From the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Guardian via Stand Firm. I will respond following the bishop's essay.
May 17, 2009
Marriage has a particular meaning for me as a clergy person.
But as I see it, whether New York state should allow its civil, state-issued marriage licenses to go to same-sex couples is an entirely separate issue from whether marriages of same-sex couples will happen in a church.
My faith teaches me that all people are children of God, deserving of love, dignity and equal treatment.
When same-sex couples are treated as less than anyone else, it is my problem; my spiritual problem.
I would personally be delighted for New York to allow loving, committed same-sex couples to be married.
Under current Episcopal Church law, my church cannot marry same-sex couples.
This is still the case in places like Massachusetts, where the state has allowed same-sex couples to marry but the church is not marrying and cannot be forced to marry them.
Some congregations have chosen to bless these unions after they have been conducted by a justice of the peace while others will have nothing to do with the joining of same-sex couples.
In either case, it is purely a decision for the councils of the church, not something that the government can compel.
The integrity of my religious institution will continue, and the spiritual engagement of those marriages will be a matter for faith communities like mine to prayerfully wrestle with and discern.
The Rt. Rev. Prince Singh is VIII Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Rochester.
Response: let's begin with the bishop's first statement about the particular meaning of marriage as a clergy person. This clergy person is a bishop and as such is bound to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 513). The doctrine and worship of the Episcopal Church is in part defined by the prayer book. The prayer book defines marriage as between a man and a woman (pp. 422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 428, 429, and 430). Therefore, this clergy person, the Bishop of Rochester, is bound by his consecration in pecusa to support the biblical view of marriage. He does acknowledge that he cannot allow same sex marriages in the pecusa churches in his diocese, but of course, this doesn't stop him from supporting that which his church does not support. He does support the role of the councils of the church, and this is commendable.
Next: "My faith teaches me that all people are children of God, deserving of love, dignity and equal treatment."
Yes, all people are created by God, deserving of love... etc., but what does equal treatment mean? Does this mean that a man may marry a child? Does it mean that a man can marry two wives or three? Let's see how the bishop supports his notion of equal treatment. Well, he doesn't give any indication of what this means for him. His essay ends without defining this. He raises equal treatment as a platitude and nothing more.
This is the kind of vapid essay that we have come to expect from pecusa leadership. I've used the word vapid to describe other writings from pecusa leaders - it still fits. Perhaps the Bishop of Rochester can issue some statement in the future that supports the doctrine and worship of pecusa or at the very least gives some solid reasoning behind his refusal to support the doctrine and worship of his church. This essay from the Bishop of Rochester can lead a thinking person to believe that pecusa leaders are incapable of reasoned thought. Hopefully, any thinking person who reads this essay will only conclude that Rochester alone is so woefully lacking. This would be charitable, but wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment