Anglican Planet: If our General Synod were to vote to endorse the local option for SSBs, would that be regarded as a breach of the moratoria by the wider Anglican Communion?
The way in which you handle requests from the Communion in the Anglican Church of Canada is a matter for the Anglican Church of Canada. At the end of the day, it’s the Instruments of Communion that make the decisions and it’s up to us who serve those Instruments to implement those decisions.
Anglican Planet: Wouldn’t that come formally under their [Canadian] Synod?
That probably would influence the answer that Archbishop Hiltz might give me that I asked him on the second page [of my memorandum.]
Neil Adams, Anglican Journal: Archbishop Hiltz and Primate Jefferts Schori are concerned that the word “formally” could mean that there are churches like the Church of England were SSBs occur but informally, and that a double standard exists.
The Communion at the international level receives from churches what those churches communicate to the wider world. We don’t dive down into the detailed life of a particular church, parish or diocese. I don’t go checking. We take what the senior authorized bodies of each church decide on issues that are relevant to the wider Anglican Communion. What a synod has said “formally” means probably by resolution. That would be my interpretation.
Neil Adams, Anglican Journal: Archbishop Hiltz and Primate Jefferts Schori are concerned that the word “formally” could mean that there are churches like the Church of England were SSBs occur but informally, and that a double standard exists.
The Communion at the international level receives from churches what those churches communicate to the wider world. We don’t dive down into the detailed life of a particular church, parish or diocese. I don’t go checking. We take what the senior authorized bodies of each church decide on issues that are relevant to the wider Anglican Communion. What a synod has said “formally” means probably by resolution. That would be my interpretation.
Fascinating reading at a number of levels. Defense of RDW re: TEC exclusion; press for clarity on SSBs in provinces in Canada; caution about seeing ‘GS’ as a monolith; interpretation of Singapore communique. Things are now much clearer than five years ago, etc.
This is interesting in light of the following statement by the ACoC:
http://www.anglican.ca/gs2010/atsynod/sdr-june-9-2010/?utm_source=Anglican+Church+of+Canada&utm_campaign=a3b4f8404e-GSDaily&utm_medium=email
Here is what a portion of the statement says: “We acknowledge diverse pastoral practices as dioceses respond to their own missional contexts. We accept the continuing commitment to develop generous pastoral responses. We recognize that these different approaches raise difficulties and challenges. When one acts there are implications for all. There can be no imposition of a decision or action, but rather we are challenged to live together sharing in the mission of Christ entrusted to us, accepting that different local contexts call at times for different local discernment, decision and action.”
Reading between the lines, it seems to me that what is being said here is that this means that dioceses will be allowed to continue developing rites of SSB as they have been doing in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Niagara and Huron (New West is a bit up in the air right now as to what exactly is going on). There is no restraint actually called for at all; it is a ‘proceed as you have been.’ There have thus far been no national church consequences (which could take the form of the Primate not inviting a particular diocese -violating both the Communion moratoria and the expressed will of the Canadian bishops at GS 2007 – to participate in future General Synods, or alternatively, some action by the Metropolitans with authority over their dioceses). And thanks to the phrasing of this statement, there isn’t much chance that, as laid out by the ACO and articulated above by Kenneth Kearon, there can be Communion wide consequences. To conclude then, it would seem that Canadian dioceses can continue on with local option not officially sanctioned by the Canadian Church, but flying under the radar of any Communion consequences.
I couldn’t throw him very far…..how much should I trust him? His record is one of actions in favour of revisionists in the AC regardless of the mind of the Communion and the majority of the Primates’ views…….
Thanks, optimus prime (#2).
I appreciate the link and the fact that you listed the five Canadian dioceses pressing ahead with SSB’s. I find it ironic that New Westminster where it all started is being left behind at the moment as other dioceses leapfrog over it in their haste to offer a “generous pastoral response” to the needs of homosexuals. I suspect that your take on how things may play out is plausible and all too likely to occur.
However, I must say that I find this interview with Canon Kearon quite surprising, and it’s a pleasant surprise too. The most striking aspect of it is the repeated emphasis by the Secretary General that TEC clearly doesn’t share the same faith and order with the vast majority of the AC. At least three times, he insisted that TEC, by giving approval to the consecration of Mary Glasspool, has clearly shown that it doesn’t share the faith and order of the AC as a whole. That is very encouraging and promising in its candor.
David Handy+
You’re welcome Fr. Handy (#4).
I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. I too am encouraged by what Canon Kearon has said. It is my hope that, in some way, the dioceses of the Canadian Church will be held accountable for their actions. I am not sure how this will work given all that has been said. It will take some time for the dust to settle from this GS meeting before I think we might tell where we stand. However, having just been ordained a priest a couple of weeks ago, I do feel a sense of relief, excitement and courage to persevere in serving this Church at this time – of course by means of grace – but also thanks to the responses by the ABC and now Canon Kearon.
Optimus Prime,
Could you, please, expand on this a bit more?
[blockquote](New West is a bit up in the air right now as to what exactly is going on).[/blockquote]
Thanks in advance.
#2. O.P.,
[blockquote]To conclude then, it would seem that Canadian dioceses can continue on with local option not officially sanctioned by the Canadian Church, but flying under the radar of any Communion consequences.[/blockquote]
This is like W.C. Fields commented as he read a Bible on his death bed. “I’m looking for loopholes.”
Congratulations O.P.+ Is is Dr. O.P.+ ?
#6 Farstrider,
Sorry, that got cut off (and not edited) and I didn’t realize it. New West does allow SSB (6 parishes are officially permitted to bless same-sex unions and do not have to get permission on a case-by-case basis for this). What has been left up in the air, and what leaves Canada up in the air in general, is the issue of the pastoral provision for alternative oversight. One of the claims often made is that conservative parishes have recourse to alternative oversight if they do not agree with a decision of their diocesan bishop. However, this did not work in the case of New West where Michael Ingham denied a request from at least one parish (I’m not sure of the numbers on this) the right to oversight by a bishop from (I believe) the North somewhere (either Northern BC or the Yukon I think). This has left things up in the air – with respect to alternatives for those seeking to stay within the ACoC – as it is unclear whether this is a viable alternative. Sorry, I did not mean to state that it was up in the air as to whether New West permits SSB – they do: http://www.samesexblessing.info/
#7 Fr. Dale,
Indeed. And thank you! It is O.P.+ but another 4 years of candidacy before the Dr is added!
What is absent from Kenneth Kearon’s interview, is any firm and public commitment to the faith once delivered.
ABC has drawn a legalist line, whereby anyone who falls above it, regardless of their orthodoxy, will be sanctioned, and anyone who falls below it, will not be sanctioned. Canon Kearon is simply implementing and apologising for this. Weasel words indeed, and tailor-made for liberals to exploit.
It is all “order” and little or no “faith”.
#8 Optimus Prime,
Thanks for your response. I was wondering if something had happened to change the situation in New Westminster (I live there and hadn’t heard of any game-changing events). You remember correctly. Bishop Terry Buckle had offered to provide pastoral oversight for the orthodox; +Ingham tried to have him drawn and quartered for it (metaphorically, of course) in the ecclesiastical courts. Unfortunately for +Ingham, +Buckle was shortly thereafter elected as Metropolitan of BC and Yukon (over +Ingham). +Ingham wisely decided to drop the charges, but the orthodox in New Westminster were left without alternative oversight; many suffered for it.