(ACNS)
Q. When did discussions about this change first take place? Who drew up the new articles and on what basis?
The issue was first raised at the time of the ACC meeting in Dundee, Scotland, in 1999, and a drafting committee was established after the Hong Kong ACC meeting in 2002. The drafting committee met with me on a number of occasions between 2002-2005, and the Committee’s draft was the subject of intensive discussion at the Nottingham ACC meeting in 2005.
Q. There’s recently been media speculation that proper procedures weren’t followed as regards getting assent to the change from the old constitution to the new.
It’s good to see that there are Anglicans out there who care that things are being done properly. Certainly no one in the Communion is above criticism. I’ve already explained that a change to the Constitution was planned and discussed at several ACC meetings. Then, as required by Article 10 of the old constitution, the draft was circulated for approval by the provinces of the Communion after the 2005 Conference. It finally achieved the requisite level of replies””two thirds of Anglican Communion provinces””and this was reported to the ACC in Jamaica in 2009, after which it was submitted for registration at Companies House and by the Charity Commission.
It seems to me that there is an implicit challenge of the Anglican Communion Institute analysis.
The ACI have labored long and without pay. For years, they have painstakingly researched the canonical implications of AC actions and published their findings in a global forum. In godliness (1 Samuel 24:6), they have refrained from criticizing the Archbishop of Canterbury, though there has been occasion to.
Ephraim Radner, as a member of the Covenant Design Group, embraced the input of [i]all[/i] stakeholders (including bloggers!) despite the overwhelming volume of data. The Covenant Design Group submitted its work to the primates, the Lambeth Conference, and the ACC. It was a long, grueling slog, only to be hijacked at the end.
In contrast, the AC Legal Advisers Network did not seek the input of all stakeholders but rather calculated which provinces to submit the Articles to. The existence of the Articles was kept from the Covenant Design Group, even though Norman Doe, Andrew Norman, and Gregory Cameron were all members of the CDG. To my knowledge, the Articles were not mentioned at the Lambeth Conference or a primates meeting.
John Rees, who is paid as the Provincial Registar and Legal Adviser to the ACC, blocked the release of the Panel of Reference report prior to the Florida court date, raising suspicion he was acting on behest of David Booth Beers. DBB was on the drafting committee of The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion, but is not currently listed on the AC Legal Advisers Network.
The AC Legal Advisers Network is an international committee representing an international charity. If there had been the will, the charity could have been registered in a nation without equality legislation.
Who is worthy of trust? I am sad to say that I do not trust John Rees and this latest move of ACO.
I should add the word ‘purportedly’ to Rees blocking the release of the Panel of Reference report. Purportedly, other members of the ACO were also involved. I do not have the documentation of that fact.
Dear Jill, your prayers are invaluable and your comments above accurate re: developments. Rees omits to mention many things. ACI will be making a statement of its own in line with previous work. It is a bit unclear whether Rees has simply taken unto himself a great deal of authority — even above the ACC. One struggles to think that someone like Bishop Mike Hill (ACC rep) would give a stamp of approval to the recent developments, and it remains very unclear what kind of ratification process this new SC and the work of Rees went through. There your comparison with the painstaking work of the CDG is to the point.
Unsurprising that the ACC’s legal advisor would find his actions & advice transparent and beyond reproach.
Nevertheless, the institution ineluctably becomes yet another lap dog of liberal western provinces. Funny how that always happens.
🙄
Is there a reason he says replies (“requisite level of replies”) rather than approval? Is he trying to say if 2/3 replied but 1/3 plus 1 approved that was all he needed?
I want someone to tell the truth for a change. Why were the liberals such as TEC and Katherine Jefferts Schori allowed to remain so influential? The ACC is supposed to represent every province in the Communion equally, but I don’t see this happening.
What he says reads like they needed a majority of those who voted to approve the new constitution. They also needed at least 2/3 to vote for it to be valid (those who didn’t vote didn’t count). So Knowing that he could not get a majority of the whole they went to 2/3 and even with some no’s/abstains/didn’t know you were asking for a vote got a majority of the 2/3 to approve – and never told the rest what was going on.
Hmmm…
[blockquote]The issue was first raised at the time of the ACC meeting in Dundee, Scotland, in 1999, and a drafting committee was established after the Hong Kong ACC meeting in 2002. The drafting committee met with me on a number of occasions between 2002-2005[/blockquote]
This, um, ‘Drafting Committee’ – would that be the same as the Anglican Communion Legal Advisors Network who produced the Principles of Canon Law of the Anglican Communion with reportedly, the PB’s Chancellor, David Booth Beers on it?
If so, it is no wonder that the Standing Committee has been turned into a nightmare version of the TEC Executive Council.
More on the ACLAN here
???
ENS also reported Beers as a member of ACLAN:
[blockquote]Members of the drafting group include Rees, Philippa Amable, chancellor of the Diocese of Ho, Ghana; David Booth Beers, chancellor to the presiding bishop, the Episcopal Church, United States; Robert Falby, chancellor of the Diocese of Toronto, Canada; Bernard Georges, chancellor of the Province of the Indian Ocean; Rubie Nottage, chancellor of the West Indies; and Fung-Yi Wong, provincial registrar of Hong Kong.[/blockquote]
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_99401_ENG_HTM.htm
Why, I now understand that this is as transparent as lead to Superman’s x-ray vision! How could anyone, myself most of all and chiefest of doubters, ever have suspected that untoward machinations were going on in those lead-lined concrete reinforced rooms? I shall die of sheer shame after this reassurance! NOT.
This drafting committee has to be the same as the one which produced the Principles of Canon Law, as only one committee was established by the meeting in Hong Kong. In which case it does indeed look as if David Booth Beers was involved in the drafting with Canon Rees of the “Articles”. No wonder it is such as fix.
There was a crooked man and he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse.
And they all lived together in a little crooked house
Yep, it was rigged right from the beginning……..in favor of the liberals.
And I still want the unvarnished truth.