same-sex blessings
The Church of the Province of South Africa has issued this statement, on Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in Bloemfontein, 30 November 2004. It restates the Church’s position on Holy Matrimony as a lifelong and exclusive union partnership between one man and one woman, and goes on to say:
Our Church has repeatedly affirmed that partnership between two persons of the same sex cannot be regarded as a marriage in the eyes of God, and that consequently we do not recognise or bless such liaisons. There is currently a well-known process of discussion and debate about matters of human sexuality in our Church but while this continues, our stance remains unchanged.
It then reassures church members that the decision has no implications for religious freedom in South Africa, as ministers of religion are under no compulsion from the state to approve or perform same-sex marriages.
The Anglican Church of Canada has published the Report of the Primate’s Theological Commission of the Anglican Church of Canada on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions. The official press release is Theological Commission finds same-sex blessing to be a matter of doctrine.
A summary of the report is here and says:
- The Commission has concluded that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine.
- The Commission understands the term ‘committed same-sex unions’ to mean committed, adult, monogamous, intended lifelong, same-sex relationships which include sexual intimacy.
- The Commission is particularly concerned to call the whole church to engage in furthering the discussion of this issue in a sustained, prayerful, respectful and non-polemical manner.
- The Commission recognizes that there is a range of interpretations given to the term ‘doctrine’, and that doctrines develop and change over time. We agree that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is not a matter of what is often referred to as a ‘core’ doctrine, in the sense of being credal doctrine.
- The Commission does not believe that this should be a communion-breaking issue.
- The Commission, recognizes that ‘the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation’ (Book of Alternative Services p. 645). We acknowledge that the interpretation of Scripture is a central and complex matter and that, at times in the Church’s history, ‘faithful’ readings have led to mutually contradictory understandings, requiring ongoing dialogue and prayer towards discernment of the one voice of the gospel.
- The doctrine of the Church has always been definitively expressed in its liturgies; such a liturgy of blessing is no exception since in it the Church declares the activity of God towards the object of the blessing.
- It is the view of the Commission that any proposed blessing of a same-sex relationship would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the Church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage.
- Culture is the context in which Christians live out their faith and formulate doctrine. The challenge facing the Church is to see our cultural norms through the eyes of Christ and then, out of allegiance to him, to promote those norms that honour him and renounce those that do not.
- Several doctrines are integral to the theological consideration of the blessing of committed same-sex unions: salvation, incarnation, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, theological anthropology, sanctification and holy matrimony.
- We recommend that any doctrinal discussion of the blessing of same-sex unions should seek a broader consensus on the relationship of sexuality to our full humanity in Christ.
- The pastoral importance of this issue deserves a careful consideration of its doctrinal implications in a manner that is deeply respectful of the dignity and integrity of the gay and lesbian members of our church.
The full text of the report is here.
The Anglican Journal reports this as Commission finds that blessings are a matter of doctrine.
1 Commentrecent Church Times features
Several items that appeared in last week’s Church Times are now available:
The Road to Bishopthorpe by Adrian Leak. In May the Crown Nominations Commission meets to choose the next Archbishop of York. This article examines the history of the office.
Not married to the monarchy by Sam Wells who says that the establishment of the Church of England should be provisional.
Back page interview with John Flack director of the Anglican Centre in Rome by Rachel Harden and see also Red shoes, 21 to lunch.
0 CommentsMore on Trinidad
The BBC Today radio programme interviewed both the Bishop of Trinidad and the Bishop of Chelmsford this morning.
Listen here with Real Audio (5 minutes).
The text released to the press by the Bishop of Chelmsford appears below:
Statement from the Bishop of Chelmsford
I was very sorry to hear that the invitation which had been extended to myself and Lydia, together with a group from the Diocese of Chelmsford to visit Trinidad and Tobago in May this year has been withdrawn by Bishop Calvin Bess.
The links which exist between dioceses across the Communion are a marvellous way in which we can learn from each other the necessary lesson of how to live with diversity and difference of culture and practice whilst sharing a common faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. We remain wholly committed to our link with Trinidad and Tobago, as well as our links with dioceses of our sister churches. We assure them of our love and prayers.
The journey of friendship often encounters times of difficulty and misunderstanding. We do not believe that walking away from the commitments we have made is in the best interests of either diocese, or of the wider communion of which we are a part. We remain committed to challenge and to be challenged by the contributions to the life of the whole Church by our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world.
