Posted on 04/12/2014 4:52:25 PM PDT by markomalley
Well, that didn't take long. As my colleague Edward Malnick reports, the first gay Church of England priest – a canon, no less – today married his boyfriend. Canon Jeremy Pemberton, 58, a divorced hospital chaplain and father of five, wed his long-term partner Laurence Cunnington, 51. We're not told where, but obviously it wasn't in an C of E church. That's against the law. But they may well be able to have their marriage blessed in church because that's only "against the rules" as opposed to illegal.
Campaigners predicted that Canon Pemberton would be the first of many. I think they're right. After all, it's not as if Mr Pemberton's boss, the Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson, is handing him over to the Inquisition. Over at the Mail, my old friend Jonathan Petre reports that "Bishop Lowson confirmed he had told Canon Pemberton of the House of Bishops’ statement [telling gay priests not to marry] but would not say if he was planning disciplinary action".
I'm no expert on Anglican canon law, but I'd guess that the punishment facing Mr Pemberton is the withdrawal of his licence to officiate at services (he doesn't have a parish). Technically he could be defrocked, but that would involve a messy legal process… by which time other priests will have tied the knot. The Rev Andrew Cain, for example, who was the first clergyman to declare his intention to marry, and who explained why in our Telegram podcast (click here).
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
“but the FACT is that the Catholic Church believes in allowing those who support, even openly, homosexuals to be included in her ranks, including priests.”
Can it be that you really don’t understand the difference between the Catholic Church holding a doctrine and sinful men who temporarily occupy offices within the Church defying her teachings?
Or would it be more to the point to reflect on the one whom Our Lord and Savior called “the father of lies?”
I think it would.
What’s the difference between an atheist and a satinist?
The satanist knows who his boss is.
Maybe that’s true of other people, too.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works . (James 2:18)
The Fact remains that Rome has treated even notorious public proabortion, prohomosexual RCs as members in life and in death (such as Teddy K., with no manifest repentance), and in so doing it interprets canon law, and overall reveals what it really believes, with relative few dissenters.
Actually, no he didn’t. He just thinks he did. He’s in for a surprise.
“Can it be that you really don’t understand the difference between professions and practice revealing what one really believes?”
No, I understand that quite well. I understand it well enough to see that the sinful men who commit the actions we’re discussing are acting without the sanction of the Church and against her teachings.
Your refusal to admit what is before your eyes is not heroic, or even principled, but only obdurate.
And thus you seem to think absence of discipline and even honoring such liberal souls, and the promotion of those who accommodate them, plus the sanction of liberal scholarship, somehow constitutes absence of sanction. But which denies Scripture when it clearly says that what one believes is shown by what one does and fosters, and condemns such lack of effectual discipline. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
The pope himself gave his apostolic blessing to a manifestly impenitent Ted Kennedy before he died, without any evident word of correction,and gave him an ecclesiastical funeral, with a Protestant giving a eulogy no less, thus interpreting canon law as allowing this. And which type of thing is multiplied.
In addition, you have approved Bible commentary for decades which manifests liberal revisionism, and that prohomosexual apologists use, some of which is provided on the Vatican's own web site (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM).
Your refusal to admit what is before your eyes is not heroic, or even principled, but only obdurate.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks and attributing motive (bigotry!) in lieu of an argument is a sign of desperation, but in light of the evidence this kind of response indicates it applies to the accuser.
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.