Letter From Bishop of Los Angeles On Same Sex Marriage

Jackass.

No more coy language re: “same-sex blessings.”  The dio of Los Angeles is now declaring them marriages.  Can the official liturgical change be far behind?  Anaheim, (GC09) here we come.  The lead up has begun.

Fork. Done.

My policy has been to allow clergy to respond to the needs of their community with pastoral sensitivity including the blessing of these unions as they deem appropriate to the pastoral context.

Context does seem to mean alot to the good bishop.  I seem to remember that in New Orleans, when his “context” was that he was standing 10 feet from the ABoC, that his “policy” on this issue was somewhat different.  What was it he said again?  I am just positive it was not “My policy has been to allow clergy to respond to the needs of their community with pastoral sensitivity including the blessing of these unions as they deem appropriate to the pastoral context.”

I hope he copied the ABC.  It is time for faithful Christians still in TEC to look for the exits.  This applies especially to our bishops. Come on “Windsor” bishops, your colleagues are showing you their middle finger.  Shake the dust off your feet and depart.  They have rejected the peace that you have offered.

OK… everyone who’s surprised raise your hand. Guess he didn’t get the ABC’s memo on moritoria.

Moritoria…Schmoritoria.  Who cares (at least in TEC)?

The Supreme Court of California has determined that it has authority over the Word of God. Yeah, right!

And his final phrase about the Holy Spirit continuing to lead us into all truth simply reiterates the lie that God’s revelation is still developing, so nothing can be certain, not even God’s Word. Another example of taking a small passage of Scripture (John 16:13) way out of context to make it mean what we would like it to mean, rather than coming to terms with its original meaning in its historical context, which might mean we have to change our thinking and behaviour.

We need a new confessing Anglican province in American NOW!

. . .“and after you’ve “educated” (aka indoctrinated) those backward bigots in your congregation, don’t forget to tell them that they can prove their new sincerity by putting a “Vote No on Proposition 8” sign in their front yard.” (BTW, I have to take my “Vote YES on Proposition 8” sign inside every night because they’re getting regularly stolen by some intolerant and non-inclusive people!)

Sorry, Bishop Bruno:  You’re not MY “brother in Christ!”

Somebody tell the Bishop of Harare that Bruno didn’t get it!

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/16930/

You could tell the ABC and that Cameron chap, but it would not matter.

The Bishop is perverted… Should be registered as a sex offender.

Lord, I pray you will open Bishop Bruno’s eyes by whatever means are necessary; that he will clearly see that the Bible has authority over his life, and that You are the creator of the universe and that Your laws are for our benefit.  I pray those following Bruno’s lead’s eyes would be open and they would discern that they are leading others down a sinful path that will lead to eternity apart from God in hell.  Amen.

I hope that all clergy in our Diocese might educate our congregations about marriage and have conversations about it.

These are the code words of “We’ll tell you how it is possible to bless an abomination in God’s Church as we re-write Holy Scripture to fit our sins.”

The last thing the revisionist clergy really wants is an educated congregation that reads and interprets scripture for themselves. What they need are lemmings who are willing to leap off the cliff with them.

Dear Anglican Communion:

  Shove this up your Indaba Group.

Shalom,
+J(ackass)Jon Bruno

cc: ++Rowan Williams

the snarkster™

“Educate our congregations about marriage” ? The bishop needs educating. He is sick.

Corrections…

Performing and blessing these marriages is not simply theoretical. There are real people in congregations large and small who have <strike>waited sometimes for many</strike> been involved in fornication and sexual perversions for years waiting this opportunity, and <strike>the witness of their faithful love</strike> their innovation to historic Christianity and the Scriptures has been an inspiration to me. Other <strike>couples</strike> sexual diversions will step forward in the future. I hope you will take the opportunity in the next several weeks to listen to their stories. Many among these <strike>couples</strike> innovators to the faith are members of our congregations.

In this day of troubled times when you can’t tell the ac’s from the dc’s, isn’t it time to put on a little stopping power? Here’s to the Snarkster!

It’s just this little chromium switch. You people are soooo superstitious.

the snarkster™

He’s just trying to make his own divorce not look so bad!

Many of the responses to this posting are way over the top.  People, please try to exercise some Christian restraint and read StandFirm’s statement before you post:

Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

It does not enhance our credibility one whit to hurl infantile insults at the other side on a blog.

Having said that, the key to this posting is this:

we seek to provide that gracious space for those whose conscience compels them to bless the marriages of all faithful people

In other words, Bishop Bruno has just authorized his clergy to conduct same-sex marriages.  This needs to be broadcast far and wide in the Anglican Communion.

Let Bruno speak for himself, folks.  We need not add ANYTHING (and best that we don’t!) for this to have full effect.

jamesw, are you a new moderator on this site?

Just remember that if Prop 8 is defeated, there will be no “conscience clause” in California state law that protects a church and clergy from being sued for discrimination if they refuse to marry a homosexual couple. The only recourse is to refuse to marry everyone, hetero- or homosexual. That’s why it’s so important to pass this proposition, which will put the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman into the state constitution.

