Posted on 05/11/2005 9:08:47 AM PDT by bookworm100
HAGERSTOWN - The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland passed by a "substantial majority" four resolutions dealing with same-sex issues, including one that opposes any constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Episcopal Bishop Robert W. Ihloff announced the passage of the resolutions in a written statement on Tuesday.
The diocese also held a press conference on the resolutions Tuesday at the Diocesan Center in Baltimore.
The votes were cast during the diocese's 221st convention, which was held Friday and Saturday at the Clarion Inn and Conference Center Antietam Creek in Hagerstown.
Rectors of several Episcopal churches in Washington County did not return phone calls Tuesday seeking comment on the resolutions.
The other three resolutions passed support legislation providing benefits to same-sex couples, prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression and sexual orientation, and the establishment of a commission to study and recommend "appropriate pastoral responses to couples living in relationships other than marriage."
Ihloff said the resolutions defend "the rights of all persons," which is called for in the Gospel.
"It is clear that Our Lord Jesus Christ worked among the poor and spoke out for the marginalized," he said. Issues of social justice lie at the heart of the Gospel. All persons are loved children of God, and Jesus and our Baptismal Covenant call us to 'love our neighbor' and to 'respect the dignity of every person.' As we 'seek and serve Christ in every person,' we are called to defend the rights of all persons and fight against bigotry and discrimination at every level."
The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland is part of the Episcopal Church in the United States and the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The U.S. Episcopal Church caused controversy in the Anglican Communion when it elected an openly gay New Hampshire bishop in 2003 and for supporting the blessing of same-sex marriages.
"The Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church have long called for appropriate pastoral care of and Christian respect for gay and lesbian brothers and sisters," Ihloff said in the statement. "Members of our Church around the world interpret Scriptural passages applied to homosexuality in different ways. In this diocese, we acknowledge with thanksgiving gay and lesbian members, some of whom are in committed, lifelong relationship ... We do support the rights of same-sex partners to equal protection under the laws of our state and nation."
Ihloff said the church did not authorize the blessing of same-sex marriage in the votes.
The same-sex marriage resolution states that proposals to amend the U.S. or Maryland Constitutions "would create new discriminatory barriers to gay and lesbian persons who desire equality in taxation, child custody, personal finances, and the right to make health-care decisions for elderly or sick partners."
The diocese supports benefits for gay couples "as a witness to our commitment to 'strive for justice and peace for all people and respect the dignity of every human being,'" according to another adopted resolution.
The diocese also has called for the appointment of a commission of lay and clerical members to study marriage, unions and civil rights, and to develop "appropriate Christian responses to questions about who should have access to civil marriage or unions; and to recommend appropriate pastoral responses to couples living in committed relationships other than marriage."
I like how the headline just says "church"
Episcopal=homosexual.
If the headline PROPERLY read "episcopal church ...."
The reader would be on notices that this "homosexual" reporter is writing a homosexual article.
And they wonder why their congregations are dwindling...
Episcopal=homosexual.
A gross overstatement and slander.
And I say this as someone whose church and priests are leaving to form another Anglican church, seperate from the Episcopal church.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1399457/posts
The overwhelming majority of the church are opposed to this --- it is the "leadership" (largely in the NorthEast) that betrayed the people.
I assume that Episcopalians, as a hierarchical denomination have the equivalent of heresy trials. Why are they not being begun against every last priest and bishop that holds the Word of God in contempt?
They actually are such hearding underway, but it moves with GLACIAL speed and whimpiness brought on by a desire for "unity" in God's church.
(Plus, so much of the leadership was invaded by heretics, akin to the Methodist church in the 60's and 70's.)
We did have a fairly stern rebuke from the Archbishop of Canterbury --- the first step.
As an aside, one can find out if a given Episcopal church rejects the heresy by seeing if it is a member of the "American Anglican Counsel" (conservative/orthodox Episopalians) --- the rough equivalent of the Missouri Synod Lutherans.
Have these people EVER read the Bible?!!!!!!!
