tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7102572917922961439..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Benedictine murmurs, Taonga comment, WOWPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89366132157988266052013-02-23T16:58:39.706+13:002013-02-23T16:58:39.706+13:00No problem, thanks Peter.
And before I am pinged ...No problem, thanks Peter.<br /><br />And before I am pinged on it, yes it was supposed to be 95 theses that Martin Luther nailed to the door. And no, i'm not comparing myself to him, but pointing out the irony in proclaiming Semper Reformanda one minute, then condemning a critique of a part of the institutional Church the next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24532071283934807642013-02-23T13:53:51.841+13:002013-02-23T13:53:51.841+13:00Hi Shawn,
A couple of comments by you are not goin...Hi Shawn,<br />A couple of comments by you are not going to be published here - too focused on the 'personal'. The following is a slightly moderated comment from you. The key word omitted is 'hypocrisy'. Like 'bigot' its presence (irrespective of whether used accurately, fairly, etc) generates heat in discussion and not light.<br /><br />"I have far more than just a marginal interest in the Anglican Communion, for obvious reasons. I am fully loyal to the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Tradition.<br /><br />When some people proclaim "Semper Reformanda" one moment then condemn any prophetic critique of parts (and it is only a part) of the institutional leadership, then this is a contradiction.<br /><br />Reform of the Church only happens when people are prepared to critique leaders, to critique certain theologies, and institutional structures.<br /><br />Where would we be today if Martin Luther had not been prepared to nail his 85 theses to the church door of Wittenberg?<br /><br />How is Semper Reformanda supposed to happen if we do not challenge and debate and hold our leaders accountable?<br /><br />When some people proclaim the "gospel of radical inclusiveness" then suggest that those who disagree leave the church then that is a contradiction.<br /><br />There is nothing "inclusive" about telling others to leave because they critique parts of the church leadership. There is nothing "inclusive" about telling others to leave because they critique certain fashionable theologies.<br /><br />GAFCON, ACNA, the FCA, have not left the Church. They are staying and fighting to defend and preserve the Anglican Communion and the Gospel, as am I.<br /><br />I am fully active in the life of the Anglican parish God has called my wife and I to serve. There is nothing "marginal" about my commitment to the Anglican Church in NZ.<br /><br />But loyalty is to Jesus Christ first, not to people or traditions, and that requires all of us to speak out when we think the Church is heading down the wrong path.<br /><br />Advocates of the "homosexual" critique of the Anglican Communion have no right to condemn those who offer alternative critiques. []<br /><br />The old Liberal gaurd that came to power and influence in the 60's - 80's has had it's day. Their liberal experiment has failed to bring any positive fruit to the Church. All it has achieved is division, theological and missional decline, and a catastrophic decline in church membership.<br /><br />It is time to abandon the Liberal experiment and find a new way forward grounded in the authority and truth of Scripture and the power of the Spirit, a way that takes our discipleship call to live in the world, but not be OF the world, seriously. <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31849436178456163832013-02-23T13:15:15.949+13:002013-02-23T13:15:15.949+13:00Brian Tamaki is a little quirky for my tastes, but...Brian Tamaki is a little quirky for my tastes, but his church does a great deal of good in Auckland, and I admire his willingness to stand up to the Liberal Establishment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66658690643386764742013-02-23T12:51:18.331+13:002013-02-23T12:51:18.331+13:00Intentional schism is built on pushing a single is...Intentional schism is built on pushing a single issue, like same sex marriage, to the exclusion of any other concern, including the unity of the Church, and telling anyone who disagrees to leave.<br /><br />Who is really arguing for a "pure" church, in which they will not be defiled and made unclean by the presence of unenlightened fundamentalists and "homophobes"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55570189563661612122013-02-23T09:56:29.327+13:002013-02-23T09:56:29.327+13:00I am with you Ron on the validity of our orders, t...I am with you Ron on the validity of our orders, though I myself am inclined to go further back in the history of the Church of England!<br /><br />I also want to be loyal and supportive of all in church leadership - a thankless and demanding task, oft-times. It is only occasionally, in my experience, that wolverine tendencies creep into the shepherds serving their flocks.