London, England, Dec 12, 2018 / 04:50 pm (CNA).- The Church of England has published pastoral guidelines for liturgical services that would celebrate the completion of “gender transitioning” by those Anglicans who identify as transgendered.
The guidelines, titled Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition, were approved by the Church of England’s House of Bishops Dec. 10, and published Tuesday.
The guidance applies only to the Church of England, and not to other branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The guidelines state that baptism is the “natural liturgical context for recognizing and celebrating [a transgendered person’s] identity in Christ and God’s love for them” and encourages ministers to accept and use “the preference of a transgender person in respect of their name and gendered (or other) pronouns” in the baptism of transgendered persons.
Baptized members of the Church of England are to be offered specially adapted rituals “to recognize liturgically a person’s gender transition,” the guidelines say.
Such liturgies would allow an individual to affirm a new gender preference while renewing baptismal promises.
The guidelines note that the Church of England “welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmations of trans people” and state that services to recognize their new identity should have a “celebratory character.”
The document offers guidance on the appropriate use of pronouns during the service, explaining that ministers “should be guided by the wishes of the candidate” with respect to acknowledging the actual sex of the person at birth.
The guidelines follow a 284-78 vote last year in the Church of England’s General Synod, calling for consideration of special liturgies which “might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition.” The newly published adaptation of existing liturgies for baptism and baptismal affirmation is thought to be a compromise agreed among Church of England bishops divided over the creation of new liturgies particular to “gender transition.”
But Fr. James Bradley, a former Church of England deacon and now a Catholic priest of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, told CNA that the move represents a dramatic shift in Church of England teaching.
“It appears to represent not simply a further change in Anglican practice, but a fundamental shift in the Church of England’s understanding of the human person and the sacrament of baptism,” Bradley said.
The Church of England’s Bishop of Blackburn, Julian Henderson, led the House of Bishops’ committee that developed the guidelines. “We are absolutely clear that everyone is made in the image of God and that all should find a welcome in their parish church,” Henderson said in a Dec. 11 Church of England press release.
Henderson called the new liturgical options “an opportunity, rooted in scripture, to enable trans people who have ‘come to Christ as the way, the truth and the life’, to mark their transition in the presence of their Church family which is the body of Christ.”
The decision has caused some controversy within the Church of England.
Andrea Williams, who is a member of the Church of England’s General Synod told reporters that the move is a “devastating trajectory towards an outright denial of God and his word” and a “misguided attempt to be loving” which “sacrifices truth.”
The Church of England is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and its head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, serves as “first among equals.” The Anglican Communion has been strained in recent years by division over moral and sexual issues.
The American Episcopal Church has approved same-sex marriage since 2015, while the Church of England called for a discussion for liturgies and blessings to recognize same-sex unions last year. Some member-churches, especially those in Africa, have resisted these moves, holding to more traditional Christian teachings.
A spokesman for the Church of England told CNA that the new guidelines were “just a consultation on guidance for use of liturgy in Church of England services” and so “not something with a wider Anglican Communion involvement.”
The announcement from the Church of England could make future ecumenical efforts between it and the Catholic Church more difficult.
Pope Francis has been outspoken in his denunciation of so-called gender theory and the Western trend to treat basic aspects of human identity as fluid or mutable. The pope has said that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.”
Addressing transgenderism in his 2016 Apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis said that “the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created.”
Pope Francis has also spoken out against so-called reassignment surgeries and techniques. In a 2017 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Life he said that such “biomedical technology” “risks dismantling the source of energy that fuels the alliance between men and women and renders them fertile.”
Dr. Chad Pecknold, Associate Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of America and a Fellow at the Institute of Human Ecology, told CNA that the decision by the Church of England has caused a moment of sadness for some Christians concerned with ecumenical unity.
“As a Catholic who cares about ecumenical friendships with our separated brethren, I can only see this decision as deeply tragic for the cause of Christian unity, and a profound betrayal of a common Christian witness,” Pecknold said.
Pecknold told CNA that recognizing and celebrating so-called gender transitions went against basic Christian teachings on human nature and sacramental grace.
“The Church teaches that the human person bears God’s image, as soul and body, a union of the material and spiritual, made for friendship with one another and God,” Pecknold said.
“It is true that the Fall destroyed our original harmony with God, weakened our will, and disordered our desires, but the Church also teaches that the goodness of our created nature remains intact even in our fallen state.”
The Catholic Church has learned these essential human truths by reason as well as by revelation, Pecknold told CNA, but also through the struggle to overcome ancient heresies.
“From the earliest times, Catholic Christians have rejected Gnostic, Manichean, and Albigensian attempts to pit the body and soul against one another. Today we see that transgendered activists have revived gnostic dualism, pitting biological sex against gender identity.”
While many communities have struggled to find a balance between welcoming people suffering from gender dysphoria or other crises of personal identity while still affirming common truths and values, Pecknold told CNA that the adaptation of liturgy, especially the liturgy of baptism, to celebrate a change of gender was especially problematic.
