Odd Collects

In a continued attempt to lighten the atmosphere around the Monastery, I thought I would start collecting unusual collects. Please submit yours in the comments.

Here's an example from Wandering on Molehill Mountain that probably should be credited to someone at Nashotah House:

Blessed Lord, who has caused all good liturgical practice to be recorded for our edification, grant that we might read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Parson's Handbook, for such is true and godly English museum worship,through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Go Read the Postulant

Despite the fact that he is significantly older and can play keyboard instruments far better than I can, I sometimes swear that we were switched at birth. And because we were switched at birth, I know that plenus, -a, -um typically takes the genitive. He, of course, writes better.

I Am Of Little Faith

I need to do some writing tonight, so I might as well start here.

Item the First: I passed my qualifying exams. When I was little, my parents used to joke that birthdays and Christmases tended to last several days as you continued to meet friends and relatives who had yet to give you presents. At this point, the congratulations are almost fully attenuated, but they're still worming their way around.

I'm not sure what to say about the exam. The format is fairly simple: you introduce yourself and then give a talk on one of two research projects you've completed during your first year of graduate study. Some of you are interested in what I do for a living. Well, one of things I do is to use a numerical Martian atmospheric model and observations of dust devils from spacecraft instruments to test various ideas about why dust devils form. The first project was about that. Then after you give your talk and your examiners are sure they can read all of the slides, they start asking you questions that are supposed to have something to do with your project. This goes on for about 70 minutes. Then we take a break. I then gave another talk about how long-term variability in North Pacific fish populations is related to physical oceanographic conditions and how these relations change in different climate regimes. The questions resumed. Then they send you out of the room, and you wait for the verdict. "May God send you a good deliverance..."

What can I say? The exam was a rough rollercoaster of emotions. I felt extremely foolish most of the time. Rumor has it that the committee was unusually rough on me. Whatever the case, the exam has been over for a couple of weeks, and I received a little bit of good advice about my strengths and weaknesses as a scientist. Best of all, I now get to stay in Laodicea for another four years or so. Now I need to find a thesis topic. This is not so Gnostic as Dr. Cham makes it appear here.

Item the Second: Business takes me to San Francisco in December. Exact arrangements are TBA, but I might try to make the 6 PM Eucharist at a certain local parish, since it's an easy ride on the BART.

Item the Third and Principal: A few weeks ago (before my exam), I was reading one of the basic texts of my theology (the others include this , this , and this ). It struck me how elitist Galileo is and how inaccessible he perceives his hermeneutic to be to any but a few aristocrats and natural philosophers.

A few months ago, a commenter on Bending the Rule pointed out that he thought *Christopher's justification of same-sex unions was overly complex and excessive idealization of something that probably only was going to exist among a relatively small proportion of the species.

So let us break down the arguments once more and see what is the nature of the controversy.

The crux of the radical traditionalist argument is Romans 1, in which homosexuality is posed as abominable inversion of the natural order of things intentionally resonant with both the creation narrative of Genesis and the Levitical code's apparent description of male-male intercourse as toevah , straying from the way ordained by God to Adam, to Noah, and to Moses as later commentators inferred. This crux passage also conditions our understanding of Paul's understanding of the Old Covenant in light of the New and the decision of the Council of Jerusalem reported in Acts. In other words, all fornication (including homosexual acts) is posed as proceeding from idolatry (that within a human being making him or her unclean as the Lord says), following the rubric of Jerusalem which prohibited: idol-worship, fornication, things strangled (sacrificial victim?), and blood (sacrificial victim implication combined with the presumption that Noah and thus all the nations had been commanded to follow this law). If this line of argument is considered consistent, it strengthens its own foundations, for if Pauline aetiology is correct, then the prooftext of Leviticus has a definite interpretation to which both the Rabbis and the Fathers consent (as justifieth the Pontificator) in which the abomination is intercourse in se as opposed to adultery with a man, "you shall not introduce a man into your conjugal bed." The resonance with Genesis and the Noachide genealogy of the prohibition that may underlie much of Pauline thought continues to rear its head in these times with Archbishop Akinola's assertions about cows and sheep and the utter novelty of regularized same-sex unions in the history of the human race. Father Chukwu ordered the world thus.

But the other current of this argument is the reliability of Pauline thought. If the communion of saints is a great cloud of witnesses, then Paul is the star. Much theology claims his mantle. Through both Luther and Calvin, Reformed theology owes its fervor to Paul's views on church government, the relations between the sexes, and the thorny issues of soteriology. Imagine how soteriological thought or sacramental thought might look without Paul. Whither the Reformation? And yet the Roman claims partially rest on Peter and Paul as colleagues and fellow martyrs. But at the same time, I am not one to propagate the Black Legend of Paul. Paul is not (as some commentators on the Koran I once read think) the accomodator of pure Abrahamic religion to corrupted Greco-Roman mores. Nor is Paul some secret Pharisaic plot to pollute the pure teachings of the Lord Jesus. He is far more interesting than that, because he comes to Christ as the outsider who longs to be on the inside. As a citizen of Tarsus, Paul holds Roman citizenship by especial honor to his city, but he was too far from Rome to be a member of that political community in the active sense. Reading Acts over the last few days suggests to me that Paul appealed to the emperor because he always wanted to see Rome and the great corridors of power. As a citizen of a Hellenistic city, Paul should have an intimate political community of his own. Yet he is Jewish, and so he never can participate in the political life of his city in full because of the all-too-common synthesis of civil and pagan religious functions in the magistracies. Paul is a Jew, trained as a rabbi in the Pharisaic tradition, but he goes to Jerusalem and ends up being hired as a henchman for the machinations of the high priest and his circle. The prejudice against the executioner is an ancient one in human society, and Paul is an executioner, a spy, and an informer who arranges floggings and stonings. His life reminds me very much of the case of the young Tarkheena in C.S. Lewis' The Horse and His Boy , who finds herself attacked by a lion as justice for a beating of a maidservant that she engineered. The injustice of the authorities is Paul's justice and done for the sake of Christ, it is grace.

Christ gives Paul his dream. Eventually, he learns to look at the rest of the world as the outsiders. "Do you know that we shall judge angels?," I'm sure Paul dreamed of an earthly magistracy first. The heavenly city of Augustine begins in Paul's struggle to find a political community where he belongs. But like the apocalyptic communities of both the Essenes and the Pharisees, someone must be excluded. Paul's innovation is to see the world as it is: that no one in themselves has a portion in the world to come, though he seems uncertain about the case of his own people, finally concluding that their portion comes like that of the Gentiles: through Christ alone. So basic is the vision of the Cross as the founding action of the political community and baptism as the sympathetic means of admission that Christianity probably cannot exist without it. And so if there is any challenge to Paul's reading of the world or to his adherence to certain traditions, we touch the deepest fear of Christian orthodoxy: that the cross has no power.

And what is the response we should make to this? Of course, our first step must be assert the power of the cross, not just as the Naturalization Act of the New Jerusalem but as the re-creation of the world and its divine legal framework through a human being unstained with sin. Paul's problematic assumption was that the Old Testament meant what it did before Christ. The Lord Jesus tells us that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Think about the Old Testament. We read much of it Christologically, even though by the same rules that underlie OT reading from the radical traditionalist perspective, such readings have no contextual relation to Christ. At times, the Lord Jesus utterly re-prioritizes the commandments. Is it possible to say that the OT c. 0 AD had some absolute meaning completely different than what it meant afterwards? Is this why John the Evangelist begins his Gospel by re-imagining Genesis? And is it possible that all of the OT must be re-read Christologically, not just in those places where the meaning is not plain? (I now have become a case study for Derek's thoughts on deceptive hermeneutical terminology.) What would this mean?

Item the Fourth: The title of this post comes from the feeling that the Anglican order is passing away, cut to bits on both sides. If I had faith, the Gospels assure me that I could do something about it. But I feel helpless. Nearly every week in the parish fora, some questioner will contradict the conventional wisdom. Usually, it occurs at the end of the forum, so the leader can smile and nod and move everyone quickly to the exits. If it happens in the middle, the leader just smiles and nods and tries to assure the questioner that they have a valid opinion, but let's just move on. Well, the parish forum is very much the Communion in miniature. People talk about there being some sort of Anglican controversy. But let's be honest here. There isn't a controversy here. What we have is each side preaching to its partisans about the rightness of their cause and either passing over or demonizing the opposition. Controversy potentially would involve the asking of clarifying questions, possibly some sort of attempt of each side to understand the other argument or explain why they are unconvinced. Remember that the only alternative to controversy is the sword. Let us not go there.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may read, learn, and inwardly digest the opinions of your brothers and sisters with the same respect you give give the Word of the Lord.