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87014503302438665932013-02-23T09:36:13.500+13:002013-02-23T09:36:13.500+13:00Peter, I agree, it is all a matter of perspective....Peter, I agree, it is all a matter of perspective. And if your were a dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholic, you might suspect that Anglican Orders were invalid. But then, neither of us is.<br /><br />It may surprise you to realise that my own belief is that Anglican Orders are derived from both a biblical and traditional perspective - believing that Augustine of Canterbury has a claim to the Founding of the Church in England - from whom we in ACANZP have derived our provenance.<br /><br />This is why I have a problem with those who are converts from another branch of the Church should be so critical of the leadership of the Church they now say they belong to. That is the very basis on which intentional schism is founded Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37382392399741949452013-02-23T07:08:15.033+13:002013-02-23T07:08:15.033+13:00PS I quite agree that there are big questions over...PS I quite agree that there are big questions over Brian Tamaki's episcopal claims and whether they should be dignified or not ... analogous, is it not, to the claims made by Anglican bishops who are not real bishops in the eyes of canonically minded Romans ... who make a claim to have the one true Pope which Eastern Orthodox prefer not to dignify by agreeing that the Romans are right ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31619214845175163932013-02-23T07:05:27.242+13:002013-02-23T07:05:27.242+13:00Let me be more specific, Ron:
Sometimes I am in p...Let me be more specific, Ron:<br /><br />Sometimes I am in possession of information about how Anglican leaders within our church act. I am talking about the kind of information that our Sunday newspapers would have a field day over if they got hold of it.<br /><br />On your approach to the situation I should leave the church rather than stay in it and work on better leadership. Well, I am staying. And the wolves had better watch out!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17968993143086780732013-02-22T23:56:06.291+13:002013-02-22T23:56:06.291+13:00I was actually talking about the Church Catholic, ...I was actually talking about the Church Catholic, Peter. I'm surprised that you actually dignify Mr Tamaki's sect with the title - especially with a self-ordained episcopal oversight.<br /><br />Also, I think that the originator of the slur about wolves in the Anglican leadership would probably consider Mr Tamaki's leadership as exemplary! <br /><br />It really is all a matter of personal perspective. However, I repeat that I think someone who considers the leadership of the Anglican Church to be defective should just get out - in order to escape personal 'defilement'.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82590756567036503182013-02-22T22:26:08.831+13:002013-02-22T22:26:08.831+13:00Hi Ron,
Wolves are a lurking threat to the church ...Hi Ron,<br />Wolves are a lurking threat to the church in every generation (we have that on High authority!).<br /><br />It is not undermining the leadership of the church (if in fact it is composed of wolves) to name it for what it is.<br /><br />On your approach to leadership we should have no qualms about the leadership of +Brian Tamaki!! On this approach we would call it as we see it.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22804273466598352662013-02-22T21:56:05.344+13:002013-02-22T21:56:05.344+13:00"They didn't just let the wolves in, they..."They didn't just let the wolves in, they had become wolves themselves."<br /><br />I really think that the author of a statement like this is seriously undermining the leadership, and indeed the whole mission of the Church, in which they have - even if marginal - a vested interest.<br /><br />To describe the Leadership of the Anglican Communion Churches and especially ACANZP is such a way - is really quite destabilising, and unworthy of anyone who appears to have a vested and related interest in keeping the ministry of the organisation running.<br /><br />There can be no greater dis-service paid to the Church than that one of its members is so critical of the leadership that they are determined to undermine it, rather than move out. <br /><br />If the complainants consider the institution to be so repugnant, surely, the best thing (for both them and the organisation they so despise) would be to 'up and leave' - like the advocates of ACNA and all the other GAFCON-inspired sodalities whose aim is to sanitise the establishment with their own vision of purity and holiness. The Church will be all the better equipped to carry out the Gospel mission of peace and justice without them.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61813493319986047162013-02-22T09:33:45.069+13:002013-02-22T09:33:45.069+13:00I'm inclined to side with Peter on this issue ...I'm inclined to side with Peter on this issue of 'preaching' at a Wedding. I try to avoid it if at all possible. In fact, I cannot recall, in thirty years of priestly ministry, ever being asked to 'preach' at a Wedding. Most couples seem to prefer the words of the Christian ceremony to be sufficient to focus upon.