Bishop John Bryson Chane said that the Diocese of Washington does not have an authorized rite for blessing same-sex relationships. However, he added that the statement passed by the bishops will allow such blessings to continue in the diocese.
—From the front page of the latest Washington Window, a newsletter of the diocese of Washington. Could the degree of word games and the refusal to do what the Tanzania Communique asked for be any clearer?
And in other news… the sun rose in the East this morning right on schedule. It is also widely expected to set this evening in the West.
Clear as glass, +Chane. Now will anyone care to look and call this what it is?
Does anyone really believe that if Bishop Chane–or for that matter any other Bishop–had said to the international guests that this was their interpretation of their statement, they would have been pleased?
“The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today!”
This is unbelievable. I would be so embarrassed to make such a statement…
The real question is, “Are the Primates paying attention?”
What the Primates forgot to do was to insist on the US HOB prefacing their reply with “cross my heart and hope to die” instead of which they appear to have crossed their fingers while replying.
Also the Primates could have prefaced their request with “Simon Says”
I just do NOT understand, how +++Rowan, and even the ACC can see this, and other things that were said, which totally belie the “resolution” or whatever was done in New Orleans, and then say “All is Well”, and there’s no problem.
I suppose thats incredibly naive, but, its right there is black and white, and IF, as so many sources stated, there was only “one” audible dissenting vote, then Chane lied when he voted.
Just unbelievable, I guess eyes that will NOT see, and ears that will NOT hear.
Gloria
Time to get out the nose-calipers.
The real question is, “Are the Primates paying attention?â€
They are paying attention, but the question is, after four years into this crisis, what are they concretely going to do about it? The prevaricating TEC is doing is ridiculous, and the Anglican Communion’s “processes” seem to be allowing TEC to get away with it.
[blockquote]I just do NOT understand, how +++Rowan, and even the ACC can see this, and other things that were said, which totally belie the “resolution†or whatever was done in New Orleans, and then say “All is Wellâ€, and there’s no problem.[/blockquote]
They understand it quite well. Everyone knows the HoB report was a blatant exercise in deception. But many are they who have every institutional reason in the world to pretend otherwise.
carl
Actually, Pageantmaster, the Primates asked for lots more:
[blockquote] In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134). [/blockquote]
Which is why Cantaur’s acceptance of the drivel al la Chane will not wash and the COmmunion will fracture.
The slow train wreck continues…
#13 MJD_NV – Sadly, I fear you are right. Bp Chane – am I mistaken or was he right there on the drafting committee and at the press briefings?
Is this not the same Chane who celebrated the homosexual union of one his ‘priests’ – Mr. Hopkins – to Hopkins’ homosexual lover a few years ago?
And is this not the same Chane who asked ‘What was God thinking when the Angel Gabriel revealed the sacred Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed?”
I completely disagree with Chane on this. I will say, though, that I give him great credit for allowing AllSaints in Chevy Chase to be co managed by the Diocese of South Carolina. This is the true definition of a liberal; to allow even an orthodox presence.
I’m still puzzled as to why so many people here think that this kind of a distinction between officially authorized rites and locally permitted rites is somehow slippery or duplicitous. On the surface, it’s a distinction which has a long and honorable history in Anglicanism.
Take Anglo-Catholic eucharistic devotions. Neither CoE nor TEC has ever created an official rite for, e.g., Benediction or Corpus Christi processions, and I doubt that very many diocese have officially authorized such rites either (as doing so wouldn’t go over too well with the more low-church parishes). Nonetheless, these rites take place in almost every diocese, and there’s nothing particularly hidden about them (indeed, in some dioceses, the bishops themselves officiate at such rites).
Of course, an answer based on this distinction may not satisfy the primates. But that doesn’t mean the distinction itself is in any way problematic. It just means that the HoB hasn’t given the answer that some (many? all?) of the primates want to hear.
#17 I grant that that is a line of drawing a distinction that one might expect from Gollum; but from Frodo?
