That is to say, "Come, coreligionists! Into the handbasket! We're going to Hell!"
ST. CATHARINES, Ontario — The Anglican Church of Canada approved a measure Thursday to "affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."The move stops short of authorizing dioceses to hold same-sex blessing ceremonies, but is still likely to complicate efforts aimed at unifying the 77 million-member Anglican Communion. The worldwide Anglican body is deeply divided over homosexuality.
Delegates to a national church meeting handed the victory to supporters of gays and lesbians as a consolation prize the morning after they voted to delay any national go-ahead on church blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples till 2007 and possibly 2010.
The "integrity and sanctity" measure was approved by a show of hands.
Sanctity is now determined through democratic means. How convenient!
It has been for all five centuries of the Anglican "communion." Remember that for the Church of England, doctrine is decided by Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the church.
Isn't this the same church that went out of it's way to fight for the "sanctity" [sic] of an un-committed relationship (divorce and re-marriage)?
If you're referring to Henry VIII, technically he didn't want a divorce, he wanted an annulment.
Why can't gays marry? How does that hurt anyone at all?
If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't get one. Get a life.
Hey...they don't call it the State Church of England for naught! Apres le deluge, they will hopefully go the way of their kingly founder....into oblivion.........with Thomas Moore shining on earth and in eternity.
Who is Lopez? Sounds like he's hungry for some catechisis....come home, Lopez!
This isn't about people having a relationship in their private life. It's about using the government to put official approval on "gay marriage".
The law is a teacher, as the saying goes, and this is especially true in America: many people treat the mere legality of some activity as a sign that it is morally acceptable. There is no way the government can be neutral on the question: it will teach by example that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, or it will teach that marriage consists of any two or more people who say so.
A legalization of "gay marriage" also will be an imposition on freedom of conscience. Employers who oppose homosexual relationships will be compelled by law to subsidize them through their existing employee benefit programs.
If you want to have a "gay marriage", have it in your church or club or just among your friends, but leave the government out of it.
The arguments proposed in favor of a "need" for same-sex "marriage" are a fraud, and I think the "gay-marriage" advocates know it. If you want inheritance rights, etc., spend $20 for a CD-ROM and make out a will for yourself. This ain't legal rocket science.
I'm personally opposed to same-sex marriage but I have to represent all my constituents not just those committed to preserving the values of the western Judeo-Christian point of view....can you picture John Kerry stating this in one of the upcoming presidential debacles (debates) in answer to a question by Andy Rooney???
Eric...Henry VIII wanted an annulment, but as we know didn't get one from the appropriate Divinely-instituted authority. What did he do after he took the Church in England into schism? Did he pronounce his own annulment, or just divorce Catherine and marry Anne? Either way, what he actually did was in fact a divorce-and-remarriage because no legitimate annulment was granted.
Which is why it has always struck me as strange that the Church of England has opposed divorce related to the royalty, eg Edward abdicating to marry Wallis Simpson.
This act, along with the Episcopal Church's elevation of a practicing gay bishop, represents the death of these institutions in the West. By trying to be 'relevant' they have ironically sped up their demise. I am an Anglican who in a few months, God willing, will be Roman Catholic. The Anglican ship may be sinking, but I for one refuse to go down with it!
Beregond,
After Henry appointed Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer annulled his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Actually, when Anne Boleyn wouldn't bear him a male heir, he had Cranmer annul that marriage too, right before he had her executed on trumped-up charges.
Thanks for the info, Poster. It's hard to see how Henry, cited by Rome as a "Defender of the Faith" only a few years before, could make a claim for annulment with a straight face. Rome had already given him dispensation from an impediment (which one escapes me) to allow the marriage to Catherine in the first place. So he had to know clearly what he was getting into.
Thus, in fact, Henry simply divorced Catherine. Cranmer, even if validly ordained (I forget, had he been validly consecrated a bishop before the schism?)he was out of Communion and thus not in a position to licitly issue an annulment.
And the matter had already been taken to Rome. I don't know the canon law of the time, but surely someone lower on the ladder than the Highest Governing Figure in the church can't validly or licitly countermand his decision.
All of the English bishops were validly consecrated. The apostolic succession died out shortly thereafter because of defects in the ordination of bishops, as declared by one of the 19th-century popes.