11 votes

Gay Anglican priests fight to get church blessing of their same-sex marriage

11 comments

  1. [11]
    ibis
    Link
    It feels a bit odd given all the recent uproar about 'religious freedom', that the church will try to prevent a priest from giving his blessings to a couple he wants to bless.

    It feels a bit odd given all the recent uproar about 'religious freedom', that the church will try to prevent a priest from giving his blessings to a couple he wants to bless.

    1 vote
    1. [10]
      Algernon_Asimov
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Religious freedom does not mean the freedom for every priest/minister/rabbi/imam to decide for themself. It never has. Even I, a hard-core non-believer, accept that the Anglican Church should have...

      Religious freedom does not mean the freedom for every priest/minister/rabbi/imam to decide for themself. It never has. Even I, a hard-core non-believer, accept that the Anglican Church should have the right to apply the rules of the Anglican Church to priests operating under the auspices of the Anglican Church. I might disagree with those rules, but I accept that they are the rules of the Anglican Church, and anyone who belongs to the Anglican Church should follow them.

      5 votes
      1. [9]
        ibis
        Link Parent
        I'm not familiar with the church, but I feel like a 'blessing' has a more personal touch than aspects that are typically under the rule of the Church bureaucracy. At least the popular...

        I'm not familiar with the church, but I feel like a 'blessing' has a more personal touch than aspects that are typically under the rule of the Church bureaucracy. At least the popular understanding of what a blessing entails is - maybe it means something different in a church with priests.

        I just get frustrated with the selective enforcement of 'religious freedom' that the churches like to employ. They want the freedom to discriminate based on their values, yet they don't want other organisations to have the right to discriminate against them when their "religious views" contradict with their values. That is not freedom - that is privilege. The church wants the privilege to discriminate without being discriminated against.

        1 vote
        1. [8]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          You might think of the "blessing" as personal, but the article itself says that this is being discussing officially by the Anglican Church's hierarchy. This "blessing" is obviously something that...

          You might think of the "blessing" as personal, but the article itself says that this is being discussing officially by the Anglican Church's hierarchy.

          The Wangaratta Anglican Diocese voted in August to bless same-sex marriages, two years after Australia legalised the unions.

          But the matter has now been referred to the church's Appellate Tribunal, which is the highest ecclesiastical court.

          The tribunal will consider whether the blessings of persons married under civil law in church compromises the Anglican Church's constitution.

          This "blessing" is obviously something that has some official weight within the Church.

          In fact, whether or not to recognise same-sex marriage is a big issue in the Church (I've been following this with half an eye). There's a lot of internal division about this issue in the worldwide Anglican Communion, to the point that the Church itself might split. But that has nothing to do with religious freedom.

          2 votes
          1. [7]
            ibis
            Link Parent
            Umm yes. I know it’s being debated by the church hierarchy that is the entire point of the article and my posts. What did you think we were talking about? The couple are already married. They just...

            Umm yes. I know it’s being debated by the church hierarchy that is the entire point of the article and my posts. What did you think we were talking about?

            The couple are already married. They just want a blessing. The individual priest wants to give them his blessing. The church is preventing the individual priest from giving his blessing to the couple. The couple will remain gay married regardless of whether or not they get the blessing.

            I feel that the church is restricting the individual priests freedom of religion by saying he can’t bless the marriage.

            1. [6]
              Algernon_Asimov
              Link Parent
              This: "I feel like a 'blessing' has a more personal touch" I thought you were talking about the priest giving a personal non-official blessing from one non-official religious person to another,...

              What did you think we were talking about?

              This: "I feel like a 'blessing' has a more personal touch"

              I thought you were talking about the priest giving a personal non-official blessing from one non-official religious person to another, rather than him giving an official blessing as a official representative of his church.

              I feel that the church is restricting the individual priests freedom of religion by saying he can’t bless the marriage.

              That's not what most people think of when they talk about freedom of religion. Most people are talking about the freedom to follow their religion's rules in non-religious spaces, rather than the freedom to break their religion's rules.

              But, hey. The world would be a lot less interesting without a little muddled communication every now and then! :)

              5 votes
              1. [5]
                ibis
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                I was trying to honestly and transparently convey that I don't know a lot about how the church operates, or the meaning that anglican's attach to 'blessings', but give my personal impression and...

