|
Quick Links: Page 1 | Page
2 | Page 3 | Page 4
| Top | Homepage
PAGE 1
• Provincial Synod meets
• Synod of Bishops speaks out
• Daughters celebrated Mothers’ Day
Provincial Synod meets
2 - 9 July 2005 in Pinetown, KwaZulu Natal
Please pray :
-
for the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit to prevail during the
meeting and that all decisions taken will be the Will of God and not
of man
-
for safe travel for Bishop Bethlehem, the clergy and lay
representatives (see pg 4 ) of the diocese who will be attending
-
that their ears, minds and hearts will be open to God's voice as they
seek His will.
Synod of Bishops speaks out
Statement from the Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Same-Sex
Relationships in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of
Appeal of South Africa in Bloemfontein, 30 November 2004
We, the Bishops of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa
(Anglican), meeting in Kempton Park 2-5 May 2005, wish to address our
clergy and people on the matter of marriage and same-sex relationships.
1 We are aware that the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal of
South Africa in regard to same-sex partnerships has caused some
concern that the notion of marriage in our society is being changed
and that this may have consequences for liberty of conscience and
religion, interfere with the church’s belief and practice, and
affect the freedom of its clergy in their ministry.
2 Our Church’s position is clear in the Marriage Service in the
Anglican Prayer Book, and in the Canons.
2.1 Canon 34 Of Holy Matrimony begins with this affirmation:
‘The Church of the Province of Southern Africa affirms that
marriage by divine institution is a lifelong and exclusive union
partnership between one man and one woman.’
2.2 Our teaching and practice, even when dealing with complex
pastoral situations such as marriage after divorce, are guided and
governed by this principle. Our Church has repeatedly affirmed that
partnership between two persons of the same sex cannot be regarded as
a marriage in the eyes of God, and that consequently we do not
recognise or bless such liaisons. There is currently a well-known
process of discussion and debate about matters of human sexuality in
our Church but while this continues, our stance remains unchanged.
3 As we understand the decision of the Appeal Court, its effect is to
extend the common-law concept of marriage to include same-sex
partners, and provide them with the same legal protections as
marriage partners enjoy.
3.1 In its judgement the Court affirms two points which seek to
address in advance, concerns which our people have subsequently expressed.
3.1.1 The first of these is in regard to religious freedom in general.
The judgement says:
‘It is important to emphasise that neither our decision, nor the
ministerial grant of such a formula, in any way impinges on religious
freedom. The extension of the common-law definition of marriage does
not compel any religious denomination or minister of religion to
approve or perform same-sex marriages’. (para (36) 287e)
3.1.2 Secondly the Court spells this out in relation to marriage
officers, by quoting section 31 of the Marriage Act (of South Africa)
as follows:
‘Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed so as to
compel a marriage officer who is a minister of religion or a person
holding a responsible position in a religious denomination or
organisation to solemnise a marriage which would not conform to the
rites, formularies, tenets, doctrines or discipline of his religious
denomination or organisation’.
4 It is important to understand that Anglican clergy are not required
to be state marriage officers in order to celebrate marriages in church.
It is the responsibility of the couple to register their marriage
with the relevant authority in the country in which they live.
However many clergy become marriage officers as a service to those
whom they marry, and as a service to the state. When this happens,
the state recognises the rites and rules of the Church and appoints
clerics to serve as marriage officers within the tenets and
discipline of the Church.
This has 3 consequences.
4.1 The state never requires a church marriage officer to marry
anyone outside the framework of the church’s regulations. For
example, Canon 34 provides that save for exceptional situations, one
party to a marriage in church must be baptised; we cannot be required
to marry two atheists or adherents of another faith in our churches
or by our liturgy. The same applies to our practice regarding
marriages after divorce. There does not seem to be any intention on
the part of the state to apply pressure in this regard, whether
regarding same-sex partnerships or otherwise.
4.2 Clerics who are state marriage officers are not free to operate
autonomously, but only within the terms of their licences as clergy,
and therefore within the framework of the Canons. Thus a cleric may
only normally marry a couple of whom one is baptised, may only marry
someone who has been divorced with a licence from the bishop in terms
of Canon 34, and may not agree to conduct a marriage service or
liturgical blessing for a same-sex couple. To do otherwise would lay
a cleric open to ecclesiastical discipline. In South Africa, this
basis of operation is clearly accepted and protected by the Marriage Act.
4.3 The law of the land recognises the freedom of conscience of a
cleric in regard to conducting marriages, as does Canon 34, notably
where a divorce has taken place. This secures the right to decline to
do something a cleric is licensed to do, but it does not authorise an
individual to do something which their oath of obedience to the
church precludes them from doing. Of course an individual may make
choices, but as long as a cleric who has qualified as a state
marriage officer exercises this role within the terms of a clergy
licence and thus as an official representative of the Church, he or
she may only do so within the prevailing law and regulations of the CPSA.
5 Therefore the decision of the Appeal Court should not cause alarm
among Anglicans.
5.1 The Church is not compelled to conduct same-sex marriages.
5.2 Clergy are not being required to do anything which the Church
does not believe or permit.
6 More importantly, we call on our people to continue celebrating the
joy of Christian marriage as a lifelong holy partnership under
God’s blessing, to practise sexual abstinence before and outside
the marriage bond, to show concern and compassion to those whose
relationships have become broken, to avoid and resist all forms of
interpersonal abuse or exploitation, and to continue in love and
respect for all those with whom we relate from day to day.
Daughters celebrated Mothers’ Day
Daughters celebrated Mothers’ Day by holding a tea at St
Nicholas Anglican Church on 7 May and invited women from the church
as well as their friends and family to join them.
Pictures: (1) Winning table - Elouise Lindoor (2nd right)
had reason to smile because her table won the "Best
Decorated" prize. (2) Awaiting orders - Waiters Neville Lobb,
Mike Pittaway, Robin Behrens, Lionel Lindoor, Andrew Symes and Andrew Watt
The tables had been beautifully decorated by the hostesses and
everyone joined in the fun of the afternoon by putting on hats of all
shapes and designs! The men volunteered their services as waiters and
received many compliments and cake for looking dashing and for
serving the tables so well.
The poem “When I grow old I shall wear purple” was read by
Ros Duthie, and Juliet Watt read “My Mean Mother!”. Sally
Bezuidenhout entertained with songs and her lovely voice was
appreciated by all. Ethel Schultz Pittaway shared about “How
Jesus Treated Women”, Rose Davidson told the story of Corrie Ten
Boom and Ruth Plabou spoke about “Daughters of Prayer”.
There were prizes for the Oldest Daughter (94 years old), Youngest
Daughter (7 years old), Most Striking Hat was won by Zintle Bilibana
and Best Table which was won by Elouise Lindoor, who not only had a
beautiful table but beautiful ladies at her table as well!
Quick Links: Page 1 | Page
2 | Page 3 | Page 4
| Top | Homepage |
