Wednesday, October 03, 2007

AN UNEXPECTED PHONE CALL

Posted by Reverend Ref + at 7:12 PM

Received a phone call this afternoon that I never thought I would receive; or, more appropriately, a phone call I never thought I'd receive while in SW MT:

"Rev. Ref . . . would you be willing to perform a commitment service for me and my partner?"

The short answer: "I'm sorry, I can't do that right now."

The longer answer: "However, just because I can't officiate at a commitment service doesn't mean I can't talk to you. With that in mind, I would be more than happy to meet with the two of you to go through six weeks of 'marriage prep' if you are interested."

They might be interested. I should have a message on my phone tomorrow letting me know whether or not they want to pursue that.

Labels: ,

8 comments:

Ecgbert | 12:56 PM, October 04, 2007  

A non-clobbering rebuttal, Father: I don't see this as any different from another Anglican vicar in Montana telling somebody he can't have a secular funeral for his relative in the town church. Nothing to do with oppression or judging the state of the people's souls - churches have the right to enact and enforce rules for whatever reason, which like individual rights are protected by law.

You probably recognise my response as one a typical vicar (if there can be said to be such a person!), not hateful at all, would have been fine saying about 30 years ago.

And I know you don't agree with it.

Oremus pro invicem.

Reverend Ref + | 12:54 AM, October 05, 2007  

And just why do you think I don't agree?

The call not to have a secular funeral in the church was the right one. The fact that I can't do the blessing at the commitment ceremony has nothing to do with whether or not I think it's right and everything to do with following the directives of my bishop.

Bishop says no, I don't really have a choice in the matter. However, that doesn't mean that I can't sit down with them and go through the "marriage prep" sessions I use with straight couples to help ensure a lasting, committed relationship.

Ecgbert | 8:46 AM, October 05, 2007  

I didn't mean that you don't agree with obeying your bishop! I meant that to Catholics possibly including the hypothetical vicar 30 years ago, saying no to the commitment ceremony is the same as not having the secular funeral in church, not only because of obedience but on principle.

(I think we all agree on not having that funeral in church on principle.)

From what you've written before I understand you don't object to same-sex blessings and suchlike in church.

But you don't have them because you obey your bishop on principle.

As you might know from popping into my blog I don't cut people out of my life over this. I've known everybody from the sweet couple of women in my friend the 'independent' bishop's congregation to two handsome young affluent men right out of central casting complete with an adopted Chinese child to a friend who left Eastern Orthodoxy over this and has a partner.

That said, it would be right not only not to have the ceremony in church or give the blessing at the ceremony but not give the appearance of approving of what they do. And on that I imagine we shall never agree but even if out of communion - from here it's another communion-sundering issue on top of the heap separating Protestants from Catholics - at least we can acknowledge each other not only as Christians but even by upbringing or choice sharing in the same great Anglican heritage.

And if that's so all is not lost, non?

Reverend Ref + | 9:01 AM, October 05, 2007  

No . . . all is not lost.

RudigerVT | 12:13 AM, October 06, 2007  

Fogey, why are you compelled to stalk and skulk your way into the remote environs of the mountainous northwest to police the lives of some random, out-of-the way, uhm, GAY couple?

You've nothing better to do?

Really?

LPR

Unknown | 10:31 AM, October 08, 2007  

Rev Ref, I love your offer to them. I would not have a problem with conducting a commitment ceremony, but I think it's safe to say there would have been or would be discomfort in the churches I have served, and in our congregational UCC polity, that is where the decisions lie.

Ecgbert | 11:02 AM, October 08, 2007  

RudigerVT already knows this from what I've written in the past at Fr Jake's but Songbird points the way to one of my answers on this. A(n Anglo-)Catholic priest following that faith on this Controversial Issue™ is not intruding on people's lives to police them; it only becomes his business if one comes to the church and brings him into it. As a kind of libertarian anarcho-Catholic I believe everybody including the church benefits in a really free society. (Montana sounds wonderfully libertarian in some ways.) So if I were in your shoes, somebody approached me about this and there were a local UCC congregation that approves I'd suggest that to the happy couple for their ceremony. Everybody wins.

EYouthWNY | 1:13 PM, October 10, 2007  

Seems like something's being read into RevRef's response here. I don't see any attempt to "police" an issue. He responded, within the bounds set by his bishop, in the fullness of his pastoral ability.

I think it was a great response.

Peace
JP

Post a Comment

First time comments will be moderated.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)