Tidbits

So That's What You Do With A Yale Education

I was at dinner this evening with some Israelis. We were in a room that is decorated with the coats of arms of many universities and learned societies. One of them noticed the arms of Yale, which has Hebrew on the book. I explained that these were the arms of Yale, and they said that the Hebrew said, "Light and mercy." I suggested this was an attempt to render the Latin motto into Hebrew, "Light and truth." Then they said that they thought the Yalies were trying to write something that means, "Light and integrity," which they said referred to the breastplate of the High Priest. And indeed, they were exactly right. The Hebrew motto is "Urim Thummim," referring to the minerals used by the ancient Israelites to discern the will of God. But apparently, the Yalies are writing it wrong.

Yes, Virginia, Scientists Hear God, Too.

Last night, I was talking about a prominent Jesuit astronomer with some older colleagues. They all thought he was a priest, but I had looked at his biography when he became prominent in the news by opposing attempts to adopt intelligent design as the Vatican's line on evolution. He never mentioned being in orders. So I asked him this evening the story. He confirmed that he was a layman and indicated that this was what God called him to be, even though most Jesuits these days are priests. On the other hand, all of his colleagues are priests, so it's fairly easy to find Mass in the morning. But it was so refreshing in an age in which people look at their lives as a set of milestones established by custom to hear someone who felt free enough to defy the usual milestones because he and God came to an understanding.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may be what God ordered you to be, even if all of your friends are taking Holy Orders.

More on the IRS Going After ILEOS

I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. As you make your requests, plead for God's mercy upon them, and give thanks. Pray this way for kings and all others who are in authority, so that we can live in peace and quietness, in godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. (Romans 13:1-3)

The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. (Romans 13:4-5)

For the Lord's sake, accept all authority — the king as head of state, and the officials he has appointed. For the king has sent them to punish all who do wrong and to honor those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

I'm in the midst of the whirl that marks the build-up to my qualifying exams. So I've been doing a lot of writing and Powerpoint making. The good news is that I should have a paper to submit to One of Two Big Journals in Field next month or so. The bad news is that I have to pass my qualifying exams, go to a conference, and keep up with a couple of classes at the same time during the next month, too.

But I did want to update you on matters with ILEOS, since some of the readers of this blog have been following the story. Basically, the IRS was utterly non-responsive for a while, after the hullaboo they started around the Feast of All Saints last. ILEOS made a careful response to the initial IRS requests for information with the help of a Washington, D.C. tax firm (apparently staffed with former IRS lawyers).

Then in July, the IRS asked for a laundry list of documents about everything from the compensation of the Rector Emeritus (the preacher of the sermon in question) to a catalog of all mentions of elected officials in any church service. (The President is mentioned in the Prayers of the People more often than the pulpit...). The church and her lawyers replied by challenging the requests and asking for the request to be in the form of a summons to an administrative hearing.

A few days ago, the laundry list was renewed and the Rector was summoned to an administrative hearing on Friday.

At the moment, the church has two options:

(1) Comply with the requests

(2) Or fail to comply and attempt to force the IRS into Federal District Court for a full judicial action on the administrative interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code at issue.

Having a fair knowledge of both ecclesiastical history and Roman law, I really don't know if there's any direct precedent in tradition for choosing one option over the other.

A few points are clear: the Church is obligated to respect the law as far as her mission is not compromised by it. This is a rather rash summary of the Scriptural witness, but the gist of it is that rulers derive their power from God, whether they are monarchs or elected representatives. Though they are obligated to serve justly. Indeed, the Psalmist compares temporal rulers to minor and fallible deities (Psalm 82). Christianity is not a license for violating community standards. If the law were to forbid the use of high emission vehicles, church van conversion could not be delayed on account of evangelical necessity. This is an odd case, but most other cases involve things Christians believe to be sinful. Perhaps, forbidding the eating of meat is a better example. At the same time, it is also recognized by Scripture that the laws of God supersede the laws of man. If the government allows something that is forbidden to Christians or forbids something that is essential to the faith, Christians should not do what the law permits and do what the law condemns.

Tradition also gives one excellent example of behavior to be avoided in civil actions: The case of St. Columba shows us that it is not pleasing to God to start a war to avenge a judgment against you, no matter how corrupt the judge is.

Otherwise, Christians are restricted to following general principles. In this case, I think option (2) is the right one. ILEOS' position is that they will not endorse a political candidate. ILEOS is very political for an Episcopal church, but you hear nothing about the ordination of Barbara Boxer by God or the godliness of Al Gore. One is told it is a sin not to vote, not that it is a sin to vote for a Republican. Until this IRS case arose, it was generally understood by churches and tax lawyers that the law forebade direct endorsement or campaigning on behalf of a political candidate and nothing else. So ILEOS complies with the law as far as it understands it.

Second, the implication of the materials requested by the IRS is that it is potentially a violation of the law to criticize a politician around Election Day or other times of the year. Even forgetting the great repugnance of such an idea to the common understandings of our constitutional liberty in speech and religion, tradition is clear on this matter. We revere saints such as Holy John Chrysostom, whose criticisms of the Empress Eudoxia for her excesses and self-idolatrous tendencies led to his exile. The example of Nazi Germany is still very near to us, in which one set of German Christians nearly apostasized by supporting the Nazis and the other set witnessed to the essence of the Gospel at risk of their lives. The principle at stake is important, even if the political situation has not yet reached that kind of clarity.

And in the United States, it is important to remember that the common welfare of the people is the king and from their will derives all authority. By upholding the liberties of the people, we uphold the government that the Apostle claims is ordained by God.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that heathens and tax collectors may be near to you, so that you may share with them the wonders of the Gospel.

The Feds Are After ILEOS Again

More to come after I return from Divine Service.

The Noonday Sacrifice

Evening, morning and noon I cry out in distress, and he hears my voice. [Ps. 55:17]

Yes, it's me. I'm sorry I haven't been keeping pace with all of the wonderful things you all have been writing. Though bls wrote about my favorite Psalm recently, and I obtained some weird track of it being sung to the proto-Tonus Peregrinus. Are you surprised that the First Song of Moses (Miriam) is my favorite Canticle.

I've been trying to prepare for the high stakes exam looming not very far into my future. Something else has popped up rather suddenly, which might take up most of my leisure time that isn't used for prayer. Or might not. But I did want to write about something that popped into my head over the last few days.

On August 15, we had the Feast of the Dormition or Assumption or something. My usual kalendar just said it was the Feast of the Virgin Mary. And James Kiefer's piece had a link to womenpriests.org and various articles on the idea of Mary Priest, which *Christopher brought up some time ago. What was amazing to me that the basic idea of Mary Priest or Mary Protopriest is of incredible antiquity but was discarded by Rome less than a century ago. The implication of the admittedly highly biased source was that it was discarded for fear that it might be used as an argument for women's ordination, which was coming to be controversial in the Protestant churches. But the basic merits of the case seems impossible to spin. As late as 1908, an indulgence was granted for saying a prayer that referred to Mary Priest, but a very few years later, the doctrine was repudiated. Does anyone know why or was it simply by fiat?

Being unbound by decisions of the Roman Pontiff, I considered the ancient sources on the issue. One of them noted that Mary had "offered Christ" at both the morning and evening sacrifice, i.e., at the Dedication and the Cross. As I was walking to the office this evening, it occurred to me, "But what about the noonday sacrifice?" The sacrifices of the Temple and of synagogue prayers are performed thrice a day (at the third, sixth, and ninth hours). Our BCP preserves this in the noon devotions, and the custom of the Angelus among the Roman Catholics seems related. And then it occurred to me: at Cana, Mary literally offered Jesus (before the beginning of his ministry) to the servants at the wedding, despite Jesus' objections. Note that the language of time enters here: "my hour has not come," i.e., the full and complete evening sacrifice of Himself on the Cross by which he is revealed fully as the Christ at the evening sacrifice of the Sabbath per tradition. But she pays no attention, having dedicated him to God when He could not speak for Himself. Of course, He has to cooperate. But I would wager that the Theotokos didn't enjoy the third sacrifice as much as He did. The third was His will.

But what's most odd to me is that the role of Mary seems more like that of deacon than priest. She defines her ministry as that of a servant through the entire Birth Narrative. And in the proto-Eucharistic narrative of Cana, she does nothing but point to him as she is always said to point to her Son (the first literally and the second philosophically). She reminds me strongly of the Orthodox deacon, "Master, give the blessing..." She does not act herself but reminds her Son of what he ought to do. And in the evening, as she stands at the foot of the Cross, she knows the secret and proclaims silently as the Deacon does in some liturgies those words of the Baptist (her kinsman and fellow pointer), "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." and "Happy are they who are called to his wedding banquet."

