|
1a) A Prayer for Those Affected by the Tsunami O God, merciful and compassionate, who art ever ready to hear the prayers of those who put their trust in thee; graciously hearken to those who call upon thee, and grant them thy help in their need; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
O Lord, our heavenly Father, whose blessed Son came not to be ministered unto, but to minister; We beseech thee to bless all who, following in his steps, give themselves to the service of their fellow men. Endue them with wisdom, patience, and courage to strengthen the weak and raise up those who fall; that, being inspired by thy love, they may worthily minister in thy Name to the suffering, the friendless, and the needy; for the sake of him who laid down his life for us, the same thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen
1b) http://gs2004.classicalanglican.com/modules/news/ People can help out via World Vision http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/comms2.nsf/stable/erdm_indianoceanquake?Open&lpos=main1photo , which will be there long after the TV-cameras have wandered off. Here's the Canadian version https://www1.worldvision.ca/CampaignsSecDM2.nsf/Asia+Earthquake04?OpenForm&id=02994598
2a) http://gs2004.classicalanglican.com/modules/news/ http://www.vancouver.anglican.ca/Portal/Default.aspx?tabid=1&mode=Story&StoryId=93 Last Updated: Thursday 23 Dec, 2004, 01:29 PM (Diocese of New Westminster 'Topic' website) Hutchison upbeat in new job Primate Andrew Hutchison, elected head of the Anglican Church of Canada six months ago, insists the Church is doing well despite its problems - and he's enjoying his new job.
"I'm having a wonderful time," he told a diocesan gathering at St. Mary's Kerrisdale on December 6, just one of many events in a packed three-day visit to the Diocese of New Westminster(...)
The "Global South" - including Africa - now has the majority of Anglicans and they're saying "our voice must be heard."
Africans especially have a different concept of episcopal leadership. "A primate in other parts of the Anglican Communion can have great authority. People line up behind him when he snaps his fingers," said Hutchison. "Well, it's not that way in Canada." Instant communications through email and the Internet have complicated matters.
"It's not easy," he said. "The Church has to think globally, but also act locally."
The diocese's decision to bless same sex unions was cited in a recent report to the Archbishop of Canterbury - the Windsor Report. Bishop Michael Ingham on behalf of the diocese has expressed regret that "bonds of affection" that hold the diocese together were breeched by that decision.
Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, presiding at Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral on Dec. 5. Flanking him are the Rev. Alisdair Smith, deacon, and Megan Otton, MC
But Hutchison said there was no need for the diocese to be sorry about the decision itself. "There's no need for apology. That was a decision made in conscience."
"We must act locally with courage and integrity," he said. "You may well be doing something prophetic. That should be reassuring. This was not a wildcat move by a maverick diocese."
Hutchison predicted that the diocese would eventually be joined in blessing same sex unions by other dioceses in Canada. The Diocese of Niagara voted in November in favour, but its bishop refused to assent; the Diocese of Toronto almost voted in favour, Hutchison said.
The primate said he has hopes that a scheme for "Shared Episcopal Ministry" recommended by all but three of Canada's 38 bishops will bring a measure of accommodation to the Canadian Church.
2b) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_40521_ENG_HTM.htm General Synod News: Archbishop Andrew Hutchison elected 12th Primate of Canada Monday, May 31, 2004 Episcopal News Service: ECUSA (7 months later) (...)Asked about his views of same-sex blessings, one of the most controversial topics General Synod members are grappling with during their nine-day meeting in this Southern Ontario city, Archbishop Hutchison said that the concept of such blessings were much less of a problem for him than the idea of same-sex marriages. Nonetheless, he added, the diocese of Montreal has abided by bishops' guidelines that do not condone such blessings(...)
