Bishop Gulick on “pastoral generosity”

We here at the Episcopal Cafe reported yesterday that the work directed by General Convenation regolution C056 has begun. Ruth A. Meyers, the Chair of the the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music reported that work has begun the work directed by Resolution C056, “Liturgies for Blessings.”

Today, Bishop Gulick, of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky, has issued a statement which interprets the term “pastoral generosity.”

Bishop Gulick releases statement interpreting “pastoral generosity”

By the Communications Office of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky

Here’s an excerpt:

If the conscience of the ordained minister allows, private liturgies of blessing and support and public services of the Eucharist in thanksgiving for the covenanted, lifelong, monogamous realities of these committed relationships can be held in the churches of our diocese.

It was not the consensus of our meeting that we were of sufficient clarity to have public blessings at this time. Some of the reasons for this would be that there are no official liturgies approved for such blessings, that the civil authority of the Commonwealth does not recognize same-gender marriage, that there has been a call within the Anglican Communion for restraint on such liturgies, and that there remain many loyal Episcopalians who are not ready to welcome such rites as a normative part of Episcopal Church life.

Posted by
Category : The Lead

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted. We also ask that you limit your comments to no more than four comments per story per day.

  1. Hey, honey, let’s get married in the closet!

  2. Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D.

    I suppose that we should be grateful for “little things.”

    I wonder if the bishop sees how ironic his position is on this matter. We can have “private” blessings but “public services of the Eucharist in thanksgiving?” I would guess that it is an acknowledgement of a sort of Eucharistic piety that says that we do not have “private” celebrations of the Eucharist, but “pastoral acts” could potentially occur in a private setting. Perhaps for consistency, all “pastoral acts” should be in private: e.g. no more public prayer or anointing of the sick. You can do that in private, but you can celebrate in public if the patient lives!

    I also always wonder what we truly mean by “private?” Does that mean the immediate parties only–e.g. the prospective partners, a “small guest list” or “you just can’t rent out the parish hall and put it in the parish schedule where anyone might see it?”

    At the same time, I guess that I should be grateful that incremental changes are being made. I wonder, however, what use the Liturgy committee is going to make of this? If they are going to collect prayers and resources for a potential prayerbook rite to be celebrated in public, then the “private” blessings are probably not a great resource to use.

    Sorry that this rambles but, jeesh!

  3. David Allen |dah • veed|

    What may have occurred here is that +Bishop Ted is trying to undercut the crap that has been peddled at SFIF over the last 2 weeks in a post from “Little Stone Bridges” regarding his approval of pastoral generosity in one of his parishes, St. Matthew’s, Louisville. The limp crowd are asserting that he was trying to keep it all secret. As well as their usual cheap shots regarding the integrity of the Christian character of all the general suspects in TEC and the wider progressive Anglican community.

    News appears to be very slow for the reasserters, as the entire editorial team has taken turns digging up old news and republishing it. Often times their readers do not realize that it is old news and begin the rants again, erroneously believing that this is “Fresh Hell” once again from the apostates and heretics. An example is that Lauren Stanley has been prominent here at the Lead in reports from the Haitian catastrophe. So one must suppose that is why they dug up the Blue Baby’s posts from as far back as 2000 to paint her in an ugly light. No explanation why, nor link to her current position as appointed missionary to the Diocese of Haiti, just hate-for-no-appearent-reason directed at the Revd Ms Stanley.

Comments are closed.