Read it all (pdf) or if you cannot do that format you can find the full text there.
Read it all (pdf) or if you cannot do that format you can find the full text there.
So they met in December 2009 and the Secretary General informed the Committee members that they were operating under a new Constitution. In fact this was untrue.
The Secretary General presumably, went on to tell the Standing Committee that per the new Constitution they had to consider diversity of region, gender and order when electing a replacement member. In fact this was false. The new Constitution did not take effect until July 2010.
When not even the Secretary General understands what the rules are and communicates falsely to the Committee, what hope is there for building up confidence. No wonder some members of the Standing Committee seem ill informed about the content or even the existence of a new Constitution.
In a situation of grave crisis the ACO can only appear either negligent or incompetent or both.
How about ‘uncaring?”
Let me begin with one cheer for the Standing Committee. They have now begun posting bulletins of their current meetings and approved minutes (for the first time). So hip…
I would like to point out two striking sections of the December Minutes. The first involves the attempt in Minute 4 to pass a resolution disciplining TEC. The first proposal, which is quite similar to recommendations of the Primates at Dromantine and ACC 13, calls for TEC to “withdraw from all Anglican Councils until ACC-15.” The motion failed, 2 votes for, 8 votes against. A slightly more modest motion also fails, 2 votes for, 7 against, 2 abstaining. Is it too much to assume that the 2 votes were those of Bp. Mouneer and Stanley Isaacs? And does this not provide background for Mouneer’s subsequent resignation? And if Henry Orombi had been present, there would have been 3 in favor. And now there is one remaining, as we can see from the “overwhelming†opposition to Isaacs’ proposal at the July SC meeting.
Secondly, I find the following comment in Minute 15 revealing, regarding the possible conflict of interest with the Satcher Institute funding the continuing indaba project:
[blockquote]The Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed the point [made by Canon Groves] that the funding of the project by the Satcher Health Leadership Institute had no agenda other than to give financial support to Continuing Indaba so that it could happen.[/blockquote]
This statement is breathtakingly disingenuous. Presumably Rowan Williams would have no objection to Planned Parenthood Foundation funding a study of the church’s teaching on abortion. Or perhaps the Tweedy Foundation funding a study of the welfare of chickens (HT: [i]Chicken Run[/i]).
As I have commented on the ACI thread, the problem is not the SC alone or the ACC alone, but the Lambeth bureaucracy, with the ABC himself fully consenting and cooperating.
Regarding Indaba:
“Canon Groves responded that the external funder, the Satcher Health Leadership Institute. .”
This is, at best, disingenuous. The funder for the Indaba Project, might I add that its the largest single give EVER given to the Anglican Communion ($1.5 million), is an Episcopal priest, the Rev. Marta Weeks. The Satcher Institute is the middle man.
Sometimes it is the little, unforeseen things that become the most important:
“The Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed the point that the funding of the Project by the Satcher Health Leadership Institute had no agenda attached other than to give financial support to Continuing Indaba so that it could happen.”
Did Williams not know this was going to be in the minutes? Did he not realize that his telling a blatant lie, whether for money or to support TEC’s agenda, would be exposed to the world? Setting aside that the ACC and Standing Committee have been exposed as illegitimate, is he know striving to destroy the last shred of respect for his own office among the primates and bishops of the communion?
Dr. Noll (#3),
Excellent points. And the wry comments about the shameless duplicity apparent in the ABoC’s remarks about the infamous Satcher Institute were simply delightful. I especially liked the jibe about the Tweedy Foundation funding a study on the welfare of chickens.
Robert Lundy makes the same point, albeit less humorously.
Ah, the benefits of transparency!
David Handy+