Richard John Neuhaus, late editor of First Things, claimed authorship of this law, “When Orthodoxy becomes optional, orthodoxy eventually becomes prohibited.” The ever-fractious Church of England gives us a glimpse at the next step after Neuhaus’ Law: When Orthodoxy becomes optional, heterodoxy becomes subsidized:
Bishops and senior clergy will debate at next month’s General Synod whether the Church should provide same-sex couples with the same financial benefits as are awarded to married couples. Traditionalists have expressed strong opposition to the move, which they claim would give official recognition to homosexual relationships. (Ya think?)
They warn that affording equal treatment to heterosexual and homosexual couples would undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage.
At present, the Church bars clergy from being in active gay relationships, although it bowed to pressure to allow them to enter civil partnerships on the condition that they are celibate. (LOL)
…Around 200 priests are believed to have entered civil partnerships since they were introduced in 2004 and the move to provide greater pension benefits for their partners could cost the Church millions of pounds. (I keep wondering about the incentive effects of redefining marriage. Two men who aren’t gay could decide to form a partnership. who would ask whether they are “really gay?” Who would care?)
Surviving spouses are entitled to pension benefits based on the entire length of service of the cleric, but surviving civil partners are currently only eligible for benefits based on the length of service since 2004.Church commissioners fear that extending the law to provide homosexual clergy with equal benefits could cripple the pensions scheme, which Shaun Farrell, chief executive of the Church’s Pensions Board, has already admitted has a “huge great hole” in it. (The greater the benefits, the greater the incentive to enter into a same sex union. And the more expensive to the pension system.)
The Rev Jonathan Clark, a trustee of Inclusive Church, a liberal group, said that the General Synod should back the motion regardless of the cost. (I wonder who he thinks will pay for the benefits advocated by the Inclusive Church?)
“Given that it is legitimate for clergy to be in civil partnerships, we should treat them in the same way as people who are married to each other,” he said. (Legitimate according to the state, or according to the Church? Given the number of people who claim the Church should stay out of government affairs, it seems a little odd to make the government’s determination that something is legal to be the deciding factor for what the C of E decides to do.)
“Making provision for civil partners is not the Church making a big change to its moral or ethical teaching.” (Once you’ve decided same sex practice is ok for practicing clergy, I guess it isn’t a big change. Oh wait. I thought they were supposed to be celibate. My mistake.)
This article comes from a website called Virtue Online, a site for Anglican Traditionalists. If you have any friends in that beleagured category, by all means send them this post, and send them to the Virtue Online site.