Commentary on the past, present, and future of civilization and the Ecclesia Anglicana. Broadcasting from Laodicea in Ionia 2005-2010, Ithaca in Achaea from 2010-2012, Clausentum in Dominio Antiqua from 2012-2015, and now from Vermundsei in Britannia . The Monastery is proudly brought to you for the greater glory of God by His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty Caelius Celatus XXIII: "Because the best Emperor is one you never see."
Saturday, November 19, 2005
+M. Thomas Shaw's Attitude Toward Economy
Kendall Harmon+ says read it carefully . You should. Beware of electing monks to the episcopate. They just might be faithful shepherds of the sheep.
I read it again and again. What did I miss? That they met each other in a monastery; that they're old fashioned (many gay men are); that their relationship culminated in Eucharist by +Shaw? I'm puzzled, or maybe this seems so obvious and natural to me that I cannot see what I'm supposed to see?
It has been commented again and again that monastics in the Communion have less trouble with same sex unions than most. I think because they deal with their sexuality, they are not quite so quick to enforce a one-size fits all approach. Prior Aelred is another example of this.
I'm thinking about your previous post...I've got a more systematic feeling coming...
I don't think you missed anything. The key is that there is a self-imposed moratorium on bishops blessing same-sex unions. Shaw even has forbidden his clergy to bless same-sex unions, putting folks like the EDS faculty up in arms.
Oddly enough, the same folks who say all Christian teaching is against same-sex unions understand that Shaw is implicitly blessing the union by celebrating Eucharist.
Yes, it's obvious and natural. But the bishops, at least, are not supposed to bless same-sex unions. I think Harmon+ thinks Shaw's celebration of Eucharist violates the moratorium. He closed the entry off to comments, so I really don't know how his general readership would read the piece.
Well, if Eucharist is the blessing of unions, gay couples shouldn't be partaking at all regardless of who presides and regardless of when. Sure, +Shaw presides at the Eucharist here but where does this end? Of course, as I understand it Eucharist actualizes the potential and promise of such relationships, but that need not involve the approval of the bishop. This is an implicit approval, but again, so would any Eucharist be if we can partake at all given this type of logic.
This is clearly going to become so absurd if we go this direction, that no matter what ECUSA does, these folks won't be appeased, and if ECUSA chooses the appeasement route, clearly gay folks are in the desert with regard to the English jurisdiction.
I think you're right. They will not compromise about this. As far as they are concerned, the WR says stop and repent now. Hence, Harmon+ likes to find as much evidence as he can that "facts on the ground" have not changed.
4 comments:
I read it again and again. What did I miss? That they met each other in a monastery; that they're old fashioned (many gay men are); that their relationship culminated in Eucharist by +Shaw? I'm puzzled, or maybe this seems so obvious and natural to me that I cannot see what I'm supposed to see?
It has been commented again and again that monastics in the Communion have less trouble with same sex unions than most. I think because they deal with their sexuality, they are not quite so quick to enforce a one-size fits all approach. Prior Aelred is another example of this.
I'm thinking about your previous post...I've got a more systematic feeling coming...
I don't think you missed anything. The key is that there is a self-imposed moratorium on bishops blessing same-sex unions. Shaw even has forbidden his clergy to bless same-sex unions, putting folks like the EDS faculty up in arms.
Oddly enough, the same folks who say all Christian teaching is against same-sex unions understand that Shaw is implicitly blessing the union by celebrating Eucharist.
Yes, it's obvious and natural. But the bishops, at least, are not supposed to bless same-sex unions. I think Harmon+ thinks Shaw's celebration of Eucharist violates the moratorium. He closed the entry off to comments, so I really don't know how his general readership would read the piece.
Well, if Eucharist is the blessing of unions, gay couples shouldn't be partaking at all regardless of who presides and regardless of when. Sure, +Shaw presides at the Eucharist here but where does this end? Of course, as I understand it Eucharist actualizes the potential and promise of such relationships, but that need not involve the approval of the bishop. This is an implicit approval, but again, so would any Eucharist be if we can partake at all given this type of logic.
This is clearly going to become so absurd if we go this direction, that no matter what ECUSA does, these folks won't be appeased, and if ECUSA chooses the appeasement route, clearly gay folks are in the desert with regard to the English jurisdiction.
I think you're right. They will not compromise about this. As far as they are concerned, the WR says stop and repent now. Hence, Harmon+ likes to find as much evidence as he can that "facts on the ground" have not changed.
Post a Comment