Some Questions:

1) Now that CANA has publicly admitted its founding from an incursion by Nigeria, and Rwanda and Southeast Asia have never hidden their involvement in AMIA, will they and the other jurisdiction interveners be likewise stripped of positions?

2) Do you seriously propose to excuse those who intervened, providing a platform for the alienation of hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and property, simply because they have now severed ties? Have you invented a statute of limitations on Windsor Moratoria violations, along with inventing your authority to sanction anyone at all?

3) When do you plan to sanction those Provinces which violate the Dromantine anathematization of violence towards gay and lesbian people? Specifically when will Uganda and Nigeria among others be sanctioned for supporting criminalization of homosexuality?

4) When will the Archbishop of Canterbury take any action with respect to the virulent anti-gay rhetoric issuing from some Global South Primates?

5) When exactly will the C of E endorse the Anglican Covenant?

Continuing on with Michael Russell's excellent questions:

6) Why is it acceptable for the CoE to bless same-sex unions and have gay bishops on the sly--but wrong for TEC to have them openly?

7) Just how many CoE clergy have entered into same-sex partnerships? How many CoE clergy have blessed same-sex unions? Are you planning to discipline them for doing so?

Paige Baker

Good questions, Michael. More,

8) According to ACNA and C of N, among others, the interventions are not just at the _founding_ of CANA, AMIA, etc.Formal _jurisdiction_continues_ in most if not all of the cases. Why is TEC punished, and not those provinces?
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/its_formal_cana_is_a_diocese_o.html

9) Where does it say you have the authority to tell people to stand down? Where does the ABC have the authority to tell people to stand down from Communion committees?

10) Are you in agreement with the ABC or just following orders?

11) Is TEC in a state of impaired communion with the C of E because its primate is a woman. Has the C of E severed ties with churches in the Porvoo Agreement that have openly female bishops, or openly gay bishops?

12) Which is worse, a province that is open about consecrating homosexual bishops and one that is not -- but appoints bishop it knows are gay?

Another question or two:

13. Will the Anglican Communion ask other churches engaged in ecumenical dialogs which have amended their understanding of marriage to apply to gay and lesbian couples (e.g. the Scandinavian Lutheran churches) to step away from those dialogs?

14. Why was action taken only with respect to TEC members of ecumenical councils while other moratoria-noncompliant Provinces were simply asked to clarify positions, or not addressed at all?

15. Will action now be taken against provinces (e.g. the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil) which have expressed solidarity with TEC?

16. Exactly how far are the Secretary-General and the Abp. of Canterbury going to extend their reign of exclusion?

Excellent questions all. And let's tease out #10 a bit...

17. Following up on #10, "Are you in agreement with the ABC or just following orders?," for whom do you work, to whom do you report, and whose orders/directions are binding upon you? The ABC as an individual, or the ACC collectively, through its own constitutional processes?