Ted Gulick and his big ol’ rump also call litigation “Holy Stewardship.”
Up is down. Black is white. “Stop” means “go.”
Notably absent from his detail of the good works done by the hard-working folks at General Convention is their failure to affirm the uniqueness of Christ and to commend the proclamation of the gospel of salvation in Him alone.
[blockquote] … did Not do what in Fact They did [/blockquote]
Sorry to be dense. But as Bishop Gulick says, D025 and C056 are nuanced. So what [b]specifically[/b] did General Convention Convention do that Bishop Gulick missed?
#3 stabill
Here is what, I contend, the two resolutions did. Please pardon the length, but to answer your question it is necessary.
DO25 expressed the mind of the Convention (the highest authority in the Church, we are told by the President of the House of Deputies and the Presidinig Bishop) that all orders of ordained ministry are open to all the baptized including non-celibate gays and lesbians. In considering such a non-celibate gay or lesbian for any order including the episcopate only the constitution and canons must to be followed.
Resolution BO33 expressed the mind of the General Convention when it was passed in the 2006. It calls for Bishops 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 . . . .†The restraint called for is the act of restraining the will to not consent to the consecration of any non-celibate gay or lesbian (The HOB at New Orleans in 2007 acknowledged that “candidate” in BO33 referred to non-celibate gays and lesbians among others) as the canons which govern the consent to the consecration of a person to the episcopate are followed. The restraint called for is an act that is to be performed in addition to following and abiding by the constitution and canons.
The Rev. Gay Jennings of Ohio, the chairwoman of the House of Deputies Committee on World Mission which developed resolution DO25 acknowledged “that the passage of DO25 removed the recommendation for exercising restraint [contained in BO33]. . . .â€
Hence, DO25 did not repeal BO33, but it did negate it, overturn it, render it valueless, and since the thinking was that if the restraint called for in BO33 was performed, a moratorium on consenting to the consecration of a non-celibate gay or lesbian person to the episcopate would result, then the removal of that restraint by DO25 is a clear rejection of the moratorium called for by the Anglican Communion through the ACC.
Turn now to resolution CO56 which authorizes in its fourth resolve, “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; . . . .†All bishops or, at least all diocesan bishops, are authorized to permit the blessing of same sex relationships or even to permit the performance of same gender marriage as a “pastoral response†to those same sex couples who request the response. This means, at the least, any diocesan bishop who chooses may permit his or her clergy to perform such blessings or marriages.
This moves beyond resolution AO53 from General Convention 2003 which only acknowledged that same sex blessings which had been performed in TEC without the permission of the Church (for none had been given) and in violation of General Convention CO51 from 1979 which reads in part, “we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage.” The resolution said these same sex blessings were “within the bounds of our common life.”
The passing of CO56 means that permission has now been given for any diocesan bishop who chooses to permit such blessings, even marriages.
Many of our bishops including our Presiding Bishop claim that since the General Convention has not authorized a universal rite for the blessing of same sex unions for use in all dioceses, TEC cannot be held responsible by the Anglican Communion for approving such blessings as a Church. It will be difficult to make this claim now that the General Convention in CO56 has authorized all bishops (or, at least, all diocesan bishops) who choose to permit the blessing of same sex unions, or the performing of same sex marriages by their clergy through the use of any rite the Bishop may authorize. The General Convention has not authorized a single rite for all dioceses, but it has authorized all dioceses to perform same sex blessings if the bishop so chooses and according to any rite the bishop chooses.
Furthermore, many bishops, including the Presiding Bishop, claim that since such blessings would be “generous pastoral acts” they are in some way different than public rites. This claim is based on the statement of the 2007 House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans which reads, “We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty ‘to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.’†They further stated “…it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” “Private response to situations of individual pastoral care†has become in CO56 “generous pastoral response†which does not require that the pastoral response be private nor does it forbid public rites of same sex blessings or marriages from being permitted by any bishop (or diocesan bishop) who chooses to do so. What the House of Bishops said in 2007 in New Orleans is, “We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.†The Bishops along with the House of Deputies have now authorized all bishops (or diocesan bishops) who choose to do so, to permit public rites of blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses. This “further action†of the General Convention has ended the pledge the Bishops made at New Orleans to keep the moratorium on same sex blessings called for by the Anglican Communion.