But whether Mary Deacon or Mary Priest, it is clear to me that these ideas are very deeply interwoven into the fabric of the chief action. Mary is indeed the second Eve, whose obedience crushes the head of the adder and gives her place beyond the dignity of women to the post-Fall world. What those who are against the ordination of women have missed is that the Patristic protestations about Mary as special case are greatly problematic. I believe that she restored the dignity of all women, making them fit for the altar. But this is problematic to many of those who support women's ordination, who cannot imagine that there was a time when women justly could be considered inferior or unworthy in any way. I find this sad. The story of the Theotokos, especially with respect to her diaconal and sacerdotal actions, is a powerful reminder of the reconciling work of Christ and His restoration of the primal order in which both men and women were created in the image of God to govern as equals. But to want to deny there was a time when women had a different status seems to diminish the wonder of this Mystery. Perhaps, we might consider that superior-inferior relations can reflect poorly on both superior and inferior and that a male priesthood was not a sign so much of male dignity etc. but of the brokenness of relations between men, women, and God.

Our understanding of restoration in Christ is just beginning...

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may find strength in the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who offered herself to God as a living sacrifice that the fruit of her womb might be God, man, and a living sacrifice without equal.

You Backed Up the Order of Service, Right?

This item isn't necessarily funny, but it's one of the only C of E items on the BBC I've seen that hasn't been about the Unpleasantness.

I actually ran into a similar problem last week when Oremus had some sort of error on 31 July. Fortunately, there was back-up in the form of a little red book with gold lettering and a big cross on the cover.

Eucharist Was Lovely Yesterday

The hymns were good and appropriately gender inclusive, "The God of Abraham/Sarah Praise," "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" etc. The guest preacher was excellent, taking a rather Ignatian approach to the Feeding of the Five Thousand in light of the Parable of the Talents. The Nicene Creed was said with the inclusive and slightly more accurate translation. I didn't recognize the source of the Eucharistic Prayer, but I gushed over it. There was a slight bump when we started chanting a Taize Veni Sancte Spiritus from the Epiclesis until the Great Amen, because the Great Amen was missed by almost everyone, which Randall and Archdeacon Ed taught me might affect regularity. But I notice such things because I am anal. It indeed felt like "Reasonable Service" or "Spiritual Worship," the Body and Blood overflowing in return for our thanksgiving to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the perfect plenitude of praise. After church, I spent eighty minutes lecturing on oceanography, saw an awful movie, and purchased cleaning supplies. I live in a comfortable and self-satisfied corner of the world in a relatively comfortable age (still very miserable for most of the world), but the Eucharist can be no less praegustatory of heaven than it was in former and more wretched ages. And for that, I thank God heartily.

This is Getting Loco, Ese, and It's Gotta Stop

A colleague of mine opined yesterday that we are most political about the works of our own hands (brat of our brains etc.). This might be called the Ouaididocratic Principle, since it tends toward the rule of those who give a damn ( ouai didein ). Thus, having no stake in the liberal and conservative organizations that have been striving to realign the church for their particular ends for the last three decades, I can't really get particularly worked up now that the denouement of these struggles is coming. I go through stages in dealing with every apparent outrage: (1) I briefly wish to find some way to restore De Haeritico Comburendo ; (2) I then desire more moderate canonical penalties; (3) then I want to yell a lot; (4) and finally I just want to laugh and hug the outrageous person. If the Dean of St. Vincent's wants to accuse General Convention and me by implication of departing from the apostolic faith, I hold him casually in derision. His diocese is alternately pomo and byzantine at this point. And that's just the first vexation I had since I returned from Canada.

At this point, I can understand why almost no one in Gen Y outside of their parents' power wants anything to do with TEC at this point or Anglicanism in general. If you find yourself in the wrong circumstances, you may find (these are real life examples):

(1) yourself driven out of your church because your priest at college is gay (Father Heidt, that is what I call Donatism.)

(2) unable to worship in your eucharistic community because you are sickened spiritually by conflict within it. The Holy Spirit defend such as these!

(3) unable to worship at college for fear of (1)

(4) unable to worship anywhere because you live in the same place all year and have insufficient ideological purity of one sort or another for your home diocese

(5) Unable to worship because those Episcopalians your age you know who take any of it seriously become total nutcases eventually, and you already feel too much like a nutcase as it is.

Add to this the problem of inadequate catechesis and arrogant priests and bishops (of one sort or another). The Holy Spirit forfend arrogance in deacons!

And since Christianity is finally voluntary in much of the US, most of my generation will shake off the dust from their feet. If they are conservative, they will go elsewhere. If they are liberal, they will leave and might raise their children as conservative Unitarians or something (like some Gen Xers I know).

I feel as if I've been oppressed by some outrageous sarcosic phronemation since the Octave of Christian Unity in 2003 and I want some deliverance, some "kairos moment": a day of salvation. But all I seem to find is the Lord Jesus still descending from heaven into this broken world in bread and wine and water. It will have to do.

So to the cloaks, the daggers, the malicious chatterers, the rebel chancellors, the false teachers of every stripe, and the naughty candles that dimly enlighten this world, I warn you that the Lord is coming with terrible recompense to call you to account for your management of nature and rational souls (and indeed your own). But until then, I love you. How about some Articles?

Seen in Canada

"St. ----: The Thinking Person's Church"

"St. ---------'s Anglican Church (Episcopal)"

Credo in Uno Deo Meliore cum Mathematicis quam ego

I was at a party this evening, talking to someone about my work. In my business, cocktail party conversation from those outside the field usually begins, "Do you think there's life on Mars?" I answer, "We'll know in a hundred years." Softballs. Then I hear, "Do you believe God made the planets?" Very briefly surprised because of the setting, I reply, "Yeah, but really far back, about fourteen billion years ago, but I honestly don't understand how. I'm not good enough at math to understand the physics. I deal with simpler stuff."

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork. One day tells its tale to another, and one night imparts knowledge to another. Although they have no words or language, and their voices are not heard, their sound has gone out into all lands, and their message to the ends of the world. : Ps. 19:1-4.

Utligacity and the Centrist Ascendancy

There is an odd word you find in the Latin sources of early English law about the time of the Norman conquest (but my memory is not good enough to remember which side), and this word is distinctive in that it is unintentionally onomatopoetic. The word is utliga or "outlaw," surely the creation of a Saxon clerk who knew not of interdiction from fire and water, nor perhaps much else, but had enough Latin for law and some creativity to boot. For an outlaw is a strange hybrid of things, not of German and Latin roots, but simultaneously a claimant of conformity to the law without actually conforming. There is, of course, a bit of the outlaw in the Christian, for our kingdom is not of this world, nor our citizenship exclusively of this city. We are simul iustus et peccator , expecting justification and vindication from our sin from "a great high priest who has passed through the heavens."

But the outlaw simple refuses at appear at any tribunal and so my forebears seized his goods and forbade him from civil life. Contrary to popular belief, his human rights never were terminated. It was still unlawful to murder, rape, and otherwise commit common law offenses against the outlaw. Indeed, the Crown had no especial rights besides the seizure of his goods and body in order to compel him to law. Thus, the outlaw had no especial dignity but the unwillingness to be accountable, either to admit his transgression, prove his innocence, or make appeal against the law itself as against the liberty of an Englishman. In some cases, the outlaw had the reasonable excuse of expecting an unfair trial. In other cases, outlaws were disrespectful or merely negligent concerning the law. There is a case in the reign of James I of a knight elected to Parliament, whose election is argued void on the grounds of outlawry. And indeed one can be an outlaw in court, too, as men like Milosevic, Hussein, and Moussaoui have shown, mainly by seeking to call others to trial or disdaining the law. Most of all, the outlaw is "a law unto himself." And thus the outlaw is also known in our time as the scofflaw, one who is indifferent to the operations of the law against him. Scofflaws are mostly petty offenders, because their strongest argument these days is that their offense is minor and harmless.

Outlawry suffuses certain parts of this Church. It is found in the priest who neglects the custom (as the rubric saith) of mixing a little water in the wine and pays little attention to the titterings of his congregation about it, though they whisper of Him "out of whose side flowed both water and blood." It is found in the parish that decides to institute Communion Without Baptism and fails to warn the parish of the canonical violation until a key element of the parish's common life becomes fodder for schism. I would say it was found in the priest who performed same-sex blessings except that it is unclear whether to me whether it was ever wrong to do so as long as it never was called "marriage" and the bishop approved. It is found in the bishops who allow errant priests to be shuttled from parish to parish where they wound the sheep etc.