If anyone thinks SSUs are going to stop, think again. What will stop is Bishops doing them. They will certainly continue in my diocese of Los Angeles. In fact, there will be one at my parish, All Saints Church, in Pasadena on October 20th. The only controversy I’ve heard about this one so far, is whether or not there will be a thurifer.
I can’t wait until Chane(with the apporval of TEC and KJS) performs fertility rites on the altar of the National Cathedral. Bet it will be on You Tube!
#17,
Your point would be well taken except for the following differences:
1. The Anglo-Catholic devotions of which you speak may not have “officially authorized” rites for celebration, but they have the weight of hundreds of years of use in the Church, being rooted in the Catholic faith (low church objections notwithstanding).
2. These devotions, and the theology behind them, may offend certain Christians as being erroneous and un-Anglican, but they do not involved blessing or celebrating anything that the Church has universally understood as disordered and sinful.
3. SSBs quite simply seek to approximate Christian marriage, regardless of the semantics and mental gymnastics used to justify a distinction. To bless a sexual union is to bless a marital union, for the Church has never known sexual relations to be legitimate in any other context. On the other hand, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament does not seek to approximate the Mass but to deepen one’s devotion to and participation in it.
There is not a one-to-one analogy between locally permitted extra-liturgical devotions and locally permitted SSBs. It’s apples and oranges here.
REading this made me wonder: Has the ABC said anything at all since he left New Orleans? Has he been heard of, and if so, what has he said? I have lost track of him. Chane’s remarks should call for a comment by the ABC so that the Anglican world knows that he is still in the game. ANd yet I have heard nothing. Anyone here have any news? LM
I think that the ABC was hoping for some cover. He was hoping that the HOB would create at least a mini skirt or very brief bikini, at least enough to provide some cover. Unfortunately the subsequent statements by the bishops have left him naked as a pole dancer at a nude bar.
#21
Well sure. These are all first-order reasons for thinking that we shouldn’t permit SSBs in any case (i.e., as either official rites or as locally permitted options). If correct, they simply show that this distinction doesn’t carry much weight in the current context. But that doesn’t show that there’s no distinction to be made, nor that people who try to make it are being duplicitous. It just shows that they’re wrong on the first-order issue.
Look, it may seem pedantic to insist on this point, but I think it’s important. It’s one thing to say that supporters of SSBs are wrong about homosexuality; it’s another thing to say that they’re [i]both[/i] wrong about homosexuality [i]and[/i] being slippery and duplicitous in drawing distinctions between “officially authorized rites” and “locally permitted rites”. Given the long history of this kind of distinction in Anglicanism (as discussed in 17), I don’t think that the second charge holds up very well. And, the more charges we can get off the table, the clearer and more focused our discussions will be.
The problem here is the honesty of Fred is not duplicated by the honesty of some of the bishops.
#24, the second charge holds up well because of the breakdown of trust in the communion. Again and again Anglican leaders in other parts of the communion have said TEC says one thing and does another.
Look at what the report of the JSC actually says:
The Bishop of Utah says she is going to do same sex blessings herself. After New Orleans. This shows how much weight the duplicitousness carries.
tjb
The rest of the communion never asked spikey high anglo-catholic parishes to not perform Benediction services nor did they ever ask the spikey churches to not use incense or wear albs. The rest of the communion did ask (or thought it was asking) TECUSA to stop blessing same sex unions until the Communion changes its mind. More than the blessing itself, the duplicitious nature of the HoB angers me. They try to say “Hey, we didn’t [i]authorize[/i] our priests to bless same sex unions. I never used the word ‘authorize.'” While all the while, they know that same sex unions are blessed by their priests and several bishops have blessed SSUs themselves. When I was in ROTC in college, this kind of “dodge” was known as “quibbling” as was seen as the mark of a coward who wouldn’t own up to the truth of what he or she had done.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#26, 27
I’m still not sure why the exact nature of the rest of the communion’s request to TEC renders the TEC response duplicitous ([i]inadequate[/i], perhaps, but not duplicitous). Let’s split things up further to see where we disagree:
Q1. Is there anything intrinsically duplicitous about drawing a distinction between “officially authorized rites†and “locally permitted rites�
A1. No. This kind of distinction has a long history in anglicanism (see #17), and it’s been an important part of what’s held our church together through some pretty serious disagreements in the past.
