Tuesday Highlights

Good morning. 32 clear and cold today in Chicago, err, or at least Lemont.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 comments

  1. Peter Kirk says:

    As I commented on your other blog …

    But I did confront that problem. I thought I had made it very clear that I did not consider this contention “by any means good or to be applauded”. Surely my intention was clear enough from my words “to meet their congregations’ expectations”. But, if not, I explicitly proposed “a less permissive attitude to remarriage”, and commended the Church of England position that “remarriage requires a bishop’s special permission”.

  2. Mark says:

    Peter,
    I noted the comment and left your defense largely untouched for a time because you were right. My error in misreading your post was in a large part because I hadn’t carefully read your post before creating my link/plug.

    I’d entreat you to realize that the main purpose of those things I link, I do because I think they are statements that should not be missed. I linked you because what I saw (reading alas not as carefully as I might have) looked quite interesting.

    As to the notion that homosexual marriages should be blessed as a lesser of evils, I’m not convinced as of yet and have not really any firm position on the matter as of yet. In general I think homosexuality in the Church is a pastoral issue and, well, I’m not ordained or seeking ordination so it’s one I don’t have to broach directly.

    The problem I’d have with “encouragement” of homosexual marriage/blessing of unions is, as recently noted, those unions also often set aside or redefine “monogamy”, which is a conversation we don’t need.

  3. Peter Kirk says:

    Mark, thanks for your comment and for acknowledging that you misread my post.