria Posts: 37 |
The assertion that in Europe people marry in front of a JP or magistrate and are then merely blessed in church is inaccurate.
Yes, in most countries people marry in front of a JP or magistrate for the sake of the state, but if they do anything at church, they have a fully-fledged marriage service there as well, not just a blessing. So Europe is a feeble excuse for the revisionism of these Mass. Episcopalians. |