One of these examples certainly is petty. And there may be some justification for some but not all of others, And in some cases, the outlaws might further justify themselves by transparency. The clear evidence of the Standing Committee being outlaws is if the membership of the Standing Committee has been kept secret from all who did not attend Diocesan Convention, for instance. The outlaw rarely tells anyone he is an outlaw, or his true identity. And remember, too, that outlawry is popular and almost institutional in America, where the local seeks to be the laboratory for the national. But there, too, there is always the goal of reception.

All of this talk of outlaws does have a point. The centrists are ascendant, because they can endure outlawry no longer. Some work was done to try to goad them, of course. The centrists were taking a wait and see attitude about LGBT inclusion. So the liberals attacked with talk of boundary crossing, church theft, and efforts to kick TEC out of the Anglican Communion. On the Communion level, we hear of lay presidency quietly in Sydney and somewhere in the vicinity of Wimbledon. The conservatives countered with Windsor and Lambeth as law or Communion Without Baptism or liturgical abuses or liberal bishops hushing up child abuse. The two sides figured that their negative attacks might galvanize the centrists in one direction or another, for they figured quite correctly that the centrists do not like outlaws.

Ah, but quam res conversa est (Cicero), General Convention came and went and the burden of outlawry fell more on one side than the other. The centrists were offended by the breaking of the Eucharistic community, the UTO incident, the rumors of conservative bishops alternately electing +Kathryn and denouncing her, and the attempts of both sides to pollute the work of the Convention. But they were most offended by AlPO, for this was outlawry par excellence, maintaining that one's actions were in agreement with the Constitution and Canons (only in that no canon in particular is transgressed) while seeking metropolitical authority other than that of General Convention. And already we hear rumors of great doings in the AlPO dioceses, where liberals and moderates are coming together in order to stop one set of outlaws from their ecclesial banditry. Already we hear that one bishop is soon to be brought to law. You can read Father Jake for the details.

The centrists are finding their voice on the Anglosphere, too. One can read Father Nick and his fellow Father Andrew of the Diocese of Bethlehem. Or you can read Father Jones or at least a half a dozen others. And already the critiques are coming. Canon Harmon cited Robert Gagnon against his fellow Presbyterians. *Christopher has explained rather clearly today that he doesn't care whether someone is liberal, centrist, or conservative but only that they are honest about how they are going to treat him as a faithful partnered gay man. That seems fair to me.

But what of me? Am I an Anglican centrist? I'm not sure. I usually describe myself as a Radical Anglo-Catholic, which suggests that I can reconcile Maurice and Newman somehow (right...). But it's true that I have great angst about outlawry, especially in my present context. And I think this might be the chief mark of the centrists, not a theological bent per se but a commitment to constitutional process and order generally, or a willingness to act in the wilderness rather than stirring up further confusion in the camp. For in doing these things with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I do believe that I will hand over to each his or her own and live justly. But recall also that the Lord Jesus was a centrist in this way, too, for he rejected all parties and turned over the tables of the moneychangers, but when he could have stirred up all Jerusalem against the authorities and become king over Israel, He decided against this in favor of a painful death and the transformation of the entire order of the world. Being a centrist might mean living sacrificially, too.

And so I'm not going to critique the centrists. I'm going to wait and see what the fruits of their ascendancy may be and pray that God sustain us all in accountability to all the holy people of God who shall judge the world with Jesus Christ.

Who Shall We Put on the Kalendar?: The Episcopal Church and Her Saints

Derek has been thinking about saints lately. His research, no doubt, takes him through some bizarre parts of the hagiography, and so he has been wondering why we canonize particular people and what meaning sainthood has in the ascendant theology of the TEC today. Most compellingly, Derek has a good summary of the Scriptural landscape.

The modern Episcopal view is really a form of pristinism, and I say that in the least pejorative sense possible. In most cases when saints or hagioi in Greek, literally "the holy people" are discussed in the New Testament, it is Paul's general use of the term to refer to the Church Militant in good standing in the various communities to which he provided counsel. Paul's letters occasionally contain things like, "Give my best regards to all the saints of the Church of X, you rock, dudes." It is not an idle term. It asserts Paul's belief that the Church is a new Israel, called to be holy as the Lord God is holy just as Israel was in the wilderness. And whereas the first Israelites sinned and died in the wilderness, the relationship of the Church to Jesus gives a holy standing to her members without them being fully righteous, for they are righteous through Him. The Church thus is Holy because Christ is Holy, righteous as both man and God. And thus by imputation (or Paul's presumably consonant soteriological teaching), the Church's members indeed are holy people. Thus, the Church's members indeed are saints in the earliest sense.

Derek, however, directs us to Revelation where we see a group of the saints before the Last Judgment already in the presence of God. This is odd, considering most evidence in Scripture until that time suggests that no one is in God's presence until the Last Judgment except Enoch and Elijah. At most, there are some people like the poor Lazarus in some sort of holding state called "Abraham's bosom." Otherwise, it's "the trumpet shall sound and the dead be raised" and summoned into the Valley of Josaphat or some other proper place for judgment.

Revelation is an odd duck in the Canon, so it took some time for Christianity to process the implications of its view of heaven. In Bede, we hear the story of a monk who gets into a cold spring every morning to recite the psalms. This practice is explained by a vision he had of various things, including a place of happy people in white who frolicked hither and yon and a place where people were cruelly tortured in fire. The man supposed these were heaven and hell but was told that the gates of Heaven were closed to all but the most holy until the Judgment, and he had seen two versions of the holding area: one in which people were purified and another where people rested happily but without the fullness of the Divine Presence. The man asked what Hell was like and was told that he had seen the entrance to Hell, which was some sort of dank, vaguely living hole. In other words, Heaven is too wonderful to see and Hell too horrible. This story is an early account of Purgatory, whose architecture became considerably more complicated and impact on soteriology increasingly problematic as time went on. But the point remains, Purgatory was a modification of Abraham's Bosom, and Dante seems to have made that happy place into the Terrestrial Paradise. But it should be remembered that reception takes time, and so you can read poetry in Middle English from Ireland concerning the Land of Cockyange, which is said to be better than Heaven, because (a) there is only fruit to eat in heaven, whereas Cockyange has both meat and fruit (b) Enoch and Elijah are the only people in Heaven, whereas the people in Cockyange are much more fun.

But whatever the reason, people relatively early in Tradition kept having visions of the holy martyrs crowned with glory as described in Revelation, and thus experience confirmed what the Scripture taught: some of the saints were admitted to the Divine Presence immediately. First, it was just the martyrs, but when the era of persecutions ended, there was a recognition that some people (traditionally called confessors and the Catholic Encyclopedia claims these were often called "bloodless martyrs" or somesuch) had "especial sanctity" even if they just died quietly after vespers without fuss or bother (in fact, this was often proof of sanctity, especially if you predicted it first, e.g. St Columba). [Random Etymological Note: Saints in Irish are called Naomh, and I've always wondered whether there was any etymological link between this and the Greek word for a temple's inner sanctuary, naos , which is still used in Greek to refer to a church.] Derek has a good entry in Open Thou Our Lips about saints being patrones in the Roman sense, which is worth looking up.

But the saint business seems to have become complicated for a variety of reasons. First of all, there are some cases in which saints have been conflated with pagan deities. St. Brigid is one example, but it's likely that the explanation given in the hagiography, that Brigid's father meant her as an oblate to the service of the goddess explains some of the coincidences between her and the Irish goddess. Irish saints also have strong associations with springs, which if you know anything about Celtic religion, connects them with pagan beliefs about places of strong spiritual energy. But after all, the Lord Jesus, too, was very skillful with springs and water generally. Perhaps the best example of a pagan saint are the rituals associated with St. Gennaro, the patron of Naples. Every year, a vial containing his blood is observed to liquefy. But the miracle of San Gennaro takes time, so while the congregants play the waiting game, women sing a variety of indecent and insulting songs to get the blood to liquefy. There is some incentive in this, because if the blood should take a long time to liquefy or fail to liquefy at all, great misfortune is supposed to befall the city in the next year. St. Augustine of Hippo describes similar rites in his works, involving songs being sung to divinities that never would be sung in polite company, but these involve Cybele etc. and not a Christian martyr. I suspect the liquefaction refers to some old ritual of Neapolitan haruspicy, which has been transformed in some odd way as with all Italian religion. After all, if the Romans replaced a festival of human sacrifice with a fishing tournament (as Ovid claims in the Fasti ), anything is possible.

