The views of the Primates were sought at the Primates’ Meeting in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in 2007.
The change (in effect a change to the Constitution) required approval in principle from a majority of the provinces, and the Standing Committee just before ACC 14 in Jamaica in 2009 noted that the requisite number of approvals had been received. The change to the status of the Primates’ Standing Committee with respect to the ACC and its Standing Committee came into effect when approvals had been received. The company itself is now in the process of registration with the Charity Commissioners.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer in my post Kendall. It was a note from the Secretary General to the Episcopal Café in response to our emailing our question about the issues raised regarding the ACC constitution. Everything “below the fold” is directly from Canon Kearon.
It is good to see that it is not only traditionalists who go in for conspiracy theories. We shall just have to see whether the Standing Committee is acting as the SC of the Communion rather than for the Primates/ACC. I see no evidence for that at all.
Why should one aspect of Dar es Salaam be upheld when all the others were atomized? Inquiring or Enquiring people would like to know.
Could it be that one upholds what inures the imperialistic and ignores the vast majority? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………….
Canon Kearon’s explanation about the constitution makes sense in a general way: the ACC was reforming itself into a charitable corporation. No problem there, although it raises the question of whether the structures and procedures of a secular organization take precedence over a spiritual body (e.g., the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting). As for the secret constitution, I suppose if its Articles of Association have not yet been approved by the Charity Commission, it may be legally true that the old Constitution still stands. But it appears that the Standing Committee is acting on prospective changes in the constitution.
There are still unanswered questions:
Kearon refers to ACC 13 Resolution 3 establishing the company, but he does not mention Resolution 4, which included the addition of the five Primates to the Standing Committee (4d) and the addition of all the Primates to the ACC (4c and e). Kearon seems to suggest that the “change in the Constitution,†including the reformation of the Standing Committee, had been approved by the requisite number of provinces before ACC 14 and is reflected in Resolution 39, but since there is no report on the addition of the Primates, it seems either that this part of Resolution 4 did not get the requisite number or that it did get the requisite number and it was vetoed by the Standing Committee (see 4.3.iii).
Kearon also says that “the views of the Primates’ Meeting were sought at Dar Es Salaam…†on the changes of the Constitution. This referral is not found in the Communiqué from Dar. One wonders if they were “sought†over dinner or in some passing report. In any case, there is no record of their approval of the changes by which they accepted minority representation on what has to be considered the fifth Instrument of Anglican power.
Sorry, Canon Kearon, no go.
Now I realize that Process is important and appreciate your response to Nick on how you have been carefully following Process.
Yet nevertheless, I adhere to a beleagured philosophical group that values Substance over Process. I see little of Substance in your reply.
To wit:
WHERE IS THE LINK TO THE UPDATED CONSTITUTION(S) OF THE ACC AND THE SCotAC?
Substance, my good man, substance.
[blockquote] The change (in effect a change to the Constitution) required approval in principle from a majority of the provinces, and the Standing Committee just before ACC 14 in Jamaica in 2009 noted that the requisite number of approvals had been received. The change to the status of the Primates’ Standing Committee with respect to the ACC and its Standing Committee came into effect when approvals had been received. The company itself is now in the process of registration with the Charity Commissioners.[/blockquote]
Although Kearon claims that the as-yet unpublished new and revised constitution is now in effect, and he is in fact using the rules of the as-yet unpublished new and revised constitution, he does note that the as-yet unpublished new and revised constitution has not yet completed its registration process with the Powers that Be.
I assume (although I don’t know British law) that, once registered, the new and revised constitution will then be public information available to anyone who wishes to visit the offices of the Powers that Be.
Can I have another cup of Delay served up with that crumpet?