Let me repeat what I said in another comment on this blog, in regard to Dio of Alabama Bishop Henry Parsley’s use of the term “nuanced”:
“Bishop Parsley’s contention that there’s “nuance†in either D025 or C056 is a desperate spin. The collection and development of theological and liturgical resources simply means that liturgies will continue to be written and celebrated in various places and at some point delivered to the SCLM for endorsement to TEC as a whole. And the “generous pastoral care†commended in states where same-sex marriage has been recognized likely means that many bishops and priests will simply cave to the culture. Sure, there will be some who will define “generous pastoral response†as telling the truth in love—that the Church upholds marriage between a man and woman as the appropriate context for sexual expression—but how long will they be allowed to respond thusly under the increasingly heavy hand of an exclusive, progressive, self-proclaimed hierarchical, and litigious organizational structure?”
Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada is attempting to peddle the same baloney to his diocese, even saying in his pastoral letter that “As Episcopalians, we are free to hold different beliefs about issues of doctrine.”
While I suppose any person is free to hold any opinion about any thing, that’s no basis for community. Perhaps that’s why TEC is hemorrhaging members and money, and the Archbishop of Canterbury can’t hold the Anglican Communion together.
Good response 5. Please save this for the next time this come up.
Of course B033 was never actually binding and was ignored at will, but officially everyone pretended that it was binding and did what, in fact, it did not do. No matter what words are used, B025 makes clear that what ever B033 did, it is inoperative and the dioceses are clear to call, elect and the Bishops approve a homosexual living in a non-clelbate relationship.
Viator2 (#5),
Thanks for your long and careful response.
Please let me try to explain where I do not follow your reasoning in regard to D025 and its relation to B033 (2006). You write:
[blockquote]
DO25 expressed the mind of the Convention (the highest authority in the Church, we are told by the President of the House of Deputies and the Presidinig Bishop) that all orders of ordained ministry are open to all the baptized including non-celibate gays and lesbians.
[/blockquote]
D025, in its 6th resolve, affirms that the [b]discernment process[/b] is open to all of the baptized. But this resolve changes nothing. Canon III.1.2 (is it from 1997 ?) says:
[blockquote]
No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.
[/blockquote]
The last sentence makes an important distinction between the openness of the discernment process and the openness of ordained ministry.
In the case of bishop candidates I think the process requires that participants at the diocesan level, who are the participants in discernment, should follow their perception of God’s will.
When the election of a bishop goes beyond the diocese for consents, that is a step beyond the discernment process. That is the place where, consistent with the Constitution and Canons, the restraint called for in B033 may be applied.
D025 really hasn’t changed anything. (It is true, however, that advocates on the extreme ends of both sides on gay issues are claiming that it has changed things.)
stabill #9 – by introducing non-celibacy, D025 departs from the canons in affirming that one particular immoral behavior cannot be a reason for discerning somebody out of the process. So, you’re wrong.
Perhaps, if ECUSA’s canons affirmed Christian moral standards instead of spitting on them, we wouldn’t have to play these semantic games with you and ECUSA’s regional manager corps.
-o- B033 was a nonbinding policy statement. It did not purport to bind bishops and standing committees. It merely “called upon†them not to consent to consecrating gay bishops.
-o- B033 had no legal force: it merely stated the opinion of GC 2006. Moreover, as a mere resolution, B033 could not in any event bind bishops and standing committees.
-o- No moratorium ever existed—only a de facto pause.
2. D025 superseded B033.
-o- GC 2006 could not bind GC 2009 by passing a resolution like B033. Thus B033 was fully subject to repeal or revision by GC 2009.
-o- B033 is inconsistent with D025 in all material respects. If “God has called and may call†practicing homosexuals “to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church†(D025), then the fact that their “manner of life presents a challenge†to less enlightened members of the Anglican Communion (B033) is irrelevant. The issue is simply whether God has called the particular gay/lesbian person to the office in question. God’s call does not depend on the views of “frail humans,†including frail humans elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. Thus D025 leaves no room for B033. Excluding someone from church office solely for living in a lifelong, committed homosexual relationship would defy God’s will.
-o- Even if B033 had formerly done something, there is now nothing left for it to do. It is a dead letter, a nullity.
