Well, that’s about it for the positives. The rest looks pretty grim””and, by the way, it’s not all about sex. Let’s get sex out of the way first, because TEC has more problems than just the conflict over sexuality.
1. Widening Gap Between TEC and the Anglican Communion. The most commented on actions coming out of the Anaheim General Convention has to do with the declarations that discernment for all levels of ordained ministry is open to gay and lesbian persons. Although many have and will argue””specifically, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies””that the moratorium on consenting to the election of a bishop in a same sex union has not been repealed, both the rationale given for the proposed legislation, and the floor debate accompanying said legislation (“D025”) reveals that the intent of the General Convention legislation was to hold the self-restraint as called for in 2006 (“B033”) as no longer binding on the bishops. It must be added that the abrogation of B033 was stated gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent of both houses of Deputies and Bishops was to abrogate B033. To interpret D025 otherwise stretches the bounds of credulity. The result at the Communion level will be that the rift between TEC and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (save for Canada and a number of individual dioceses) has now widened even more considerably, and the likelihood of some form of Communion discipline of TEC is increased.
The Episcopal Church through General Convention also authorized the development of liturgical resources for the blessing of same sex unions to be presented to the 2012 General Convention (C061). Those who want TEC to remain a “constituent member of the Anglican Communion” will argue that no official rites were thereby authorized; it is equally clear through the floor debate on C061 as well as the statement in C056 that “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.” Again, signal that TEC would move forward on the blessing of same sex unions wase given gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent was to move TEC beyond the constraints of the second moratorium requested by the primates in the Windsor Report family of requests. (There is one other problem facing TEC that comes from the sexuality decisions of General Convention in Anaheim. We will deal with that issue later in section 5 below.
However, the problems in TEC expressed through the decisions of General Convention in Anaheim run deeper than the sexuality issues….
Michell quote during debate, “when there are two clergy persons, you will find three opinions”. Thanks.
No strategy, other than rearranging the deck chairs …
Canon Neal Michell:
[blockquote]
… Although many have and will argue—specifically, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies—that the moratorium on consenting to the election of a bishop in a same sex union has not been repealed, both the rationale given for the proposed legislation, and the floor debate accompanying said legislation (“D025â€) reveals that the intent of the General Convention legislation was to hold the self-restraint as called for in 2006 (“B033â€) as no longer binding on the bishops. It must be added that the abrogation of B033 was stated gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent of both houses of Deputies and Bishops was to abrogate B033. To interpret D025 otherwise stretches the bounds of credulity. …
[/blockquote]
The claim that B033 was overturned is simply false.
The intent of some may well have been to override B033, but it’s not in the final language of D025 — not even gently. Moreover, a short exchange between Bishop Gulick and the PB near the end of debate in the HoB held explicitly that B033 would not be overturned by the passage of D025.
All right, Stabill, do you maintain that B033 is still in effect and that it operates to prevent Bishops and Standing Committees from consenting to the election of a non-celibate homosexual to the Episcopate?
Actually this was thoroughly addressed in the thread on Bishop Ted Gulick below. The plane and simple fact is that much of the AC considers B033, to extent that it ever meant any thing, has been superseded by D025.
Now it seems that having touted B033 as a moratorium which fulfilled the requirements of the Windsor report and was accepted as such by the Sup Group report, TEC now wants to claim that they misrepresented what B033 did and deliberately misled the AC.
I find the whole thing breath taking in its brazen dishonesty.