The lawyers and bishops can’t get their story straight.
There is a subtle but important difference between what the Church of England’s bishops and their lawyers are saying about the church’s move towards the blessing of same-sex civil marriages.
Is the church blessing two individuals or blessing their sexual relationship? The bishops say it’s the second, but the lawyers insist it is the first.
“We have agreed to develop and commend a suite of resources called Prayers of Love and Faith by means of which relationships between two people can be joyfully affirmed and celebrated in church,” the Bishops write in their official announcement.
“These prayers will give thanks and praise to God for the gift of two people who love one other; they will mark the couple’s commitment to one another and offer prayers with and for them. By selecting appropriate prayers and readings, it is envisaged that the service may be adapted to offer different ways for couples to publicly confirm, give thanks for, and celebrate their love and commitment.”
At the bishop’s press conference, (Video) The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, said
“What we’re doing is proposing prayers for people as a stage of their relationship. And within that relationship, and we’re specifically saying it is a faithful, lifelong relationship between two people.
“One thing I have learned through listening is that there is a whole range of ways in which people will express that relationship. Some will be sexual, some will not, some will be friendship, and some will be sexual. And so the prayers are there that can be offered. And I think that the way they will be used is there will be a range of ways in which they will be used in that.
“So there will be the opportunity for those people in a same-sex relationship to come and have that relationship blessed. And, of course, some of those will be sexual.
What the lawyers said
But according to the Church of England legal team, the blessings are for individuals, not the relationship, especially not a sexual relationship.
As might be expected, the lawyers say that the bishops can not impose a change of doctrine. “Before the House of Bishops can commend public prayers for use by ministers, it must be satisfied that the use of those prayers by the minister would meet the requirements of Canon B 5 Of the discretion of ministers in the conduct of public prayer. [A canon is a church law.] Paragraph 3 of Canon B 5 provides, “… all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.”
For the new prayers of blessing not to contravene existing doctrine, the layers insist that blessings do not equal church-endorsed marriage, which they call “holy matrimony.
“The Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony as being between one man and one woman is set out in Canon B 30. The effect of Canon B 5.3, in the light of the doctrine described in Canon B 30, is that it would not be lawful for a minister to use a form of service which either explicitly or implicitly treated or recognised the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as corresponding to Holy Matrimony. But it would in principle be lawful for a minister to use a form of service for two persons of the same sex who wished to mark a stage in their relationship provided that it did not explicitly or implicitly treat or recognise the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as corresponding to Holy Matrimony.”
No sex, please, we are British
And for the blessings NOT to equate to holy matrimony, the lawyers argue that the blessing prayers don’t relate to having been civilly married. As far as the lawyers are concerned, they are not celebrating attaining a civil relationship. “The Legal Office has carefully examined the draft Prayers. It considers that none of the text contained in the draft Prayers of Love and Faith treats the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex, either expressly or impliedly, as amounting to Holy Matrimony. The Prayers are careful to avoid any such implication. Moreover, the Prayers are framed so that they do not bless civil marriages (or civil partnerships); any blessing is of the couple and the good in their relationship, not of the civil status they may have acquired (bearing in mind that not all will have a civil status – those in covenanted friendships in particular). Note 5 in Notes to the Service specifically states, “Any adaptation or new texts added by the minister here or elsewhere in the service must not involve the incorporation of the blessings contained in the Marriage Service from the Book of Common Prayer or Common Worship.”
Examining the draft prayers shows they contain vows and the blessing of rings. Continuing their argument that Holy matrimony and civil marriage or partnerships are different matters, the lawyers argue that sex is not involved in what is being blessed.
“Some people have raised concerns that the draft Prayers of Love and Faith are contrary to, or indicative of a departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in an essential matter, on the basis that they are for use in connection with relationships that involve sexual relations between persons of the same sex. But a sexual relationship is not inherent in a same sex marriage, any more than it is in a civil partnership. The draft Prayers contain no implication that what is being celebrated or blessed is a sexual relationship. The argument that the Prayers are therefore indicative of a departure from doctrine so far as sexual relationships are concerned cannot be sustained; they are simply silent on that point.”
So who is right, bishops or lawyers?
Bishop Mullaly is clear, relationships that are sexual are being blessed with the new prayers. The lawyers say theirs no implication in the prayers that that is so. Some progressives have complained that sex is not specifically mentioned.
It’s’ like a double entendre – though sex is not actually mentioned, everybody gets the joke. But this is not a joke, but a serious change in a church’s doctrine.