Moved by: Mr. Stephen Schuh from the Diocese of New Westminster
Seconded By: The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham from the Diocese of New Westminster
Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.
BE IT RESOLVED:
Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.
The motion has just been withdrawn
Now why might that have happened? Could it be that there is no longer a need for NW's resolution given what A186 says?
Posted by: Matt | June 25, 2007 at 08:21 AM
matt - I think there are a few possible takes:
1. as you have noted
2. NW knows that to go ahead with B001 would make the circle an ellipse (the slim majority of bishops not willing to do this). The vote would almost certainly pass in clergy/laity, but my sense is that the 21/19 vote in HOB would continue...
Posted by: joseph | June 25, 2007 at 08:30 AM
This is no surprise to me.
In spite of the spin I've read in press and blogs, General Synod did NOT deny permission to dioceses to bless these unions. It was never asked to grant that permission. It was asked to "affirm" the authority. Well, implicitly, can one affirm something that does not exist? So that very motion suggests that the authority existed; otherwise, it is logically vaccuous. More to the point, there is no logical way it can be argued that the failure to affirm was a step to deny. There are many things in life we just do not comment on either positively or negatively.
So why ask for clearence to continue, when it has been asserted that no "core" doctrine is offended? There's still the argument of "pastoral necessity", which, valid or not, is a big drum to beat. And Ingham can (and probably will?) argue that in the absence of a doctrinal impediment, and the presence of a pastoral need, then full speed ahead.
It's a tangled mess, for sure, but those against blessing the unions have really won nothing, and those in favour of blessing them have lost nothing, and eliminated a basis for objecting to them. Were I Ingham, I might be miffed, bit I wouldn't be weeping.
Posted by: Gerry Hunter | June 25, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Suggestion for thought:
Pass the marriage canon process, so that SS Marriage can be a reality in 2010...
Let the Windsor process continue - covenant is ready by 2010...
2010 is when final clarity appears and cannot be fudged. After that both "sides" will have the direction clearly before General Synod.
Posted by: joseph | June 25, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I think that having a covenant ready and in place in three years is optimistic. One number I heard from a senior bishop was 12 years at the best.
This was a tactical withdrawl. I think that the bishops who are voting against SSU's are communion liberals and conservatives. So, if the motion goes to the floor, the motion would be defeated in house of bishops again, leaving New West with less rationale to continue their current practice. With no defeated motion, there is wiggle room to still say "nobody told us to stop this in these 7 parishes."
Posted by: Preston Parsons | June 25, 2007 at 02:09 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/06/25/anglican-gay-070625.html
Posted by: Preston Parsons | June 25, 2007 at 02:59 PM
And here's the wiggle.
Posted by: Preston Parsons | June 25, 2007 at 03:06 PM