Several questioners asked about possible repeal or other action on Resolution B033, the controversial measure passed on the last day of the 2006 General Convention that called for restraint on the part of the church in electing or consenting to the election as bishops of persons whose manner of life may present a challenge to the wider Church””a measure widely seen to apply only to gay or lesbian candidates.
“I’ve been very clear in my public communications for the last few months that my hope is that we not attempt to repeal past legislation at General Convention””it’s a bad legislative practice,” said Jefferts Schori. “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.
Twelve resolutions concerning B033 have been submitted, said Anderson, and all have been assigned to legislative committees, as is the practice for all resolutions. “We can’t really predict what will happen in regards to B033, which is the beauty of General Convention,” she said. “It is up to the participants at General Convention to take those resolutions under consideration, to hold open hearings with regards to the resolutions, gather the voices of everyone present that wishes to speak ”¦ and we also pray for the intervention of the Holy Spirit as we debate in the House of Deputies.”
What is the status of such resolutions once a new General Convention has been convened? Does what is “called” for in resolutions (as in B033) simply lapse after 3 years anyway?
According to a recent opinion by the Chancellor to the President of the House of Deputies:
A Resolution adopted by one General Convention remains the position of the General Convention until it (1) expires by its own terms, (2) is revoked by a subsequent act of a General Convention, or (3) is superseded by General Convention’s adoption of something clearly contrary to the prior enactment even if the prior act is not explicitly revoked. A General Convention cannot bind a future General Convention, a future General Convention can always change what a prior General Convention has done.
Therefore, Resolution B033, since it did not contain language stating when it will expire, remains the position of General Convention until General Convention revokes it, adopts something contrary to it so as to supersede it, or in some way determines that it is contrary to a Church rule of a higher order such as the Constitution or Canons and is therefore null and void or of no effect.
Dear Susan – thank you!
It is worth viewing, and listening carefully to, the video of the Archbishop of Canterbury answering questions on this issue, amongst many others, at his final press conference at the ACC in Jamaica. It may be viewed [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81231_ENG_HTM.htm#global_top]here[/url], Episcopal Life online, 12 May 2009 – click on top right link.
He stated – if my memory serves me correctly so late at night – that if B033 were to be repealed it would be viewed ‘instantly’ by many in the Anglican Communion as indicating that The Episcopal Church did not want the more intensive relationships that are set out in the Covenant.
See also my Fulcrum Newsletter for April 2009, [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/?421]’Between the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC'[/url], where I argued that the vote on B033 will, in effect, be a vote on the Covenant.
It is also worth reading carefully the following two articles:
1.[url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/a_response_to_acc_14_in_jamaica_from_global_south_delegates/]’A response to ACC-14 in Jamaica from Global South delegates'[/url], by Azad-Marshal, Stanley Isaacs, Samson Mwaluda, Ikechi Nuwosu, Abraham Okorie, Abraham Yisa, Sendegeya Josias, Jane Mutoni, Jolly Babirikamu, Global South Anglican site, 13 May 2009.
2. [url=http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=422]’The Wisdom of the Cross: Some reflections on ACC-14 and the Anglican Covenant'[/url], by Ephraim Radner, Anglican Communion Institute site, 13 May 2009.
The Anglican Covenant may be delayed by 8 months, but the report of its ‘death’ is an exaggeration…and its discussion – all of it, including section 4 – is encouraged to happen now.
[blockquote] He stated – if my memory serves me correctly so late at night – that if B033 were to be repealed it would be viewed ‘instantly’ by many in the Anglican Communion as indicating that The Episcopal Church did not want the more intensive relationships that are set out in the Covenant.[/blockquote]
What empty words from Rowan. Having almost single handedly destroyed all the institutions that could actually respond to such a decision by the TEClub, his words are null and void.
Besides, the TEClub won’t repeal B033. Kendall+, in his talk in Denver a couple of years ago, pointed out that there is still a GC resolution that condemns homosexuality. This apparently has never be rescinded, but merely superceded by finding new meanings in the Baptismal vows.
Re: B033:
I’m sure that the there will be plenty of support to enact legislation that will isolate us further in the Anglican Communion. Old B033 will be history as a flurry of “new thing” legislation takes its place. However, selling this stuff in the pews later on….?
HOW CONVENIENT THAT ONE NEVER NEED REVOKE A PRIOR GC RESOLUTION and that no GC can bind a subsequent one. That way resolutions never need to be actually debated as to the “mind” of the organization when a contrary resolution is proposed. What an effective way to avoid debate on the matters at hand and render what appears to be an authoritative opinion of the moment. For the Chancellor’s opinion is not codified anywhere. It is, like General Convention decisions, merely an opinion for the moment. Thanks, SR for clearing that up. It explains how the gaygenda subverted the General Convention resolutions opposed to it very clearly.
4 says: “The Anglican Covenant may be delayed by 8 months, but the report of its ‘death’ is an exaggeration…and its discussion – all of it, including section 4 – is encouraged to happen now.”
Words fail me. The ACI’s capacity for self delusion is limitless.