                I was trying to honestly and transparently convey that I don't know a lot about how the church operates, or the meaning that anglican's attach to 'blessings', but give my personal impression and opinion as an outsider.

                And yes, I'm aware that I'm suggesting a version of 'freedom of religion' that is not usually used - that is deliberately part of my point. That they want 'Freedom Of Religion' but they don't want freedom of religion within their own structures - they want top-down imposed religion.

                The priest in question has been an anglican priest for so long he is about to retire. It seems odd to me that someone else now gets to impose on him what is an 'anglican Christian belief' and what isn't. I think it's valid to point out that they are preventing him from freely expressing his religious beliefs.

                This is all in the context of how 'freedom of religion' has been weponised in the Australian public discourse recently to mean 'freedom to discriminate and spread hateful rhetoric about the lgbt community'. It is frustrating when we are being asked to tolerate them in this context under the banner of 'religious freedom', when they themselves are preventing people from religiously supporting an lgbt couple.

                My opinion has been shaped by this article: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jun/27/with-israel-folau-the-church-demands-a-kind-of-free-speech-that-keeps-gays-in-the-firing-line

                Specifically:

                One of those attacking the code this week was Sydney’s Anglican archbishop, Glenn Davies, who eloquently defended Folau’s “right as a citizen to speak of what he believes without threat to his employment”.

                Really? Is this the same archbishop who compelled 34 Anglican headmasters and headmistresses last year to sign an open letter demanding the law continue to allow them to sack gay teachers and expel gay students?

                I asked His Grace if this same citizens’ right extended to teachers in Anglican schools? No was the answer that came back from his spokesman, Russell Powell. “This case of non faith-related employment should not be conflated with others.”

                How silly of me! There’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Folau is free as a footballer to vilify homosexuals without losing his job but were he coaching rugby at a Sydney Anglican school and tweeting approval of gays it might well see him shown the door.

                Here’s another simple principle: if you are demanding rights for yourself which you won’t extend to others, that’s not freedom. It’s privilege.

                2 votes
                1. [4]
                  Algernon_Asimov
                  Link Parent
                  "Now"? What do you mean someone else now gets to tell him what is and is not an Anglican belief? Someone else has always been able to tell this priest what is and is not an Anglican belief....

                  It seems odd to me that someone else now gets to impose on him what is an 'anglican Christian belief' and what isn't.

                  "Now"? What do you mean someone else now gets to tell him what is and is not an Anglican belief? Someone else has always been able to tell this priest what is and is not an Anglican belief. Anglican beliefs are not decided by individual believers or even individual priests. Their beliefs are decided at province level by (roughly) national bodies. A priest can not suddenly decide on his or her own authority to change Anglican beliefs.

                  I think it's valid to point out that they are preventing him from freely expressing his religious beliefs.

                  They might be his religious beliefs, but they're not the religious beliefs of the Anglican Church of Australia. And he, as a priest, is supposed to speak for the Anglican Church of Australia, not for himself. He can privately believe that same-sex marriages are legitimate, but he can't preach that as an Anglican belief. It would be like if I worked in an Apple store and told all my customers to buy Samsung phones. I'm allowed to personally believe that Samsung phones are better than iPhones, but I'm not allowed to say that while I'm wearing Apple's uniform and working in Apple's store. This priest can't stand in an Anglican Church, wearing Anglican robes, and preach non-Anglican beliefs. He works for the company. It's his job to do what the company tells him to do. That's not an infringement of his religious beliefs. That's his duty according to the oath he took.

                  If he has different ideas, he can practise that on his own time in private - not in public, and not as a representative of the Anglican Church of Australia.

                  1. [3]
                    ibis
                    Link Parent
                    Not really, because private companies are not allowed to discriminate based on religion but churches are. The church, as an institution, is given more rights than other private institutions...

                    It would be like if I worked in an Apple store and told all my customers to buy Samsung phones.

                    Not really, because private companies are not allowed to discriminate based on religion but churches are. The church, as an institution, is given more rights than other private institutions because religious beliefs/values are given more weight than non-religious beliefs/values. Religious belief is considered similar to ethnicity or sexual orientation - something that is inherently part of people.
                    I am questioning the validity of giving an institution special rights because of 'religion', when the institution does not appear to necessarily represent the actual religious beliefs of people who belong to it.

