A number of viewers wanted to know how results from the recently concluded meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council might affect convention. Bishop Jefferts Schori said the need to debate the proposed Anglican Covenant obviously was a moot point since it failed to pass during the ACC meeting in Jamaica last week.
In response to a question regarding the repeal of B033, the resolution approved at General Convention in 2006 that recommends caution in consecrating bishops whose manner of life might cause distress to other members of the Anglican Communion, Bishop Jefferts Schori said B033 would be debated, but that she opposes its repeal.
“I would far more prefer that we say here is where we are today,” she said, adding that it was a more positive way to express the mind of the church.
Is it just me or is she basically saying that B033 will likely be repealed in content, just not in name? Nothing in the article refutes the idea she’d like to see a resolution pass reflecting “where we are” – and that she’d like “where we are” to be opposed to B033.
#1. samh,
1. BO33 will be superseded.
2. [blockquote]This year’s General Convention will be a “magic kingdom†to rival the nearby Disneyland amusement park, according to the three senior officers in charge of convention planning and the bishop of the host diocese.[/blockquote] They no longer believe in Mystery but they do believe in magic.
Agree with both 1. & 2. TEC has down pat the ability to ooze around any resolution, canon, etc. in their way all the while pointing out that “we didn’t repeal/reject (insert resolution, canon, etc. in question). It’s still on the books.”
Dcn Dale – I think “superseded” is exactly the right word for what will happen with B033.
Given that she has shown herself to be a master of prevarication, one must be careful in believing this one, or anything that comes out of her office.
However, if she’s not lying, it’s perhaps a sign of life. Anything done at General Convention that would elevate the current controversies to the level of doctrine would be very dangerous, since persons elected to vestries and persons taking ordination vows have to make certain pledges regarding doctrine, discipline, and worship.
I certainly would not serve on a vestry or as a churchwarden if I were forced to accept heresy.
See BabyBlue’s [url=http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2009/05/internet-caricatures-in-discarnate.html ]article[/url] where Ms Schori states she doesn’t want to do something negative – like repeal B033 – but rather something positive:
[blockquote] My hope is that we not attempt to repeal past legislation at General Convention. It’s a bad practice, a bad legislative practice. I would far more prefer us to say where we are today in 2009, to make a positive statement about our desire to include all people fully in this church and that we be clear about who we are as the Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]
Well, of course the resolution is, in fact, not binding. Indeed all GC resolutions are not binding, except when they are. It repeal might have symbolic value, but for apperances sake it could simply be ignored.
It is merely there for the ABC to continue to include – the cluelessq are taken in. So much for the vaunted brains left at doors. What really counts is what is done … ask the non-plausible deniers of their actions from East to West Coast, look at a blog or two, read the Diocesan justifications for all the “morotoria” – contradictions. It’s so easy to say one thing and do another that what is said has the worth of a PB signature or verbal assent at a Primates Meeting (cf Griswold and Schori).
[blockquote] They no longer believe in Mystery but they do believe in magic. May 14, 7:07 am [/blockquote]
What kind of magic? Sleight of hand? The old shell game?
TEC will handle the inconvenient presence of B033 by merely ignoring it like the crazy old Aunt in the attic. By pressing ahead with its innovations with great vigor and intensity, B033 will be allowed to fade into grey inconsequence, no more than a simple historic artifact like the 39 Articles.
We’ll see what hapens when the next gay partnered priest is elected bishop somewhere and which bishops and diocesan standing committees approve. My guess is that one of the experienced lesbian clergy will be the next one elected.
The “Magic Kingdom” is a good place for GC ’09. Maybe more like never-never land. KJS is now 2/3 through her term as CEO. Can TEC last another three years, or will it be moribund by ‘012? The church I knew and gave my loyalty to is dead and gone. Requescat in pace.
Dumb Sheep.
D.S., Ms Schori is 1/3 through her tenure! It has only been three years, but it seems like six (or more) years. She will oversee a truly incredible contraction.
Just sent to TLC:
As a member of the audience in Anaheim yesterday, I heard first hand the Presiding Bishop’s reply to the question regarding B033.
I heard her WHOLE reply … “I would far more prefer us to say where we are today in 2009 … to make a positive statement about our desire to include all people fully in this church and that we be clear about who we are as the Episcopal Church.”
It is a shame that you don’t give readers of The Living Church the benefit of the Presiding Bishop’s response in its entirety … for one arrives at a very different conclusion on where the PB “is” on B033 if one factors her “preference” for a “positive statement about our desire to include all people fully.”
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Regarding Susan Russell’s comment
[blockquote] I heard her WHOLE reply … “I would far more prefer us to say where we are today in 2009 … to make a positive statement about our desire to include all people fully in this church and that we be clear about who we are as the Episcopal Church.†[/blockquote]
If that inclusion thing is working so well for you, why do you keep losing members?
#13. Susan Russell,
[blockquote]“I would far more prefer that we say here is where we are today,†[/blockquote]
How does adding the following clarify things?
[blockquote]to make a positive statement about our desire to include all people fully in this church and that we be clear about who we are as the Episcopal Church.â€[/blockquote]
Doesn’t adding this statement simply make a redundancy?
The original quote was crystal clear to me and doesn’t need clarification.
And to be even clearer, I’m sure that the 15 Bishops as well as Anglican primates will be heard from. TEC will get much smaller as the years drag along, but that apparently was the goal anyway. Less people = less opposition. Just leave the stuff behind for the revisionists to sell off because they have realized that their brand of Anglicanism doesn’t work in many dioceses and in few parishes. It’s a parasitic existence.
See, the process is designed to entirely do away with BO33 in deed but not repeal it so that Ruin Williams can continue to claim that it has not been repealed and is therefore the official stance of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC-gaygendarama New Thang Gozpell (c) “Anglican” franchise in the USA. Until of course, Canterbury and all of the CoE is swallowed up in the NEW THANG GOZPELL (c) Communion headed by the PB.
My feeling is that Dr Schori doesn’t want to add more fuel to the fire; it’s burning hot enough as it is!
Fire, Cennydd, fire? Has the PB given permission for fire to be hot?
Since the threat of removal of funding scared the sycophants of the New Thang Gozpell (c) communion sufficiently to impose Western parliamentarianism on the Indaba process at the most representative Instrument of Communion on the ACC, I seriously doubt that the PB or her kept provinces have any concern for alleged heat. The former Anglican Communion is endothermic and will remain so in regards to the Global North sycophants who are the de facto “communion” and its new leader the Archbishop of 815.
They might consider certain other sources of fire beyond their control, however.