The Bishop of El Camino Real Writes Her Clergy: Guidelines for Same-Gender Marriage

The Pharisees were pikers compared to our progressives in their ability to twist the law into a pretzel.

Where does one begin on this one?? We could start with the death of Lambeth 1998 1.1 and end at Sodom. I feel like I need about 40 years of discernment to even approach coming to my Lord with the shame these people have brought to the Episcopal church. I do thank the Lord that I am One Day Closer to his table. As for my children…Gay is not OK.
Intercessor

GOOD GOD!!  Am I glad my wife and I left that revisionist heretic swamp when we did!

Twenty-eight years ago, the Diocese of El Camino Real separated from the Diocese of California, and we rejoiced when we did.  But if we had known then what was to happen since that day, we would have left tout suite!

Hmmm, +Tom Wright stated that Rowan Williams was supposed to send out letters stating that acceptance of the invitation would be an acceptance of Windsor principles. Of course, the old ditherer backed down. But he was going to make some phone calls. Will Mother Mary Gray-Reeves be getting such a phone call? Perhaps, the old ditherer needs a reminder what Windsor says:

The clear and repeated statements of the Instruments of Unity have also been to advise against the development and approval of such rites. ...we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion….We believe that to proceed unilaterally with the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time goes against the formally expressed opinions of the Instruments of Unity and therefore constitutes action in breach of the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion have received it, and of bonds of affection in the life of the Communion, especially the principle of interdependence. For the sake of our common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions.

I do not understand this AT ALL.

How can something NOT be acceptable for a priest to PRESIDE at, but perfectly acceptable for a priest to BLESS?

This is so incredible that this woman bishop (Small W & B; I don’t recognize her) has written such a horrid letter. Dear Lord Send help… We need you ever so much to guide your Church to follow Your Word as it is written.
Persons making statements from sinful thought make it so difficult to kneel and focus on your Cross.  Repent or Perish Mary Gray- Reeves.

Doing a “new thing” is clearly doing “our own thing”, the rest of the world be damned.  it’s the “me generation” run amok.

For anyone from ECR:  I don’t consider Mary Gray Reeves an ordained clergyperson.  Email me, and we’ll have a chat!

For example, you may have a civil ceremony conducted by someone other than an Episcopal clergyperson, followed by a blessing of that union (which could surely include a Eucharist) by an Episcopal priest.

So….Let me get this straight!!! A TEC priest cannot perform the marriage but he can afterwards in a blessing ceremony give them our Lord’s Body & Blood in the Eucharist????????? Color me whit me white with horror!

And I’ll bet you all thought the Diocese of Pennsylvania was screwed up!

What part of California does this diocese embrace? I am glad that I will not have to take part in her proposed dialogue about family. Look for more “listening.”

Quick! Give me my blue pencil!

Reflect, reflection, reflect.
Conversation, conversation, conversation, conversation, conversation, conversation.
This letter gets a grade of D+.
Dumb Sheep.

#5, Paul B, This way the good bishop can claim that gay marriages are not performed in her diocese and that she is, therefore, Windsor compliant and has not done anything contrary to any canons.

Look for this policy to possibly change after Lambeth and definitely change after GC 2009.

I have a theory!

Bravo Your Bishopness.  You have the courage of your convictions.  If only the Christians in your Diocese would wake up, smell the coffee and get the H**l out of there!

Two things:

full sacramental inclusion

Still galls me even though I’ve heard it thousands of times now.  I’m functionally unable to find this particular sacrament in Scripture or Tradition.  If its so obvious, why can’t I find it?

it has been a long time since El Camino Real has had any structured conversation about what distinguishes a Christian marriage

Well…yes, that’s obvious or the rest of the letter would not make any sense (see the above point).  But given that that outcome of this structured conversation is preordained what are we meeting for again?  Will we really be listening to the Church in her reading of Scripture and teaching or Tradition for the past 2000 years or is this all about us?

Dave G, I’d rather put it as: 

You have the courage of your lack of convictions.

What hypocrisy.  In view of Lambeth coming up, she’s going to try to skate around the issue of whether she’s “approving”  these sham ceremonies.

Seems to me I remember another California bishop who had SSB’s going on all around him, but never “authorized” them.

The truth is not in them.

#11 The Diocese of El Camino Real embraces the Central California coast from Mountain View to Santa Barbara, and to the Stanislaus and Merced County lines on the East.

Thanks, Cennydd. I suspected it would be that general area - it’s the part of California I am most familiar with. :-(

You may have a same-gender civil marriage and blessing in your church provided an Episcopal priest does not officiate at the marriage itself or sign the marriage license and the Book of Common Prayer is not used.

Oh, for crying out loud.  Are these coy half-measures intended to pacify the orthodox or something?  Because frankly I’d rather they just got on with SSM—you know they’re going to eventually—and let us get on with building our own faithful orthodox church in communion with the GS.  So long, farewell, and enough is enough.

Looks like the bishop’s protocol is a halfway measure. Surely, she looks forward to a time—in the near future—when clergy CAN use the BCP and the marriage rite, and conduct a same-sex marriage; this halfway measure is a quick step to deal with present political realities.  And of course, if the good people of California approve a constitutional amendment this fall to reverse the recent court decision, she will have to issue an amended directive.

