A question whether he has got the Archbishop of Canterbury’s attention. Has the Archbishop failed to stand up for Bishop Duncan?
Answer: I maintain regular contact with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have tried in the last five years never to surprise him. He is certainly aware of my presence here in the United Kingdom. He is informed about our situation. He is attempting to lead in what are clearly uncharted times. I think the institutions of the Anglican Communion are in a season of real re-evaluation. I think he has not found it possible, in terms of what he believes the limitation of his office are, to have done the things that actually would have secured the role of his office over the long haul of the 21st century. This is not an office which in terms of the life of the Anglican Communion for the future is going to look anything like it did for the previous century.
If you look at 20th century secular politics, in a moment of extraordinary crisis a leader can often go beyond the boundaries of what has been commended to him in terms of the exercise of his office or precedent. Franklin Roosevelt in the States at the time of the Great Depression went way beyond what any president had ever done in restructuring the government. The Supreme Court some years later found that some of the things he had done were unconstitutional. But the people stood with it because it was what the nation needed to be brought out of its trouble. The Anglican Communion in the last decade has been in crisis. Some leaders might have gone beyond precedent and might have gone beyond what their legal adviser said they could or could not do, and I suspect the communion would have followed. And the precedent would have been established. But that is not the direction it has gone. So what it means is that a different kind of instrument of unity ( and I have written on this before) is likely to emerge. The British period of Anglicanism is coming to an end. I lament that. But we are living through it. Just like the American period in international relations is coming to an end.
[i]f you look at 20th century secular politics, in a moment of extraordinary crisis a leader can often go beyond the boundaries of what has been commended to him in terms of the exercise of his office or precedent. Franklin Roosevelt in the States at the time of the Great Depression went way beyond what any president had ever done in restructuring the government. The Supreme Court some years later found that some of the things he had done were unconstitutional. But the people stood with it because it was what the nation needed to be brought out of its trouble.[/i]
So Bishop Duncan, what you are saying is that Franklin Roosevelt abused the office of President by usurping authority specifically not given him by the Constitution. And that it was okay because “the people” (at least the mob called the Majority) determined it to be necessary?
You’d realize the absolute hypocrisy of your analogy if you transposed “Bishop Schori” and “The Episcopal Church” in the places of “Roosevelt” and the “United States” respectively. It’s NEVER a good thing when leaders abuse their position of power by taking freedoms not given them. I fear now for your position as leader of the new American church.
Bob should take a vacation.
If I recall correctly some of the “unconstitutional” works that FDR got started were eventually repealed by the Supreme Court but he did help us get started again. Bush could have learned a few things from him.
Or he turned a stock market crash into a prolonged, horrific depression. Depends on your perspective…
Some of us believe it is theft to forcibly extract money from unwilling individuals to bail out others. One thing for sure, it is not charity.