2c) http://www.igs.net/~tonyc/ssbcit1.html Archbishop Andrew Hutchison's first statement Ottawa Citizen, June 1, page A8 (almost 7 months later) "The new leader of Canada's Anglicans said yesterday he would bless the union of Christian gays even though he cannot theologically or biblically give his full support to same-sex marriage. Montreal's Archbishop Andrew Hutchison said dioceses are independent units and he has no jurisdiction to stop B.C.'s New Westminster diocese from performing same-sex blessings in the Vancouver area. Archbishop Hutchinson was elected leader on the fourth ballot at yesterday's Anglican general synod."
2d) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_40775_ENG_HTM.htm New primate for Canada; same-sex blessings discussed by Matthew Davies, ENS 060204-1 Wednesday, June 02, 2004 (almost 7 months ago) [Episcopal News Service] The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), meeting May 28 - June 5 at Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, elected Archbishop Andrew Hutchison of Montreal as its 12th primate May 31 in a four-ballot vote that took almost five hours to complete. (...)Responding to questions about whether he was in favor of same-sex blessings, Hutchison said, "When two human beings active in the life of the church and the body of Christ commit themselves to each other for life and ask their faith community to bless that, I have no problem with that." He admitted that he had difficulties with same-sex marriage and remained undecided about the resolution being presented before General Synod. "Frankly, I haven't really taken a position on that yet," he said. "It's not fence-sitting. I do have my personal convictions but what will be good for the church at this point needs to unroll during the process of this synod."(...) He said that he would forge an informal dialogue with dissenting churches and parishes in the diocese of New Westminster who have formed their own coalition after their diocesan synod in 2002 approved the blessing of same-sex unions.
6/2/2004 Daily Texan Online Newspaper (almost 7 months ago) Canadian church debates same-sex blessings (...)Hutchison favors same-sex blessings - though not gay marriages in church. He told reporters he won't try to impose his thinking on the church and is actually uncertain how he'll vote on the same-sex issue.
Asked whether his church will eventually accept blessings across the nation, Hutchison responded, "I suspect that's true."(...)
2f) http://www.christiantoday.com/news/ame/250.htm Anglican Church of Canada Tables Same-Sex Blessing Proposal Posted: Thursday, June 3 , 2004, 4:06 (GMT) (almost 7 months ago) (...)Also, just two days ago, the Anglican Church of Canada voted for a liberal leader as the head of its denomination two days ago. Montreal Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, who will be seated officially on Friday, had been one of five Canadian archbishops to sign a letter last year opposing an international ban on same-sex "marriage" blessings(...)
2g) http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displaypackstory?2004/06/04+155.raw+FE04Jun04+2 Friday, June 4, 2004 (almost 7 months ago) The Halifax Herald Limited, CP Same-sex unions get Anglican support Montreal Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, selected Monday as the Canadian Anglican Church's new leader, noted that because the church didn't vote against giving a blessing, each of the country's 30 dioceses can still choose to do so if they wish.
"Constitutionally, because there is no inhibiting legislation at the level of general synod, it does leave diocese at liberty to make their own decisions," he said.
"Whether morally diocese will feel constrained to hold back is another question."
"I hope that many will hold back (on blessing gay unions) simply to avoid a major schism for the church."(...)
2h) http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/10/18/675453-cp.html October 18, 2004 (2 months ago) Anglican report rips same-sex unions By ANDREW FLYNN TORONTO (CP) - An Anglican Church commission urging Canadian dioceses to stop blessing same-sex relationships isn't binding and won't likely have an immediate impact on the practices of individual parishes, says the church's Canadian primate(...) Archbishop Andrew Hutchison(...)emphasized the report is "not authoritative" and "ties nobody's hands and binds nobody." (...) New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham welcomed the report and said it would be discussed at the diocese's next meeting in May. He said he could not order the stop of same-sex blessings within his diocese until that meeting. He said he's sorry for the hurt the diocese's actions have caused but not for the decision itself. "I don't wish to apologize for the actions themselves because I think they were right. But I understand that change is difficult and some people have been alienated and I regret that very much."(...)