Second, saints, especially in the High Middle Ages, had economic potential. So it was in the best interest of a parish to preserve the remains of any local hermit of any repute and look for evidence of miraculous doings. While it's fairly easy to snipe at such activities, I've read enough descriptions of these episodes in medieval parish records (I used to read a lot of history of the pre-Reformation Church of England) to think these efforts mostly were in good faith. Occasionally, saints were made up. Eventually, some sort of canonical order was established in the West about who could be venerated or not. Initially (and again I'm following the Catholic Encyclopedia and my memory of medieval English practice), it was possible for veneration to be authorized in a diocese by decree. The usual custom then was for the feast of this saint to become universal by Roman reception. The idea of a Roman martyrology dates to the 3rd century, when the deacons were ordered to record the martyrdoms in their district but it became an increasingly "universal" martyrology later. But canonization was centralized at Rome by the late 12th century. The bureaucratic process presently used in the Roman Catholic Church has evolved since then, and the business of cleaning up what happened before then has been left to the bureaucratic organs and the research activities of the most supercool of the Jesuits, the Bollandists.

But what about Anglicans? Do we canonize? How and why? Well, the place to look first is a kalendar for an edition of the 1662 Prayer Book. I found an online version of the 1771 edition that has a most fascinating calendar, in that it maintains the Feasts of the Apostles, notable early martyrs, and various figures connected the Order of Saint Benedict or the evangelization of the British Isles. It even includes the Invention of the Holy Cross and tells you when to start the O Antiphons in Advent. The only post-Reformation observances are the Feast of King Charles Martyr (one of the patronal feasts of the Monastery, not presently on the American kalendar) and "Papist Conspiracy" or Guy Fawkes Day. No Ridley or Latimer or Cranmer. It was a stripped-down pre-Reformation kalendar only modified by politics. The new feasts famously were opportunities for the High Anglican Ascendancy to glory in its victory over the Puritans (now Nonconformists) and the Roman Catholics. Sick, frankly.

The new American church would have none of the politics in the kalendar, so they removed everyone who could not be found in the Holy Scriptures, maintaining only All Saints (this feast is Gallican in origin and was received at Rome in the 9th century). And so it apparently was until 1979, since the 1928 BCP has the same kalendar as 1789. The story of how we suddenly restored most of the saints of the Scottish kalendar (Laud's Book) and added so many new ones should be told someone who remembers, since some are likely still alive.

So does TEC canonize people? Well, I think we do. All the Roman Pontiff does to canonize is to declare someone a Saint, inscribe their name in a catalog, and appoint a feast day. General Convention does little less. But still we are uncomfortable with our form of canonization, and I just realized why: this practice hasn't been around very long. I once suggested that my campus ministry celebrate the feast day of the patron of the house we used as our base of operations. But despite our willingness to celebrate the feasts of other saints, it seemed odd to celebrate the feast of a man of whom we had two photographs in the house: one of him in clericals and one from his student days in which he was dressed as a woman for a dramatic production. No one normally talks about St. William White or St. Phillips Brooks.

But in the last thirty years, we have put an entire slew of new people on the kalendar with little discussion of why. Most recently, this issue arose with the proposal that Thurgood Marshall be included in the kalendar. Frankly, the proposal was worth it just for the distraction of the newspapers from other matters at General Convention, but it brought up an important question: Thurgood Marshall certainly did a lot of important things for American civil liberties but did he have "especial sanctity" or was a sufficient witness to Christ in his actions? Does it really matter? The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music will consider this question during the next three years.

Fortunately, this Triennium they proposed guidelines in their Report about who to include in the kalendar prefaced with this gem from the Passion of Polycarp:

“There the Lord will permit us, so far as possible, to gather together in joy and gladness to celebrate the day of his martyrdom as a birthday, in memory of those athletes who have gone before, and to train and make ready those who are to come hereafter.”

1. Historicity

Christianity is a radically historical religion, so in almost every instance it is not theological realities or spiritual movements but exemplary witness to the Gospel of Christ in lives actually lived that is commemorated in the Calendar.

I really don't understand what this means, unless it's some convoluted explanation of why we generally don't commemorate Corpus Christi. We commemorate people and not doctrines or the Holy Club or something.

2. Christian Discipleship

The death of the saints, precious in God’s sight, is the ultimate witness to the power of the Resurrection. What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism. Baptism is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the Calendar.

Baptism in blood hopefully is legitimate here. If you die for Christ, you die with Christ. This recommendation is good in that it instructs us not to commemorate non-Christians but says in a way that make people feel better about it because it is linked with the popular baptismal theology.

3. Significance

Those commemorated should have been in their lifetime extraordinary, even heroic servants of God and God’s people for the sake, and after the example, of Jesus Christ. In this way they have testified to the Lordship of Christ over all of history, and continue to inspire us as we carry forward God’s mission in the world.

There is attempt here to use the Roman Catholic language of "heroic virtue" without actually using it. But the point is solid. Those commemorated are exemplars and must be exemplary.

4. Memorability

The Calendar should include those who, through their devotion to Christ and their joyful and loving participation in the community of the faithful, deserve to be remembered by The Episcopal Church today. However, in order to celebrate the whole history of salvation, it is important also to include those “whose memory may have faded in the shifting fashions of public concern, but whose witness is deemed important to the life and mission of the Church” (Thomas Talley).

God bless James Kiefer for bringing the kalendar to life. Basically, this recommendation says that those commemorated must be relevant to us even if they are presently obscure. I really fear for the Cappadocian Fathers, since I don't hear too many priests preach the "good doctrine is important" sermon these days.

5. Range of Inclusion

Particular attention should be paid to Episcopalians and other members of the Anglican Communion. Attention should also be paid to gender and race, to the inclusion of laypeople (witnessing in this way to our baptismal understanding of the Church), and to ecumenical representation. In this way the Calendar will reflect the reality of our time: that instant communication and extensive travel are leading to an ever deeper international and ecumenical consciousness among Christian people.

Mission St. Clare puts a lot of fun Lutheran observances on the kalendar. I could go for those. Speaking of ecumenism, how about Brother Roger of Taize? Note that our kalendar is much fuller than the rest of the Communion these days. But again, the chief concern is the saint as exemplar. And I think the idea here is that the best exemplars are those with which we identify or will encourage us to learn about other cultures.

6. Local Observance

Similarly, it should normatively be the case that significant commemoration of a particular person already exists at the local and regional levels before that person is included in the Calendar of the Episcopal Church as a whole.

One question: who authorizes local commemoration?

7. Perspective

It should normatively be the case that a person be included in the Calendar only after two generations or fifty years have elapsed since that person’s death.

Very good. So I guess we'll have to wait on Brother Roger.

Levels of Commemoration

Principal Feasts, Sundays, and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).

Makes sense. If I do both Morning and Evening Prayer, I do the regular Lectionary in the morning and the Festal in the evening. But I've noticed that some commemorations have more readings than others.

9. Combined Commemorations

The present edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (2003) recognizes that not all those included in the Calendar need to be commemorated “in isolation”. Where there are close and natural links between persons to be remembered, a joint commemoration would make excellent sense (cf. The Cappadocians - Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina— and the Reformation martyrs—Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley).

We need some sort of shorthand though. How about the Feast of the Three Anglican Hierarchs (Proto-Martyrs)?

10. Common of Saints

A greater range of “Commons of Saints” should be provided to allow for optional commemorations at the local and regional levels. Presently there are propers provided for martyrs, missionaries, pastors, theologians and teachers, monastics, and “saints.” Possible additional categories could include musicians and other artists, reformers of society, and “stewards of creation,” for example, scientists and environmentalists.

Steward of creation has a nice ring to it actually.

These recommendations have the imprimatur of General Convention as Resolution A057 of this past Convention.

Some Summary Comments

Commemorations really could go either way at this point. Either they could be treated as an opportunity to satisfy interest groups or score political points with the wider culture as in the Church of England in the 17th century or they could be carefully chosen as an encouragement to us, the Church Militant, looking throughout salvation history for lanterns to light the way to Christ's standard. But I think these recommendations are lacking in one thing: although they cite "heroic virtue," they focus on our own opinions of what that is. I am not one to suggest that we require miracles of those we commemorate, but I do think that there are gifts in the church by which especial sanctity can be detected or in which God reveals those he sets apart for his heavenly service. Perhaps, we should consider these as well.

O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, in glory everlasting.

Another Response to Father Harding

Father Wilkins has taken a stab at this already, but he started going places that I reserved for my Latin exams in high school. I also was not at General Convention nor have much to do with the leadership of The Episcopal Church unless you start playing the Kevin Bacon game. Frankly, I was thinking seriously about doing some sort of Twilight Zone parody of Rev. Canon Minns' present situation, but I will leave him to the mercy of his ordinary, whoever that might be at this point.

