One article I read in the aftermath of the new papal bull included a quote from an Anglican layman who said that he was attracted to the RCC's strong stance on abortion and homosexuality, but didn't think he could join if it meant signing off on the stuff about transubstantiation or the Virgin Mary (hint: it does). As a gay man who reluctantly swam the Thames in spite of my assent to those doctrines, I was astonished that he would seek out a church on such narrow grounds while sweeping away central Catholic dogmas.
I couldn't believe that he was so offended at the thought of sharing a church with gays and lesbians that any church with a more conservative line thereon than the Anglican Church of Canada was preferable to him, regardless of whether or not he agreed with its central tenets. The Eucharist, the role of Our Lady in the communion of saints, purgatory, the number and efficacy of the sacraments, the definition of the Canon of Scripture - all of these were secondary to the important church-shopping question: are you sound on gays?
Apparently this gentleman couldn't care less if he was Coptic or Amish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
See also relations within the schismatic Anglican groups. Some ordain women, some don't. Some are catholic, some evangelical. So long as they agree about those pesky gays, they can co-exist happily.
Until, of course, the heat dies down on this issue and they have no more "enemies" outside the circled waggons.
It's social Christianity, Geoff: Christianity as a code for social and moral order for its own sake and not springing from a yearning for the fount of immortality. In England, we blame the Victorians but I'm sure that elements of this can be found in many other places.
Post a Comment