Today's (6 May) NZ Herald report is here.
Monday morning comment (revised from first statement): the issue is chasteness and our definition of it.
- Expect huge pressure on our General Synod to change the definition of chasteness (whatever the outcome of this case).
- Expect keen interest from other churches. The Roman Catholic church will not be happy if the state attempts to tell it whom it may accept into its seminaries let alone ordain.
- On Twitter last night I (@petercarrell) pressed this question: what mechanism exists in our church to force a bishop to ordain a person they do not wish to ordain? I can think of no such mechanism.
@frbriand But can a bishop be forced to place his or her hands on a head they do not wish to lay hands on?
— Peter Carrell (@petercarrell) May 5, 2013
I now add to the list of reporting/commenting on this unfolding story, Taonga's article.
Handily placed under it is a link to an important point our friend ++Rowan makes about contemplating departure.
Meanwhile in England the Episcopal Candidate Who Cannot Be Suppressed features again. (I have got behind the paywall for this Times article. I hope you can too.)
3 comments:
Kia ora Peter,
No, the state will not tell the church who to ordain.
However, it may require the church to be more honest about its criteria for employment - and not before time.
I agree with both of Mike's points. I find it hard to believe that this case with the Human Rights Tribunal can succeed. Of course, no one can force +Ross Bay to ordain someone whom he does not with to ordain, and if the bishop knows he will know ordain this candidate, then he is right not to have him in a discernment programme. Furthermore, there cannot be a "right" to ordination.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I am glad that this case has been brought, as it requires the church to explain its ways to the secular society, and that exercise has a way of exposing the hypocrisy that lurks in many of our practices.
Mr Sisneros, and many others like him, are caught in a catch-22 that you and I, Peter, have been discussing for 10 years or more. The church canons say that same-sex marriage is not possible. Those who are not celibate, single-but-I-have-not-found-the-right-girl-yet-and asexual-in-the-meantime, or married may not be ordained.
If you are of the view (as I think many of your readers are) that homosexual behaviour is inherently sinful would say that there is no problem. but if you take the view that 2/3 of the Auckland synod did (and the bishops appeared to agree) that being in a same-sex relationship should be no bar to ordination, then something doesn't add up. Given that Mr Sisneros claims to be in a committed, stable same-sex relationship, is there any circumstance where the canons will allow his ordination?
So yes, Peter, I will add my pressure such as it is on General Synod for a clarification/alteration of what constitutes "chaste" behaviour.
Oops, sorry Peter. As I re-read my posting, I see that some of my grammar has got away from me. Let me re-phrase the opening sentences of the last paragraph.
If you are of the view that homosexual behaviour is inherently sinful then you would say that there is no problem. But if you take the view that 2/3 of the Auckland synod did last year (and the bishops appeared to agree), that being in a same-sex relationship should be no bar to ordination, then something doesn't add up.
Post a Comment