2i) http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/tfn/2004/110304.html ANGLICANS CLASH OVER HOMOSEXUALITY Focus on the Family News, November 3, 2004 (...)Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, Canada's new Anglican Primate or national leader, says part of the difficulty facing them is that they have never before dealt with same-sex unions. "Our official policy is that we do not bless gay unions," Hutchinson told the StarPhoenix. "[But] that is tradition, rather than . . . a stated policy because we have never had a stated policy about that." He added: "It's a very steep learning curve."(...)
2j) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/30/25/acns3029.html ACNS 3029 CANADA 18 June 2002 (2 ½ years ago) New Westminster Synod and Bishop approve same-sex blessings by Leanne Larmondin, [The Anglican Church of Canada] (Michael Ingham) said churches of different denominations in Holland, Germany, the United States and Canada have been blessing same-sex relationships for several years. In the Episcopal Church in the USA, he said, many dioceses openly accept gay unions - for more than 20 years, in the diocese of Rochester.
Even the Anglican bishop ordinary of the Canadian armed forces, Montreal Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, has "not withheld consent" on same-sex unions, said Bishop Ingham(...)
3) http://www.stgeorgeslowville.org/OpenEmailtoCanadianBishops.htm June 29th 2002 ( 2 ½ years ago) An open Email to ALL Canadian Bishops from Rev. C. Paul Orritt, Rector of St Peter's Anglican Church in Okotoks, Alberta. Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus -
Two weekends past, as I am sure you are very much aware, the Diocese of New Westminster held its Synod during which the people of God entertained and passed Motion #7 providing for the blessing of same sex unions(...)
I believe Bp. Michael has drawn a line in the sand - what is now very public sand. He has effectively broken with any sense of collegiality we so often hear about as a bedrock of the Canadian House of Bishops. I believe Canadian Bishops need to address this and take up the leadership mantle that has been placed upon them. Various Bishops of the ACC have declared themselves against the New Westminster decision and for that I know many join with me in deep appreciation for their stand. It is, however, not enough. Even the most superb statement lacks in bringing the issue to the level of positive action. Rhetoric alone is ineffective. Statements alone will only define the position of those who make them. What is needed is definitive, immediate action.
I am led to believe it is the intended strategy of the Primate, perhaps in collusion with Bp. Michael, that a "wait and see" policy be promoted amongst the House of Bishops(...)
4) http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/ Frank Griswold of ECUSA on the Windsor Report reporting process: December 22, 2004
For the House of Bishops
My dear brothers and sisters:
In less than a month we will come together in Salt Lake City to discuss the Windsor Report, as we planned to do last autumn in Spokane. Our January 12-13 meeting is the first step in what promises to be an extended process that will take us some time to move through. In February the report will be considered by Executive Council. Later that month it will be received by the primates, at whose behest the report was prepared. When we meet again as a House of Bishops in March, we will consider the report in light of the Primates Meeting. In June the Anglican Consultative Council will meet and receive the report. No doubt, further steps will be delineated as we go along(...)
5a) http://www.peacearchnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=44&cat=23&id=349250&more= Hiebert stands tough on same-sex marriage By Steven Addison Staff Reporter
Brushing aside accusations of intolerance, and saying his Conservative Party isn't out to create two classes of citizens, Russ Hiebert stood firm this week in his position against same-sex marriage. The first-term MP from South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale is certain a majority of people in his riding-and across the country, for that matter-also oppose gay marriages and want him to oppose Liberal legislation to legalize them. He says his is the best way to build a "respectful" society that functions in the best interests of children. "We're trying to preserve an institution that protects children," he said. "Marriage is fundamentally about the next generation. It's not the only function, it's not the only purpose, but it's the primary purpose (of marriage)." Hiebert, and his party, last week said they will oppose legislation to allow same-sex marriages, after the Supreme Court ruled Parliament has authority to change the definition. Liberals in Ottawa have called the Conservative stance intolerant, and suggested the current law violates the Charter of Rights. Hiebert, a lawyer, is well read in both Canadian law and the marriage debate. He's studied books on the latter topic and had discussions within his own party. Based on that, he supports the status quo, which gives gay couples some of the same pension and taxation benefits. Hiebert said people who criticize him just don't get where he's coming from, and blames the media for making matters worse. "I don't think people fully understand my position on the issue...to some degree I think it comes down to the way it's being reported."
