Info on 2011 Holy Land Pilgrimage

The Old Archives

« At the end of the vote, what Edmonton did | Main | speaking of digestion... »

June 25, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Now why might that have happened? Could it be that there is no longer a need for NW's resolution given what A186 says?


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...

Gerry Hunter

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.


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.

Preston Parsons

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."

Preston Parsons

Preston Parsons

And here's the wiggle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

blank stare...

  • Copyright Rev. Joseph Walker, St Timothy's Anglican Church

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Add to My AOL