It’s not been a well kept secret that the present Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were living together before they were married. When the Archbishop of York was asked about this directly in an interview late this week, he said that it wasn’t an issue for him.
“Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple’s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past.
But Anglican traditionalists criticised the Archbishop, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, for failing to reinforce Christian teaching which prohibits sex outside marriage.”
The lack of concern was a bit of concern for some.
[T]he Rev David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, a conservative evangelical group, said the Archbishop had “missed an opportunity to set out Christian teaching”“What he said wasn’t appropriate as he,” Mr Phillips said. “He gave the impression it doesn’t matter whether people live together before marriage. I thought he would have tried to get across Christian teaching on marriage that says it is not appropriate to have sex outside marriage.”
Read the full article here. (Odd choice of metaphor used by the Archbishop for the future queen.)
What do you think? Issue? Non-issue? Not the best way to start, but nothing to worry about?
All Content © 2017 Episcopal Café
Since when does living together = sex fest? That’s ridiculous. I find it at least distasteful to so assume, or to even inquire about what might be happening when two people choose to live together. This is what an objection to “cohabitation” really is: the objector basically sees a situation that makes him uncomfortable, draws his own conclusions about a sex life other than his own, and then appeals to whatever authority or tradition he can draw upon to “condemn” something that, unless he’s spying, remains a figment of his all too curious imagination. GET A LIFE.
All kidding aside, I think a better response would have been “I think it would have been best for them not to have lived together before their marriage, but given that they have lived together, I’m quite pleased that they are getting married. One must deal with the realities with which one is confronted.”
In other words, it isn’t ideal, but it makes little sense to prohibit those who have lived together from getting married. Better to encourage it!
I suppose “[T]he Rev David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society” would like to have personally conducted an inspection (as in 1981 with Lady Diana) of the bride-to-be’s hymen? }-X
JC Fisher
Of course, cow makes one think of a female but in this case the bride could be conducting her own test.
Non-issue, surely.
(Odd choice of metaphor used by the Archbishop for the future queen.)
Block that metaphor!
June Butler