_ _ _ _ _ _
In sum, no moratorium ever existed and none exists now. Bp. Gulick offers us disingenuous fiction.
If the context of D025 and C056 were a law in any other forum, for example a crime or code, the statute is written and thereby exists as an understanding that the act is not acceptable to be committed in society without a punishment being administered/extracted. It is understood that the barrier exists before an act is committed. If this were a crime, placing the name for election and then for consents for approval, and finally consecration would be “conspiracy”.
A further distiction is that Jesus told us that even the thought of adultery or other sin was the same as committing it.
The idea that the moratorium is only broken once the act is completed is one that boggles my mind. It is a new and different standard that hasn’t been applied anywhere else that I’ve seen. The intent to break it will be sufficient before the act is completed.
Further, by passing D025 and C056, GC09 HOB/HOD stated their “mind” in such a way that a large portion of people across the spectrum in and out of TEC interpret as a blanket approval of open access to every position in TEC by a GLBT person, partnered or not.
Setting aside the conservative objection on Scriptural grounds, the intent was to give this approval in spite of objections in the Anglican Communion.
The wink, wink, nudge, nudge given — whether it be to the GLBT implying blessing and approval by TEC or the Anglican Communion by protesting that compliance is maintained until one of the GLBT (and associated diocese) actually accomplishes being elected and consecrated based on this implied approval — is disingenuous. The intent is to push the limits to what “lines” have been drawn and beyond. The intent of the ambiguity is to make room for more movement while pretending the actual usage of these approved resolutions has no meaning until a GLBT is actually consecrated. I would venture to say that the intent was to push the limit in hopes that the lines would moved further, if not fully withdrawn with the passage of time and more lobbying.
If I were of the GLBT, I would see this as a betrayal by these bishops that are “saying GC09 did Not do what in Fact They did.” That is, of course, unless they understand that the endgame is to push closer to their goal of full “inclusion” within the AC. TEC in the US has only been the beginning.
I scrolled through the list of deputies and was surprised at first at how many lawyers were listed. Then when I see the ambiguity and how it’s being used, I’m not. Brad Drell and the like aside.
If the “mind” of TEC is full inclusion – then go to it and stop trying to hide it.
The Lakeland Two (#12),
[blockquote]
… Further, by passing D025 and C056, GC09 HOB/HOD stated their “mind†in such a way that a large portion of people across the spectrum in and out of TEC interpret as a blanket approval of open access to every position in TEC by a GLBT person, partnered or not. …
[/blockquote]
“in and out of TEC”: Why are those out of TEC showing so much interest?
“partnered or not”: Huh? I think almost everybody agrees that celibate is OK and promiscuous is not OK. The controversy applies to the partnered case.
Stabill #9
The canons were not changed by either B033 or DO25, but what was changed is that BO33 required that something in addition to following the canons had to be done in consenting to the consecration of a person to the episcopate which was–exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of a non-celebate gay or lesbian to the episcopate–but DO25 does not require that additional act of restraint. It requires only that the constitution and canons be followed as you point out. Since the moratorium, as the HOB stated in 2007 in New Orleans consisted precisely of their agreement to exercise that restraint, DO25 by removing the restraint, removed the moratorium.
Irenaeus #11
BO33 was acknowledged as a moratorium on the consecration of a non-celebate gay or lesbian to the episcopate by the HOB meeting in New Orleans in 2007 when the bishops acknowledged that the “Sub-Group” Report of the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam was an “accurate evalution of resolution BO33.” See the respective statements and conclusions in the Anglican Communion Institute’s paper “Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria” at the ACI web site.
Irenaeus #11
I agree that no moratorium exists now and that DO25 nullifies BO33.
However, BO33 was acknowledged as a moratorium on “consenting to the consecration of a non-celibate gay or lesbian to the episcopate” by the bishops in the HOB meeting of 2007 in New Orleans when they acknowledged the “Sub Group Report” made to the Primates’ meeing in Dar es Salaam as “an accurate evaluation of resolution BO33.” See the respective statements and conclusions in the Anglican Communion Institute’s paper, “Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria” on the ACI web site.
Ted Gulick and his big ol’ rump also call litigation “Holy Stewardship.”
Up is down. Black is white. “Stop” means “go.”
