There are a number of reports of what went on and what its impact is. A few are below, but if readers can shed further light please let us know and add any links in the comments below.
ACC declines to go along with ‘consequences’ – ENS/Anglican Journal Canada
‘..the council declined to endorse or take any action similar to the primates’ call in January for three years of so-called “consequences” for the Episcopal Church. The primates’ call was in response to the 78th General Convention’s decision to change canonical language that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman (Resolution A036) and authorize two new marriage rites with language allowing them to be used by same-sex or opposite-sex couples (Resolution A054).’
‘Resolution C34, proposed by delegates from South Sudan, called upon the ACC to receive the report of the January Primates’ Meeting, including consequences for the Episcopal Church detailed by the primates’ communiquÃ©. It affirmed “the commitment of the Primates of the Anglican Communion to walk together; and commits to continue to seek appropriate ways for the provinces of the Anglican Communion to walk together with each other and with the Primates and other Instruments of Communion.” As part of the consent agenda, the resolution was received without objection and passed without amendment.
A second resolution welcoming the full text of the primates’ communiquÃ© was proposed by delegates from Ireland and Australia. It was initially set aside for further discussion, but was later withdrawn by the proposers. The Archbishop of Canterbury told the delegates that he was pleased with this action, saying that Resolution C34 “covers issues we need to cover,” establishing sufficient concurrence between the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting.
“The consequences [for the Episcopal Church] stand,” Archbishop Justin Welby said in a news conference Monday afternoon.’
‘The ACC formally received the report from the Primates’ Meeting in a resolution proposed by Bishop Deng of Sudan. Further, declined to pass a resolution which would have received and welcomed the entire text of the Primates. Some people have been spinning the first action: by “receiving” the Report, is it acknowledging and approving of that report? Others have focused on the second action: Or, by declining to receive the entire text, is that somehow a repudiation? In the end, it did what it was supposed to do: one instrument of communion received a report from another. By failing to receive the entire report, this can clearly be seen as being reluctant to take any further steps, but Crusty is reluctant to see it as some kind of grand repudiation of the Primates, at least at this stage.’