Q2. Is it intrinsically duplicitous for the bishops to use this kind of distinction in the case of SSBs?
A2. I don’t think so, as long as they’re clear about what they’re doing. And I think they [i]have[/i] been clear about where TEC stands on the issue of SSBs:
[blockquote]
a. We haven’t authorized rites for SSBs through GC.
b. Individual bishops won’t authorize official rites for SSBs in their dioceses.
c. The majority of bishops won’t even permit SSBs in their dioceses.
d. Some bishops will permit local SSBs in their dioceses.
[/blockquote]
This is the obvious import of their recent statement, and it’s what’s been repeated in the follow-up statements made by individual bishops. This may not be the answer that the primates want to hear, but it strikes me as perfectly clear and aboveboard.
Q3. Is it possible to use this kind of distinction to be duplicitous?
A3. Sure. If the bishops had simply said a and b, while hoping that no one noticed the distinction between “officially authorized rites” and “locally permitted rites” (and so hoping that everyone would assume that that b entailed not d), then there would be something pretty duplicitous about the bishops’ statement.
Perhaps part of our disagreement here is that I think that c and d are pretty obvious in the bishops’ statement, and, in my book, that’s enough to undercut any charge of duplicitousness. Do other people read the bishops as doing something like what I’ve just described in A3? If so, then we may have more points of agreement than appear at first. That is, we can all agree that there are both duplicitous and non-duplicitious ways of employing the distinction at issue (depending on how up-front we are about what we’re doing), but we disagree about the clarity of the bishops actual statement (and, hence, about the duplicity of their [i]particular[/i] employment of the distinction). Does that seem right?
This brings me to a final question.
Q4. Is it duplicitous to employ this kind of distinction in responding to the specific requests of the primates?
A4. Not if you’re explicit about what you’re doing. Since the primates pretty clearly asked about d, d was something that needed to be addressed. But given that it was addressed (albeit not the way some of the primates would have liked), there’s no harm in also addressing a-c. The bishops are just saying “well, we can’t give you everything you would really like vis-a-vis d, but we can at least note that we’re willing to take steps a-c to show our good intentions.” No harm in that.
[blockquote] Q4. Is it duplicitous to employ this kind of distinction in responding to the specific requests of the primates?[/blockquote]
What is duplicitous is that the Primates at DES specifically addressed the question of unauthorized private rites and said that both public authorized rites and private unauthorized rites were prohibited until a future change of consensus in the Communion.
TEC has now responded by claiming that it has fulfilled the requirements of DES because it has not authorized public rites. No, I’m sorry. It was specifically the question of whether private unauthorized rites were taking place that the Primates asked TEC to clarify. If they are, TEC is repudiating DES. Honesty demands admitting this, not pretending that the Primates requested something different than they did.
Tjb, I appreciate your persistence, but the problem is that you are failing fully to appreciate the international context of this conversation. Imagine being someone like one of the African Church leaders who speaks 6 languages of which English is not the first.
What is occurring is that you are giving an interpretation of what took place which has the clairty the Bishops in New Orleans did not have.
The specific problem is with this assertion that you made as to what was said:
I actually think some (many?) bishops in New Orleans may have thought they were signalling this or saying this but this is NOT what they were understood to say by the JST as the JST report itself shows. Your interpretation would not be interpreted as a moratorium but that is what the JST report says New Orleans agreed to.
Gene Robinson’s letter now posted makes clear that there was miscommunication in this area. The consequences of this are disastrous because TEC is already seen by some in the communion as saying one thing and doing another. This will not only reinforce that perception but further undermine trust among Communion members going forward, exactly the opposite of what we need.