Notably absent from his detail of the good works done by the hard-working folks at General Convention is their failure to affirm the uniqueness of Christ and to commend the proclamation of the gospel of salvation in Him alone.
Ahh, another PT Barnum disciple who missed the third note about fooling people.
[blockquote] … did Not do what in Fact They did [/blockquote]
Sorry to be dense. But as Bishop Gulick says, D025 and C056 are nuanced. So what [b]specifically[/b] did General Convention Convention do that Bishop Gulick missed?
Well, if he says it often enough and loud enough, there’s every chance someone will believe him.
#3 stabill
Here is what, I contend, the two resolutions did. Please pardon the length, but to answer your question it is necessary.
DO25 expressed the mind of the Convention (the highest authority in the Church, we are told by the President of the House of Deputies and the Presidinig Bishop) that all orders of ordained ministry are open to all the baptized including non-celibate gays and lesbians. In considering such a non-celibate gay or lesbian for any order including the episcopate only the constitution and canons must to be followed.
Resolution BO33 expressed the mind of the General Convention when it was passed in the 2006. It calls for Bishops 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 . . . .†The restraint called for is the act of restraining the will to not consent to the consecration of any non-celibate gay or lesbian (The HOB at New Orleans in 2007 acknowledged that “candidate” in BO33 referred to non-celibate gays and lesbians among others) as the canons which govern the consent to the consecration of a person to the episcopate are followed. The restraint called for is an act that is to be performed in addition to following and abiding by the constitution and canons.
The Rev. Gay Jennings of Ohio, the chairwoman of the House of Deputies Committee on World Mission which developed resolution DO25 acknowledged “that the passage of DO25 removed the recommendation for exercising restraint [contained in BO33]. . . .â€
Hence, DO25 did not repeal BO33, but it did negate it, overturn it, render it valueless, and since the thinking was that if the restraint called for in BO33 was performed, a moratorium on consenting to the consecration of a non-celibate gay or lesbian person to the episcopate would result, then the removal of that restraint by DO25 is a clear rejection of the moratorium called for by the Anglican Communion through the ACC.
Turn now to resolution CO56 which authorizes in its fourth resolve, “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; . . . .†All bishops or, at least all diocesan bishops, are authorized to permit the blessing of same sex relationships or even to permit the performance of same gender marriage as a “pastoral response†to those same sex couples who request the response. This means, at the least, any diocesan bishop who chooses may permit his or her clergy to perform such blessings or marriages.
This moves beyond resolution AO53 from General Convention 2003 which only acknowledged that same sex blessings which had been performed in TEC without the permission of the Church (for none had been given) and in violation of General Convention CO51 from 1979 which reads in part, “we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage.” The resolution said these same sex blessings were “within the bounds of our common life.”
The passing of CO56 means that permission has now been given for any diocesan bishop who chooses to permit such blessings, even marriages.
Many of our bishops including our Presiding Bishop claim that since the General Convention has not authorized a universal rite for the blessing of same sex unions for use in all dioceses, TEC cannot be held responsible by the Anglican Communion for approving such blessings as a Church. It will be difficult to make this claim now that the General Convention in CO56 has authorized all bishops (or, at least, all diocesan bishops) who choose to permit the blessing of same sex unions, or the performing of same sex marriages by their clergy through the use of any rite the Bishop may authorize. The General Convention has not authorized a single rite for all dioceses, but it has authorized all dioceses to perform same sex blessings if the bishop so chooses and according to any rite the bishop chooses.
Furthermore, many bishops, including the Presiding Bishop, claim that since such blessings would be “generous pastoral acts” they are in some way different than public rites. This claim is based on the statement of the 2007 House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans which reads, “We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty ‘to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.’†They further stated “…it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” “Private response to situations of individual pastoral care†has become in CO56 “generous pastoral response†which does not require that the pastoral response be private nor does it forbid public rites of same sex blessings or marriages from being permitted by any bishop (or diocesan bishop) who chooses to do so. What the House of Bishops said in 2007 in New Orleans is, “We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.†The Bishops along with the House of Deputies have now authorized all bishops (or diocesan bishops) who choose to do so, to permit public rites of blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses. This “further action†of the General Convention has ended the pledge the Bishops made at New Orleans to keep the moratorium on same sex blessings called for by the Anglican Communion.
#3: “Nuanced?” Baloney.