It surprises me that Bishop Bruno didn’t mention that conscious objectors could be sued, even though he purports to let them off the hook. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him join in the suit. If you want to see Bishop Bruno’s demeanor in court, just look at the archive of last week’s oral arguments before the same four Supreme Court justices that made gay marriage into law last year at http://www.calchannel.com/ (Choose the Archives and select 100808, Oral Arguments.) Bishop Bruno is sitting in the first row. He is suing in the highest court to gain the property of the four parishes that left because of his heresies—only one of which is the blessing of this sin. The real issue is his answer to “Who do you say that I am?” Bishop Bruno’s answer is, “Because you’re only one of the many ways to God, no one needs a savior. [Therefore, your death on the cross was meaningless.] Christians have no right to preach your gospel to people of other faiths.” Remember, he apologized to Hindus at an interfaith Eucharist last January for Christians evangelizing them, then invited them to receive Holy Communion. As we know, he has little respect for Christ, for Holy Scripture, for two thousand years of tradition, or even the canons of TEC, except those about property.

Sue, I voted by absentee ballot this morning, and I voted FOR Proposition 8.  I’ve talked to a LOT of people here in town, and I have yet to hear ANYONE say anything against it.  I think it will pass.

The Supreme Court of California has determined that all citizens of our state should have equal access to . . .

This phrase should make any lover of democracy cringe!

GC ‘09 here we come.  I assume that Integrity is working hard to make sure that the “right” people are being elected and trained to go to Anaheim.  Combined with the absence of any form of orthodox check and balance (San Jaquin, Pittsburgh and presumably Quincey and Fort Worth), ECUSA will move swiftly to repudiate B033, approve some kind of liturgy for SSB’s and/or SSM’s, Title IV Canonical revisions, and begin the process for prayer book revision.

Sue M said “

Just remember that if Prop 8 is defeated, there will be no “conscience clause” in California state law that protects a church and clergy from being sued for discrimination if they refuse to marry a homosexual couple. The only recourse is to refuse to marry everyone, hetero- or homosexual. “

Sue, I think that statement is overblown.  No priest now is required to marry anyone.  A simple, “I don’t think you are properly prepared to be married in my church.” is sufficient.  However, If the church rents out the parish hall for receptions, I would think that would be a problem.

Paul, I don’t think so.  If a priest, who is licensed by the state, don’t forget, marries hetero couples and refuses to marry a homo couple, that’s discrimination, and saying “you’re not prepared” won’t carry water for very long. He can also say that he marries only members of the church, as many do, but what if they’re members of the church? It happened in my parish several years ago and the two were members, were refused, and sued, even though it was still the policy of TEC not to bless SSM or unions. (I won’t go into the details.) As I said, the priest will have to give up marrying everyone in order to avoid being sued for discrimination.

Sue, they can sue all they want, but I know that Catholic priests refuse to marry heterosexual couples all the time. 

The state can’t force a clergyman to perform a religious ceremony.

I share your fear, but I can’t believe it would happen.  Yes, I’ve been accused of being naive before…

In one of my pastoral care courses at VTS, the instructor said that a member of the clergy is free, from the state’s point of view, to deny officiating at a wedding for any reason or no reason.  Period.

I suppose that might change, however; the pro-homosexual group seems to be bent on turning everything on its ear….

No, I think Sue may be correct.  I think this would be considered “disparate treatment” that could be barred.  A priest would still be able to refuse for reasons of maturity or readiness or whatever basis applies to straight couples.  He will be precluded from using gender as his sole criterion.

Caleb: No, I am not the moderator.  But, as a conservative, I think we are being exceedingly stupid and short-sighted, not to mention lacking in Christian charity, by making infantile, rude insults.  How does

The Bishop is perverted… Should be registered as a sex offender.

contribute to the discussion in a positive way?

Sue Martinez and Nikolaus are correct.  An employer also is not required to hire any specific individual.  But if a pattern emerges that the employer refuses to hire any African-American period, then there is a case for racial discrimination.

What will happen is that after a few years, the homosexual lobby will begin recruiting “model” gay couples to attend churches of leading conservatives, fulfilling all the requirements for getting married.  Then when the clergyperson refuses, they will demand to know why.  After a few setups like this, the clergyperson will be charged with discrimination.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)

Since when, with the 1st amendment firmly in place, let alone our conscience, does a church, any church, take direction on what is or isn’t the neccessary elements of a Christ-instituted sacrament from the Supreme Court of any state? 

On this one I’m just one confused lawyer and a . . .

MS,

What makes it the state’s business is that the clergy is licensed by the state, unlike most other countries, where the happy couple must have two ceremonies, one civil and one religious. It’s similar to the “El Camino Real Plan.” The only difference is that the first takes place at the city hall and church, and the second only in the church. In El Camino Real, the legal part is performed by somebody else. Using the Prayer Book is forbidden, but using the building is just fine. This is only so the bishop can claim she does not permit her clergy to perform SSM, just in case any orthodox primates are watching. It’s a travesty.

The Court’s ruling provides the Church with an opportunity to reflect on our own theology of marriage.

WRONG!!!  It is the CHURCH that should be informing SOCIETY on the theology of marriage, not the other way ‘round!

When oh when did these PHIPS forget that it is the Church that informs and builds the human conscience, and not the civil authorities?

PHIPS!....

KTF!...mrb