Intellectual Dishonesty Among Pro-Homosexual Episcopalians

Frankly, I don't know how the Christians among the Episcopalians can read this kind of stuff without vomiting.

Have a look at this NYT article, Aug. 8, concerning the "recognition" of "blessings" of same-sex "unions":

.... What this says is that these blessings are within the embrace of God," said the Rev. Francis H. Wade, chairman of the committee that helped write the resolution....

The question was whether the resolution merely acknowledged that blessings of same-sex unions took place, or actually affirmed the blessings' doctrinal soundness. Father Wade declared tonight that the resolution did the latter, though others read it differently.

Supporters of the resolution, which was approved tonight after a brief debate by the House of Deputies — a body of more than 800 clergy members and lay people — said the measure sent a message of openness to gays of all faiths, in the same week that the church approved its first openly gay bishop....

Father Hopkins said the decision was certain to encourage more priests to conduct such rites, and will free more bishops to formally permit such blessings. The resolution essentially creates a local option: Bishops in the church's 110 dioceses may allow such ceremonies, but are not required to....

All day, the bishops, members of the House of Deputies, and church experts debated what the wording of the resolution really meant. Many said it only acknowledged that same-sex unions were taking place in some dioceses, not that such unions were in keeping with church tenets.

"We're simply recognizing that these blessings go on," Bishop Mark S. Sisk, of the Diocese of New York, said this morning. "The word 'recognize' is not 'authorize.'"

Finally, this evening, a member of the House of Deputies asked Father Wade to explain what was meant by one sentence of the eight-part resolution: "We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions."

Father Wade said the measure was sweeping. "That means," he said, "that those local communities, dioceses that are in the practice now of blessing same-sex unions in whatever form, are operating within the parameters of the understanding of this church and its doctrine and discipline." ....

On Wednesday night, bishops overwhelmingly voted for the compromise, which included what its drafters said was tacit approval of rites for same-sex unions for dioceses in which the bishops supported such blessings. Even many conservative bishops voted yes....

"This is very significant," said Bishop Steven Charleston, who is president and dean of the Episcopal Divinity School. "It opens a two-way street. For those on one side of the street, it is not condoning or endorsing this. On the other side, it is not prohibiting them."

The Rev. Ian T. Douglas, of the Episcopal Divinity School, said he thought the resolution's wording did not necessarily endorse such blessings or change church thought on homosexuality. "This is really just an exercise in truth telling," he said, "and that is important."

Do you see it? The intellectual dishonesty is appalling. I suppose we ought to expect it, though, from those who can deftly explain away the Bible and two millennia of Christian belief.

"Recognizing" is the same as "approving" something when the something is immoral. It is not some high-minded, neutral position: if you merely "recognized" pedophilia and adultery and didn't "approve" of them, you would not be doing anything good. You can't be neutral about evil.

To show you what I mean, I'm going to change the circumstance, and the text quoted above, but adopt the same king of "thinking". Here we go:

.... What this says is that these blessings are within the embrace of God," said the Rev. Francis H. Wade, chairman of the committee that helped write the resolution....

The question was whether the resolution merely acknowledged that blessings of ritual torture and human sacrifice took place, or actually affirmed the blessings' doctrinal soundness. Father Wade declared tonight that the resolution did the latter, though others read it differently.

Supporters of the resolution, which was approved tonight after a brief debate by the House of Deputies — a body of more than 800 clergy members and lay people — said the measure sent a message of openness to torturers and murderers of all faiths, in the same week that the church approved its first open torturer and murderer....

Father Hopkins said the decision was certain to encourage more priests to conduct such rites, and will free more bishops to formally permit such blessings. The resolution essentially creates a local option: Bishops in the church's 110 dioceses may allow such ceremonies, but are not required to....

All day, the bishops, members of the House of Deputies, and church experts debated what the wording of the resolution really meant. Many said it only acknowledged that torture and human sacrifice were taking place in some dioceses, not that such activities were in keeping with church tenets.

"We're simply recognizing that these activities go on," Bishop Mark S. Sisk, of the Diocese of New York, said this morning. "The word 'recognize' is not 'authorize.'"

Finally, this evening, a member of the House of Deputies asked Father Wade to explain what was meant by one sentence of the eight-part resolution: "We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing torture and human sacrifice."

Father Wade said the measure was sweeping. "That means," he said, "that those local communities, dioceses that are in the practice now of blessing torture and human sacrifice in whatever form, are operating within the parameters of the understanding of this church and its doctrine and discipline." ....

On Wednesday night, bishops overwhelmingly voted for the compromise, which included what its drafters said was tacit approval of rites for blessing torture and human sacrifice for dioceses in which the bishops supported such blessings. Even many conservative bishops voted yes....

"This is very significant," said Bishop Steven Charleston, who is president and dean of the Episcopal Divinity School. "It opens a two-way street. For those on one side of the street, it is not condoning or endorsing this. On the other side, it is not prohibiting them."

The Rev. Ian T. Douglas, of the Episcopal Divinity School, said he thought the resolution's wording did not necessarily endorse such blessings or change church thought on torture and human sacrifice. "This is really just an exercise in truth telling," he said, "and that is important."

See how preposterous is the notion that they're not approving these blessings? It should be readily seen, now, that "recognizing" the "blessing" of same-sex "unions" is tacit approval of them — unless "recognition" is the first step towards condemnation. Allowing the blessing of immorality is approving the blessing of immorality. You can't be neutral about immorality. And those men know it, too: they know that adopting a "neutral" position is tacitly declaring the subject to be good.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 08/09/03 03:59:36 PM
Categorized as Most Notable & Religious.