<br /><br />I do recall once being a a Pentecostal Church Wedding ceremony, in which the 'preaching' took longer than the ceremony itself. But I guess, in that case, most of the friends and family of the bride and groom were used to the constant evangelisation tactic and were not put off by it. I found it rather over-bearing myself, and thought it could be most off-putting for people not used to it.<br /><br />Incidentally, there is no evidence of Jesus using the occasion of the Marriage at Cana to actually preach a sermon. His action in providing more 'good wine' was probably made to assure the couple of God's wonderful provision for their life together - in the atmosphere of this celebration with their friends Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50562054171781752682013-02-22T09:14:06.143+13:002013-02-22T09:14:06.143+13:00Janice said:
"But forget politics. What this...Janice said:<br /><br />"But forget politics. What this all says to me is that, beginning a generation ago, the shepherds of our flock ceased to watch and warn. They have let the wolves in."<br /><br />Exactly. In the 1960's and 70's the old Christian Liberalism became radicalised under the influence of Cultural Marxism, in the forms of the various "liberation" movements of that time (and ours).<br /><br />Many leaders and theologians in the older mainline denominations became followers of this new radicalism, and allowed it to influence the theology and policies of the various mainline churches.<br /><br />That influence is behind the Left Wing bias of much "social justice" thinking and pronouncements, and is behind the current push for the Church to recognise same-gender marriage.<br /><br />They didn't just let the wolves in, they had become wolves themselves.<br /><br />“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” --- Marcus Tullius CiceroAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83635104506665612592013-02-22T09:02:15.373+13:002013-02-22T09:02:15.373+13:00This is instructive:
"With the widespread fa...This is instructive:<br /><br />"With the widespread failure of Communist revolution throughout the rest of Europe, some Communists sought to understand why. Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs settled upon one definitive reason. Western culture and Christianity were the reasons why the workers had come to reject Communism. Thier 'true' Marxist class interests had been 'blinded' by the foundations of Western society. Indeed in 1919, Lukacs asked, “Who will save us from Western civilisation?<br /><br />That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in that short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself."<br /><br />http://smashcm.blogspot.co.nz/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25345143163209246582013-02-22T08:55:03.584+13:002013-02-22T08:55:03.584+13:00Exactly right Janice.
"The militant homosexu...Exactly right Janice.<br /><br />"The militant homosexual agenda is now part of the process which indoctrinates our youth from the very earliest age. This agenda which is empowered by the Cultural Marxist philosophy sinks its claws into the minds of children at an impressionable age. In doing so they sew the seeds of doubt as to the validity and sanctity of the natural and traditional family. This seed grows as the child grows and with further conditioning and 'nurturing' the child grows into the desired Cultural Marxist end product, ie a person who questions and criticises every truth and reality that society had realised. They will support all false ideas and believe that these ideas are a product of the new enlightened world free of all those 'oppressive' old values and traditions. This conditioned robotic criticising mindset applies to every aspect of the 'new' culture including race, gender, religion, sexuality, culture etc. They deconstruct and rebuild the culture through distortions and lies using these to further advance thier end goal.<br /><br />The ideas of Sigmund Freud were incorperated into the Cultural Marxist philosophy and came to be known as Freudo Marxism. This branch of Cultural Marxist subversion gave rise to the sexual revolution which promoted promiscuity and sexual freedoms. This was useful in the attack on the family and the moral foundations of society as it gave rise to the notion that sexual liberation was liberation from the old values of Christianity."<br /><br />http://smashcm.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/recognising-cultural-marxism_1081.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43306421104547540122013-02-22T06:55:12.261+13:002013-02-22T06:55:12.261+13:00Hi Rosemary,