                    "Now"? What do you mean someone else now gets to tell him what is and is not an Anglican belief? Someone else has always been able to tell this priest what is and is not an Anglican belief. Anglican beliefs are not decided by individual believers or even individual priests. Their beliefs are decided at province level by (roughly) national bodies. A priest can not suddenly decide on his or her own authority to change Anglican beliefs.

                    Me: Things shouldn't be the way they are.

                    You: But things have always been the way they are.

                    Like.. your not wrong. But your not exactly addressing my point either.

                    1. [2]
                      Algernon_Asimov
                      Link Parent
                      I'm not addressing your point because you're going off on what I see as an irrelevant tangent. The Anglican Church is not discriminating based on religion in this case. It has ordained this gay...

                      I'm not addressing your point because you're going off on what I see as an irrelevant tangent.

                      The Anglican Church is not discriminating based on religion in this case. It has ordained this gay priest. He has not been discriminated against.

                      What the Anglican Church is doing, is requiring its duly ordained priests to operate according to the rules of the church they represent. A priest must teach, obey, and practise the rules of the church he or she represents. He or she is effectively a company representative. He or she can't teach or practise something which isn't in the rules that they took an oath to support.


                      "I ............................. do swear that I will pay true and canonical obedience to .............. [the bishop of the diocese or where applicable the bishop of the diocese sponsoring an ordination] and the successors of that bishop in all things lawful and honest. So help me God!".

                      source


                      "I..................... firmly and sincerely believe the Catholic Faith and I give my assent to the doctrine of The Anglican Church of Australia as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and the Articles of Religion, as acknowledged in section 4 of the Constitution, and I believe that doctrine to be agreeable to the word of God.

                      I declare my assent to the Fundamental Declarations of The Anglican Church of Australia as set out in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

                      In public prayer and administration of the sacraments I will use the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer or a form authorised by lawful authority and none other."

                      source


                      These priests swore to uphold Anglican beliefs and the Anglican hierarchy. That's their job as Anglican priests. Their personal beliefs aren't relevant. They are there as priests to teach and uphold the beliefs of the Anglican Church, as decided by the Anglican Communion - not as decided by them personally.

                      This has nothing to do with discrimination or freedom of religion. The gay priest is not being discriminated against: he was ordained as a priest, even though he's gay. The gay priest has full freedom of religion: he was able to join the religion of his choice, to practise that religion, and even to preach that religion.

                      If he has different opinions than the religion he signed up with, that's his problem. He needs to take that up with his church. He needs to get the church to change its rules.

                      But until it does change its rules, it is his job as a priest in the Anglican Church to teach the rules as they currently stand. That's what he swore to do.

                      If he doesn't like those rules, he has the full freedom to resign as a priest, to leave the Anglican Church, and to find another religion with rules he likes better.

                      And, in line with Australia's freedom of religion laws, the Anglican Church has the right to keep teaching its religious beliefs - including the belief that same-sex marriage is wrong. That's what freedom of religion means.

                      1. ibis
                        Link Parent
                        Listen, I understand what the article said, I understand what 'Freedom of Information' commonly refers to, I vaguely understand how the Anglican church hierarchy works, I understand that this...

                        Listen, I understand what the article said, I understand what 'Freedom of Information' commonly refers to, I vaguely understand how the Anglican church hierarchy works, I understand that this wasn't in breach of discrimination law. Please. Stop explaining to me how things are.

                        All of my arguments have been about questioning the logic that underpins these concepts and hierarchies and institutions. It is not a lack of understanding of what they are. It's questioning why they are how they are.

                        Why does freedom of religion mean an institution gets to expel gay kids for being gay, but it doesn't mean that a man who has been a priest all his life can't bless a couple he believes deserve a blessing? Why should 'freedom of religion' mean freedom to pick a religious institution, but not freedom to practice your actual spiritual beliefs within that institution?

                        Religious institutions are given extra rights to discriminate. They are given this right because, apparently, spiritual beliefs are to be respected at the cost of LGBT people. Yet, religious institutions do not necessarily represent the actual spiritual beliefs of the people who make the institution. So why is the institution given extra rights at all?

                        I agree that everyone should have the right to openly practice their spiritual beliefs. I question the authority corrupt institutions have to both define and represent people's spiritual beliefs.