Fortunately, there is a way of clearing all of this up that doesn\u2019t require consulting dead authors, or piling excerpts atop of one another and defending one\u2019s interpretation of each dash and comma. We can ask the Archbishop of Canterbury how he interprets the document. He has actually weighed in on this issue, but in a way that I found confusing. Kendall quotes a fragment of the sentence that he spoke on this topic, but here is the whole thing:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have asked for more clarity as to whether a moratorium has indeed been agreed on the election of bishops in active sexual partnerships outside marriage; and we have suggested a similar voluntary moratorium by the bishops on licensing any kind of liturgical order for same-sex blessings (the understanding of the Meeting was certainly that this should be a comprehensive abstention from any public rites), at least for the period during which the wider discussion of the Covenant goes forward.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
To my mind, the language about \u201clicensing any kind of liturgical order\u201d\u009d clearly supports the interpretation I have been advancing. But, I have to concede that the language in parenthesis \u201ccomprehensive abstention from any public rites\u201d\u009d brings us back, at least, to the ambiguity of square one. The blessing of same sex unions in this country almost never involves a licensed rite. But the ceremonies are hardly private.
We can attempt to divine Williams\u2019 intention by citing eight other instances in which he used the comprehensive, and tracing the history of the use of the word \u201cpublic\u201d\u009d since Lancelot Andrewes, but a simple statement of his position would be much more persuasive. At least two reporters that I am aware of have asked for clarification, but Lambeth Palace has yet to respond.<\/p>\n