I try to be helpful when marrying a ...Hi Rosemary,<br /><br />I try to be helpful when marrying a couple but not every wish could be fulfilled if I am to minister with integrity (e.g. vows according to the church, not ones they make up; in a church (normally, there might be plausible exceptions); no confetti).<br /><br />If asked to preach on (say) Ephesians 5 I would make the point that the focus of the wedding is the couple and their love for each other being witnessed to before God, thus the sermon should not be overly long and certainly not run the risk of longevity by straying into current arguments over the meaning of headship (that would make it too long). I would not ignore headship-in-Ephesians-5 but just say that there are things to discuss in detail but on another occasion than this.<br /><br />I think I differ with you on the 'evangelistic' character of a wedding setting. Most weddings gather up extended families and other assorted folk, so there are non-Christians present. While one might not 'preach for conversion' I would conduct the whole service and shape the sermon in such a way as to present the gospel of Christ - the good news that God is alive in Christ and loves each of us.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84106830707191654642013-02-21T22:58:37.840+13:002013-02-21T22:58:37.840+13:00From Defining Marriage Down . . . is no way to sav...From <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp?page=3" rel="nofollow">Defining Marriage Down . . . is no way to save it.</a> DAVID BLANKENHORN<br /><br /><i>Many of those who most vigorously champion same-sex marriage say that they do so precisely in the hope of dethroning once and for all the traditional "conjugal institution."<br /> <br />That phrase comes from Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a major expert witness testifying in courts and elsewhere for gay marriage. ... The author of journal articles like "Good Riddance to 'The Family,'" she argues forthrightly that "if we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise."<br /><br />...the point already established by the large-scale international comparisons: Empirically speaking, gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage. ...<br /><br />... the deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization--the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization. <br /><br />By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.</i><br /><br />After the collapse of the USSR I wondered how anyone could be an "intellectually fulfilled" Marxist anymore. I forgot that Marxists were, and are, committed to a world view that has been described as a Christian heresy. They do not understand that we are sinners but seem to think that the perfecting (in their eyes) of society will lead to the perfecting of human beings. But forget politics. What this all says to me is that, beginning a generation ago, the shepherds of our flock ceased to watch and warn. They have let the wolves in.Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17676307866356933402013-02-21T22:52:33.311+13:002013-02-21T22:52:33.311+13:00One has to smile when one reads about religious le...<i>One has to smile when one reads about religious leaders (like the good rabbi quoted above who may just be agnostic on the salvific validity of Jesus) - who obviouly believes that granting gay people the security of a legally-recognized monogamous relationship could actually destroy the institution of marriage.</i><br /><br />I have learned something new today. I did know that Liberation Theology drew on Marxist thought but I have just discovered that the sexual revolution was also based on a Marxist view of society. <br /> <br /><i>Championed writers of the so called "new left" such as Herbert Marcuse & William Riech fused Marxism and Psychoanalysis to forge a revolutionary sexual radicalism which argued that capitalism sexually repressed the masses in the interests of its life negating and exploitative goals. ...<br /><br />The anti-authoritarian and revolutionary movements of the 1960s saw the reproductive suburban family along with its morality of self restraint, hard work and moral puritanism as an expression of class domination. Sexual freedom was tied to revolutionary outcomes.</i> (The Sexual Revolution of the 60s) <br />See http://www.isis.aust.com/stephan/writings/sexuality/revo.htm <br /><br />Gay activists also used this Marxist analysis of the family in their writings.<br /><br /><i>Gay hatred operates essentially to buttress the ideology of the family, including the gender roles associated with it ...</i> (Gay oppression: a prop for the family. Graham Willett, The Battler, 20 April, 1985.) See http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/gayleft/oppression.htm<br /><br /><i>The family has always been a crucial institution for the integration of sexuality into class societies. ... <br /><br />The struggle against gay oppression is therefore a struggle to end capitalist society and its particular distortions of sexuality and gender.