The Diocese [of New Westminster, Vancouver, BC] has taken steps under Canon 15 towards removing clergy who have left the Anglican Church of Canada rather than accepting the decisions of the Diocesan Synod and General Synod [and] has invoked the provision that returns control of the parishes to the Diocese, an action that was approved by Diocesan Council.
Announcement here, with add'l resources at Thinking Anglicans.
COMMENT: As far as I know, the dissidents in the Anglican Church of Canada have even less of a legal leg to stand on than our homegrown bunch here in the States, so one wonders just what they were smokin' in the first place...
11 comments:
Hmmm, do you think this is related to the earthquake off Vancouver this morning?
IT
As I understand Canadian history, the ACoC was more or less the Established Church. As such, the operty was owned by the state -- and ownership transfered to the religious corporation later. So, unless I was misinformed, the property is actually in the church/diocese name and not the local parish. That would mean you're right, IT; they have much less legal "foot in the door" and the courts will side with the diocese.
A couple of things.
New Westminster is on the mainland of BC, with Vancouver as the see city. Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is the see city of the Diocese of British Columbia.
The Anglican Church of Canada was never established per se. However, James is correct that all property is vested in the name of the diocese. This could make it interesting if Canada ever faced a San Joaquin type situation.
Malcolm, Thanks. I have corrected the post. (and am a bit embarrassed - I'm usually good with geography ;)
No IT, I am sure that the earthquake was more related to the interaction of the North American, Juan de Fuca and the Pacific plates.
God and the Church do not usually get involved in quakes until after the fact. Then, we are God's hands in picking up the pieces.
The parish of St. John’s in Shaughnessy, Vancouver posts rather bizarre anti-gay videos on youtube. I suppose that should't come as a surprise to anyone. It is rather sad that someone outside of Christianity might view those videos and think that being anti-gay is the primary mission of Anglicans.
Mapko,
I'm sad to say that I think most non-Christians (and plenty of Christians, too) think that the Church's primary job is to be anti-gay/liberal/women.
As do the young, at high numbers. Remember the recent poll that found young people associate Christianity with homophobia.
Yup, anti-women, anti-gay, and scared to death of sex. That's the face of Christianity.
You guys've got some SERIOUS P.R. problems.
IT
Heh, heh...it ain't just PR problems. Heck, Christians having been trying to "spin" their anti-gay / intellectual / liberal / women stances for ages.
It's a core conflict with what Christians claim to be their faith. Time to choose your master, "Christian": modern day, socio-political conservatism, or that Jesus guy you're always going on about.
(Note: Sorry if I offend anyone by using the blanket term "Christian," but the vast majority of my co-religionists are not the gentle, tolerant, thoughtful, intellectual types who hang out here on the Friends of Jake. "Progressive Christians" are a rather small minority.
Put it this way, if this was WWII, us progressive-types would be on the Allied side, but we'd be, like...Belgium or something ;)
Boy are you correct, IT. The youth see the "church" as having only that anti gay agenda.
Thanks for the correction, Malcom. I wasn't sure that's why I put "more or less" infront of established. Most people and officials were Anglican in the Victorian days so it might as well have been established. In the same way as the fundamentalist sect has been the established religion in the US for the past 7 years.
I don't think they were smokin' anything. I rather think the better metaphor would be sippin' - the koolaid, of course.
Post a Comment