Africans must take their destiny into their own hands and address their own problems, bishops of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) declared at the end of their week-long conference about effective leadership for sustainable development….
The world must listen to the Churches’ unique voice, they say, in the first of two communiqués. One deals with the continent’s ills; the other, from the CAPA Primates, addresses the internal affairs of the Anglican Communion.
What poor reporting. I say that because this counter CAPA communique, supposedly written by representatives of the churches in Central Africa and South Africa, has yet to be signed by anyone at all. In fact, I’ve yet to see ANY representative of the churches publicly admit to writing this document. How ironic that this “reporter” wrote the following:
If this is relevant, which it is, then wouldn’t the information that NO ONE has signed/taken responsibility for the counter communique?
Let me get this clear:
1. The Conference Communique is signed “on behalf of the CAPA primates†by Abps Ernest and Kolini.
2. The CAPA Primates Communique concludes with this wording: “This document was agreed upon by the Primates and the representatives of Primates who were not able to attend, of the following provinces: Burundi, Central Africa, Congo, Indian Ocean, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa and the Diocese of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa.†However, it contains no signatures.
3. The document from Central Africa and Southern Africa has no signatures either.
4. The same authoritative source in the Province of Central Africa who sent document 3 to the Church Times, also told the Church Times that Central Africa had not in fact signed the CAPA Primates Communique.
Is that right?
Simon,
You are right on 1 and 2.
However, on number 3 you seem to lump the two documents together as both having “no signatures.” I don’t think that’s accurate because one document, the official communique, concludes with the wording: “This document was agreed upon by the Primates and the representatives of Primates who were not able to attend, of the following provinces: Burundi, Central Africa…” and the other document alludes to no authors at all.
No where in the alleged statement are the words “Central Africa” or “Southern Africa.” So one document claims who its authors/supporters are and the other claims no authors at all. There is a difference between the two.
On your point 4. You claim that there was an authoritative source involved with the Church Time’s reporting. All I see in the article that gives ANY credence to attribution is this line: “It was confirmed on Wednesday, however, that Central Africa had not signed.”
Who confirmed it? Who provided the alleged counter communique in the first place? We know where the official statement came from – even it claims support it does not actually have we can at least go to its authors and ask them about the veracity of their statement. We can’t even do that with the counter communique.
I don’t doubt that some unhappy, pro-TEC bishops at the CAPA conference wrote a letter about how they felt the conference went. However, shouldn’t they have put their names on it especially if they claimed to be speaking for their entire province?
Furthermore, and back to my point, shouldn’t a journalist verify his sources?
It is treated as “breaking news” elsewhere that Central Africa did not sign the Primates’ communique, which as the Church Times and # 2 note, contains NO signatures. What the “authoritative source” tells us is that Central Africa did not sign a document that contains no signatures. No kidding, Sherlock.
What the “authoritative source” does not dispute is that Central Africa AGREED with the Primates’ communique, which is what the communique itself says.
It is kind of a muddle who signed what. Found this short note:
[blockquote] [url=http://www.eni.ch/news/item.php?id=4393 ]Kenya Anglican chides central, southern Africans on links to US
Nairobi (ENI). A Kenyan Anglican bishop has criticised counterparts in central and southern Africa for saying they will not dissociate themselves from the U.S. Episcopal (Anglican) Church over the consecration of homosexuals and lesbians to the episcopate.[/url][/blockquote]
But again, is the Kenyan bishop talking to just a few Central and South African bishops or the whole delegation???
Umm, isn’t it possible that they signed on behalf of all, except the two provinces who openly side with TEC?
Well whatever… If the liberal establishment are having difficulty proving that even 1 in 6 of the African provinces think TEC should be given a further chance, then they are acknowledging that they have effectively lost Africa.
Its only the continent where most of the world’s Anglicans live…
And however much some people in Africa (whoever they are) try to argue that ties should be kept with TEC, the fact remains that the American on the dias at the conference was Bob Duncan, not Katie Schori. That tells the story.