</i> (THE ROOTS OF GAY OPPRESSION. Norah Carlin, originally published in International Socialism Journal 42, London, Spring 1989.) See http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/gayleft/carlin.htm <br /><br /><i>...the fundamental bulwark or central focus of sexual and gay oppression is the monogamous, heterosexual family. ... The family ... is by its very nature, essence, and to its very core, anti-gay.<br /><br />It is impossible to dismantle gay oppression without dismantling the family, because it is not possible to eliminate sexual oppression without abolishing the family. The two are inseparably and dialectically inter-related.</i> (Class Society and Gay Oppression. Stuart Russell, no date.) See http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/1961-/Gay/Gay-Lib-8.htmJanicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71870664708100073762013-02-21T20:43:22.865+13:002013-02-21T20:43:22.865+13:00Peter,
But when Fr Ron frames a statement which ...Peter, <br /><br />But when Fr Ron frames a statement which *assumes* that headship involves domination, or subservience, you can hardly complain when others point out that they do not accept his assumption, and that there is no reason to think that the women for whom Fr Ron purports to speak accept his assumption either!MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14624050854688554032013-02-21T16:25:54.848+13:002013-02-21T16:25:54.848+13:00Mind you .. I do agree I wouldn't use a '...Mind you .. I do agree I wouldn't use a 'family secret' as the basis for an evangelistic discourse. However as any wedding held by the church is by definition a Christian wedding, I think it cannot quite be compared with an evangelistic outreach.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30765333487355831332013-02-21T14:55:55.021+13:002013-02-21T14:55:55.021+13:00So what you're saying to me is, that if a bri...So what you're saying to me is, that if a bride and bridegroom came to you and asked you to preach on a certain passage .. which by the way it's impossible to leave love out of .. you would refuse them? They surely know best who will be there and what they'll hear.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57863665248927156372013-02-21T14:49:22.676+13:002013-02-21T14:49:22.676+13:00Thanks for you welcome, Rosemary, to my wife Diana...Thanks for you welcome, Rosemary, to my wife Diana. I'm afraid she is too busy with really important things like caring for our extended family - and using her ministry of Spiritual Direction - to be bothered with the fripperies of commenting on blogs. (She doesn't say that, though) she thinks what I am doing is important too, so far as it goes. <br /><br />However, I do think that her long-term efforts towards helping people on their Christian journey - by virtue of being a 'Soul Friend'-<br />is a bit like the 'midwifery' of being a priest. We do pray together on a daily basis.We do see each other's tasks as complementary. Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11199783360932693752013-02-21T13:13:21.296+13:002013-02-21T13:13:21.296+13:00Hi Rosemary,
I stand by my question: is a wedding...Hi Rosemary,<br /><br />I stand by my question: is a wedding (as a public event to which people of all faiths and none are likely to be present) the best context for a message which tackles one of the "family secrets"?<br /><br />Put this another way: would an evangelist spend time in a gospel proclamation teaching about predestination? My point is: I don't think so. The evangelist will preach the gospel (challenging, hard and difficult as that is) without entering into controversial territory, thus wisely leaving such matters to a different context, such as a specific teaching session in the course of discipleship.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32066530747232782562013-02-21T11:11:24.647+13:002013-02-21T11:11:24.647+13:00Peter, there are several ‘family secrets’ that ot...Peter, there are several ‘family secrets’ that others don’t understand, whether it’s headship or predestination. However what does Paul do? Avoid these subjects? Worry more about those who will not understand? Or speak the hard to understand word, about which seekers will ask more? It is God who will convict is it not? But He cannot do so if the word is not spoken for fear that it will upset some.<br /><br />Ron, I’m delighted to hear that your wife Diane is totally equal within your marriage and look forward to hearing from her when she can spare a few moments!<br />Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7780720337567669922013-02-20T18:06:33.492+13:002013-02-20T18:06:33.492+13:00One has to smile when one reads about religious le...One has to smile when one reads about religious leaders (like the good rabbi quoted above who may just be agnostic on the salvific validity of Jesus) - who obviouly believes that granting gay people the security of a legally-recognized monogamous relationship could actually destroy the institution of marriage. Is it not just possible that the institution could be extanded beyond its present life-span?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com