5b) http://revanchist.blogspot.com/ The Revanchist Review, by Ben Buan Thursday, December 09, 2004 Oh, Canada - Part IV - Supreme Court Endorses Gay Marriage
The Supreme Court Weighs in Oh So Lightly
As a surprise to no one, the Supreme Court of Canada today endorsed same-sex marriages in its response to the questions posed by the Liberal government in its referral. The judgment is remarkable for the swiftness of its delivery following the submissions, and for its paucity of intellectual content.
Interveners argued that "the institution of marriage escapes legislative redefinition. Existing in its present basic form since time immemorial, it is not a legal construct, but rather a supra-legal construct subject to legal incidents."
This argument is born from the belief of many and arguably (if given the chance to express their views on the matter) a majority of Canadians, that marriage is inextricably linked to family and these two institutions are rooted in human nature. No amount of judicial creativity can change our underlying human nature and the uniqueness of the difference between male and female.
This argument was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the gossamer thread of judicial reasoning which linked the arguments of Lord Sankey of the House of Lords in the Persons case involving the rights of women to sit as senators, to the same-sex marriage issue.
The justices said: "In addressing whether the fact that women never had occupied public office was relevant to whether they could be considered 'persons' for the purposes of being eligible for appointment to the Senate, Lord Sankey said at p. 134:
The fact that no woman had served or has claimed to serve such an office is not of great weight when it is remembered that custom would have prevented the claim being made or the point being contested.
To this the SCC could not resist adding its own churlish comment that "customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged long after the reason for them has disappeared."
In one sentence the self-evidently true distinction between male and female and the covenant relationship of marriage as an institution designed for members of the opposite sex, is dismissed as mere "custom". The "reason" for marriage has obviously disappeared says the Supreme Court because judges in 6 Canadian provinces and 2 European countries have said so.
The SCC also dismissed the second intervener argument that there are natural limits to the concept of our constitution as a "living tree".
The court said: "The natural limits argument can succeed only if its proponents can identify an objective core of meaning which defines what is "natural" in relation to marriage. Absent this, the argument is merely tautological. The only objective core which the interveners before us agree is "natural" to marriage is that it is the voluntary union of two people to the exclusion of all others. Beyond this, views diverge. We are faced with competing opinions on what the natural limits of marriage may be".
Behind the façade of this judicial Potemkin village lies classic Enlightenment liberalism thinking, which proclaims as superstitious and unwarranted any public policy or construct based on an understanding that mankind inescapably shares a common destiny, and which instead embraces a voluntarist definition of human relationships.
Christopher Lasch believed this way of thinking led to "an unquestioning faith in the capacity of the rational intelligence to solve the mysteries of human existence…and the desire to engage in the conquest of necessity and the substitution of human choice for the blind workings of nature."
Two men or two women want to be married, and no one can muster the courage to say, that is not natural. Objectively, in the light of moral truth which transcends any man made laws, two men or two women don't belong together in a covenantal sexually active union.
So the result is, let them be married. It is as simple as that in the moral vacuum of our inclusive Canadian society, if we are to believe the elites.
The proponents of same sex marriage do not want to conform to the "blind workings of nature" which created male and female and which lead naturally wherever possible to procreation and family and to the covenantal institution of marriage as a cohesive foundation to our human need for community. Mostly, these proponents object to the alienation that naturally follows from the exclusiveness of that covenant. The exclusiveness offends liberals and others who seem incapable of accepting the reality of alienation as part of our human condition.
