It appears that Skilton and Harrison and one other voted against this; the bishop of the Armed Forces, retired?
Which deputies voted for it? Can anyone provide the names?
I can’t answer Dr. Seitz’ question, which I assume refers to a committee vote, not the whole HoB.
But let me call attention to the third resolved clause, that commits TEC to continue its financial underwriting of the international structures of the AC. The explanation notes that in 2007, TEC contributed $661K to the Inter Anglican Budget that sustains the work of the ACC and the ACO, which amounted to roughly 1/3 of the total budget.
I agree with Fr. Darin (as usual). The crucial 6th resolved clause clearly amounts to a repudiation of B033 from 2006, without explicitly saying so. And my guess is that the earlier mention of TEC’s continued financial support of the ACC and ACO was included as a not too subtle reminder of how heavily dependent those key parts of the current international apparatus of the AC are on TEC. And I take that as an implicit threat that TEC’s future support of the AC structures can’t be taken for granted as a sure thing. What TEC has given, TEC can take away.
Let me point out that the sixth clause not only [i]permits[/i] but [i]requires[/i] access to any ordained ministry and invokes a wider set of canons which prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation”:
Canon I.17 – general right of access regardless of “sexual orientationâ€
Canon III.3.1.2 – right of access to “discernment process for any ministry…â€
Canon III.9.3(a)(3) – right of access to election of Rector
Canon III.9.4(d) – right of access to ecclesiastical transfer from one diocese to another
Canon III.9.6(a) – right of access to a license to minister in a diocese
In other words, an official in any diocese, orthodox or heterodox, could be held to have violated the canons if he or she attempted to block the ordination of a “gay and lesbian person,” and on that basis could find themselves “abandoned.”
Guess this would effectively repeal B033 as well.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
Durant, Iowa
It appears that Skilton and Harrison and one other voted against this; the bishop of the Armed Forces, retired?
Which deputies voted for it? Can anyone provide the names?
I can’t answer Dr. Seitz’ question, which I assume refers to a committee vote, not the whole HoB.
But let me call attention to the third resolved clause, that commits TEC to continue its financial underwriting of the international structures of the AC. The explanation notes that in 2007, TEC contributed $661K to the Inter Anglican Budget that sustains the work of the ACC and the ACO, which amounted to roughly 1/3 of the total budget.
I agree with Fr. Darin (as usual). The crucial 6th resolved clause clearly amounts to a repudiation of B033 from 2006, without explicitly saying so. And my guess is that the earlier mention of TEC’s continued financial support of the ACC and ACO was included as a not too subtle reminder of how heavily dependent those key parts of the current international apparatus of the AC are on TEC. And I take that as an implicit threat that TEC’s future support of the AC structures can’t be taken for granted as a sure thing. What TEC has given, TEC can take away.
David Handy+
Let me point out that the sixth clause not only [i]permits[/i] but [i]requires[/i] access to any ordained ministry and invokes a wider set of canons which prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation”:
Canon I.17 – general right of access regardless of “sexual orientationâ€
Canon III.3.1.2 – right of access to “discernment process for any ministry…â€
Canon III.9.3(a)(3) – right of access to election of Rector
Canon III.9.4(d) – right of access to ecclesiastical transfer from one diocese to another
Canon III.9.6(a) – right of access to a license to minister in a diocese
In other words, an official in any diocese, orthodox or heterodox, could be held to have violated the canons if he or she attempted to block the ordination of a “gay and lesbian person,” and on that basis could find themselves “abandoned.”