[blockquote] I actually think some (many?) bishops in New Orleans may have thought they were signalling this or saying this but this is NOT what they were understood to say by the JST as the JST report itself shows. Your interpretation would not be interpreted as a moratorium but that is what the JST report says New Orleans agreed to. [/blockquote]
(note: JST=Joint Standing Committee??)
Kendall, TJB may have a point, in that, for some of the bishops at HOB this distinction was not in the least duplicitous but rather provided the clarity of the distinction that they understood. In all likelihood, these same bishops understood that this was [i]not[/i] what the DES communique requested. In responding (negatively) to the DES communique, the bishops were clarifying where they stood and what their current practice is, and that they had no intention of changing their current practice.
What [i]is[/i] duplicitous is the pretense by the Joint Standing Committee report that the HOB statement met (even in part) the DES requirements, which they did not. With the consent and encouragement and participation of the ABC, the HOB produced a statement intended to satisfy not DES, but the ACC and the JSC. By this means they sought to [i]divide[/i] the instruments of the communion, while the ABC sought to mute the Primates’ voice by not calling a meeting.
The duplicitousness goes to the very top of the AC, in a vain attempt to bypass the clear request of DES.
brer in #31, I am not addressing the issue of duplicity specifically, because it gets to the issue of intent which is difficult to dicern, especially when you are speaking of a group.
But I am afraid in many cases TJB does not have a point. (In Gene Robinson’s case, for example, it applies, but even he sees that they were misinterpreted and whenever that happens the fault usually lies in part with both parties).
Otherwise so many bishops would not be complaining about the Ny times.
Ay, there is a thin line between finesse and duplicity. And who knows the inclinations of the hearts of men? (Genesis 8:21)
Kendall, I submit another translation that past action suggests is more probable: There has been no miscommunication, but a deliberate attempt to pretend that there has been, for this “miscommunication” is yet another delaying device, another red herring, that purports to be just cause for TEC to be left alone for a while, as if in this space it will straighten out its miscomunications and that all will be well.
I cannot prove this obviously, but all TEC’s past actions support this view. Robinson’s letter is an attempt to be clear (I want what I want and I expect it right now) and to be unclear (there is miscommunication and this needs to be cleared up.) You and I and all of us know that the HOB and their kin are all in agreement with Robinson, but they also know that if they can continue to bob and weave, no right cross will ever reach their chin. And they’re right aren’t they? We have no fight and no fighter who can bring them to the canvas. What do we deserve for such spinelessness? Have you written to the NYTimes op ed page an article in which you say, “Enough is enough. TEC, you have forfeited all credibility and patience. Get out and be damned to you, in every literal sense that Christianity can utter. We have the gospel to bring to those who need it and we will not waste our time any more battling the Yahoos of Political Correctness.” But this is what is required, isn’t it? I ask you all. Larry
#30, 32 and 34,
This is probably the last time I’m going to be able weigh in on this for a while, so I’ll make a final comment and then retire. The point of my original comment (and the followups) was to argue for two things:
1. Simply distinguishing “officially authorized rites†and “locally permitted rites†isn’t, in and of itself, duplicitous. In many contexts it’s an important distinction.
2. The TEC bishops weren’t being “duplicitous” or “dishonest” when they used the distinction in their statement. Nor were they playing “word games.” They were just using a well-understood Anglican distinction to explain the facts on the ground in TEC (while also giving those assurances that they [i]could[/i] commonly give to the larger communion).
1 and 2 are intended as fairly modest points, and neither of them entails that the bishops are immune from other kinds of criticism. Kendall may well be right that their statement is insufficiently clear for an international audience and that the bishops could have done better in this regard. The (many) posters who have argued that the bishops’ statement is substantively inadequate as a response to the primates may also be right.
But there’s a big difference between saying that the bishops’ statement is lacking in these kinds of ways, and saying that it reflects some more sinister “dishonesty” or “duplicity.” There’s been far too much of the latter kind of talk in these comment threads, and I don’t think it helps the discussion. [I appreciate, here, Kendall that you’re personally eschewing the issue of duplicity (#31), but many of your guests aren’t, and it was to their comments that I was originally responding.]