And in New Orleans, the Episcopal Bishops, in a near-unanimous voice vote [as noted before, we now know this is untrue although what is true remains unclear–KSH], essentially confirmed what they had said less formally on other occasions: They rejected the notion of Communion involvement in the bishops they choose, promised to “exercise restraint by not consenting” to non-celibate gay bishops and pledged not to approve prayers to bless gay couples.
All of this falls short of what the global Anglican leadership asked for. Indeed, at the end of August, the Chicago Episcopal diocese named an openly gay woman as one of five nominees for a bishop’s position. And a pledge not to come up with a specific prayer for gay marriages doesn’t necessarily mean that individual priests won’t continue to perform improvised ceremonies.
Read it all. I am frustrated that this reporter didn’t talk to me and took one word from the RNS article (posted just above) instead of putting it in context. The reason it is insulting is that they think others in the Communion will not be clever enough to see their attempted ruse. So it is not just a failure to tell the truth, it is a failure to love and to respect the dignity of their listerners around the Communion–KSH.
One minor observation – it seems that commenting on how the press covers these “troubles” has become another front in the kerfuffle
it seems sorta like a dog chasing it’s tale to parse what you wish someone in the press would or would not have included.
i have enjoyed, though, seeing so many t1:9ers embarce the nyt – that is a laugher
“The Americans certainly seemed to want to come up with a formulation that would enable them to continue on their own track while still remaining part of the Communion.”
Naughty TIME! Did they not clear this canard with Bishop Parsley who excoriated the NYT for getting it wrong? Tsk. Tsk.
The Emperor has no clothes!
OOOHhhhh. Bet the pillories in NYC are getting ready for Bishop Epting!