Nevertheless I assure that is in your interest that I am leaving you. If I do not go, the Advocate will not come, whereas if I go, I will send Him to you. When He comes, He will prove the world wrong about sin, justice and judgment: about sin, because they refuse to believe in Me; about justice, because I go to the Father when I pass from your sight; about judgement, because the prince of this world stands condemned. There is much more that I could say to you, but the burden is too great for you now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but He will not speak on His own authority, but will speak only what he hears; and he will make known to you what is to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and make it known to you. John 16:7-14

Then Balak said to Balaam, 'You will not put a curse on them; then at least do not bless them.' He answered, 'Did I not warn you that I must do whatever the LORD tells me?" Numbers 23:25-26.

Father Harding's Epitomes of General Convention 2006

1. God is the author of same-sex attraction by an act of special providence that includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes. Because we know through reports of the spiritual experience of same-sex attracted people that God is the primary author of these experiences, inquiry into the relative contributions of nature and nurture to same-sex attraction is of no significance for the church’s moral teaching or pastoral care.

No, Father Harding. Homosexuality is not a matter of special providence, a particular and virtue-oriented interference in the life of a civilly righteous person or Christian believer, it is clearly common grace in that it rises like the Sun or falls like the rain on the good and evil alike (Matthew 5:45). I.e., by the operation of the natural law, which is still indistinct and unclear to man. But, of course, rain doesn't fall on everyone, especially if they live in the Atacama Desert, and you really can't see much of a sunrise on Quaoar. Common grace is not particular but no means universal. And it's that same common grace which makes you and me heterosexual. But, yes, the operation of the natural law "includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes," whose details still are provisional. As for the inquiry you propose, such an inquiry does matter, for we would not in wickedness suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and is part of discernment with gay and lesbian persons that is taking place within the Eucharistic community of the Body of Christ as presently constituted in this church, but our present judgment is that nurture is a minimal factor.

2. This recognition of the source of same-sex attraction in the direct intention of God means that the categories of “Gay” and “Lesbian” are part of God’s order of creation in the same way as male and female.

I think that "Gay" and "Lesbian" are primary characteristics, which often have deep relations to other aspects of personhood in the same way "male" and "female" are primary characteristics that have a strong organizing imprint on personhood. But handedness also is a primary characteristic in this way. "Male" and "female" however stand at the pinnacle of primary characteristics, and thus have greater theological significance in that it is recognized explicitly in the Scriptures from the beginning, whereas homosexual orientation is more vaguely discussed.

3. Bisexuality is also created by God as an act of special providence through a combination of biological and social-psychological secondary causes.

See #1

4. It is likewise irrelevant to the church’s moral and pastoral response to this phenomenon to inquire into the relative contributions of nature and nurture in the development of this sexual orientation.

It's not irrelevant, and I will admit that there is a case to make that male bisexuality is extremely rare.

5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.

You make it sound like this is new,

"They stood outside and prayed as with one mouth, saying, "King of Kings and Lord of lords, who alone possess immortality and inhabit unapproachable light, shed light on the eyes of their minds, because they walk in the darkness of their unknowing; they have exchanged your glory, uncorruptible God, for the likeness of corruptible men and birds and beasts and snakes; and they worship the created rather than you, the creator. Turn them to knowledge of you, that they may know you, the one true God, and your only-begotten Son, our Lord ]esus Christ, who for us and for our salvation suffered and rose from the dead, that he might free us from the bonds of the law and rescue us from the folly of vain idols. Preserve us, God, pure and spotless in the path of your martyrs, walking in your commandments."-- The Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus (tr. John Boswell). .

This account makes absolutely no sense unless at least someone at least 1100 years ago (and probably more) had similar thoughts about same-sex desire as I do.

6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.

I believe this whole business began in 1976, before I was born.

7. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed what amendments in the church’s received sexual ethic will be necessary to accommodate bisexual and transgendered people but we can expect further leading by the Holy Spirit in this regard. In the meantime such persons should be considered fit candidates for Holy Orders.

It's fairly easy how the church can "accomodate" bisexual persons. They are encouraged to remain chaste in celibacy (vowed or otherwise) or may enter into matrimony, fratrimony, or sororimony as they are called. I have not considered transgendered persons seriously, but you are right to point out that this is a less obvious case which will require consideration of Scripture and Tradition, which warn us that self-mutilation is a bar to holiness.

8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church is inherently an example of over-reaching.

The authoritative reading of the Messiah before the coming of the Lord Jesus was as a military leader who would liberate Israel as a civil entity. St. Augustine of Hippo certainly didn't have the authoritative readings on soteriology behind him for most of his life. Or when Cephalus in the Republic cites various authorities on justice, Socrates replies,

"Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition. Book I: tr. Benjamin Jowett

The authorities of the Church in the communion of saints saw like we do "through a glass darkly" without knowledge of many things of God and nature. We must consider when we come into new knowledge of these matters or of the tradition generally whether the grounds and reasoning of the authorities are still valid. If they are not, we do them honor by correcting these details of the faith that have come down to us according to the best of our knowledge, for "God is the God of the living and not the dead", and they living in full knowledge may agree with us. But we must be careful to discern whether we actually know anything new or not.

I can assure you that I never intend that anyone's certainty be impugned by having to officiate at a same-sex blessing. And I hope that General Convention probably will conclude that, too. You might cite WO against that idea, but there are increasing worries that "the authoritative readings" on this question actually may be heretical at present knowledge but not according to the knowledge possessed by the authorities. This problem arose at the early Councils, too, so it should be handled under the same principle. The past is orthodox according to their lights until proven otherwise.


9. Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological certainty on this question which the scriptures and the traditional teaching of the church cannot by virtue of the nature of the documents provide.

You appear to suggest that experience is being treated as superior to Scripture and "traditional teaching." Let me rephrase, "Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological clarity on this question in conversation with scripture and the traditional teaching of the church regarding all matters of faith and morals, not just the isolated questions of homosexual activity.

10. Christians who feel bound by the scriptures should understand that the fact that there are different interpretations of the scriptures which touch on same-sex attraction means that no single interpretation can possibly be authoritative.

Not quite. There are various reasons why the traditionally authoritative reading might not be the veracious one. Thus, some Muslims read the Bible and say the Paraclete is the Prophet Muhammad. That is the authoritative reading for that community but our experience of the Spirit teaches us that He is the Paraclete.

11. Since the scriptures cannot possibly be authoritative on this issue and since self-reported spiritual experience provides the only reliable certainty on the subject, any objections to same-sex blessings on the basis of scripture are irrelevant a priori.

I hope not. That would mean that any Scriptural support of same-sex blessings is irrelevant a priori .

12. Exegetical discussion of specific texts which seem to forbid blessing same-sex erotic behavior can only be for the benefit of quieting the consciences of people who take the bible literally. At the end of the day the inherent uncertainty of the scriptures must give way before the certainty of the personal spiritual experience of the same-sex attracted and their supporters and the felt experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit in two succeeding General Conventions.

All I'm asking for is a complete assessment of Scripture, Tradition, and reason that does not just consider homosexuality as something discussed in a few verses of Scripture or Patristic writings etc. but as something whose existence in nature and lived experience must be considered in the light of the entire divine economy as revealed in the same sources. I don't exegete to soothe anyone's conscience except my own but only to learn the truth.

13. The most meaningful dialogue in which the church can engage is dialogue that allows same-sex attracted people and their supporters to share their perceptions of the ways in which God has blessed individuals and specific Christian communities through covenanted same-sex relationships. Actual argument about scripture or the teaching tradition of the church or the state of the scientific question could never produce any legitimate objections to the new thing the Holy Spirit is doing.

See 12. You also might read the Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus as a way of understanding how lived experience can be read in the light of the Holy Scriptures.

14. The experience of people who describe themselves as having been cured or freed from same-sex attraction is irrelevant and the church should not give such people a serious hearing. They either were never really same-sex attracted to begin with or are deluded about their claim to be freed or cured. The personal religious experiences of such people are not of the same quality and reliability as the experiences of the same-sex attracted in the church. These experiences are not to be seen as legitimate experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit in spite of all claims to the contrary. Likewise scientific reporting of the overcoming of same sex attraction is deeply suspect as ideologically tainted and can with confidence be dismissed without a serious reading.

I have given such persons a serious hearing before, though I would have preferred to do so Eucharistically. My provisional opinion is that such deliverance is a case of Special Providence. But I have heard other people on the subject who have repented of seeking such a thing. The last sentence of this epitome is my current reading of the scientific evidence.

15. Same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships should be recommended to our children as entirely equal to and as preferable as marriage between a man and woman. If any young person feels any same-sex attraction it is by God’s express intention and not to act upon it is to dishonor God. To discourage young people to act upon same-sex attraction is to dishonor God’s intention in the creation. The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances. Young people who are experiencing same-sex attraction can be helped by being mentored by older same-sex attracted adults and the church should be proactive in facilitating these relationships.