FYI.regards
I doubt anyone is surprised at this. The Episcopal church has an avowed adulterer and bugger as a bishop.
The bible is so clear. People try so hard to get away from it.
"So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last."
"And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
"She said, "No one, Lord."
"And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
The book of Jude talks about the apostasy of the church.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. "The overwhelming majority of the church are opposed to this --- it is the "leadership" (largely in the NorthEast) that betrayed the people.
(Plus, so much of the leadership was invaded by heretics, akin to the Methodist church in the 60's and 70's.)
We did have a fairly stern rebuke from the Archbishop of Canterbury --- the first step."
Malarkey. This full blown apostasy has been quite evident for the past 30 years. You folks (not you personally but everyone left in the church who truly does believe in the teachings of Christ and His Gospel) stood by while the traditional and orthodox expression of your faith was jettisoned (1928 Book of Common Prayer) in favor of a theologically watered down and banal 1979 version. This has lead to a man centered worship. It is still going on with your "trial uses" on a diocese by diocese basis. Your church is now balkanized into single issue camps.
You stood by and rolled over when the modernists illegally ordained 11 women as "priests" in 1974 in Philadelphia. Liberal women bishops would naturally be the next step. When this happened, you had to know that they would support ordinations of practicing homosexuals. They did. You went along with this too.
You apparently caved in when the church illegally passed the property canon change in Denver's General Convention in 1979(aka Dennis Canon) so now you are losing your property. Up until then, all parishes owned their own property. You paid for it, yet you signed it over to the diocese. This ploy was a master stroke because the folks instigating the changes, knew it would give them control over the monies in the church. It was also done to stifle the parishes who truly were traditional and who were resisting the then creeping apostasy. Yet, you went along with these changes and more or less told the traditionalists, "we don't need you", "Leave". They did.
Now, when the modernists finally get to your hot button issue, you have no defenses left because you went along with the modernists even as they hijacked your church.
You went along with the heresies being taught in the seminaries so it is no wonder then that the clergy who have been in the pulpits for the past 30 years have changed the direction of the church. You were not "invaded". You just let Satan into your church. Many lay folk had itching ears (2nd Timothy 4:1-5) and agreed with this massive dumbing down of sin, so your whole church became infested.
The Archbishop of Canterbury agrees with these modernists on many issues. The only reason he has not yet come out four square in favor of ordination of practicing homosexuals is because he knows most of his monies will be cut off. Guess who pays for his office travel and part of his office budget? He isn't about to upset this applecart...yet.
As I said previously, this is not aimed at you specifically. It is aimed at those who see their house burning down around them and who wonder how in blazes did the fire start. The signs of arson have been quite obvious for a long time.
I'd say that within a generation, the Episcopal church will be little more than a curiosity.
My church always used the 1928, Rite 1.
We have no women priests (although we do have women lay readers, which I see no reason to oppose -- the Biblical injunction is against "preachers" --- they are not giving sermons).
I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church in 1985 as an adult, under the leadership of a parish priest who is now the only Bishop to never ordain a woman priest. I represented my parish at the Diocesan conventions and was faced firsthand with the difficulties of standing firm when presented with the homosexual agenda (San Francisco, Grace Cathedral, Diocese of California). These people were determined and militant. My parish had a "bad" reputation in the Diocese as the only conservative parish and we were the only votes against their agenda. You are correct, even the vestry of this parish voted to give the Bishop the deed to the very valuable property, which was very stupid IMO. The property is worth many millions and if the Diocese decides to usurp it, can never be replaced.
It is impossible to be a 'homosexual' and a Christian. You cannot follow Christ and yet insist on living a sinful lifestyle
And this is the problem. The 'homosexuals' are interpreting it as "go and sin some more".
It is impossible to be a 'homosexual' and a Christian. You cannot follow Christ and yet insist on living a sinful lifestyle
Of course. Ignorance isn't there problem; its a rebellious spirit. It is possible that some of them need to be saved themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.