+John Chelmsford
3 May 2005
The Church of England Newspaper reports this event as Bishop’s West Indies trip cancelled over gay support
17 Commentsmore response to NACDAP
The Bishop of California Bill Swing has again attacked NACDAP on his diocesan site and in the Witness with This Mutiny Will Fail; the Church Will Abide. After summarising remarks made by another, unnamed, but easily recognisable bishop, he comments:
There have been people inside the Episcopal Church and outside the Episcopal Church who have been plotting our church’s demise long before there was an Episcopal election in New Hampshire: for almost half a century. The plotters have been living in a fury of win-lose for generations. Finally, they have assumed that they cannot win and take control of the Episcopal Church so they seek to destroy it and assume control as the orthodox remnant. Timing is everything for them. They see the present moment as the perfect storm where wealthy American ideologues and angry African bishops and cultural divides and shocked ecumenical and interfaith partners converge to assist their victory.
What they don’t realize is that the Episcopal Church has more staying power than they suppose. When our bishops, priests, and deacons took a solemn oath at ordination vowing to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, worship of the Episcopal Church, we meant it. Millions of laity for hundreds of years have confirmed their faith in context of the Episcopal Church — in good times and bad. Together we gave our sacred honor to the revelation of God in Christ as lived out in the Episcopal Church. Our history has been earned with countless sacrifices. We have all been embarrassed as well as enhanced; won some, lost some. With prayer, sweat, and endurance we have built cathedrals, seminaries, religious communities, youth camps, schools, social ministries, hospitals, and churches. We will abide. Although the Southern Cone finds us unacceptable, we will abide. Even though the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates and Anglican Consultative Council sever us from their fellowship, we will abide. Personally, I don’t think that the Archbishop of Canterbury would ever do that, but should he dismiss us, we will abide.
I genuinely grieve that we have all reached this moment. But this is not the last moment, only a passing moment. There will be fairer days, and in the light I expect to see the Episcopal Church afloat on the deep and sailing. This mutiny will fail. The Episcopal Church will abide.
Another view of NACDAP plans can be found in What would +Rowan do? by Thomas Bushnell.
7 CommentsGeneral Election Comment
One of the most interesting factors in the current General Election campaign is the way that the polls have barely moved over the weeks since Parliament was dissolved. It may still be that the result on Thursday will prove them inaccurate (electors often tell pollsters how they would vote in an ideal world rather than one in which their own self-interest is at stake) but it does suggest that most of us have not changed our intentions as a result of the campaign.
Actually, I think that is a good thing. The search for and promotion of political policies is not something that should be compressed into a few frenetic weeks. It goes on all the time as parties evolve their strategies and commitments and try them out on the public. There have been no major surprises in the manifestos, and the arguments for and against specific ideas have been well rehearsed with us in advance. The campaign itself, and thank God it’s much shorter in the UK than in many countries, acts primarily as a check and balance. It ensures that the parties don’t pull any rabbits out of the hat. The last thing democracy wants is for some issue to emerge at a late stage. It isn’t good for short term impact to affect long term decisions about who should govern us. We saw that in Spain not long ago, when a terrorist attack was planned to gain the most influence in the late stages of an election, and it wasn’t a positive experience.
What the campaign has done is to focus us on the broad thrust of the main parties involved. Rather in the manner of our Victorian antecedents, who used to depict virtues in human form in the stained glass windows of our parish churches, I’ve increasingly begun to see each of the campaigns as a personality in its own right.
The Conservative campaign is the “bloke in the pub”. He’s a familiar figure, always ready to reduce complex arguments down to populist sentiment. He likes to imagine that we must all be thinking the same as he, because it really is quite self-evident. Labour reminds me of a certain type of local official. You can find him in the spheres of education, social services, benefits, health or other “caring” professions. Convinced that he knows better than we what’s best for us, he is prepared to offer or hold back information just as much as it suits his case. And he’s unable to extricate himself from targets – even when they are riddled with perverse incentives. The LibDem entity is by contrast a clean shaven, earnest evangelist (beards and sandals have moved over to the Greens these days). He offers something plausible, superficially appealing, and which clearly makes sense to him. But it leaves his hearers unconvinced that it would all work out so well in practice. In my own constituency the only other contestant is UKIP. I’m still trying to decide whether this personality is the Conservative one’s slightly loopy best mate or the same chap himself when he’s had a few more drinks and is prepared to tell us what he REALLY believes. (There’s a separate debate to be had as to why all the personalities are quite definitely male.)
The point of those caricatures, which I hope you will excuse as the nearest a person who can’t draw can get to a cartoon, is that all three of the main campaigns have their value. But all three remain significantly flawed. And that is exactly as it should be. We should be suspicious of any political organisation that seems too perfect. And we should expect to be governed by people and institutions no less imperfect than ourselves. The choice between the bloke, the official and the evangelist is a real one. And in some ways it’s a deeper choice than between the particular policies and arguments which have so signally and so properly failed to shift our intentions over these last few weeks.
