Marriage report ‘universally condemned’

THE CHURCH of England’s new report on marriage has been ‘universally condemned’, commentators are claiming.

The ‘Men and Women in Marriage’ document could see gay couples receiving prayers similar to those said in a marriage ser vice thanks to the document released last week, despite of ficial opposition to same-sex marriage.

While of ficials were keen to deny that it gave the go-ahead for blessings of civil partnerships, the need for ‘pastoral accommodations’ was stressed.

The Faith and Or der Commission published the report, commended for study by the Archbishops of Canterbur y and York, with the view of producing something positive amidst the battle over gay marriage.

Yet a member of the Commission, Charlotte Methuen, has released a scathing critique on the repor t.

She concludes her blog on the issue with: “Mar riage, as the Church of England (among other religious bodies) has been pointing out, has been between men and women, and in the Christian tradition between one man and one woman.

“But it seems to me that extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples might in fact be a redemptive step.

“For it might allow the institution of marriage to transcend the profound inequalities between men and women which have too often shaped it.”

These views were not mentioned in the document, which was presented as a repor t published with the agreement of all the Commission.

Jonathon Clatworthy, General Secretary of Modern Church, also criticised the report.

“Of ficial church documents, time and time again, defend – as the Church’s teaching – positions which are no longer acceptable to the majority in the Church of England, let alone society in general” he said.

Mr Clatworthy added that if the Church is correct in its views, then it should try to convince followers of that, ‘not just pontificate from on high by decreeing ‘what the Church teaches’.’

He went on: “For church leaders to resist, so persistently and aggressively, the views of ordinary Christians, is new. There is a growing consensus that it should not be allowed to continue.”

One lay blogger, Anne Brooke, called the latest outcry a ‘real humdinger’.

She wrote: “So, this new Church of England Report tells us that the only sexual norm is for men and women to be married to the opposite gender which is appar ently What God Wants, and ever ything else is a sinful second-rate lifestyle, other wise known as The Work Of The Devil.

“Or, at least, that’s what I think it’s saying, but the language used is so condescending, obscure and infantile that, quite honestly, it’s hard to understand anything about it at all.”

Changing Attitude, the group working for the full affirmation of lesbian and gaypersons within the Chur ches in England, launched a cutting responce to the paper, calling it a ‘toxic report’.

The statement said: “This report drives another nail into the cof fin for LGB&T Christians.

Those r esponsible for the report (and please God, not every member of House of Bishops endorses the report) blame us when it is the Church that should be shouldering blame and responsibility for having failed in responding to the call of God to provide appropriate pastoral care and affirmation for LGB&T people.

“It is the Church of England which is in a difficult position, and it is making life more and more difficult for LGB&T people, our friends and families, our faith, spirituality and prayer lives.”

Reports suggest many r eaders, even clergy, are interpreting the report as a positive development for the liberal cause, with Rev Dr Giles Fraser describing it as a ‘wink’ to the liberals to allow them to bless gay relationships, as long as they do not call the process a blessing.

Dr Fraser said this was ‘classic Anglican fudge’, allowing him and other liberals to ‘do it as long as you don’t say that is what you are doing’.

The paper says: “Well-designed accommodations proclaim the form of life given by God’s creative goodness and bring those in difficult positions into closer approximation to it.”

This has, by some been interpreted as a green light for the liberal priests already holding ‘dedication ser vices’ for gay couples to carr y on doing so, as the Commission’s paper urges a more ‘flexible’ approach.

However, when presenting the document its author, the Bishop of Coventr y, denied this was the case.

The Rt Rev Christopher Cocksworth said: “I would like them to know that they are obviously welcome in the life of the Church and will find many people in the same position as them and that their parish priest will want to offer them the love, car e and attention of the Church.”

This did not extend to of fering ‘public, formal blessing ser vices’ though, the Bishop added, despite the document seeming to suggest so.

Instead, ‘pastoral care and prayer’ is the form this welcome will take.

The report does condemn a ‘censorious judgement’.

It says: “In pastoral responses a degree of flexibility may be called for in finding ways to express the Church’s teaching practically.”

“In affirming its belief of marriage as the form the creator has given us for intimate and permanent relationship of a man and a woman, the Church does not treat questions of what is possible in hard circumstances or exceptional conditions as simply closed,” it adds. “They require pastoral wisdom.” Bishop Anthony Priddis, Bishop of Hereford, welcomed the repor t though, saying: “I greatly welcome this clear and positive statement about the unique place that marriage holds within society as a whole. It makes clear that there is no such thing as “civil” or “religious” marriage as though the two were different: they ar e not and never have been.”

But Christians for Equal Mar riage UK, set up earlier this year to support same-sex marriage, are said to be becoming ‘increasingly concerned at the divisive stand the Anglican Communion is taking’.

The founder of Christians for Equal Marriage UK, Nathan Hartley slated the repor t, saying: “To signal to a couple who love each other that their relationship can’t be blessed by God is par ticularly hurtful and stigmatising.

“In many cases, those who seek a Blessing, or ultimately the oppor tunity to marry in church, have been worshipping at their church for a long time – decades in some instances. Why should a gay couple be singled out when heterosexual Christians are of fered the full deal?”

While some clergy we spoke to viewed this document as fairly conservative in its interpretation of marriage, the addition of the call for ‘accommodation’ language was called ‘hostage to for tune’.