Dear Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Los Angeles,
I trust by now you have had the opportunity to read my statement in response to the recent California Supreme Court decision.
Some clergy and lay leaders have contacted my office requesting information or clarification of how this decision affects what we can do, or will do, as well as what our policy on this issue will be. As publicized in the press, the State of California expects the decision to become effective 30 days after its issuance. In addition I remain on sabbatical and am scheduled to resume my regular work schedule the week of June 3.
There are canonical, prayer book, and pastoral questions which are raised and must be addressed. I have been in contact with the bishops of the Dioceses of California and San Diego and we will be working together with other bishops of California to meet and discuss how we proceed. I will keep you informed and will act with all possible dispatch while attending to the canonical and pastoral issues the decision affect.
I remind you that pastoral acts are personal decisions between clergy and members of your congregation. In the meantime please remain patient and prayerful. Thank you.
Yours in Christ,
J. Jon Bruno, Bishop
Diocese of Los Angeles
"The Blessing of a Civil Marriage"
--BCP, p. 433
The California Supreme Court overturned a law. Did it also overturn the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salam Communique?
Considering that [a] The California Supreme Court actually has jurisdiction in California and
[b] I'm not sure how you would "overturn" a report or a communique anyway
[c] I'm thinking this isn't a quesiton germane to the topic at hand.
Hiram, check the Constitution and Canons, Title I, Canon 18, Sections 1 and 2.
And while you're at it, Hiram, read the Court's opinion in the Marriage cases. It's available online. It might help to know what you're talking about.
Ron: Title I, Canon 18, Section 1b:
That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman
These ceremonies may conform to the laws of California according to the recent court ruling -- but they will not conform to this canon.
John, I have seen but not read the ruling -- all I know is what is in the newspapers -- so I am trusting a reasonable degree of accuracy (a perhaps silly assumption...)
The Anglican Communion exists by mutual agreements. Lambeth 1:10, the Windsor report, as amended by the Primates, and the Dar es Salam Communique were such agreements.
The California court has the authority to rule on the application of written laws, and on the appropriateness of laws. It of course cannot rule on matters of religious doctrine. However, Bp Bruno is a bishop within the Anglican Communion. Does he consider himself bound by agreements of the Communion? If not, why not?
And if not, why should he be distressed if others proceed with their own interpretations of the requirements of those agreements?
Clearly, and I blame Dr. Williams for this, it is reasonable to think of the Windsor fiction as canon as it applies to TEC and ACCanada but not as it applies to the non-Global South. After all, that is how he treats it.
Which is why he will and deservedly so, preside over the end of the Anglican Communion. Those who seek institutional peace over justice deliver neither and receive the later.
Post a Comment