And we’re no fools here in California!  Despite what you hear from the sensationalist media, the majority of us….especially those outside the major metropolitan areas….are against same-sex “marriage.”  We have 27 churches in our town, and except for one ELCA parish, they’re all SOLIDLY anti-SSM.

talk about theologically bankrupt… this is truly pathetic,

I believe that we have a textbook example of complying with the letter of law, while trampling all over the heart of it.  This is parsed in such a manner the Diocese can truthfully state that they are not performing same sex marriage.  However, I also believe that the level of legalistic twisting, which enabled them to reach this position, is contemptible.

“This letter gets a grade of D+”—-Dumb Sheep

Brother Sheep [#12] is, as usual, kindly and generous.

This letter gets an F for fraud-mongering.

Nothing to worry about here.  After all, these are not so much rules as they are guidelines, and in any case, you have to be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply…. (substitute noun of your choice for “pirate”)

For example, you may have a civil ceremony conducted by someone other than an Episcopal clergyperson, followed by a blessing of that union (which could surely include a Eucharist) by an Episcopal priest.

Any pastoral letter which uses the word “clergyperson” is automatically void for silliness.

Gadzooks!! Does she not realize how self-parodying this kind of language is?

-RedHatRob

We are in the midst of a very long conversation prompted by our awareness of the complexities of human sexuality and our desire to live in relationships of integrity with God and with one another.

I think my conversation would be pretty short.

1. One can not find joy at all in such repugnant action that the CA court has done. 
2. How can any clergy especially a bishop strongly encourage much less order fellow clergy to help the gays and lesbians to continue to live in their sinful lifestyle.
3. Christ does love the sinner, but he does not like the fruits of their labour if the unrepentant sinner does not confess his sins to be forgiven and live a new life for God.
4. This woman is not a bishop or clergy by any means.  The Sacred Scriptures is solidly against women’s ordination. Neither do I recognize her orders.
5. It is just offensive to even call her a reverend mother.  That term is reserved for the wonderful mother superiors in Catholic religious orders who give their life to Jesus Christ.
6. It is just sick and repugnant that this is being allowed to go on.
7. This is so disgusting as there is no difference of a canine coming back to wallow in its own vomit.

This is a very strange policy.  If it is inappropriate for the parish priest to conduct such a wedding, why would the parish priest allow someone else to come in and use the church as a site for a wedding the priest could not personally solemnize? 

+Mary typically says her position is “too liberal for some and not permissive enough for others” as if she were a “centrist” on the issues before the diocese. This characterization is unconvincing. 

I can’t imagine the Diocese of El Camino Real reversing its downward course, but time will tell.  The people of central coast of CA will decide if the Episcopal Church has anything to offer them.

And this good lady’s invitation to Lambeth?

‘reflecting with other California bishops’
Did the Lamb agree?  What assurances did he give before the ABC invited him?

In a sane world, she would be defrocked - check that, in a sane world, she would never have been a bishop in the first place - no wait, she isn’t one to begin with - oh, never mind.

Holed up in my creaking garret eagerly awaiting the Anglican Communion Institute’s 45-page pamphlet on why it is a good idea for The Most Reverend Ephraim Adebola Ademowo to go to Lambeth to engage in diverse inclusive affirming listening indaba ubuntu covenant conversation with the Episcopalian Mary Gray-Reeves.

In looking through our paper today there are two counties where the clerks have stated that they will stop performing marriages 3 days before this abomination/sacrilege of a “law” kicks in here in California. The majority of Californians do not want this and voted to keep this from happening, but becuase of the LGBT activists and 4 liberal judges that legislated from their bench, we have been robbed of our voices.
Read it here

Thank God, no clerics in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin will bless or recognize these so-called “marriages!”  And this includes Merced County.

What is astonishingly bizarre is the notion of not using the BCP. The rest is old hat, so to speak.

Isn’t that what Alternative Service Liturgies are for? The BCP service assumes a man and a woman.

The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, Page 423, 1979 BCP:

“Dearly beloved:  We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of THIS MAN and THIS WOMAN…..”

This pretty well says all that needs to be said.

“Can you say, ‘bad faith?’”  I knew ya could. [/Mr. Rogers]

She is late of the Dio of SE Florida. Her brother Michael, a Nashota House graduate, was my rector before he left Dio of SE Florida for Dio of VA some years ago. Wonder what he thinks of all this.

I’d put the same question to this woman that I would have put to Tom Shaw, given the chance—when someone performs the civil “marriage” in church and then the Eucharist is celebrated, which post-Communion prayer is used?  The one from the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage? 

The weaselly Shaw has always tried to split the same hairs—but, children, when you put a Christian blessing on a civil marriage, you are, by definition, making it a Christian marriage.  Clergy, feel free to disagree with me and give your reasons, if you like. 

Not to mention, Shaw has still had clergy in his diocese that solemnized the marriages and signed the license, but to my knowledge he has not disciplined them.  Thus, he travels around telling African bishops “oh, we don’t solemnize gay marriages in the diocese of MA”, when they do, without discipline, and also don’t hesitate to put a blessing on it, which, as I said, makes it Christian marriage anyway.  They also passed around New Westminster’s “service” in the clergy groups, too, just in case anyone wasn’t sure which service to use. 

The hypocrisy within all of this is truly without peer, and meanwhile the Archditherer of Canterbury still does nothing…hope you’re proud of yourself, Rowan…is American money truly that important?