Meanwhile, the defenders of the traditional and natural definition of marriage are unable or unwilling to direct the minds of our judges to the religious beliefs which support the traditional definition, for as Patrick Deneen points out:
"persistent religious belief offends the cultural, intellectual and economic elite....because it flies in the face of the Enlightenment creed that religious faith would be overcome with the advent of scientific progress, economic development and political liberalization. Seen by elites as superstitious and unwarranted, religious belief is derided as intellectual pabulum and false emotional security, while public policies that arise from religious traditionalism (including limits upon divorce, abortion, and efforts to protect the cohesion of local communities) are viewed as irrational, inegalitarian, illiberal, arbitrary and oppressive."
So this battle has been lost, but the resistance must continue. Czeslaw Milosz said "Evil grows and bears fruit, because it has logic and probability on its side and also, of course, strength. The resistance of tiny kernels of good, to which no one grants the power of causing far-reaching consequences, is entirely mysterious however. Such seeming nothingness not only lasts but contains within itself enormous energy which is revealed gradually. One can draw momentous conclusions from this."
Our challenge is to persevere and seek to continuously produce those "tiny kernels of good" in the face of what seems like overwhelming odds against us.
posted by Ben Buan | 11:11 PM
5c) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/columnists/ Same sex? Then why not legalize polygamy? By NORMAN SPECTOR Toronto Globe and Mail 27 December 2004 In their shootout over who lacks courage on same-sex marriage, it's easy to overlook where Paul Martin and Stephen Harper agree. Since both are competitive politicians, it's likely they reflect a broad consensus on matters related to sexual orientation.
Twenty or even 10 years ago, our airwaves would have been filled with arguments over whether men and women are born homosexual, or learn to be homosexual. Not far beneath the surface of this nature-versus-nurture debate, many would have been thinking that gays and lesbians can be "cured."
Canadians now take for granted that men and women can form stable, loving relationships with partners of the same gender. As the closet has emptied, we've readily accepted that everyone must be treated equally in housing and employment. Today, most Canadians agree that gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal advantages as Mr. Harper and his wife obtained when they said "I do."
Messrs. Harper and Martin also agree on limiting the numbers who share the marital bed. No one can predict how the Supreme Court would rule on Mr. Martin's proposed discrimination against threesomes, just as no one can say for certain how the court would rule on current discrimination against homosexuals.
Mr. Martin insists that Mr. Harper would have to use the notwithstanding clause to preserve the existing definition of marriage. Yet, the Prime Minister has not declared whether he would use the clause to limit marriage to two persons. Is it that he lacks courage?
Perhaps. But Mr. Martin is also assuming that the court would not strike down his proposed redefinition -- just as Mr. Harper assumes the court would not strike down the traditional definition of marriage. Both would argue that the discrimination they support is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" -- the test in Section 1 of the Charter.
Where Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin substantively part company is over whether gay and lesbian unions should be called "marriage" or something else. With both sides dug in, one wag has suggested calling the latter "garriage."
Aside from the label, the debate reflects two conceptions of equality. For many gays and lesbians, equality means being considered the same. You say tomato, I say to-mah-to. For others, being equal is not incompatible with rejoicing in one's difference. "Marriage" -- a bourgeois institution for the straight and narrow -- is the last thing that resonates in their mind.
As a conservative, I can think of several reasons it would not be in Canada's interest to become the third country to legalize same-sex marriage. However, if the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, I can't think of a single additional reason to prohibit a woman from voluntarily choosing to become Paul Martin's second wife, assuming Sheila Martin also agreed.
I concede that a majority of Canadians would be disgusted with this arrangement. But isn't that how many felt about homosexuality only a few years ago? Don't many Canadians still feel that way when, turning on CBC, they see two top hats kissing on their screen? And isn't this why the majority would prefer not to call their marriages by the same name?
At their oral hearing, the Supreme Court judges allowed federal lawyer Peter Hogg to dodge defining the boundaries of marriage. In the decision, the justices described the Constitution as a living tree, thereby affirming that it is their business to make these highly personal value judgments, dressed up in the legalese of constitutionally justifiable discrimination.
