The House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans considered its response to the Communion and issued a statement. What was asked of it? The Joint Standing Committee (JSC) for the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, in its press release, noted that the ECUSA bishops were asked to respond to specific requests.
The JSC wrote: The primates had requested clarification on the status of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention, and whether this did in fact reflect the request of the Windsor Report for a moratorium on the election and consecration of candidates for the episcopate who were living in a sexual relationship outside of Christian marriage.
The bishops responded by saying: We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." Is this a clarification? It does quote the relevant passage of the resolution and tell us that it says so. Will anyone abide by it? That remains to be seen. As yet, it seems doubtful to me, given that several non-chaste homosexuals have been nominated for bishop since this resolution was first passed.
The JSC wrote: Secondly, the primates had asked that the Bishops, as the chief liturgical officers in their dioceses, should mutually undertake not to offer public liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions.
The bishops responded by saying: We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. It is a good and welcome statement, but is this a moratorium? Will, for example, Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles continue to split hairs by authorizing the clergy of his diocese to continue to bless same sex unions (as he has done himself) while at the same time not authorizing rites they use for same sex blessings? And will discipline be exercised against those who violate this "moratorium"? That remains to be seen.
The JSC wrote: Thirdly, the primates had offered suggestions for the sort of pastoral care which could be offered in a way which enabled interventions from other provinces to cease. I would add that one part that the JSC missed in connection with this issue is that the primates also insisted that the lawsuits against departing parishes should stop .
The bishops responded by saying: We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors. [and] We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end. Given that the presiding Bishop's plan (which is the warmed over version of her plan put forward right after her election) was not composed in consultation with those it is supposed to serve, nor even the ones who were to administer it, and given that it was already found unsatisfactory by both those it is supposed to serve as well as the primates, and given that the house has enthusiastically rejected the proposal of the primates for alternative oversight (which would enable uninvited intervention to stop) what is the point of the bishops' statements? That remains to be seen.
Of course, the bishops also felt the need to add things to their statement like: We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
What will be the impact of all this? That remains to be seen.
Update: I was taken aback that the secular press seemed unimpressed by the clarity (or lack thereof) in the bishops' clarifications for the Anglican Communion. Things did not seem so easy in "the Big Easy." Video of the press conference in New Orleans is here, with questions beginning at 9:15 minutes in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The bishops also specified that glbt people are at least part of the group meant by B033. Since nominations aren't elected candidates by any stretch of the imagination and no where near half the bishops have explicitly rejected B033 your pessimism seems rather poorly founded.
It has seemed to me that what the conservative parishes and dioceses want for alternative oversight is essentially a parallel church to TEC, and a significant part of the trouble getting alternative oversight has been that conservatives have been demanding parallel jurisdictions or nothing at all. It reminds me of the old joke about a guy who was warned that a flood was coming that would kill him if he didn't flee his home. To make a long story short he refused aid from humans multiple times insisting that God would save him. When he died in the flood and went before God he asked why God He hadn't saved him. God's reply was to ask what he though all the human aid was.
Jon
I know that story very well. The major problem with the analogy is those wishing to help the man asked him if he wanted or needed help. From my understanding, this is the first time this alternative has been offered. It seems to me a little late to offer an alternative after the other party is starting to leave the table.
Conservative parishes and ministers have been persecuted long before wishing to leave. Conservative ministers have been defrocked for refusing to preform the rite of marriage for homosexual couples. Conservatives parishes have had their ministers replaced for disagreeing with their bishop. Conservatives leaving TEC are not just leaving due to a disagreement of theology even if an important one. The disagreement is the root of the problem and much has stemmed from it.
In the joke as I heard it, it was clear to everyone that the man needed help, or at least a warning so that he could act to protect himself. The plan put forth in New Orleans isn't the first attempt at offering pastoral care either to dioceses or parishes. Not long after the dioceses requested alternate primatial oversight a plan was offered that resembles this one in many ways. It was rejected on the grounds that the visitor was the PB's representative. Parishes were offered a way of getting alternative care even before the Windsor Report was released, and as far as I've heard it has worked well for those who've used it rather than complain that they can't be under their Diocesan in any way.
I have not heard of any conservative ministers in TEC being defrocked for refusing to perform gay marriages, and I doubt any bishop could legitimately force a priest to do any such thing since it would violate the canons of the church even if the couple were straight (see I.18.4 of TEC's canons).
The cases of conservative ministers being replaced that I have heard of have all centered around priests accused, in some cases accurately, of abandoning the communion of TEC, and bishops do have a right, depending on the canons of the dioceses, to appoint interim priests to help a parish when it is between rectors. I have also heard similar cases in which conservative bishops refuse to permit liberal parishes to have any clergy leadership whatsoever with less reason than the liberal bishops have.
Jon
In the joke I heard the stranded man wasn't offered a leaking boat already half filled with fetid, bacteria filled water, he was offered a REAL alternative to drowning.
How would you know the quality of the care the bishops offered when you have refused to even look at it closely?
In every case I have heard of in which DEPO was actually accepted, it has been effective at decreasing the tensions between the parish and the bishop. The demands for APO, on the other hand, are largely cosmetic or symbolic since the PB has very little authority over dioceses or their bishops. Of her three responsibilities, the PB has made it clear that she will delegate the tasks of visiting dioceses and acting as the chief consecrator for new bishops and is happy to send significantly more conservative bishops in her place. The third responsibility, overseeing the disciplinary process when charges are brought agains a bishop, hasn't been and probably shouldn't be delegated since that could easily lead to confusion in the relatively unlikely event that a real charge is brought against one of the bishops that is unhappy with TEC's current leadership.
Jon
Excuse you, please do not make assumptions on what I know based on a single sentence posted as a comment. You do not know what I have "looked at closely" or not.
My mother has a phrase for what assuming does...it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Forgive me, "you" was meant to be the plural. A great many conservatives haven't looked into the matter closely enough to speak intelligently on the subject.
That said, I still think your characterization of what was offered is profoundly mistaken.
Jon
Apology accepted.
Methinks many people have differing views on the subject, and it doesn't make what one side says more right than the other. I personally don't think your metaphor/joke works very well for this particular situation, but that's my own perception ;)
How well it works depends on how adamantly conservatives have insisted that their conception of alternate care is the only acceptable sort of care.
The fellow in the joke expected God to save him from the flood but repeatedly failed to recognize God's attempts to do so apparently because he assumed that the only way God would save him was by keeping the waters from drowning him.
Jon
That should read "by keeping the waters from rising high enough to drown him."
Jon
Post a Comment