Meanwhile there was this Nice piece in ENS today about Minnesota Bishop Brian Prior setting policies in place now that Marriage Equality has come to "the land of sky blue waters."
The first comment, unfortunately, was a misguided slam at those who will -- in the writer's opinion -- be "violating the marriage canons" by solemnizing same-sex marriages in Minnesota. (Or ... one suspects ... any other of the jurisdictions where now over 25% of Episcopalians live that have achieved marriage equality.)
Of course I had a few thoughts ... actually, lifted from an earlier post on this blog:
In point of fact, the current canons on marriage are inherently self-contradictory now that over 25% of Episcopalians live in states with civil marriage equaliy.
Let’s review. The canons begin with:
CANON 18: Of the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony
Sec. 1. Every Member of the Clergy of this Church shall conform to the laws of the State governing the creation of the civil status of marriage, and also to the laws of this Church governing the solemnization of Holy Matrimony.
… and then continue with a “check list” — which includes in (b) a description of marriage.
Sec. 2. Before solemnizing a marriage the Member of the Clergy
shall have ascertained:
(a) That both parties have the right to contract a marriage
according to the laws of the State.
(b) That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong.
(c) That both parties freely and knowingly consent to such
marriage, without fraud, coercion, mistake as to identity of a
partner, or mental reservation.
(d) That at least one of the parties has received Holy Baptism.
(e) That both parties have been instructed as to the nature,
meaning, and purpose of Holy Matrimony by the Member of
the Clergy, or that they have both received such instruction
from persons known by the Member of the Clergy to be
competent and responsible.
It can be argued … and indeed, is being argued … that Canon 18.2b does not proscribe that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman … rather it describes Holy Matrimony as “a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong” at a time when that was indeed the case.
And it can be argued … and indeed, is being argued … that the values the make up the marriage transcend the gender of the couple committing to live out those values until death do they part.
It can be argued … and indeed, is being argued … that the descriptive nature of the language in Canon 18.2b does not “trump” the instructive nature of Section 18.1 to “conform to the laws of the State governing the civil status of marriage” — and that bishops are operating within the spirit of the law (canon) when they authorize the clergy in their dioceses to stand on right side of history by offering equal blessing and equal protection to the same-sex couples coming to them for the blessing and solemnization of their civil marriage.
All of this suffice to say there is plenty of work for the Task Force on the Study of Marriage to do … even as there are plenty of “happily ever afters” about to be celebrated in Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode Island, etc. etc. etc. And meanwhile, we wait on the Supreme Court ... (cue sound effects: tick/tock, tick/tock!)
16 comments:
Hear, hear! [How much do I love that *proudly* illuminated bridge?]
It can be also be argued … and indeed, I argue … that the descriptive nature of the language in Canon 18.2b and the instructive nature of Section 18.1 are joined together, along with all the other provisions of that Canon, with a logical "AND". In other words, all sections of the Canon equally must be satisfied in order for a bishop to be operating within the spirit of the law (canon) when they authorize the clergy in their dioceses to solemnize a marriage.
Consider that there are 5 sections to Canon 18, (a) through (e). What you are saying is that the recent changes in the laws in some States permit Bishops to ignore (b) but not (a) or (c) - (e). Why? After all, State laws do not required people to have been baptized before they are married, nor do they require the parties to have been instructed by clergy (or someone authorized by clergy) regarding the nature, meaning and purpose of Holy Matrimony. Why, then, does the difference between State laws and Church Canons only permit Bishops to ignore (b) and not (d) or (e)?
This is the Episcopal Church. We have a well-defined polity that you and all ordinands agreed to abide by when you were ordained. When it comes to a matter that all within the Church have at one point agreed upon, changes to such matters must as well be agreed upon by the entire Church for anyone to act with the authority the Church has invested them with.
The discretion of a Bishop is not absolute. It is constrained by the Canons, and here the Canons are clear. Now, if you can convince General Convention to change the Canons, that's a different story.
Otherwise, if Bishops wish to act in a personal fashion at variance with the Canons, they are free to do so. But if they exercise their Episcopal office they are NOT free to act outside the Canons. Any such act is invalid.
In point of fact, the current canons on marriage are inherently self-contradictory now that over 25% of Episcopalians live in states with civil marriage equaliy.
This, then, is wrong. The Canons are not self-contradictory. The Canons do now and always have added constraints to Holy Matrimony not present in civil law. The fact that in some States the law has changed such that one of those constraints is that matrimony is only to be between a man and a woman does not make the Canons self-contradictory anymore than they were before those laws passed.