1 CommentUgley controversy continues
From Trinidad comes this report in the Trinidad and Tobago Express about the withdrawal of an invitation to John Gladwin to visit there: ‘How terribly unfortunate’.
An invitation extended by the Anglican Bishop of Trinidad and Tobago, Calvin Bess, to Bishop John Gladwin of the United Kingdom to visit Trinidad has been withdrawn, after it was learnt that the latter has expressed solidarity with the pro-gay Anglican churches in Canada and the United States…
However, according to the Outlook, a mid-March story in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper indicated that a group of clergy in Britain had broken sacramental ties with Gladwin in an unprecedented revolt against his liberal views on homosexuality. The Telegraph story stated: “In what could be the start of an escalating conflict, at least eight conservative clerics have told the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev John Gladwin, that they will refuse to share Holy Communion with him.”
Gladwin reportedly responded by saying that it was his right to express his opinion and that he wanted to give space to those who were anxious about such matters.
This revelation, according to the Outlook article, was the catalyst for Bess-who has the support of the local Cathedral Chapter-to withdraw the invitation, and this was done via a letter dated April 12…
This matter was reported fully here on TA under the heading Ugley Puritans. As noted previously, the original letter to The Times simply restates the fact that the Church of England (and every member thereof, regardless of their personal opinion) is at present in communion with both the Canadian and the American provinces of the Communion.
Update Wednesday
Ruth Gledhill has reported this same Trinidad story in The Times today: Bishop told to forget Caribbean trip after airing liberal gay views. This version of events omits all mention of the Telegraph newspaper. (Those who are unable to access The Times website may find this copy useful.)
Saturday miscellany
Two bishops write in today’s newspapers:
Geoffrey Rowell on Age of Benedict must be one of Christian unity
The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI predictably provoked anxious comment in the Western media because of his role as a defender of orthodoxy. Was he not someone who had said that non-Roman Catholic churches were not churches in the fullest sense? Yet in a fascinating conversation I had with him some three years ago he said that an ecclesial community, because it is ecclesial, must have the marks of the Church, and that Anglicans had them in a very deep way. Faced with the challenge of secularism in Europe, Christians needed each other for the work of mission: “No one of us can do it alone.” In answer to my question about how he understood the celebration of the Eucharist in churches — ecclesial communities — whose orders the Catholic Church did not recognise as valid, he replied that in such celebrations there was indeed a true feeding on Christ, and therefore there was a real and transforming grace.
I remembered that warm conversation when I studied the new Pope’s first message at the end of the conclave. He spoke of the grace of Christ in the Eucharist as that which must sustain and transform. He spoke of his own “primary commitment” and “compelling duty” to work towards “the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers”. Expressions of good feelings, he said, are not enough; concrete gestures are required, and above all “ that interior conversion which is the basis for all progress on the road of ecumenism”. All are summoned to a purification of memory to receive the full truth of Christ, whose searching judgment at the end will ask of us “what we did and what we did not do for the great good that is the full and visible unity of all His disciples.”
Kenneth Stevenson An Anglican dispatch to Rome
But just how far is Pope Benedict XVI likely to go in the wider cause of Christian unity, or indeed to build some bridges (the meaning of the word pontiff) in his own church, which, under the surface, seems as much in need of its own ecumenical movement as the Anglican communion?
My litmus test comes from some of the advice given by one of his predecessors, Pope Gregory the Great, to an earlier archbishop of Canterbury. In AD597, Augustine arrived at Canterbury from Rome with a mandate to heal the wounds of Christianity, at the time divided between Celtic, Old Roman and Frankish, and to evangelise the recently arrived Anglo-Saxons. Gregory advised him to take a moderate line with the different Christian groups, provided they worked together and accepted his authority.
But his advice about what to do with pagan temples was even more intriguing: do not knock them down, just destroy the idols inside them, and replace them with Christian symbols.
I have frequently thought about those words, as they seem to me to have a wider application. When Christianity meets new terrain, as it has done before and will do again, it needs to enter the constructs and mind-sets of the people concerned – and not destroy them. But then comes the more tricky process of ensuring that the old idols inside are replaced by Christian truth.
Of course, analogies break down. But I cannot help thinking that the new pope’s track record, the result of his early formation, is based on a profound mistrust of new ideologies.
Yes, consumerism and relativism can run riot and become their own kinds of dictatorships. But they are themselves only the demerits of what could be deeper merits – that faith has to be appropriated (not just given), and that 20th-century European history has so many deep scars that many people find it hard, if not impossible, to trust any kind of authority, which has to be at least partly won and not simply assumed.
