Asked whether the Archbishop of Canterbury ever considered not inviting Bishop Ingham, Mr. Kearon said, “no, it was never considered.”
Bishop Ingham, in a telephone interview, said Bishop Robinson should be invited. “If the archbishop wants to keep everyone at the table, then everyone should be invited. The unfortunate message this sends is that schismatic bishops and primates are welcome but openly gay bishops aren’t.”
Bishop Ingham also said he was surprised that the Lambeth invitations came out before the Canadian church’s General Synod in June, which will consider the issue of same-sex blessings, and before Archbishop Williams’ scheduled meeting with American bishops in September. “He’ll get a very warm welcome there,” he said, wryly.
Mr. Kearon also clarified that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not consider inviting Martyn Minns, the breakaway priest from the Episcopal Church who was recently consecrated bishop and head of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America CANA) by the primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola.
“He (Minns) wasn’t even being considered. He wasn’t eligible to be considered,” he said. “The principle in which he’s not being considered is because the Archbishop has decided that CANA and AMiA (another breakaway group called the Anglican Mission in America) are the same class.” He noted that at the time that AMiA consecrations took place in 2000, then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey said that “he couldn’t accept them as regular consecrations; that he would not regard himself as being in communion with the bishops concerned, and the primates agreed to that. The two bodies are in the same position.”
So I guess electing, confirming, and consecrating an openly partnered homosexual as bishop, despite warnings and pleas from the rest of the Anglican Communion, is not schismatic?
as long as the person is democratically elected in accordance with the canons, it can’t be schismatic. or so goes their convoluted logic…
“If the archbishop wants to keep everyone at the table, then everyone should be invited.” —Bp. Ingham
I have learned to wince at reappraisers’ use of words like “conversation,” “inclusion,” “listening,” “process,” “prophetic,” “canons,” and “polity.”
Now we have “at the table” (whether for bargaining or eucharist)—a term all the more ironic when spoken by someone with Bp. Ingham’s record of hard-edged autocracy.
What’s next? Well, there’s “pastoral,” always available to bend ECUSA’s beloved canons so that reappraisers can commit quiet acts of inclusion. (Noisy acts are “prophetic.”) There’s also “sensitive,” indicating due deference to political correctness (e.g., “a sensitive revision of the Prayer Book”).
PS: Perhaps we could use “synthenyms” to refer to words taken over by reappraising PC.
What a hoot. Just shows how demented and unregenerate are the minds of these bishops.
There is really another reason why +Minns isn’t “eligible”. He is a “missionary bishop”, Lambeth is supposedly only for “bishops with jurisdiction”, that is Diocesan bishops. At least that’s how I read it.
Am I wrong? Is this just like the “technicality” that kept Lawrence+ (that is Bishop-elect Lawrence) from being consented?
I thought that the important questions on who was or was not invited was not so much Minns, but rather Robinson, Ingham and Cavalcanti. We now hear that Robinson is out (but there is obviously a testing of the wind as to whether to bring him in as a “guest” or “observer”. Ingham is in, despite his continued defiance of the Instruments of Unity. Does anyone know about Cavalcanti?
At this point, were I an Anglican bishop I would be inclined not to go to Lambeth as it sounds like a colossal waste of time. Does anyone think that this might be a powerplay on Rowan Williams’ part to neutralize a potentially powerful Instrument of Unity? By doing what he is doing, Rowan is all but assuring the complete irrelevance of the Lambeth Conference.
Amazing it was all about Kate at Dar es Salaam and now it’s all about Robbie. Does this Canadian have any form of his own or is he, as he consistently appears to be, at best a liquid substance able to assume the shape of any container into which it might get poured?
Should openly gay AND schismatic bishops be invited?
Demented, specious, twisted, warped…