Let me repeat what I said in another comment on this blog, in regard to Dio of Alabama Bishop Henry Parsley’s use of the term “nuanced”:
“Bishop Parsley’s contention that there’s “nuance†in either D025 or C056 is a desperate spin. The collection and development of theological and liturgical resources simply means that liturgies will continue to be written and celebrated in various places and at some point delivered to the SCLM for endorsement to TEC as a whole. And the “generous pastoral care†commended in states where same-sex marriage has been recognized likely means that many bishops and priests will simply cave to the culture. Sure, there will be some who will define “generous pastoral response†as telling the truth in love—that the Church upholds marriage between a man and woman as the appropriate context for sexual expression—but how long will they be allowed to respond thusly under the increasingly heavy hand of an exclusive, progressive, self-proclaimed hierarchical, and litigious organizational structure?”
Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada is attempting to peddle the same baloney to his diocese, even saying in his pastoral letter that “As Episcopalians, we are free to hold different beliefs about issues of doctrine.”
While I suppose any person is free to hold any opinion about any thing, that’s no basis for community. Perhaps that’s why TEC is hemorrhaging members and money, and the Archbishop of Canterbury can’t hold the Anglican Communion together.
Good response 5. Please save this for the next time this come up.
Of course B033 was never actually binding and was ignored at will, but officially everyone pretended that it was binding and did what, in fact, it did not do. No matter what words are used, B025 makes clear that what ever B033 did, it is inoperative and the dioceses are clear to call, elect and the Bishops approve a homosexual living in a non-clelbate relationship.
Insane.
Viator2 (#5),
Thanks for your long and careful response.
Please let me try to explain where I do not follow your reasoning in regard to D025 and its relation to B033 (2006). You write:
[blockquote]
DO25 expressed the mind of the Convention (the highest authority in the Church, we are told by the President of the House of Deputies and the Presidinig Bishop) that all orders of ordained ministry are open to all the baptized including non-celibate gays and lesbians.
[/blockquote]
D025, in its 6th resolve, affirms that the [b]discernment process[/b] is open to all of the baptized. But this resolve changes nothing. Canon III.1.2 (is it from 1997 ?) says:
[blockquote]
No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.
[/blockquote]
The last sentence makes an important distinction between the openness of the discernment process and the openness of ordained ministry.
In the case of bishop candidates I think the process requires that participants at the diocesan level, who are the participants in discernment, should follow their perception of God’s will.
When the election of a bishop goes beyond the diocese for consents, that is a step beyond the discernment process. That is the place where, consistent with the Constitution and Canons, the restraint called for in B033 may be applied.
D025 really hasn’t changed anything. (It is true, however, that advocates on the extreme ends of both sides on gay issues are claiming that it has changed things.)
stabill #9 – by introducing non-celibacy, D025 departs from the canons in affirming that one particular immoral behavior cannot be a reason for discerning somebody out of the process. So, you’re wrong.
Perhaps, if ECUSA’s canons affirmed Christian moral standards instead of spitting on them, we wouldn’t have to play these semantic games with you and ECUSA’s regional manager corps.
1. B033 imposed no moratorium.
-o- B033 was a nonbinding policy statement. It did not purport to bind bishops and standing committees. It merely “called upon†them not to consent to consecrating gay bishops.
-o- B033 had no legal force: it merely stated the opinion of GC 2006. Moreover, as a mere resolution, B033 could not in any event bind bishops and standing committees.
-o- No moratorium ever existed—only a de facto pause.
2. D025 superseded B033.
-o- GC 2006 could not bind GC 2009 by passing a resolution like B033. Thus B033 was fully subject to repeal or revision by GC 2009.
-o- B033 is inconsistent with D025 in all material respects. If “God has called and may call†practicing homosexuals “to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church†(D025), then the fact that their “manner of life presents a challenge†to less enlightened members of the Anglican Communion (B033) is irrelevant. The issue is simply whether God has called the particular gay/lesbian person to the office in question. God’s call does not depend on the views of “frail humans,†including frail humans elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. Thus D025 leaves no room for B033. Excluding someone from church office solely for living in a lifelong, committed homosexual relationship would defy God’s will.
-o- Even if B033 had formerly done something, there is now nothing left for it to do. It is a dead letter, a nullity.