Controversial German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann explains why she’s glad that her former classmate has been made pope. Read this interview with her: A Humble Intellect (hat tip Andrew).
Martin Marty Considering Pope Benedict XVI
And here is A Mennonite look at the Holy See
Christopher Howse writes about a long-dead cardinal in Cardinal home from the Hill
0 CommentsRipon controversy ends
The problems reported earlier (Dean of Ripon suspended and more on Ripon) have been resolved without going to a public ecclesiastical trial.
The Church Times has: Charges dropped as Dean agrees to quit Ripon.
The diocesan press release is here.
The Yorkshire Post carried two stories by Michael Brown
‘Autocratic’ Dean quits over wine and women
Wine, women and evensong: Claims that rocked cathedral
The picture from the Yorkshire Post is captioned:
Requiem: Dean Methuen pictured at the High Altar at Ripon Cathedral, reading from the mid-13th century Latin Bible during a requiem Mass similar to the funeral service of Richard III in 1485 – part of a Richard III symposium held at the cathedral in 2002.
0 CommentsBishop Duncan: We're the Anglicans here
The Living Church carries a long interview with Robert Duncan. The full text is here.
An extract to give the flavour:
TLC: So, as a body within the Episcopal Church, what’s your “lifespan”?
Bishop Duncan: Well, of course we claim to be, constitutionally, the Episcopal Church. And there’s every evidence, both from what the Windsor Report says and what the primates said in accepting it, in their communiqué in Northern Ireland, that we are the Anglicans. If the Episcopal Church’s constitution says that we’ll be constituent members of the Anglican Communion, and the Anglican Communion now says, Episcopal Church, you’re in time out. In fact, you’re not only in time out, but it appears you’re making a decision to walk apart. If in General Convention 2006 the Episcopal Church determines to walk apart, then the question we ask is, who is the Episcopal Church? And our legal basis will be to say, we are, of course, because they have broken the constitution.
TLC: Do you think General Convention will be the turning point?
Bishop Duncan: Oh, yeah. The Presiding Bishop has made it clear, and he made it clear in Northern Ireland, that this church has thought about this, prayed about this, and is committed to this course, and there’ll be no turning back. And I think he reads the situation right. We also believe there’ll be no turning back. We intend, one of the issues for us going into General Convention, and we will be in General Convention, is to attempt to force this Church to make a very clear decision, unmistakably clear as to whether they’re going to walk with the Communion and repent from these actions, return to standard Anglican practice, or really going to move forward. They call it moving forward; we call it walking apart.
If they determine to move out, well, then they’ve determined to move out. We’re the Anglicans here. We’ll also stand in a way that says, we’re the Episcopal Church where we are. You know, there’ll be infinite court battles, but it’ll be very interesting, since the Communion will have said the Episcopal Church walked apart, and the Episcopal Church’s Constitution says that you’ve got to be constituent members, and we’re the only ones they recognize as constituent members, so who’s the Episcopal Church, legally? It’ll be very interesting time. I mean, we don’t want to go to court, but it’s quite clear the Episcopal Church is always ready to go to court, and this time I think they might not be so willing to go to court, because we think there’s every reason they’ll lose.
Some further analysis and quite a lot of comments on this can be found at The Questioning Christian in two posts: The Revolutionaries (Finally?) Hoist Their Flag and Bishop Duncan Needs Better Lawyers. Additionally, Fr Jake has comments here. For comments from conservatives, read titusonenine.
More critique
Mark Harris has now weighed in with Emerging Corporate Megalomania
Rowan Williams writes to ECUSA/Canadian bishops
It’s worth noting another letter that has been part-published. In the Anglican Journal report on the Canadian bishops’ statement, the following also appears:
Archbishop Williams… also sent a letter to the joint meeting of the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) which began April 28 – to which he had earlier been invited to attend but which he declined attending citing previous engagements.
In his letter, which the Canadian primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, read aloud, Archbishop Williams said he remained “hopeful” that the Anglican Communion, deeply divided over the issue of homosexuality, could still move forward together.
“The recent primates’ statement has, I know, been hard for many to hear. But what it represents is an attempt to hold some space for us all to decide where our future lies in regard to the (Anglican) Communion; to think about how we act with the goal of allowing our relations in Christ to develop, not to cut off the possibilities of moving together,” he wrote. “It undoubtedly challenges people on different sides of the current debate; essentially we are trying to find a way of moving forward as a church, not as a collection of interest groups of ‘left’ or ‘right.’”
He added that the primates’ statement “also represents a deep reluctance all round to move hastily in the direction of separation.”
The Anglican Communion’s present situation, he added, “is in some ways nothing new: we are always living between testimony to God’s overwhelming and unsurpassable gift and our own countertestimony of confusion or faithlessness.”