“In baptism, which is the first sacrament, God sanctifies His beloved creature which He made ‘very good.’ Only God has the power to change and heal our nature as such, and only God can give us a new name,” Pecknold said.
“The Church is not in the business of blessing identities, but of healing nature.”
[…]
The Vatican’s Response: “A day late and a dollar short.”
My advice to the Vatican: Don’t bother; the People of God are already on it.
The dollar short being: this was primarily an offence aimed against God; it was a Luciferian anti-liturgy.
In 2024 and of Paris we read: “…there should not be allusions ridiculing the religious convictions of many people.”
In 1938 and in Munich Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’ and Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe.”
At all levels civilization is up for grabs, and we delineate the limits to “freedom of expression.”
Yes, and “many” people is actually several billion people, which is not a small thing.
Kudos to Bishop Barron for getting on this without waiting for everybody else to go first.
True that!
I’m not sure how this letter can be characterized as coming “from the Vatican” — i.e., from the pope’s administration.
The story says that the signatories were “led by Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke,” who was expelled from his Vatican apartment and denied his Vatican paycheck by Bergoglio just this past November.
If the letter originated from the Vatican hierarchy, I hardly think that Cardinal Burke, who is viewed with such contempt by Bergoglio, would be among the signers.
brineyman, please take note that this piece emanated from CNA. For me, that explains all. If you peruse so many of the “news stories” of CNA, they pretty much all make reference in one fashion or another to “the Vatican” – as if the Catholic Church was synonymous with the Vatican.
Not the same letter, but TWO totally different letters (the first was an “open letter” on July 30, and the more recent was an email(!) from “the Holy See” as the home base of the Church but also a sovereign state like the nation-states participating in the Olympics.
About the possibility of the second communication from, say, the pope, yours truly made this earlier comment:
“Or, maybe NOT a direct response from Pope Francis or from any pope? Would such an action be twisted to confer a kind of equivalence and legitimacy to a tribe of lunatics floating through Paris or wherever?
“Another proposition is that the Holy Spirit already works in subtle but concrete ways…
“The demand for an apology [the first letter] comes from bishops from around the world (just as the Olympic Games include nations from around the world). And the demand was possibly fostered by Cardinal Burke who, by incoherent circumstance, no longer lives in the Vatican. And, therefore, now is more free to say what must be said without engaging in an historic pissing contest between the perennial Catholic Church and moral mutants feeding on what’s left of the West.
“The brief letter also evangelizes clearly and concisely, in only a few sentences, rather than in thousands of unread words on Vatican letterhead. The only fly in the ointment (fly, so to speak), is the earlier Vatican blessing of irregular “couples” under Fiducia Supplicans… butt surely pairs of drag queens are not to be excluded.
“Better that oblique harmonizers of “polarities” stay out of this.”
Paolo below references a release from the Vatican Press Office. NO ONE apparently signed the release. No office of the Vatican is identified. Not only that. It does not mention Francis. NO names are mentioned. In its entirety (Italian followed by English translation)
olympiques de Paris 2024
Created: 03 August 2024
Hits: 19
Holy See Press Office Bulletin
Le Saint-Siège a été attristé par certaines scènes de la cérémonie d’ouverture des Jeux Olympiques de Paris et ne peut que se joindre aux voix qui se sont élevées ces derniers jours pour déplorer l’offense faite à de nombreux chrétiens et croyants d’autres religions.
Dans un événement prestigieux où le monde entier se réunit autour de valeurs communes ne devraient pas se trouver des allusions ridiculisant les convictions religieuses de nombreuses personnes.
La liberté d’expression, qui, évidemment, n’est pas remise en cause, trouve sa limite dans le respect des autres.
© http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino.html – August 3, 2024
The Holy See was saddened by some scenes of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris and can only join the voices that have been raised in recent days to deplore the offense caused to many Christians and believers of other religions.
At a prestigious event where the whole world unites around common values, there should be no allusions that ridicule the religious beliefs of many people.
Freedom of expression, which is obviously not in question, finds its limit in respect for others.
This CNA piece is confounding as it appears to be reporting on more the press release. This CNA news piece appears to conflate the earlier open letter with Burke, Barron, etc.
I would like to see the whole document. If anyone has a link to it share it please.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/Gioacchino-Genovese.pdf
I apologize, the provided web address is not relevant. Here is the correct one I could access:(https://www.ilcattolico.it/catechesi/documenti-catechesi/communique-du-saint-siege-pour-les-jeux-olympiques-de-paris-2024.html)
Thank you!
A perfectly secular statement which could be done by any bureaucrat. (The objective reality i.e. blasphemy is swapped with “hurt feelings” which “nice people” should not cause.)
“Saddened”? Why not outraged? Among the episcopal signatories, I trust that the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio stood out as prominently as John Hancock’s on the Declaration of Independence. Then again . . .