Those who demand that Stephen Harper declare today whether he will use the notwithstanding clause would be the first to condemn an affirmative response. Yet, no one condemned Paul Martin a year ago when he said he'd use the clause to permit discrimination against gays and lesbians who want a religious wedding. Nor is anyone asking now whether Mr. Martin will use the notwithstanding clause to discriminate against Canadians who are not biologically hardwired for monogamy and would like to come out of the closet.
No one can predict whether what disgusts ordinary Canadians and what disgusts appointed Supreme Court judges will coincide. No one can predict, therefore, how the public would respond to the use of the notwithstanding clause by their elected MPs -- if there were no other option after the courts had said their final word.
In the circumstances, Stephen Harper is right to demand a free vote for all MPs. He's also wise not to foreclose any legal or constitutionally valid option.
England on Sunday Review of the Year, part 1 By Jonathan Wynne-Jones Number: 5749 Date: Dec 24/2004
Sorry seems to be the hardest word, Elton John famously sang. He might not be widely regarded for his wisdom, but never has the word assumed such currency, as it did over the last year, for delineating between the contrite and the defiant.
With an apology comes an admission of failure and fallibility, and more often than not precedes a resignation. Well aware of this, not all world figures have been rushing to express their remorse(...)
If the political world was waiting on tenterhooks for the publication of reports, the Anglican world was no different(...)
African bishops made next February's Primate's meeting their latest deadline for the American Church to repent, but considering ECUSA's refusal to express regret for its schismatic action, let alone apologise, it sounded like a rather vain appeal(...)
6b) http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1864 WHEN THE ROLL IS CALLED O'ER YONDER… Primates will consider communion's fate in February News Analysis By David W. Virtue, Dec 28th 2004 In less than two months 38 Primates (Archbishops) - leaders of some 78 million Anglicans worldwide - will gather in Ireland to consider the fate of the Anglican Communion.
For many North American Episcopalians and Anglicans it will be the most decisive moment in their personal ecclesiastical journeys. From the Primates' decisions, hundreds of clergy and thousands of Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans will decide what they must do with respect to their futures. The fate of tens of thousands of Episcopalians, including clergy and whole dioceses rests in the hands of these uber purple.
Three possibilities present themselves. The first is that the Primates will do nothing to shake the status quo. The second is that they will announce a formal split and the Anglican Communion will have two separate spiritual leaders - Rowan Williams will, in all likelihood lead the Western liberal alliance and Peter Akinola the Archbishop of Nigeria will lead the majority of orthodox Anglicans. A third option is an internal split where orthodox archbishops will not recognize or speak to revisionist archbishops while still recognizing Rowan Williams as the titular head of the communion. What you will in fact have is a loose federation of provinces held together under a broad Anglican umbrella, but Anglican in name only, no longer a full undivided communion(...)
Suspension looming in Brazil Number: 5749 Date: Dec 24/3 An evangelical bishop in Brazil is facing suspension after an unprecedented intervention in his diocese by the Archbishop of the country(...)
8) http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3924312 Fri 24 Dec 2004 9:41am (UK) 'No Evidence to Back Up Best-Seller's Claims'
By Tom Wilkinson, PA
One of Britain's most senior Anglican clergymen today described the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code as a "great thriller, lousy history".
The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Dr Tom Wright, said the basis for the massive publishing hit was "laughable".
Despite enjoying Dan Brown's conspiracy theory, the Bishop said there was a lack of evidence to back up its claims.
The Da Vinci Code has sold more than seven million copies worldwide and will be made into a film starring Tom Hanks.
It claims Jesus was not crucified, but married Mary Magdalene and eventually died a normal death. The novel claims this was then covered up by the Church(...)
9) http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/tfn/2004/122204.html FORCED ABORTIONS DEVASTATE CHINESE WOMEN Chinese mothers who are forced to undergo abortions in compliance with their country's draconian family-planning policy of allowing couples to have only one child are committing suicide at a rate of 500 a day, Family News in Focus reported last week(...)
Next Ed-Mail Same-sex Blessings |