21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.
22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”.
–The Anglican Primates Tanzania Communique
Can +Parsley read? His letter would suggest that he cannot. How he gets from the HOB blather to an approximation of this language is nonsensical. Really. Compare for yourself and see.
Wait, isn’t the Pastoral Provision to let Episcopal clergy become Roman Catholics??? Once again, ECUSA needs to invent its OWN vocabulary….
Perhaps I have a slightly different take on this part of the HoB statement than most. While I think a more straightforward response (such as that suggested by Scott Gunn) would be preferable, the decision to continue to openly rely on this “technicality” seems to me fairly clear. It should be recognized as such.