The Archbishop of Canterbury has voiced his misgivings about the decision by the Episcopal Church in the US to solemnize same-sex marriages. Dr. Justin Welby, the worldwide leader of …
This is a guy who fully supports what Henry VIII did to marriage, so I honestly don’t see why he should be the slightest bit surprised or concerned.
What did Henry VIII “do to marriage” and where has the Archbishop said he “fully supports” it?
I am sure those who worship in the Anglican communion in Africa were not happy to hear about it. I am surprised he commented. I forgot where the Anglican communion stands on same sex anything anymore.
The Anglican Communion is divided. Provinces like the USA and Canada are (at least in terms of those in charge) supportive of “inclusion” and “affirmation” of all forms of sexual identity. Provinces in Africa, Latina America, and Asia are more traditional and not happy at all with developments in the West.
I’m not surprised Archbishop Welby spoke on the issue. He comes from the evangelical/charismatic wing of the Church of England, so he presumably has more traditional views on these things. However, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, he has no power at all outside of England and the Church of England itself is divided over the issue.
Therefore, its unlikely that Welby will do anything but express disappointment. He is trying to keep both sides together and play peacemaker. No Archbishop of Canterbury wants to go down in history as presiding over the collapse of the Anglican Communion, even though many watchers and commentators have already declared the Communion broken beyond mending.
very sad what has become of the episcopal church and the anglican communion.
The funny thing is that Caridnal Marx thinks this anglican model sould be emulated by catholics. Now where could that go wrong?
who is Cardinal Marx? do you have a link?
As for the Anglican Church, they’ve been a mess right now. It makes me appreciate that we’re (relatively) unified as Catholics.
Germany seems to have a few troublemakers.
I am not going to cast stones at Anglicans and Catholics, since Lutherans regularly reside in class structures these days, but as for Cardinal Marx’s quote…
Speaking to reporters Wednesday at the end of the bishops’ plenary meeting in Hildesheim, Cardinal Reinhard Marx said** theological questions regarding marriage,** the family and sexual morality could not be answered during the three weeks of the synod.
He said he hopes the synod will result in “a further discussion” and said that it must find a text that “would lead to further progress” towards finding a common theological position on fundamental issues.
…and as a Confessional Lutheran whose views are essentially the same as the Catholic view on this issue, what theological questions regarding marriage remain unanswered when it comes to SSM?
Although a church that holds to the teaching of the Apostles in not allowing divorce is not likely to redefine marriage in a far more drastic way, admitting divorce and supporting the contention that two persons of the same sex are capable of marriage are hardly the same thing. The latter is a far more drastic change in the understanding of marriage.
I don’t understand what any of that has to do with Henry VIII. His multiple marriages either ended through death or through ecclesiastical annulments. He was never divorced, so the connection is sort of irrelevant.
I was under the understanding that the Church never granted Henry VIII an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. The church he ended up establishing granted him one, but not the church to which he originally applied.
Albeit he needed to have a church of his own to grant those annulments. I don’t think that is what meant here.
He was divorced from Catherine of Aragon, severing ties with Rome in order to give himself the power to have it called an annulment! I’m sure Anne Boleyn would have preferred divorce to having been railroaded into a death-penalty charge of incest with her brother. His multiple marriages took place because of his hardness of heart, not the bad luck of invalidly attempting marriages time after time. (Yes, there were verified instances of infidelity to him, but he was hardly an innocent wronged spouse who was always faithful to his wives himself.)
I’m not sure that is what you mean. Henry VIII took authority, mostly political, in order to divorce and marry. Perhaps a re-read of GKC and Contarini on the other posts might be helpful.
And sometimes death and decree of nullity
Right. But the point is that the indissolubility of marriage was maintained in the C of E until very recently. In fact I think even now they technically don’t remarry divorced people–they bless civil unions, which is typically taken to be the same thing in practice by the people affected (much as was the case with gay unions in TEC until this week). At least that was the case as recently as Prince Charles’ wedding to Camilla.
The Episcopal Church did liberalize its stance on divorce some decades ago.