Is anyone surprised that actions have consequences? Even civil disobedience actions have consequences. One needs to make one's choices and accept the results.

Roy Murphy

Andrew, thanks for the deeper questions about the peculiar "disinvitation."

I've posted a few initial thoughts here. Like so many letters from the Archbishop of Canterbury over the years, it's well, very much a mixed bag! All sides will make of it what they will. . .

The Orthodites are stating that the only subsaharan Anglican body still in violation of the moratoria is Rwanda with AMiA. The others, namely Uganda, Kenya and NIgeria, ceased doing so when they gave up their North American units to ACNA.

I will buy a round for both Mark Harris and the Episcopal Cafe staff if +Cantaur actually includes Nigeria, Uganda, and Southern Cone in his "disinvitation."

He's done everything possible to appease them. He's not going to rap them on the knuckles now. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that the separation of ACNA and AmiA was done with explicit knowledge of the content of this letter. It gives them the cover they need to get away from the accusations of boundary-crossing. (I see Däˈvēd Äyān has beat me to the punch while I was typing this.)

And watch for the Diocese of South Carolina to announce its departure from TEC in 3,2,1...

Paige Baker

Roy - I don't think anyone is saying we won't accept the consequences - just be fair about the consequences.

What a disappointment. I attended the consecration and ordination of both our new Suffragan Bishops and can attest they are both humble and holy Women. ABC Williams appears more determined every year to out-embarrass even the former Youth Nazi Bishop of Rome. I do hope our Presiding Bishop, and any others in position of authority in TEC humbly decline to self-ostracize. The communion desperately needs our prophetic voice, and poor +Rowan needs to either retire or spend significantly more time at prayer.

Jadvar Johnson

Williams does not address the situation of the Church of England where same sex unions are legal but where the church have neither officially sanctioned such rites nor disciplines of the clergy who perform them. Neither does he address the reality in his own church where gay clergy are allowed to live in civil partnerships but may not perform public rites of blessings. Apparently, only churches that openly address the pastoral care of LGBT persons are asked to step aside.

You have hit on one key point, and it is quite clear in the letter that it is provinces that have formally adopted policies.... (his emphasis). This would suggest that we cannot really say anything about anyone who does not formally do something with which we object, meaning that "Hey, under the table, in the closet, back alley...that's OK! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Can't you silly Americans just give all the homos in your church a big warm hug, a glass of Episcopal sherry and a pat on the behind to run along and be good? Why must you insist on dragging this into public?"
Honestly, it sickens me a bit.
On the good side, however, a quick trip to TitusOneNine, our "alter-ego" on the conservative side suggests that the readers there think that this is pretty "weak sauce." (The British are not really renowned for culinary skills). If anything, that rather takes the sting out of the slap for me. Perhaps we should see it more like the little "love pat" slap that bishops used to give at confirmations?

You know, the Church of England has taken a formal policy on clergy in civil partnerships, allowing them to happen. Certainly, there is the fig leaf of a requirement that bishops ask partners to be celibate; but the formal policy exists (and, as I recall, many among the GAFCONite/FOCA folks are quite unhappy about it). Perhaps one response should be, "We will if you will."

Alternately, although I am one who has thought some form of covenant might be useful (even as the one before us is largely unhelpful), perhaps the time is coming to affirmatively embrace a "consultant" status with regard to the Anglican Communion. That's roughly the same relationship as the Roman Church and some of the Orthodox bodies have maintained with the World Council of Churches. Perhaps "second class" Anglicanism will serve us well. As founded in this letter, we would be taking the consequences of our own moral stand, and could not be held responsible for the moral stands we disapprove in other Anglican bodies. Canterbury would have the clarity for which Williams longs, and we would not be (one of) the albatrosses around his neck, and we would continue to receive these instructive letters.

Marshall Scott

Of course, both John Gibaut and Alyson Barnett-Cowan are priests of the Anglican Church of Canada. Surely they, too, must be reduced to "consultatnt" status.

From what I read, it appears that Part Three of the Covenant (the part that provides for 'punishment') isn't being all that well received internationally. So, it looks like the Lord Archbishop is trying to impose it unilaterally. I don't know that the ABC has the power to actually tell any of the delegates that they can't attend.

But I think we ought to "play nice" and not go.

Just as importantly, we should take the money that would go to support the Anglican Communion's various bodies and meetings and spend it in Haiti or elsewhere where it would do some real good. I can see no earthly reason why we should go where we're not wanted, or waste our money and energy it on what has become divisive nonsense, promulgated by the person who is supposed to be keeping us all together.

Of course, our various dioceses and parishes should maintain their individual connections within the Communion and do our best to promote good will within it. But ignoring and de-funding the Communion's official organizations, so long as this pathetic little man in charge, is probably the best thing we can do for the long-term health
of the Anglican Communion.

Larry Graham

I gather that by "playing nice" and voluntarily not attending the January 2005 Dromantine primates' meeting, TEC & the Church of Canada created the razor-thin majority that adopted the Windsor Report, Larry.

To Hell with "playing nice".

Isn't it time to institute the fourth moratorium? I.e., the one where TEC and Canada suspend financial support of the Communion's institutions for so long as we are asked to "stand down" from those very institutions?

Worthy mission-advancing projects throughout the Communion can continue to be funded directly -- but paying for Rowan's junkets and conferences and reports etc, no thanks. As a Brit, you would think he'd know where "taxation without representation" can lead.