Archbishop Williams said he could not offer “an easy solution to our tensions,” adding, “that would be presumptuous.” But he added, “I can only send my greetings and prayers as a brother in this confused environment, and urge you all to look to the Lord of the church for patience, mercy and renewal.”
Canadian and American bishops welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter, which had come as a surprise. Archbishop Hutchison had earlier admitted to being stung by Archbishop Williams’ decision not to attend the joint meeting, saying he took it to mean the Archbishop of Canterbury did not wish to be associated with the beleaguered Canadian and American Anglicans.
The Living Church has reported that:
Over 40 American bishops and the secretary general of the ACC, Canon Kenneth Kearon, joined the Canadian bishops at dinner on April 27. Originally scheduled to attend the joint meeting of American and Canadian bishops, Archbishop Rowan Williams withdrew from the dinner following the primates’ meeting in Dromantine, saying it would be inappropriate for him to attend given the present estrangement between the North American Churches and the rest of the Anglican Communion. (TLC, March 27)
I can find no public record of Rowan Williams saying anything like this, not even in TLC’s own report.
1 CommentGeneral Synod Elections 2005
There will be a general election for the Church of England’s General Synod in September. Church House Westminster held a consultation for returning officers on Tuesday of this week. In connection with this a lot of guidance material has been placed online. Although intended primarily for the returning officers much of it will be of more general interest.
The provisional timetable is:
1 Notification to electors of the election timetable to be followed in the diocese and issue of nomination papers:
Not later than Tuesday 19th July2 Notification of the validity of any nomination:
As soon as any nomination is received3 Closing date for nominations:
Friday 2nd September4 Issue of voting papers:
Friday 9th September5 Closing date for return of voting papers:
Friday 30th September6 Day of the Count:
Monday 3rd, Tuesday 4th, Wednesday 5th, or Thursday 6th October
The final timetable may differ slightly from diocese to diocese.
There have been a number of changes since 2000. Some of the more significant are:
1 Synod has been reduced in size by 105 members.
2 There will no longer be a representative archdeacon from each diocese. Instead the archdeacons will be eligible to stand for election in their diocesan proctorial election although at most one can be elected in any diocese or electoral area.
3 Clergy with permission to officiate are now eligible to be candidates. Only those who are also a member of a deanery synod are electors.
4 Candidates will only have to provide one copy of their election address. Dioceses will be responsible for making copies and sending them to all electors.
Full details of who are eligible to be candidates, who the electors are, the number of clergy and laity to be elected by each diocese and a full set of rules are included in the online material.
6 CommentsCanadian bishops issue statement
Updated Friday, and again Saturday
The following statement was unanimously adopted by the Canadian House of Bishops meeting in Windsor, Ont., on April 27.
Statement of Commitment by the Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada April 27,2005
This is their response to the Windsor Report and the Dromantine communiqué.
The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the statement.
The statement was reported by Reuters as Canadian Anglicans Skirt Requests Over Gay Unions in a story which erroneously attributes the US decision on their ACC attendance to the American HoB rather than their Executive Council. The Canadian decision-making body on that issue is the Council of General Synod which meets May 6-8.
Further press coverage
Anglican Journal Bishops agree to hold off on blessings
Toronto Globe and Mail Anglican bishops call moratorium on same-sex blessings
Religion News Service via Beliefnet Canada’s Anglican Bishops Agree to Moratorium on Gay Unions
The Living Church Canadian Bishops Won’t Halt Blessings of Same-Sex Unions
The Times Ruth Gledhill Rebel bishops reconsider same-sex blessings
The reports are a little confusing. In fact, the situation in New Westminster, which is the only Canadian diocese where SSB are at present formally authorised, is unchanged, but will be reviewed at the diocesan synod which meets on May 13 and 14:
Attracting the most media attention will be synod’s discussion on Saturday afternoon on how to respond to the Windsor Report, a document authored by an international group of Anglicans for the Archbishop of Canterbury, which tried to define the nature of Anglicanism.
One item in the Windsor Report is a call for a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions until the next Lambeth Conference in 2008.
A proposed response is being put together by the Revs. Richard Leggett and John Oakes. The two priests, respectively at Vancouver School of Theology and Holy Trinity, Vancouver, come from the opposite ends of the theological spectrum, but together plan to come up with a single proposal.
A pre-synod session on April 16 at which the two men presented a draft response drew more than half of synod delegates, showing high interest in the issue.
Volunteering some of their time during school spring break to help prepare packages of papers for Synod delegates were Jen Nurse of St. George’s, Fort Langley, Stephanie McGee of St. Helen’s, Surrey, and Cara Ingham of St. Mary’s Kerrisdale.
