Print Story Today....
Religion & Philosophy
By ana (Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:15:40 PM EST) (all tags)
for the first time in a good long while, I feel almost as if I belong. 


 The regular reader of these diaries will realize that I am a Christian. It's attributable to a religious experience I had in high school, and I'm not really here to talk about that. It's a boundary condition you'll need to follow what I do want to talk about. For those who care, having read William James' Variety of Religious Experience, I can say that I would totally understand if you had a similar experience and came to very different conclusions. For those who haven't had such an experience... Well, it's kind of like falling in love. It makes no sense, and until it happens to you, you can't believe it's something real. When it does, it seems like the most significant thing that's ever happened to you.

Enough of that.

I found my way into the Episcopal Church, which is the American cousin of the Church of England, one of a couple dozen "provinces" of the Anglican Communion, a kind of loose association of churches, governed by bishops in the apostolic succession, which separated from Rome during the reign of Henry VIII.

Anyway. There is, at least in the perception of this Christian, considerable pressure to conform to a life plan that they can understand. They cater more or less explicitly to families, consisting of one man and one woman and an expectation value of 2.3 children. There are always single people around; widows, divorcees, for example. Remarriage is allowed, under some circumstances. There are folks who would be Roman Catholics except that they've divorced and remarried. It's a reasonable middle way between protestants and catholics, or at least it can be.

When we were married, even tough our marriage didn't really conform in detail, I felt for a time that all was right with the world. That an institution was designed, more or less, to fit my needs. As it happens, this easy fit was an attractive nuisance; very convenient, indeed suspiciously so.

This church is having their triennial General Convention this week in Indianapolis. The church is governed for legislative purposes by a bicameral convention. The House of Bishops consists of all active and retired bishops of the church. The House of Deputies has representatives from each diocese, half laypeople and half clergy. On some issues the Deputies vote by orders (i.e. the measure has to take a majority of both lay and clerical deputies, plus the bishops).

It's a bit of a crapshoot, with some general conventions having a mindset that they can, by majority vote, change the nature of the faith. Most times, they're more restrained.

This time around there are a number of resolutions up for adoption. The ones of note here are three. Two deal with updating the non-discrimination canons to include gender identity and expression (which had to be defined several times for bishops with southern accents). These have both passed both houses, so they're part of the polity of the church in the US. The third establishes for provisional use a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. Marriages, where such things are legal; also domestic partnerships, and less formal but (by intention of the resolution, at least) life-long partnerships.

Now the 3rd one doesn't impact my life in any way, but it makes me smile. Here in Massachussetts, they've been doing that for some time; in fact Bishop Tom Shaw presided at the wedding of one of his canons (staff priests who work for the bishop), a woman, to the dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge (another woman priest). But now there's an official (if provisional) liturgy for the purpose. Well, it passed the House of Bishops today 111-41 with 4 abstentions. It's expected to pass the Deputies in the next couple days.

But inclusion of trans people, in particular that there's to be no discrimination in lay ministries, or in the process of discernment for the priesthood, that's my issue. If there's something, one thing, that I Just Don't Talk About at church, it's my issues around gender identity. Some of my friends do know. I don't bring it up with clergy, on the theory that they don't have a need to know. Naturally, depending on them for counseling, especially in difficult times like the last couple years, is unfair when I won't give them all the relevant facts.

Anyway. Now at least I feel included; they're not going to try to bounce me out because of who I am. Well, they might, but at least now they shouldn't. It is a day for carefully exhaling.
< Moved house. | Halfway done >
Today.... | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
My best wishes by johnny (4.00 / 3) #1 Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:48:05 PM EST
I know how much the Church means has meant to you, & furthermore I appreciate your courage ( & that of a few other regulars around here) in repeatedly making the subtle, non-obvious point that being religious, being Christian, is not the same thing as being stupidly unthinking and superstitious. Thank you for being forthright. It's beneficial to us and courageous of you.

Other than that, I wish you well in your relations with the church. I'm not a member myself, so in that sense it's none of my business. On the other hand I lay as much claim as anyone to being a Christian, so why the fuck not, what what?

Here's hoping for the best,


She has effectively checked out. She's an un-person of her own making. So it falls to me.--ad hoc (in the hole)


here are folks who would be Roman Catholics except by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:48:58 PM EST
I know plenty of Catholics who are divorced and remarried.  granted the Church calls it annulled.

--
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BALLS! ->clock


divorce and annulment are two different things by lm (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM EST
An annulment in the Catholic Church is a formal ruling by the proper ecclesial authority that the relationship which was once thought to be a marriage was not actually a marriage. Once upon a time, annulments were decidedly difficult to obtain. When my mother sought one out after she divorced my dad for a case very clear under canon law (adultery on the part of her spouse), the local parish priest called her a whore. It took several years for her to get that piece of paper that would allow her to get married again in the Catholic Church.

It used to be that divorcing and re-marrying without an annulment would result in excommunication until one's previous spouse died.  For example, a great aunt of mine had married an alcoholic who beat her, divorced, moved away, re-married, and was promptly excommunicated until her first husband died. Such was Catholic life back in the day. I do not know if it still works that way in the Church of Rome. I get the impression that annulments are far easier to come by these days but I do not have any direct experience with such within the last three decades or so.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

wording. by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 07:16:17 PM EST
when it comes down to it.  They're still divorced.  It seems that all it takes for the second marriage is to find a priest who will perform the ceremony.  In one case a priest was found but he wouldn't do it in his church.  So another priest was found, but wanted extra cash for the 'church' because they're weren't members.

--
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BALLS! ->clock
[ Parent ]

On a practical level, sure, for the most part by lm (2.00 / 0) #5 Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 04:10:52 PM EST
There are a few separate issues at play here.

One issue is whether an individual priest is willing to perform a marriage ceremony for a particular couple.

A second issue is whether such a marriage is legitimate according to civil law.

A third is whether such a marriage is legitimate according to canon law.

A fourth is whether or not complications will arise in the future if the answer to the third question is `no.'

I think it fair to say that most Catholics today only care about the first and second issues. Even as little as two or three decades ago, the third and fourth issues were also large concerns.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Today.... | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback