The [ENS article by] Schjonberg… goes on to state that Canterbury never endorsed such a plan leaving the reader with the impression that Bishop Schofield might have released false information in order to influence the delegates’ votes in favor of secession. A closer inspection of the facts, however, does not support such a damning implication and clearly vindicates Bishop Schofield.
The statement attributed to Bishop Schofield (“According to well-informed sources, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been fully informed of the invitation of the Province of the Southern Cone and described it as a ”˜sensible way forward’”) is not something the Bishop invented. Rather it echoes a London Times article of November 9, 2007 by Ruth Gledhill, the Times Religion Correspondent.
When I asked Canon Jim Rosenthal of the Anglican Communion Press Office about the Times article and about Dr. Williams’ position as laid out in the ENS article, he responded in a tersely worded statement that “There is no endorsement from Dr Williams on the matter. Bishop Venables is keenly aware of this as well.” Canon Rosenthal did not, however, respond to the substance of the Times article or address the issue of possible informal discussions having taken place between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop Venables of the Southern Cone regarding the problems of the Episcopal Church and its dissident orthodox dioceses.
Archbishop Venables, responding to a question from El Bohemio News as to whether he had discussed the issue of alternative oversight with Dr. Williams, released the following statement through the press office at the Diocese of San Joaquin: “We neither sought nor claimed the endorsement of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We [Abp Venables] did however share our plans with him and would not have wished to proceed without doing so.” It would be hard to believe that this “sharing” of plans did not include some attempt on the part of both Dr. Williams and Archbishop Venables to resolve the crisis in the best way possible.
Reading between the lines of what Rosenthal and Venables say here, it seems clear that Rowan Williams said exactly what Venables said he did. It would be nice if Rosenthal would stop trying to confuse the issue just because of his bitterness over Archbishop Williams’ wink and a nod to go forward.
A great job on the part of George Hood to report the news and wade through the baloney.
Perhaps the best news article yet on the issue.
The article made it sound like the ABC is trying to have it both ways. There’s a saying that Mr. Miaggi (sp?) told Daniel in “The Karate Kid” I like: You can walk on one side of the road or the other side of the road and that’s okay; but walk in the middle and you’ll get squished like a grape. (Probably a bad paraphrase, but you get the idea).
I did read it all and the article is a model of objective reporting, with no sly implications or smears attempted from vague wording, but the writer’s conclusions differentiated from the actual quotes by others, and no exaggeration of facts to support one position while omitting glaring realities that mitigate against it. Also a concise, clear statement of the real issues leading to the split rather than the sensationalistic distortions of the glbt “justice” faction. If only more of the mainstream media were this objective and honest and competent!
A nice recognition of the bleedingly obvious:
Re: Steven in Falls Church
As a UK reader of the blog, I’m a bit unhappy about the phrase ‘bleedingly obvious’. Is it a variant of the British Englsh slang ‘the b****ing obvious’? If so, I think US contributors should realise that the B-words (b****y and its companion b****ing) are a good deal stronger and more offensive than most people in the US seem to realise. I’ve noticed them used in American TV programmes as if they were rather mild expletives. But they aren’t – they aren’t words I would have let my children use around the house, if that’s any kind of litmus test!
I don’t know whether “bl**dingly” on American lips is a variant of British slang [#7]. But it’s close enough that we would best avoid it.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Can anyone she light on why this publication chose the name “El Bohemio”?
What is bleedingly obvius in this article is that Rowan lost his authority, Venables just told him what he was going to do. If he liked or not, no one cares about.
There WAS no “manipulation of the vote” at the convention. I was there as a delegate from St Alban’s in Los Banos, and I should know. I believe that Dr Williams’ statement that this was “a way forward” was a show of tacit support for our actions without coming right out and saying so, and I just don’t see how it could be interpreted in any other way.