The one thing that was clear from the final statement of the HOBs is that nothing is going to change. Every concern of the primates was brushed aside as having already been dealt with sufficiently in accordance with TEC’s polity. For example, the Pastoral Council/Primatial Vicar scheme outlined in the Dar es Salaam Communique was tossed aside without discussion, and a hopelessly inadequate DEPO scheme under PB Schori’s direction (announced late last week without details) was endorsed in its place, even though the dioceses that had appealed for APO were never consulted and rejected the new plan as insufficient the moment it was announced.
Of course, two things were included in the HOB statement that might on their face seem to address the primates’ concerns. First, the House again pledged to exercise “restraint” in approving future bishop-elects whose “manner of life” posed a “challenge” to the world-wide Communion. But a pledge of “restraint” is not a prohibition, and “restraint” is purely voluntary and subject to termination any time at the whim of the party “restraining ” himself or herself. Secondly, the House collectively pledged not to endorse any official, public rites for same-sex blessings, while clearly leaving a vast amount of room for the continued practice of “private, unofficial” SSBs as a form of “pastoral care” (which “private” same-sex blessings may, of course, be performed in a church in front of 500 people by a priest or bishop in full vestments using language that may sound uncannily like a formal liturgy, just so long as no official text of a rite has been approved in advance by the bishop!). There will clearly be no turning back by TEC.
My response to all of this is deep sadness. New Orleans was undoubtedly the last chance for TEC to reverse course. I didn’t expect the HOB truly to repent and turn away from their path of the last several years, but frankly I had thought they would produce something that went a bit further toward meeting the actual requirements of the primates.
But then we don’t expect the ABC to anything about it either. Whether the Primates will remains to be seen. Meanwhile laity who have had enough will leave.
They WILL leave. Thanks to the HoB and their disfunction, the Episcopal Church is ending. I believe the Anglican Communion as well. This is the product of division, at root cause the reformation itself. After watching a celebration of an Ukranian Rite Catholic Church in the US, a part of the Church that represents 5 million Catholics in that tradition worldwide, I realize, in the greeting read by the Papal Nuncio of Benedict XVI, how much a treasure there is in unity and in holy leadership. What a joy to be one with such large numbers of Christians all under the same banner! Perhaps Benedict XVI will rescue some of us Anglicans in larger numbers than the Pastoral Provision. Our Mother is calling.
Randall, the TEC bishops DID NOT even pledge to abide by B033. Read EXACTLY what they said: * We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” If you read this language literally, and I’m sure many bishops will, all it says is: WE RECONFIRM that B033 CALLS UPON — that IS NOT the same thing as saying: WE PLEDGE TO ABIDE BY THAT CALL! Anyone can reconfirm what the Gen. Convetion called for, that’s why everyone, except Bishop Bennison, did! As usual, people are spinning this statement to suggest that the HOB took some bold new step — THEY DID NOT. It is true that they acknowledged that openly homosexual candidates fall under the meaning of B033, but again, their statement NO WHERE says that they intend to abide by B033. I DON’T KNOW WHY EVERYONE IS ASSUMING THEY DID PLEDGE TO ABIDE BY B033. If they had meant that, they would have said that! Does anyone out there think that +Tom Shaw, +John Chane, and countless other revisionist bishops have changed their mind about B033? They have already said that they cannot as a matter of conscience abide by B033 — NOTHING has changed. They “reconfirmed” what the GC called for, that DOESN’T mean they’ve changed their mind about NOT abiding by it! Why doesn’t some bright reporter ask them to clarify whether by their vote at the HOB meeting they are changing their position about B033? This is one of those classical TEC statements which is wide open to interpretation. A plain sense meaning of the statement, however, would simply be that the bishops RECONFRIMED that, in fact, the General Convention did indeed pass B033, and that it does indeed include gay candidates to the episcopate. FULL STOP. I don’t know why you and others insist on seeing this as a pledge to abide by B033. THAT IT IS NOT!
[blockquote]For example, the Pastoral Council/Primatial Vicar scheme outlined in the Dar es Salaam Communique was tossed aside without discussion, and a hopelessly inadequate DEPO scheme under PB Schori’s direction (announced late last week without details) was endorsed in its place, even though the dioceses that had appealed for APO were never consulted and rejected the new plan as insufficient the moment it was announced.
[/blockquote]
Thank you Father Randall for pointing out the elephant in the room. This is my main disappointment with Howe’s response is that he doesn’t acknowledge this elephant, but he quite incorrectly states that the third DeS request is to halt litigation. Halting litigation was an aside to the third request, admittedly an important one.
Apparently, many of those who were asked to be “visiting bishops” in the DEPO warmed over were surprised at being named in the plan when they had no or incomplete information about it. But I have not heard any repudiation by those listed who include Salmon, Stanton, and Howe.
So much for Sept 30. I cannot now imagine what the ABC is thinking as a future course of action, since he knew that both sides regarded the 30th as a genuine deadline, the straw that breaks the camel’s back (or the elephant in the room’s back).
He knows as we all know that talk will effect nothing, that TEC will alter nothing, that the train is bearing down on us. Why would he waffle, say nothing? Of all the courses he could have taken, this is the worst, the most divisive, for it forces the AC out on its own with a tacit admission that it has no leader any more. I cannot fathom this posture by the ABC. LM
Larry, nor can I. Of anything he could have done this is the worst.
Bishop Iker wrote, “As I was drafting my report to all of you about this, I came across an excellent piece written by one of our bright new priests, Fr. Randall Foster, which captures the essence of what I wanted to say.”
What a gracious comment about one of his priests. (It also saves him from writing a statement himself. Smart leader.) I like Iker!