Indicating national interest in New Westminster’s decision will be the presence of Canadian Primate Andrew Hutchison. He will preach at the opening worship Friday morning, and serve as the “synod partner” for the gathering.
At the Canadian House of Bishops meeting that Archbishop Hutchison chaired on April 27, Bishop Michael Ingham along with his 40 colleagues agreed “neither to encourage nor to initiate” the blessing rite until the national Canadian General Synod in 2007.
Bishop Ingham afterwards said that the phrase “neither to encourage nor to initiate” comes from a communiqué issued by Anglican Primates in February, and has been interpreted to mean there should be no further actions beyond those already started.
“I made it explicitly clear to the Canadian House that, in view of the upcoming Synod in New Westminster, I could sign the statement issued today only on the understanding that I would be governed very much by the advice of my own Synod,” said the bishop.
Further update
The Anglican Journal has published this article Council advised to decline primates’ call. This refers to a report reported much earlier.
more Roman reports
Two other sources of information about recent Anglican visitors to Rome:
The RC Diocese of Westminster has published excerpts from the press conference that Archbishop Rowan Williams and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor held on 25 April.
Anglicans Online has published Pierre Whalon’s Dispatch from Rome which also discusses the papal audience of that morning. Pierre Whalon’s earlier report was on the Sunday inauguration: Dispatch from St Peter’s Basilica.
Additional Item
Reuters has a video clip of the papal audience in which RW’s interaction with the Pope is clearly shown. This may not work correctly in some browsers: it worked for me in Internet Explorer 6 on WinXP. The Reuters video page has a strip marked Vatican Channel and the clip is labelled Pope Meets Religious Leaders.
ENS catches up
Anglican leaders meet with Pope Benedict XVI
Roman diary, part 2
Bishop John Flack, Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s representative to the Holy See wrote earlier about his time in Rome during the death and funeral of Pope John Paul II. Now he writes again, this time about the election and inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI, the comings and goings of Anglican dignitaries, and shaking hands with the new pope.
Read on…
0 CommentsRowan Williams preaches for Christian Aid
Rowan Williams preached today at St Paul’s Cathedral. The service was to mark the sixtieth anniversary of Christian Aid.
The full text of the sermon is here.
The Lambeth Palace press release is here: Archbishop condemns lack of trust in fight against poverty.
The Christian Aid press release is here: Archbishop backs trade campaign at Christian Aid anniversary service.
NACDAP provokes responses
Following a recent meeting in Texas, NACDAP has issued two documents: ACN Council Communiqué and Windsor Action Covenant.
This has provoked several strong responses: The Fat is in the Fire: The Network and the Windsor Action Covenant and also Windsor, DOA. But clearest of all is this from the Bishop of California, Bill Swing: The House of Bishops: All for One and Some for Something. Some extracts from these:
Bill Swing asks NACDAP these questions:
1. Why do you usually avoid House of Bishops meetings? And why will you not go to the altar rail and receive Communion alongside your sister and brother bishops?
2. Rumor has it that you receive lots of money from private foundations and give it to support African bishops who, in turn, will attack the Episcopal Church. Is there an audit of your receipts and disbursements? Could I review it? What are the goals of the foundations that financially support you? What African bishops receive your money? What American Episcopalians whom you know are on the staffs of African bishops?
3. If the bishops of the Episcopal Church are not invited to Lambeth Conference 2008 but the Network bishops with Bishop Robert Duncan as head are invited, will you attend?
4. What are the names of Network bishops who have consulted lawyers to ascertain the possibilities of someday separating “Network properties” from “Episcopal Church properties?”
5. In what situations around the USA is the Network in conversation with individual congregations, strategizing as to how the congregation can leave the Episcopal Church, take its assets, and join the Network?
6. It is stated that Bishop Duncan is on record as promising “to wage guerilla warfare on the Episcopal Church.” Is this true? Also on the House floor he has been accused of paying lay people of his diocese to go to a neighboring diocese to try to persuade conservative members to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Network. Is that true?
Mark Harris writes:
This Covenant is an attempt to hijack the Windsor Report and make it the instrument of the realignment effort. It is yet another effort to spin an advisory committee’s report into a partisan litmus test.
…All of this would be of no great import if it were not for the last pledge, not bulleted, which is the real basis of the covenant, and its only focus. That last pledge states, “If General Convention chooses finally to walk apart, I will not follow, but will remain a faithful Anglican, God being my helper.”
This then is the opening salvo of the battle of General Convention. One may be sure that the Network will come to Convention with pledge lists of persons who they contend will not be bound by General Convention action IF the Convention “chooses finally to walk apart.” And of course, it will be the Network and its leadership that will want to determine if General Convention has so chosen.