Those will be the issues we'll be considering in Salt Lake City ... and as the Task Force on Marriage meets between now and then.
It will come as absolutley no surprise to you that there are many Episcopalians who read the same canons as you do and come to different conclusions. Just as it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that your interpretation differs from mine.
And forward we go.
PS ... four out of six New York bishops have "been there" on marriage equality since July 2011 ... http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-never-wrong-time-to-say-thank-you.html
... just because it's good news doesn't make it breaking news.
No, no surprise to me. All I ask is that whatever change is made comes into effect on the basis of a vote to actually change the Canons, not some back-door decision to change the interpretation of the existing wording using some process that doesn't actually change the Canons themselves.
I do note that you haven't offered an answer to the question ending my first post.
#1 -- I actually don't consider myself contractually bound to answer every question asked in the comments on this blog and
#2 -- I am not a canon lawyer and ... as noted in an earlier reply ... those are exactly the issues we will be considering in Salt Lake City. In the meantime, I do believe it is possible to make the argument that "bewteen a man and a woman" is descriptive rather than proscriptive ... describing the couple in question rather than proscribing actions for them ... and that since the time those canons were written the description of those entering into marriage has expanded to include persons of the same gender.
I do not expect you to agree with that argument. But it is not possible to argue with the fact that is an argument being made across the church at a time when over 25% of Episcopalians now live in jurisdictions with civil marriage equality.
And now back to working on our parish response to the relief efforts in Oklahoma.
If you haven't yet given to ERD you can do so here:
http://www.episcopalrelief.org/what-you-can-do/donate-now/individual-donation
You can make any argument you want. But I'd like to see on what basis you figure that this one provision, out of the 5 in the canon, somehow does not share the same properties as the other four - and for what reason? All the others define conditions that the couple involved must meet in order for them to be legally married - but somehow (b) is of a different nature? Why? What is the logic, the justification for that?
If one wants to argue that it should change, that's an argument one should make openly and honestly - and is an argument you have made before in just such a fashion. But if this ends up as some committee playing word games so as to avoid having to actually debate the issue in General Convention and meet the standard for changing the wording of a Canon, it would appear to be deviousness unworthy of an ordained person.
1 -- Already explained it. Sorry my explanation doesn't work for you.
2 -- As noted above there is every expectation these issues will be well and thoroughly debated at General Convention in 2015. Just as the ordination of women was in 1976. After we started ordaining women in 1974. Despite the fact that some folks argued we were violating the canons.
And onward we go, marching to Zion.
"1 -- Already explained it. Sorry my explanation doesn't work for you."
You didn't explain it. You described it. You said "I do believe it is possible to make the argument that "bewteen a man and a woman" is descriptive rather than proscriptive ... describing the couple in question rather than proscribing actions for them ..."
But you don't explain the logic behind why that provision can be considered "descriptive" rather than "proscriptive". You state the argument's premise, but you don't actually make the argument. You don't explain your logic. That makes it impossible to debate or evaluate it's validity.
Done, Ron. Seriously.
Have a lovely long weekend. I'm spending mine with family in Kentucky and hoping for some barbecue!
2 -- As noted above there is every expectation these issues will be well and thoroughly debated at General Convention in 2015. Just as the ordination of women was in 1976. After we started ordaining women in 1974. Despite the fact that some folks argued we were violating the canons.
Interesting example. Do you deny that the people involved were in fact violating the Canons?
Do you recommend this process as a general rule - take actions at variance with Canons and then seek to change the Canons later? If it's not a general rule, which Canons can be ignored by Bishops and which ones must they adhere to?
How about the one that says that all properties belong to the Diocese and the National church and not the Parishes? If the Bishop of the Diocese of Quincy (central Illinois) had deeded out all the parish properties back to the parishes before he left office, would he have been violating the Canons? Would that have been as valid as the female ordinations that took place between 1974 and 1976?
What meaning do the Canons have? Why do we have them at all?
I'm having a hard time finding Scriptural, Canonical or Church custom/tradition support for "the ends justify the means", Susan.
Google "civil disobedience," meditate on 2 Corinthians 3:6 and have a super fabulous weekend.
I'm not as concerned with any imagined future damage to Scriptural, Canonical or Church custom/tradition as I am with the very real damage done to LGBT persons by the church over the last several hundred years.
Have a great weekend with your family, Susan!
Post a Comment