1. Practically if one wanted to discuss section 4 tomorrow where would one find final text? Of course one could discuss the Ridley draft but I’m genuinely unclear why one would should do so. Are there some assumptions being made that are not being made explicit? If so, it might help to articulate them for those of us seriously wondering what the purpose of such a discussion would be.
2. Has the Archbishop explicitly asked GenCon 2009 to discuss the Section 4?
So, now we know the code word is “supersede” not repeal. That is surely what will be done! Word games, all word games!
So perhaps a resolution simply “calling” for the Canons respecting ordination to be applied (of course, as “progressives” interpret them) could supercede B033 without repealing it.
To the Communion the PB could then state quite truthfully, but disingenuously, that B033 had indeed not been repealed.
#9 Look like it. Use “repeal” to mean an abrogation of B033 by legislative enactment. Then argue there was no such legislative enactment at GenCon 2009.
It’s not quite fair to call it just a word game. If one sees GenCon as something like a legislative body then it’s the kind of thing that quasi legislative bodies do all the time. (eg Vestries in general change their policies not by repealing their old policies but simply by making new ones).
However in the context of the Communion, where a broader and equally proper meaning of repeal is surely in view, such legislative manoeuvrings are surely not likely to be convincing. But they will give TEC wiggle room to argue they have not ridden roughshod over the affirmations of the ACC. Based on past evidence TEC is unlikley to be held accountable for such “gamesmanship” (remember the farce over whether same sex blessings were “allowed” in TEC).
Plus ça change…whilst meanwhile the “inclusive agenda” moves forward.
[blockquote]A Resolution adopted by one General Convention remains the position of the General Convention until it . . . is superseded by General Convention’s adoption of something clearly contrary to the prior enactment even if the prior act is not explicitly revoked. [/blockquote]
Which is why the whole thing is a goddamn waste of time. The GC is restrained by nothing but its own will. That is the hallmark of a fascist organization.
Not quite. As I understand it, GenCon is, in theory, restrained by the existing Canons and Constitution and Book of Common Prayer. Of course, a primary task then becomes to provide authoritative (re)interpretations of what the Canonical and BCP’s language means. (Hence, for example, the relentless offering of the “inclusive” interpretation of the Baptismal Covenant).
“In theory.” But the PB is riding roughshod over the Constitution & Canons; and the Canons & the BCP (esp. rubrics) are without force in most places. But [i]on paper[/i] there’s nothing wrong!
This is real interesting. A diocese has no authority but that given by GC? So much for the non-hierarchical TEC.
Translated by whom? Could someone use this word in a sentence? “Could I have some more ubuntu?” “Tomorrow I would like to ubuntu?” “My favorite thing is ubuntu?” How could a three syllable word have such a meaning and how/when would you actually use such a word??
The Prime Directive for the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC : “you bunt too”.
All who ignore the Prime Directive will have to aswer to Star Fleet HQ at 815. Simple enough. But it is really cute how they appropriate African words and then follow through with them as at the ACC. Look for more of the same – youbunttoo.
Well, of course it turns out that “ubuntu” does NOT mean “I am because we are.” The phrase, such as it is, is “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” (“a person is a person through (other) persons”)
However, there is a word “ubuntu” which roughly translates to the Yiddish “mensch” — meaning a person who does what is right. Specifically if refers to a person who exhibits the various social behaviors that make them worthy of their ancestors and will make them worthy of veneration by their descendents when they die. These include generosity, compassion, respect for others, etc. (as well as specific social obligations like kneeling ceremonially before one’s in-laws, etc.). This has been developed by a bunch of writers into a whole suppposed “philosophy” of “ubuntu.” So much so that there is a Linux operating system called “ubuntu” based on the premise that it “brings the spirit of ubuntu to the software world.”
I guess Christianity is such an impoverished religion that these folks need to reach out to other cultures to find models of how they should relate to one another. (Although it would be cool if they begin by all kneeling down and respectfully offering trays of food to one another.)
More on “ubuntu” :
“The concept of ubuntu inspired the title of the documentary film “I Am Because We Are” directed by Nathan Rissman and produced by Madonna.”
Now we know where she gets her “often translated as” from. Although I do think it’s great that she’s interested in a film that has an association with the Madonna. Perhaps her devotion to Our Lady shows that the teachings of her Catholic childhood have not been totally lost on her. 🙂
#15 Once again this is TEC wanting it both ways (and getting it).
We are a heirarchical church, a majority vote at GC speaks for all and is a movement of the Holy Spirit Dioceses are not independent, however, if a Diocese wants to do SSBs, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, without direct approval of GC, then we can’t intervene as Dioceses are independent. What wonderful circularity, and logically infallible. It is truly awe inspiring to watch such beautiful minds at work.
Yes, EA, but you have to step outside the church to watch the minds play because all the brains have been parked there.
The missionary/development worker from the UN/etc. tells the natives all the wonderful things that he is going to do for them. They all yell: “Ubuntu!” Encouraged, he goes on to describe the great improvements that will accrue as these projects are completed. “Ubuntu!!!” cry the locals.
Then our Hero asks to tour the cattle kraals. His host pleads: “Careful sir! Don’t step in the ubuntu.”