As long as the key sentence is, " The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances.," this is exactly correct.

16. It is wrong for the Episcopal Church to dictate to any other province of the Anglican Church what its policy on same-sex relationships should be.

Yes, it is wrong for TEC to compel another Province's reception of something that was never received entirely by the church catholic. However, TEC is free to encourage other Provinces to promote greater liberty for gay and lesbian persons.

17. It is wrong for any other province of the Anglican Communion to interfere with the leading of the Holy Spirit in this province. What the Holy Spirit demands at any particular time must be determined locally.

Why is all of this so pneumatological? Look at John above. Or "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." Actually, forget that. ++Drexel Gomez is quite free to reprove us with works such as True Union in the Body provided that we can reprove him, too, if we find his arguments to disagree with our reasoning and conclusions. It is wrong for another province to stir up disorder in this province by offering to exercise episcopal authority without permission of the metropolitical authority or promise to foment schism within this province in order to enhance the feelings of sanctity of those in this province. Well, at least at this point in time. The ideal of catholic discernment is you wait a few generations to see if anything changes. If it's of the Holy Spirit, it will die down or reveal how infernal it is by expression of the lust for mastery.

18. What the Holy Spirit is demanding must be determined provincially. Those dioceses which are members of the Episcopal Church and which resist the new teaching cannot legitimately be thought to be led by the Holy Spirit and must be resisted with all the canonical and legal means available.

For the sake of souls of minority conscience and for the sake of God's Holy Name, I am quite willing to do good to those Dioceses and parishes who find this intolerable by an amicable transfer to another Province, such as the West Indies or the Southern Cone, within a canonical framework. See below. However, if there are further attempts to turn parts of TEC into the Twilight Zone and stir up disorder in this province, sterner measures may be necessary.

19. A variety of interpretations of scripture can be tolerated in the church. The canons of the church especially with regard to the territorial integrity of Episcopal jurisdiction allow for no variation in interpretation.

"And they shall see him, even they who pierced him." Let the reader understand. But I admit the Canons are rather vague. However in this case, I expect the orthodox to act according to the authoritative teachings on ecclesiastical polity and order.

20. The proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a new Anglican covenant and for churches to choose constituent or associate status in the communion represents a dire threat to capacity of the church to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It represents the prospect of a quenching of the Spirit.

Possibly. If the covenant establishes particular perikerygmal dogma, it may quench the Spirit. But if it establishes procedures for discernment and mutual accountability, it may be very good indeed.

21. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has been uniquely privileged to hear from the Holy Spirit in a way that has been denied to the rest of world wide Anglicanism, The Roman Catholic Church, The Orthodox Churches and Protestant Evangelicalism. The Episcopal Church must at all costs maintain its witness to the unique agency of the Holy Spirit in its midst. Those who oppose the new teaching are enemies of the Holy Spirit who are making an idol of the past at the expense of the future to which God is calling us.

First of all, this revelation is not the unique privilege of TEC. If you look hard enough through the rest of the Christian Church, you will notice that the Holy Spirit seems to be opening the Scriptures and Tradition for others as well. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has been working not just at the present but in other times and places in this particular matter. But you are right to say that the majority of opinion is against our doctrinal direction. I will not call anyone an enemy of the Holy Spirit. But I do notice that there are some who falsify the world to strengthen their arguments in this or other matters or make arguments that have relevance to this question but contradict themselves in order to exclude the possibility of approving same-sex unions. It is hard to see how the Spirit of truth can do much for those in love with falsehood.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that thy tents might be fair, thy encampments like long palm groves or aloe trees of the Lord's cultivation, and the Lord like the horns of an ox to direct thee in thy way.

Food for Thought

Oliver O'Donovan+ puts forth the first of a seven part series of "sermons" on contemporary issues. I use sneer quotes for sermon, because a sermon is a genre located in time and space within divine worship. O'Donovan's piece is an essay, not a sermon. I really can't imagine it preached (by O'Donovan at least). Issues of genre aside, Donovan attempts the critique that a few of the readers of this blog are struggling with because we identify ourselves with some of the liberal ends but do not share liberal values in ecclesiastical affairs (as presently manifested). We ask as Rousseau did concerning the origins of civil society, "How did this change come about? .... What can make it legitimate?"

O'Donovan is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ Church, and thus at the heights of the Anglican intelligentsia (as is Marilyn McCord Adams). I thought about making some sauce for the essay, but I'll let it stand alone. I also went to the discussion page, where it was clear that one of the points of the essay had been missed completely. One of the liberalism's chief faults is that it assumes ethics as first principles without considering the foundation of its postulates. But one commenter interpreted O'Donovan in this way,

"I would suspect that what this might look like is an increasing acceptance of the fact (as opposed to the 'sin') of homosexual orientation and identity (and openess [sic] and love towards those so self-defined) combined with the ability, however, to say, 'No' to such sexual expression as defining the model of human sexuality (with consequent significance for those whose role it is to 'model' the ideal humanity (=Christ) as much as possible = Christian leaders)."

This, I think, is dictating the discourse beforehand, which I really hope wasn't O'Donovan's message.

The other solid critique, of course, concerns the theological drift toward the belief that the present is the eschaton, which grounds the Communion Without Baptism movement in a way that missiology never could.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the liberty of civil righteousness that is but a shadow of that blessed liberty we have in Jesus Christ be made available to all mankind.

The First Four Councils, ALPO, and Newark: References

All references from Schaff editions at Christian Classics Ethereal Library. May the Lord bless all who contributed to these works and their publication.

Note that the ancient Canons should be treated as guidelines, since some of them were clearly dispensed with as customs or conditions changed. For instance, have you ever answered questions about the Christian faith without being licensed to do so by the Bishop? Well, then, you are violating Canon XXVI of the Council of Laodicea, received by the First Council of Constantinople. Shame on you for obeying the Great Commission... Father Kniseley apparently might be in trouble for violating Canon XXXVI of the same Holy Synod for teaching about the existence of gravity and the tides.

Canon IX of the Synod of Antioch in Encaenis, which was received by the First Council of Constantinople

It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon XI of the same Holy Synod

If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with letters from them.

Canon XIII of the same Holy Synod

No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod.

Canon XIV of the same Holy Synod

If a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the accused innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of all disputes, the holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the neighbouring province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and thus, with those of the province, confirm what is determined.

Canon XVI of the same Holy Synod

If any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And that shall be [accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present.

Canon XIX of the same Holy Synod

A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the majority shall prevail.

Canon II of the First Council of Constantinople

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Canon VIII of the Council of Ephesus

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

Canon X of the same Holy Synod

It shall not be lawful for a clergyman to be at the same time enrolled in the churches of two cities, that is, in the church in which he was at first ordained, and in another to which, because it is greater, he has removed from lust of empty honour. And those who do so shall be returned to their own church in which they were originally ordained, and there only shall they minister. But if any one has heretofore been removed from one church to another, he shall not intermeddle with the affairs of his former church, nor with the martyries, almshouses, and hostels belonging to it. And if, after the decree of this great and ecumenical Synod, any shall dare to do any of these things now forbidden, the synod decrees that he shall be degraded from his rank.

Canon XII of the same Holy Synod

t has come to our knowledge that certain persons, contrary to the laws of the Church, having had recourse to secular powers, have by means of imperial rescripts divided one Province into two, so that there are consequently two metropolitans in one province; therefore the holy Synod has decreed that for the future no such thing shall be attempted by a bishop, since he who shall undertake it shall be degraded from his rank. But the cities which have already been honoured by means of imperial letters with the name of metropolis, and the bishops in charge of them, shall take the bare title, all metropolitan rights being preserved to the true Metropolis.

Canon XVIII of the same Holy Synod

The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected in conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.

The Spiritual Sword is Very Dull...

A Word for the Anglosphere

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no,not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? I Corinthians, 6:1-5. (KJV)

More Musings on the Canons

Yes, it seems to be turning into canon law week here at the Monastery. For obvious reasons, no one was enthused by my last post, which was frankly rather depressing. For the record, I am not promoting schism, I am merely outlining more irenic schemes for responding to the requests for ALPO. These requests essentially are extraconstitutional and if treated in their present extraconstitutional framework, they make life very problematic for dissenters within non-dissenting dioceses, whatever your definition of dissent. And besides, the proposed process gives three years for God to work. Man proposes, God disposes.

