The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Peter Stuart, has written to his diocese outlining plans for the upcoming synod including a bill for a liturgy for the blessing of persons in same-sex marriages.
Bishop Stuart notes the ongoing tensions in the Anglican Church of Australia over this issue and also reminds the diocese that the matter is already before the Appellate Tribunal. While he also tells synod that every bill cannot pass without his approval, he has not committed himself to not approving it, leaving open the very real possibility that he will be supporting and endorsing the bill.
The bill itself is effectively a carbon copy of the Wangaratta bill with the proposed service also identical.
This Post Has 13 Comments
Sadly Bishop Peter, you now show your theology limitations. Many will be disappointed in this liberal progressive agenda, and IMHO denying the faith once received, which you promised to defend.
You will be a great disappointment to +Brian.
No doubt many will be disappointed but not surprised. As many would know, for years up until recent times the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle was the home of a large paedophile ring with senior clergy and laymen either abusing children sexually or actively protecting the child abusers, as revealed in the Royal Commission. Some of those named by the Royal Commissioner are still around.
It would certainly not be surprising if the same “liberal progressive” attitudes to sexuality were behind this latest move aimed at overturning the concept of marriage as described by Jesus and as upheld for centuries by faithful Christians.
So are you suggesting that same sex marriage and paedophilia are related? Are you insinuating that gay people are paedophiles?
You obviously know very little about what happened in Newcastle
no Andrew, I think you need to read him more carefully. You’re awarded one of these:
No David, I don’t need to. It is very clear what he is saying.
and yet you’ve failed to understand him and have, instead, jumped to a conclusion. Nowhere does he say that gay people are paedophiles. He simply argued that both thinking that sexual abuse of children is acceptable and acceptance and approval of same-sex may come from a common root of “liberal progressive” attitudes.
Of course, it’s really easy to see homosexuals and paedophiles mentioned in the same sentence and then jump to all sorts of conclusions, but the conclusion is not based in his statement. It’s imposed upon it.
No David, I don’t need to. It is very clear what he is saying and it is indicative of the lengths to which people will go to advance their message of hate. Christians? I think not
I honestly cannot understand how this Bishop can say that he belongs to and leads a church that: “….. will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline… ” (The Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia Part 1, Chapter 1)
He’s trying to start a new religion.
this is the same diocese which lost its moral compass to the extent that dozens of children were sexually abused by high ranking clergy, and those clergy were protected by senior members of the diocese. Its lack of moral compass and poor grasp of Biblical ethics is again demonstrated by this endorsement of homosexual relationships.
I think you will find that the sexual abuse of children was rampant in all diocese in Australia let alone the world. Newcastle was bought into the spotlight via the RC but many others dodged a bullet, Sydney in particular, despite it’s Holier than thou attitude and culture of denial
I think the difference is that the RC uncovered a deliberate and protracted avoidance of dealing with the matter in the Diocese of Newcastle.
I guess the one irony of all this is that many of the child abusers and their protectors from Newcastle now worship in the Sydney Diocese without having to worry about pesky management plans and the like. It will be interesting to see how Sydney Anglicans deal with having these creatures in their midst.
My own experience here in Sydney is that the Professional Standards Unit has been nothing but robust and helpful in helping me put the required arrangements in place for such a circumstance. I also know the very clear instructions we are all given that such arrangements must be made.
Therefore, given the very serious nature of your accusation (that there are known offenders worshipping at Sydney Anglican churches without the proper arrangements AND the implication that there is no desire to put such arrangements in place), I think the right thing for you to do now is to clearly and unambiguously name those individuals and the churches where they are worshipping. Or, of course, retract your accusation.