March 29, 2017

February 7, 2013

DioMS: Ban on Same-Sex Blessings Still in Place, Unless You Want to Do Same-Sex Blessings

Get this: The Diocese of Mississippi, whose bishop authorized same-sex blessings in his diocesan address of last Friday, is reminding folks:

While a general ban on the blessing of same gender unions remains in place, he will allow congregations which self-select and undergo a thorough process to move toward blessings of same gender unions.


On another note, I love the headline of the press release: “Bishop Gray calls for election of successor.” Gee, Scott, I’d think you could have at least mentioned “...And Reverses Church Teaching on Christian Marriage with Stroke of Pen.”


Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



You know, Greg.

You’re just hateful.

This post proves it.

. . .

. . .

. . . And divisive.

[1] Posted by Sarah on 2-7-2013 at 06:21 PM · [top]

“A thorough process…”

Rector:  Hey Bishop, we want to do SSBs.

Bishop:  Are you sure?

Rector:  Yes.

Bishop:  Ok.

It’s been authorized by the GC.  The bishop says it’s allowed.  I mean really?  Who do they think they’re kidding?

[2] Posted by Bill2 on 2-7-2013 at 07:25 PM · [top]

You know, I think that for her comment Sarah should be banned….unless she wants to continue posting comments, of course.

You know, I wonder if this might not be the perfect solution for the gun control debate.  We could institute a ban on “assault-style rifles” that would apply to everyone unless someone actually wanted to purchase them, at which point only those people wanting to purchase them would be allowed to.

[3] Posted by jamesw on 2-7-2013 at 07:45 PM · [top]

You have to admit that it’s pretty impressive how Dunc repealed the laws of physics like that.

[4] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 2-7-2013 at 08:11 PM · [top]

“While a general ban on the blessing of same gender unions remains in place”

Well, you see, the Code is not so much rules as what you might call “guidelines”.  And for the code to apply, you must be a bishop, which your not…..

[5] Posted by tjmcmahon on 2-7-2013 at 08:15 PM · [top]

Are people fooled by such duplicity?? I guess Bishop Gray must believe that such duplicity will fool at least some in his diocese. Still….. the mind boggles.

[6] Posted by Blue Cat Man on 2-7-2013 at 09:19 PM · [top]

Probably a VTS man. They do a lot of wanking there.

[7] Posted by Ralph on 2-8-2013 at 08:03 AM · [top]


Greg, there really ought to be a way for commenters to edit comments. Though, there’s perhaps some metaphorical truth to #7.

[8] Posted by Ralph on 2-8-2013 at 08:05 AM · [top]


[9] Posted by Blue Cat Man on 2-8-2013 at 08:39 AM · [top]

50 shades of Gray, eh?  Well, it’s a legacy of sorts ...  enough to make one wish that such folks pants or robes would light up in flames when they commit such acts of prevarication. 

But, then, there would be a worldwide run on flame retardant, wouldn’t there be?

[10] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 2-8-2013 at 09:14 AM · [top]

But he did vote against it before he voted for it.

[11] Posted by Pb on 2-8-2013 at 09:18 AM · [top]

Woah, you know in UK English that’s a pretty vulgar word?

[12] Posted by driver8 on 2-8-2013 at 11:05 AM · [top]

My disappointment goes beyond a deeply flawed theology. The way in which Bishop Gray chose to handle this is inexcusable. I am not only disappointed in his theological waffling, but even more so I am disappointed in him as a human being. As Greg referenced in an earlier post, Bishop Gray betrayed many people who trusted his word. He knew he was going to retire so I don’t understand why he didn’t tell the gay lobby: “Look, I am announcing my retirement at Council this year; so you all have only 12 months or so to wait for a change in policy. It will be your task in that time to persuade the people of this diocese to choose a successor who will embrace blessing of same-sex unions.” This or something like it would have allowed him to maintain his personal integrity and IF the diocese chose a more liberal Bishop then he could have taken the posture of an elder statesman in the conflict that would have occurred. In other words he could have taken the position of being a pastor; sadly, he chose otherwise.

[13] Posted by frmcn+ on 2-8-2013 at 11:34 AM · [top]

It would have been better for him and the diocese to say, Not here, not now. I am with frmcn+. He could have stuck to his principles and his conscience would have been clear.  When he retires,  let the people decide.  I still think he may have been afraid of Title IV charges coming down on his head if he did not.  Who knows?  No matter how you see this, it is not good. Betrayal never is.

[14] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 2-8-2013 at 02:16 PM · [top]

Thanks for the warning, Driver8.  Just looked up “wanking” on Wikipedia. EEEEEWWWWWW!

[15] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 2-8-2013 at 02:20 PM · [top]

Those of us who believe in such thing understand that the is a special place in Hell for clergy who lead their flock atray.  Not that I’m passing judgement or anything on xGray…but when if comes to Judgement Day I like my own odds better than his.

[16] Posted by Nikolaus on 2-8-2013 at 07:51 PM · [top]

Sorry for the typo’s

[17] Posted by Nikolaus on 2-8-2013 at 08:03 PM · [top]

“allowed him to maintain his personal integrity”

frmcn+, what a quaint concept for a Bishop of EcUSA these days!  Is it located in the 1979 Prayer Book in the Historical Documents section along with actual content of The Faith or is it diffused through the liturgical fidgetry of ordination suggestions in the conformation “to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the [Zeitgeist] Episcopal (Organization) [in 16 countries]”?  See page 513 of the 1979 Book of Varietal Prayer.

[18] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 2-8-2013 at 09:34 PM · [top]

#16, I imagine the reason so little gets accomplished during an average episcopate is that hypocrite bishops spend most of their waking hours praying that St John Chrysostom and Dante were wrong.

[19] Posted by tjmcmahon on 2-8-2013 at 09:43 PM · [top]

>Are people fooled by such duplicity??

It is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.

[20] Posted by jedinovice on 2-8-2013 at 11:44 PM · [top]

Discernment through “self-selection”.  well, I guess the next move will be to disband their Commission on Ministry.  And why do they need an Episcopal Election.  Surely someone will self-select the new bishop.

[21] Posted by Ed McNeill on 2-9-2013 at 04:50 PM · [top]

>Surely someone will self-select the new bishop.

Yup.  Schori.  You think she’s going to give up power because of an election?

[22] Posted by jedinovice on 2-9-2013 at 08:22 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.