However, what I want to reflect on today is the treatment of fratrimony and sororimony in a canon law framework. Emily of Hazelnut Reflections mentioned in comments somewhere (I can’t find it) that she would like some canonical guidance if the Episcopal Church authorized rites for fratrimony or sororimony in the future. I do not intend to propose revisions to the Canons in this piece, only outline the important issues that will have to be considered. Law, as the Institutes say, legislates only for the normative, so we can’t possibly consider everything. And that is why I urge you to consider also Grace in this discussion, for when God forgives us, He does not forgive those things, which we or an average human being normally do; He forgives us everything. And thus the law of the Church is meant to be relaxed in unusual situations. In civil law, this is the prerogative of mercy. In canon law, the same prerogative exists by the gift of Christ to the apostles to bind and to loosen, i.e., in this case: to legislate and to relax the laws.
I also do not wish to speak in great detail, because the end of canon law must be the better care of souls, and thus I seek advice from same sex couples and those who pastor them about how the Church can support spiritual fraternity and sorority as manners of life for the upbuilding of the Church and the good of the partners’ souls.
This discussion is greatly problematic in an Anglican framework. Because of the roots of our ecclesiastical tradition, our canon law often is written with the expectation of the need to conform to the civil law (and I mean secular law in general, not Roman-derived ius civile in particular) or the ability to control or at least have dialogue with it. This, of course, is an expectation by the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, too, but these Churches are more accustomed to long-term tension between church and state on certain matters or accommodation of their systems in terms of an “ethnic law.”
However, for Anglicans, especially in England, there is an expectation that the law of the Church and that of the state be in harmony in certain matters including family law. There is a particular division of Queen’s Bench dedicated to family, probate, and admiralty law, which is an odd grouping, until you realize that all three categories derive from the ius civile , but also realize that the first two were long matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thus, the probate record of the Court of Arches at Canterbury (the supreme ecclesiastical tribunal of the Church of England…below the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Law Lords, of course) remains an excellent source for genealogical records before a certain period. And we need not appeal to oddities and antiquities to see the tension. The recent kerfluffle over the Civil Partnerships Act in the English House of Bishops and the Church of England generally is illustrative that the Church still feels very bound to having some sort of parity between its own sort of family law and that of the United Kingdom generally. I will omit considering the effects of the Established Church on the marriage law of England, but they lead to such inanities as “inflatable churches,” which I am sure you can learn all about from Google.
Yet one cannot quarantine the infection of Erastianism from the most non-Erastian of Anglicans. The Salty Vicar said a year ago or so that if the laws of New York allowed him to marry same sex partners, he would feel authorized to marry them according to the Liturgy of the Church provided without requiring further authorization from General Convention, though Canon I.18.2(b) is a little more specific than the laws of New York. However, we must consider the possibility that fratrimony or sororimony will be celebrated in jurisdictions where the laws concerning same-sex couples differ significantly from those of marriage generally or indeed legal recognition of such unions might be forbidden by the state constitution. The variety of civil frameworks, however, does not obligate the church to stand idly by and gawk. Instead, the church is obligated to walk the dichotomy between obeying the laws of the God-ordained rulers and obeying those of God. Thus, in some states, fratrimony and sorimony will create civil incidents and the church will have to adapt to those situations. In other states, no civil incidents will be consequent and the church will have to uphold sororimony and fratrimony without state support as it still may do in scattered parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Besides, upholding godly manners of life without state support may become necessary in the case of matrimony as well, if certain libertarians ever gain support. If the government gets out of the marriage business, the Church will have to dive more fully in.

Consanguinity and Conspirituality
I’m hoping that it should be fairly obvious that the Scriptures should be upheld in matters of consanguinity and the civil law thereafter. There might be talk about how the church should respond to spinster sisters entering into civil partnerships, if ever that should be legal or perhaps first cousins will wish to unite in a state in which that is not permitted. The Church should not allow celebration of fratrimony or sororimony in these cases, because fratrimony and sororimony are potentially physical as well as spiritual. Sisters according to the flesh cannot be brothers or sisters according to the Spirit to signify that the Church is meant to be a disturber of households. First cousins and other close relatives ordinarily forbidden by the Law or the civil law are barred from such unions by the signification of household disturbance, because the Moral Law is still operative, or in obedience to rulers.
Conspirituality is more difficult. We often do not consider this to be a bar. Although it probably is forbidden by ancient canon law, I do see spouses sponsor one another for Baptism. The ancient canons probably were concerned more with exploitation of young wards rather than “spiritual incest” in an ontological sense. In the cases in which we are interested, conspirituality affects matrimony. Brian McLaren in his famous reflection on homosexuality meets a couple whose fathers are partners. Should it be lawful to marry such a couple? I argue that as long as the couple was not raised together in the same household and the civil law does not forbid it, it’s probably all right, but that opinion depends on a hermeneutic of the Moral Law, in which the laws against incest exist for sake of natural justice, order in households, and the protection of children from abuse. If you don’t subscribe to this hermeneutic, your opinion might be different, but you almost certainly object to the whole idea in the first place.

Public Health

Many states require blood tests for various diseases. If the church has to have its own rules, it really should consider mandating that both partners get tested if they haven’t been tested recently. Although I intend to be a virgin when I marry, I also intend to be tested for the usual suite of STDs, since some can be transmitted without intimate contact. The point of this requirement shouldn’t be to set up a formal bar to union but to get both partners honest about what they’re living with and the precautions they need to take in future life. We know from the Law that God is concerned with disease, especially these sorts of diseases. If we gain some pastoral and theological insight from this requirement, we could do great good in Africa and Asia.

Counseling

One thing I disliked about the Book of Daniel was the complete emphasis in the marriage counseling sessions on the couple’s relationship. I think this is very important, of course, but I also think it is important that the priest also be careful to instruct the couple in the meaning of the union into which they seek to enter. We receive all kinds of poor cultural cues on marriage, and I fear this will complicate the expectations of same-sex couples. Counseling should be simultaneously catechetical and relational. The Canons presently emphasize catechesis. They also focus on the ability of the couple to contract from the standpoint of consent.

The Requirement of Baptism

At present, it is only required that one of the parties has received Holy Baptism. If the theology of Fratrimony and Sororimony generally propounded on this blog is honored by future legislation, I think that both parties should be baptized. It seems problematic for a union that signifies the unity of the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit to be between a Christian and a non-Christian. Frankly, I’m not sure if Christian Marriage should be celebrated between a Christian and a non-Christian for similar reasons, though I would be agreeable to any correction on the matter. But I’m still concerned with the Apostle’s command, “be ye not yoked unequally.”

Notice

We still seem to have some remnant of the requirement of Banns and hints of Special License in our canons, but most of this is gone. I think it would be preferable in cases of Matrimony, Fratrimony, or Sororimony that notice be given in some convenient way of upcoming unions rather than after the fact, so that the community have the opportunity to pray for the couple, but that’s just me.

Declaration of Intention

To signify the completion of the catechetical requirement, there should be a Declaration of Intention that has some relation to the relevant liturgical formulae.

Conscience Clause

Should be retained. There are many good reasons why a priest should be free not to solemnize any union which she or he does not want to solemnize.

Of Dissolution

The Canons require that at least one of the divorcing parties inform the Clergy before taking legal action so that attempts can be made to reconcile. In states where there are no civil incidents associated with fratrimony or sororimony, there is no way to pause for an attempt at reconciliation. I would recommend that the Canons ask that one of the parties not effect a permanent separation of bed and board (as the medieval canonists would put it) before attempting reconciliation. Tradition provides little insight into dissolution of spiritual brotherhood or sisterhood. The closest analogy would be separation from a religious order. The Rule of Saint Benedict is problematic in this regard in that it essentially provides the greater excommunication for the contumacious, making full identification of the monastery with the entire Church. One wonders whether Benedictines thrice estranged from their family could be reconciled with the Church. Serious reflection needs to be done here, and frankly our problems with the theology of matrimonial dissolution are partially to blame for my doubts here.

For the same reasons, I always have had reservations with same-sex unions involving divorced persons. But as I said before, law is normative, but grace is not. These questions are important, but their settlement is not definite. In all cases, I would advise that special concern be directed toward the children of all types of holy unions.

I am sure that I have missed many important issues or not treated others in sufficient detail. So please consider these thoughts to be the start of a conversation. *Christopher, I know, already has put down excellent thoughts on related issues in the build-up to the affirmation of his fratrimony with his spiritual brother, C.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who settest the solitary in families: We commend to thy continual care the homes in which thy people dwell. Put far from them, we beseech thee, every root of bitterness, the desire of vainglory, and the pride of life. Fill them with faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness. Knit together in constant affection, those who, in holy wedlock, have been made one flesh. Keep in thy faith and fear those who have been made by thy Spirit brothers and sisters in the bond of peace. Turn the hearts of the parents to the children, and the hearts of the children to the parents, and so enkindle fervent charity among us all, that we may evermore be kindly affectioned to one another; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.