Yes. If Francis put his John Hancock there, it’s in invisible ink. Perhaps the magician will come out from under the white cloak and call the ‘nothingness’ into objectively sensible, visible being. We dream.
It took 10 days, this statement is really nothing, and we still have yet to hear from the Pope himself.
…who is he to judge?
Curious….first al Azhar university in Cairo condemns then President Erdoğan of Turkey and finally The Holy See….curiouser and curiouser Your Holiness.
Or maybe not in the Vatican Wonderland.
The plot thickens…
About Al-Azhar, it was the grand imam Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb of Al-Azhar who co-signed with Pope Francis the Abu Dhabi Declaration (2019), which affirmed: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”
Two points:
FIRST, the Sheikh was reported in 2019 as having a following of 150 million Muslims, but not the full 1.5 billion members of sectarian Islam as reported or implied now (but only ten percent).
SECOND, while the Declaration has been questioned on its ambiguity about a “pluralism” of (equivalent?) religions as “willed” rather than only permitted by God, it could also be questioned what, exactly, is meant by a pluralism of sexes? Only a ghostwriter editing oversight, or more like a “wardrobe malfunction” at an infamous Superbowl halftime?
About this fluidly inclusive term (plurality of sexes, as in gender theory?), was it this insane sin seen sailing the Seine scene?
Glad the Vatican was so prompt in responding to the Parisian disgrace. Guess they had to fit in the “Querido Jimmy” letter from “Francesco” first.
I don’t know and have no time to investigate. It seems, in this article, CNA confuses two different things. Imagine a cross of MSNBC with Fox, reporting truth.
CNA website seems to suggest that EWTN sponsors, operates or supports CNA in some manner. Can we trust CNA as a reliable news source? I wonder. Do they receive any funds from the Vatican? What editorial process is used to verify stories which writers at CNA put forth? Anyone?
Meiron, I do not understand the assumptions behind the questions. Catholic News Agency is owned by EWTN; the home page identifies them as a “service of EWTN News.” So that relationship has always been clear to me but maybe not to others? As far as I know, EWTN does not get funding from the Vatican, although they do seem to have a broadcasting agreement regarding Vatican events.
I have not seen a serious reason to doubt the basic integrity of CNA’s reporting. Some stories are better than others, and they may occasionally get something wrong but not at an especially high rate. Have you seen something suggesting that EWTN or CNA has an agends in the way they are reporting Vatican-related news? It is possible that I am misunderstanding your post so I wanted to ask.
Having read this 3x, I conclude:
The beginning of the article says “the Vatican… issued a statement.” The second paragraph states the statement was “e-mailed. Many folks may reasonably consider a statement transmitted by e-mail to equivocally refer to an “e-mail letter,’ an “e-mail,” or a “letter”. In fact, the Vatican Press Office released its statement and classified it as a Press Office Release.
The final three paragraphs refer to the distinct letter signed by Burke and other bishops. The ‘signatories’ to that letter are not signatories to the Press Release. NO signatories whatsoever occur on the Press Release.
The name of Francis? Notable by absence…like Biden at the debate….
I would boycott this olympics. But if you need an olympics “fix” watch the movie “The Boys in the Boat”. Based on a true story about a US Olympic Crew team from the 1930’s. Excellent and worth the time.
“Vatican deplores Olympic offense”. Could that mean the costuming and choreography weren’t done well?
Perhaps it’s time for Rome to reaffirm the complementary roles of apologetics and dialogue in spreading the Gospel.
Meiron above – That’s French, not Italian.
Just sayin’.
Thanks, Cleo. Next time, can you help spot my error before I make it? Très reconnaissant!
As a side note, I went looking for the entire text of the press release Sunday morning after catching up with the news because the reports seemed too fragmentary to understand. “Surely there must be more to it, at least more context,” I thought. (I was wrong.). Reuters reported that a statement in French (which is an unusual choice) had been emailed on Saturday night. That made me chuckle because it reminded me of the infamous Friday afternoon information dump practiced by many presidential administrations when they had to deliver bad news and wanted to attract as little attention as possible.
The statement was hard to find, perhaps because it was only in French at that point and I wasn’t looking on French-language sites. A quich search of the Vatican site came up empty. I finally found it later that day on the Italian site Messainlatino. Any confusion caused by this Vatican statement seems (to me) to come from the Vatican itself, not the news agencies reporting on it. There just isn’t much substance there.
John Allen credits the President of Turkey for the Vatican statement, as their prez announced ahead of time, publically to his cabinet, that he was calling Francis, and then did a release confirming the call and its contents, leaving the Vatican on hook to not leave the prez in the public breeze as a possible liar if him ignored, and the Vatican wanting good diplomatic relations with real a real power in the Muslim world…so, we get a note from the diplomats, Francis saying,”handleithandleithandleit.” And a note bemoaning only our poor precious widdle hurt feelings.