Clutch

I'm assuming that the intimation of bad faith here was an infelicity of expression on your part. More to the point is that you immediately go on to demonstrate that the issue is precisely the difference between your "cone" and theirs. You simply cite some traditions and your own interpretive preferences in locating homosexuality as a crucial principled issue, and not a custom that has been confused for a principled issue. That there are historical examples of these is not contentious; so the question is whether the principles of Anglicanism exclusive of doctrines about homosexuality are substantial enough to merit the term "Anglican".

Your assertion: No.

Your argument: No True Scotsman.

Calling the Anglican proponents of this ordination liars is a pointless slur that is not warranted by any evidence you've offered. How about this alternative explanation? They are by upbringing, by culture, by conversion and by conviction Anglicans on the grounds of the practices and doctrine of Anglicanism exclusive of anti-homosexuality, and see Anglicanism so understood as inconsistent with a ban on homosexual clergy.

CJD

You know my weakness. I concede. But damnit! They should have waited until the rest of the communion came along!

Can clergy in such serious disagreement over the underlying issues put on a united front?

Regards,

CJD

Bill Snedden

I'm confused. Which creed would it be, Nicene, Apostles, Athanasius' etc., that states that homosexuality is a sin?

The fact is that the status of homosexuality is not only not a creedal issue, it isn't even a salvific one. One could draw a parallel with race, but one could as clearly draw a parallel with the status of women, and a connection to creed could more clearly be drawn there (...only holy, catholic, and apostolic church...).

The ordination of women was another issue that caused great divide in the Anglican Communion, especially when Barbara Harris was consecrated as the first female bishop. There are actually national churches that repudiated the practice, and within national churches that accept it, there are individual churches (parishes, if you will) that refuse to accept it. The U.S. church actually had to draw up special canons to provide for "visiting" bishop status for churches that refused to acknowledge her oversight! IMHO, that was a dishonest and puerile action to maintain "unity" at the expense of integrity....but I digress...

Regardless, it is highly likely that "patchwork" solutions to this issue will not work. It remains to be seen as to whether the Anglican Communion will split, but it is all but certain that the U.S. church will further fracture. Expect to see many, many lawsuits between individual churches and the national church over who gets to keep the buildings and church property...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Clutch

I really don't know. There seems to be a non-trivial contingent of prominent clergy whose attitude is neither explicitly pro nor con, but more of the "Conflict will hurt everyone" sort. They might well have a calming effect.

As for why they didn't wait? I'd guess the thinking in N.H. was (i) it's the right thing to do; and (ii) leaders should lead the way.

abe smith

ref to "many lawsuits" your post a couple previous here?
The chances are that NO ecclesiastical suits can be effected in any US secular courts; because of the First Amendment.

There've been numerous (well, at least several) such suits wh/ proceeded to the SUPREMES and were mooted on the grounds (clearly stated by the Court) that our US secular courts CANNOT meddle at-all into sects's dogmatic & inner-'political" matters & disputes. A damn good thing, too!
Ask Stephen Maturin to clue you to the decisions; I don't have the books here (in public place). Alll very clear, & interesting. Cheers.

Bill Snedden

True, however these would not be ecclesiastical suits. It's not canon law that's in question; it's property ownership.

The question to be resolved is whether or not a parish that leaves the national church may still own the property it purchased when it was part of the national church. Canon law does enter into it as canon dictates that the property is owned principally by the national church. The lawsuits will generally be asking the court to affirm that the local church must abide by its own rules. In other words, when the local church purchased the property, it did so with the explicitly stated recognition that they were doing so "in the name of" the national church and with the understanding that should they decide at some later time to split from the national church, that the property would revert to the national church. This falls into the realm of contract law, rather than canon law...

In fact, there has already been one lawsuit filed (pre-emptively) by a Pittsburgh church attempting to ensure that church property in the diocese of Pittsburgh remains the property of the national church. As it happens, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, was the primary spokesman against Canon Robinson's election at the national convention. I'm sure that's why the church took the action pre-emptively...

There are also numerous precedents. I recall a similar case here in North Carolina only a few years ago. The case actually went to trial, but ended in a mistrial. I'm not sure what happened next, but I seem to remember that the parties were able to resolve the issue without having to return to court...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

abe smith

The matter of determining WHICH fraction of the schismed sect is the "true" part & which is the dissident is what complicates the (real-)property question tho. There are several precedents about
this sort of thing; US v *Ballard* (1972? I forget) is tangential to it; and there 're 2, 3, others; find them in Tribe's *American Constitutional Law* in same chapter w/ *Ballard* a few pages further-on. *Ballard* is indexed in (Tribe's) Cases, under *Ballard*. The matter of control/ownership of "church" funds & properties turns out to be more tightly-tangled w/ doctrines than one might have expected, in schismatic situations of the sort you anticipate. I'm sure you can find all-this dealt w/ on-line....Cheers.