This Covenant is a marshalling of numbers, and an attempt to get members of this Church to pledge disavowal of actions of General Convention, leadership of the bishops of their dioceses, if not viewed as “Windsor Dioceses” and teaching of their clergy, if not viewed as “Windsor Parishes.” Its purpose is to implement resistance to any leadership other than that of the realignment groups, and in particular the Network itself.
The fat is in the fire and the play is unfolding. It is time to be watchful. It is not a time to be nice, for these are not nice times.
J-Tron notes:
21 CommentsIt’s heart breaking. It really is. The Windsor Report has some deep flaws. But I have remained hopeful that it can be a starting point, a place to facilitate communication and unity. Certainly the folks who produced it had that hope for it. The Network does not. It chooses instead to use Windsor as a weapon, a method of labeling and relabeling those who it dislikes. This is an especially interesting development considering the Network’s own deep criticism of Windsor in the days after it came out. Now all of a sudden the Network wants to embrace Windsor, but only in so far as it pushes us forward into the rift.
…But the enemy that presents itself in the Network is not that of ultra-conservatism or homophobia. The enemy that presents itself in the Network is the evil of pride, deceit, lust for power, and a thorough drive to divide the Church. Not all members of the Network are engaged in this kind of behavior, but the Network perpetrates it on behalf of all who it calls “orthodox,” leaving those on the so-called right who truly wish to be in communion without a voice.
I call on Anglicans and Episcopalians of good conscience, whatever their political stripes or feelings about human sexuality, to reject the evil, schismatic vision that the Network is trying to perpetrate. If we have to split in the end, let it be because we have tried every possible remedy, every conceivable avenue of dialogue, and nothing else seems like it can be done. Let it not be because a small group of the power hungry possessed swept us into armageddon like battle with our friends and neighbors for the purpose of fulfilling their own ambitions….
Anglicans meet the Pope
Various reports concerning the inauguration of the new pope yesterday and his meeting today with ecumenical leaders including an Anglican delegation that included two ECUSA bishops as well as several prominent Anglican conservatives.
BBC
Anglican leaders greet new Pope
Catholic News Service
Anglican leader says pope to give energy to united Christian witness includes extensive quotes from RW
Guardian
Andrew Brown Opus Dei will be in the ascendancy in Pope Benedict XVI’s church
John Hooper in Rome and Stephen Bates Williams to meet new pope today
The Times
Richard Owen New Pope seeks a spiritual revival as he takes the throne
Ruth Gledhill Words of inspiration not lost in translation
Addition
Richard Owen Pope prayed: ‘God, don’t do this to me’
Telegraph
Jonathan Petre Williams looks to build bridges with Catholicism
Bruce Johnson Humanity has lost its way, says new Pope
Sunday Telegraph
Damian Thompson Then came the name ‘Josephum’ and gloom set in
Sunday Times
Christopher Morgan and John Follain Pope in talks with rebel Anglicans
And for a different perspective, Appointment of Pope Benedict sits uneasily with Arabs on Aljazeera.com
Update
An earlier column that I missed: Andrew Brown on opendemocracy.org Cardinal Chernenko?
General Synod – July 2005 – preliminary agenda
Synod meets in York from Friday 8 July to Tuesday 12 July. There is now a (very) preliminary agenda on the CofE website. It’s an rtf file, so for convenience I have reproduced its contents below.
General
Business Committee report (¾ hours)
Presidential Address (½ hour)
Eucharist and closing ceremonies (1¼ hours)
[Group work (1¼ hours)]
Legislation
Further Miscellaneous Provisions Measure: Final Drafting and Final Approval (25 minutes)
?Amending Canon No 24 (Clergy Discipline): Promulgation (5 minutes)
Fees Orders (½ hour)
Clergy Discipline Measure Rules
?Clergy Discipline Appeal Rules
Clergy Discipline Measure Code of Practice
(1 hour for the three)
Approval of petition renaming Diocese of Southwell (?deemed approval – allow ½ hour)
Liturgy
Ordinal: Second Revision Stage (2 hours) and Final Approval (1 hour)
Reports
Women in the Episcopate (2¾ hours)
Strategic Financial Review: progress report (2 hours)
2006 budget (1 hour)
Church Urban Fund (1½ hours)
Anglican/Methodist Covenant: interim report from Joint Implementation Commission (2 hours)
Standing Orders Committee report (¾ hours)
Constitutions report: Liturgical Commission and other Commissions (½ hour)
?Review of Diocesan Practice on Communion before Confirmation (1½ hours)
Hind follow-up (2¼ hours)
Inter-faith relations: MPA report (2 hours)
Trade Justice: presentation and questions (1 hour)
Archbishops’ Council annual report (deemed approval – allow ½ hour)
?Audit Committee: annual report (¾ hours)
??Euthanasia: MPA report (1½ hours)
Diocesan Synod Motion
Parochial Fees (Oxford) (1¼ hours)
[See below the fold for the text]
Private Member’s Motion
None
Contingency Business
Human Genome (Guildford DSM)
letters between bishops
Update a public statement by the Bishop of Dallas has been published here
Some correspondence has emerged:
- The Living Church published this dated 21 April: Letters Express Bishops’ Concerns to Archbishop of Canterbury, Presiding Bishop
- Episcopal News Service published this on the same day: Griswold asks bishops for clarification on letters.