_ _ _ _ _ _
In sum, no moratorium ever existed and none exists now. Bp. Gulick offers us disingenuous fiction.
If the context of D025 and C056 were a law in any other forum, for example a crime or code, the statute is written and thereby exists as an understanding that the act is not acceptable to be committed in society without a punishment being administered/extracted. It is understood that the barrier exists before an act is committed. If this were a crime, placing the name for election and then for consents for approval, and finally consecration would be “conspiracy”.
A further distiction is that Jesus told us that even the thought of adultery or other sin was the same as committing it.
The idea that the moratorium is only broken once the act is completed is one that boggles my mind. It is a new and different standard that hasn’t been applied anywhere else that I’ve seen. The intent to break it will be sufficient before the act is completed.
Further, by passing D025 and C056, GC09 HOB/HOD stated their “mind” in such a way that a large portion of people across the spectrum in and out of TEC interpret as a blanket approval of open access to every position in TEC by a GLBT person, partnered or not.
Setting aside the conservative objection on Scriptural grounds, the intent was to give this approval in spite of objections in the Anglican Communion.
The wink, wink, nudge, nudge given — whether it be to the GLBT implying blessing and approval by TEC or the Anglican Communion by protesting that compliance is maintained until one of the GLBT (and associated diocese) actually accomplishes being elected and consecrated based on this implied approval — is disingenuous. The intent is to push the limits to what “lines” have been drawn and beyond. The intent of the ambiguity is to make room for more movement while pretending the actual usage of these approved resolutions has no meaning until a GLBT is actually consecrated. I would venture to say that the intent was to push the limit in hopes that the lines would moved further, if not fully withdrawn with the passage of time and more lobbying.
If I were of the GLBT, I would see this as a betrayal by these bishops that are “saying GC09 did Not do what in Fact They did.” That is, of course, unless they understand that the endgame is to push closer to their goal of full “inclusion” within the AC. TEC in the US has only been the beginning.
I scrolled through the list of deputies and was surprised at first at how many lawyers were listed. Then when I see the ambiguity and how it’s being used, I’m not. Brad Drell and the like aside.
If the “mind” of TEC is full inclusion – then go to it and stop trying to hide it.
The Lakeland Two (#12),
[blockquote]
… Further, by passing D025 and C056, GC09 HOB/HOD stated their “mind†in such a way that a large portion of people across the spectrum in and out of TEC interpret as a blanket approval of open access to every position in TEC by a GLBT person, partnered or not. …
[/blockquote]
“in and out of TEC”: Why are those out of TEC showing so much interest?
“partnered or not”: Huh? I think almost everybody agrees that celibate is OK and promiscuous is not OK. The controversy applies to the partnered case.
Stabill #9
The canons were not changed by either B033 or DO25, but what was changed is that BO33 required that something in addition to following the canons had to be done in consenting to the consecration of a person to the episcopate which was–exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of a non-celebate gay or lesbian to the episcopate–but DO25 does not require that additional act of restraint. It requires only that the constitution and canons be followed as you point out. Since the moratorium, as the HOB stated in 2007 in New Orleans consisted precisely of their agreement to exercise that restraint, DO25 by removing the restraint, removed the moratorium.
Irenaeus #11
BO33 was acknowledged as a moratorium on the consecration of a non-celebate gay or lesbian to the episcopate by the HOB meeting in New Orleans in 2007 when the bishops acknowledged that the “Sub-Group” Report of the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam was an “accurate evalution of resolution BO33.” See the respective statements and conclusions in the Anglican Communion Institute’s paper “Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria” at the ACI web site.
Irenaeus #11
I agree that no moratorium exists now and that DO25 nullifies BO33.
However, BO33 was acknowledged as a moratorium on “consenting to the consecration of a non-celibate gay or lesbian to the episcopate” by the bishops in the HOB meeting of 2007 in New Orleans when they acknowledged the “Sub Group Report” made to the Primates’ meeing in Dar es Salaam as “an accurate evaluation of resolution BO33.” See the respective statements and conclusions in the Anglican Communion Institute’s paper, “Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria” on the ACI web site.
13 – stabill
A. Referring to mainstream media, other denominations, and just other people who have read media.
B. Don’t necessarily agree with you. Non-partnered and non-celibate problematic as well.