The Living Church reports:
In the May 1 print issue of the magazine, TLC reported that the April 6 letter to Archbishop Williams was written to clarify some points made in a letter which was hand-delivered to him following the March 11-16 House of Bishops’ meeting at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas.
The two letters of 6 April were signed by a total of 21 bishops, including 18 diocesan bishops (there are 100 domestic US dioceses plus several overseas dioceses within The Episcopal Church). The letter to Rowan Williams asks for a meeting at the end of May. No mention of this letter or request is included in the other letter to Frank Griswold.
The signatures include the diocesans of 10 out of 11 of the “NACDAP” dioceses (Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, South Carolina, Springfield, Western Kansas.), except Keith Ackerman of Quincy, and also two suffragans and an assistant bishop serving in NACDAP dioceses.
They also include 8 other diocesans who do not belong to NACDAP:
- David Bane Diocese of Southern Virginia
- James Folts Diocese of West Texas
- Bertram Herlong Diocese of Tennessee
- Edward Little Diocese of Northern Indiana
- John Lipscomb Diocese of Southwest Florida
- Bruce MacPherson Diocese of Western Louisiana
- Wallis Ohl Diocese of Northwest Texas
- Don Wimberly Diocese of Texas
The research mentioned in the letters can be found here.
The Living Church has published a further item.
0 CommentsConnecticut update
Further Update 27 April
This commentary has been published by Via Media USA
Update 25 April
There is an editorial in the Living Church about Connecticut: Harsh Treatment
Many thanks to commenters who posted links to news reports on this last week, while I was away from home.
The New York Times carried several reports:
22 April Dissident Priests Not Punished, but Their Fate Is Still Unclear
21 April Dissident Episcopal Priests Are Called Part of a Strategy
18 April Episcopal Clergy to Meet on Dispute Over Gay Issues
In the 21 April story, we read this:
…But as the bishop of Connecticut, Andrew D. Smith, prepared to suspend the priests, he described them as local troops in a nationwide strategy by conservative Episcopalians to secede and then establish a “replacement” church that would take the place of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. in the world Anglican Communion.
In an interview at his office in Hartford on Tuesday, the day after a meeting with the priests that seemed only to deepen the impasse, Bishop Smith said that the priests never had any intention of returning to the fold. Instead, he said, they were bent on “kind of a ‘Please, go ahead and shoot me’ ” approach that would make him a villain and win them public support.
Bishop Smith said the priests were following a strategy laid out in a memo written in December 2003 by a member of the American Anglican Council, a group of orthodox Episcopal parishes that includes those led by the six priests. The memo laid out steps that priests can take to distance and then eventually sever themselves from the parent church.
The memo said the strategy would “generate significant public attention” and added that the church authorities, knowing “well how conservatives could quickly become the ‘victims’ in the public mind,” would be reluctant to discipline priests.
“If you read that memo and then look at what happened there, there are a lot of similarities,” Bishop Smith said…
Meanwhile, the AAC republished the whole story from the NYT and also this press release.
The News page of the Connecticut diocesan website contains many useful links to statements, including a pdf copy of the letter of 27 May 2004 from the six parishes in which they list their demands:
- We seek the immediate care and pastoral oversight of a bishop acceptable to us who:
a) affirms Holy Scripture, the ancient creeds, and the 39 Articles.
b) Upholds the 1998 Lambeth Resolution on human sexuality.
c) Neither supported the election, consecration and ministry of V. G. Robinson as bishop, nor supports the ordination of any unchaste homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.
- We seek suspension without prejudice of the canons and resolutions of the Diocese of Connecticut requiring an assessment of funds in support of diocesan mission and ministry.
- We seek a one-year review of these DEPO Agreements in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates of the Anglican Communion or their appointed designee,
- We seek a written agreement that guarantees that the future succession of clergy in our parishes rests in the hands of the vestries, our search committees, and our DEPO bishop.
- We seek a written assurance that you and the Diocese of Connecticut will not foster a ministerial environment that is hostile to our parishes’ mission and ministries.