"like claiming you own my house to secure the right to park on my street"

Yes. If I want the right to park on the street in front of your house I need to identify a legitimate reason. Claiming that I own your house is manifestly untrue ("ambitious") since you own your home. I need to find another reason; See, for example, #4 above as a possible avenue to plead your case.

My view is, to a certain extent, that a diocese signing the covenant is essentially irrelevant to whether they are part of the Anglican Communion or not (didn't Dr. Radner say Southern Baptists could sign if they wanted) -- so the whole enterprise appears to have little to do with the supposed goal -- remaining part of the Anglican Communion. And at the same time, it is hardly necessary to argue that TEC is not hierarchical in order for a diocese to sign a statement such as the proposed Covenant; that is, what, in the covenant, is contrary to the Constitution and Canons of our church? I don't see what all the fuss and bother is, on either side. (I do see a good deal of lawyerly piling up of irrelevance to "make a case" on counselor McCall's part, but that's another matter. The case he made, bad as it is, might have a pernicious effect down the road, and we need to stick with the principle of diocesan unity, not autonomy. All the talk about the Covenant my be nothing more than a smoke-screen anyway -- read the earlier ACI statement of March 12 -- St Gregory must have taken a turn in his tomb -- where the idea of diocesan autonomy is more clearly linked to the litigation matters alluded to in the leaked emails.) http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=388 This is the real issue, not the Covenant. Pay attention, folks.

Like Mark McCall, I have a somewhat shaky grasp of canon law, so I would be interested in having someone weigh in on whether it can be argued that the bishops who have made this statement no longer subscribe to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church.

Dear Jim Maughton,
Are you seriously saying that someone who disagrees with the Presiding Bishop's current understanding of The Episcopal Church's structure has "abandoned the communion" of TEC? Are we already into that level of thought control? May God have mercy on all of us!
Warmest regards in our Lord,
Bishop John W. Howe,
Central Florida

I'd be happy to weigh in: of course they subscribe to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. A simple glance at how these bishops actually function would prove an indication. At present they have an argument about the proper way to understand the Constitution of the Episcopal Church. But to suggest they might not so subscribe is like questioning the patriotism of those who challenge Congressional laws before the Supreme Court. And the question itself there and here, frankly, stinks.

Oh, puleeze, Jim. Bishops who want to argue that dioceses are more sovereign than others think are just talking. Like the rest of us. They're nowhere near abandoning the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church. You have nailed the essential irrelevance of this discussion with your first point, namely, the Episcopal Church is not going to be ejected from the Anglican Communion.

What's important, it seems to me, is why some people want an Anglican Covenant. I'm really disturbed by how little we've heard thus far in the discussion of the covenant from non-Westerners about their views on it (other than those voiced by the plethora of prelates convened by the North American right, English hyperevangelicals, and the Diocese of Sydney).

You've got the platform in Episcopal Cafe. How about soliciting some commentary about the drafting process from a committee member from the have-not world?

Bishop Howe,

I am asking a question, not making a statement. I think that is obvious, so you begin by distorting the obvious and then attempt to personalize and trivialize your disagreement with the rest of the Episcopal Church over the authority of General Convention by making it seem that it is about the Presiding Bishop. At no point do you actually address the question that was raised.

Dr. Radner,

People who take a case to the Supreme Court agree to abide by the decision of the court. They don't claim an authority that supersedes that of the court. A better analogy would be to Texas governor Rick Perry, who recently suggested his state might need to secede from the union. I think it is fair to question his patriotism.

If the bishops who signed your statement really wanted to begin a conversation about the nature of authority in the Episcopal Church, it seems to me they would have raised the issue at the House of Bishops meeting, submitted resolutions to General Convention, etc. And they would not have signed on to a statement which, its principal drafter states, is to be of use to dioceses attempting to leave the Episcopal Church while retaining the Church's property.

Bill,

If you were a member of a Standing Committee and one of these bishops was up for confirmation, would you vote for them knowing that they believed their diocese to be autonomous? If not, I believe the grounds on which you would withhold consent is that it was not certain that they would uphold the discipline of the Episcopal Church.

What I am trying to make sense of is the canonical difference between a) believing you can lead your dioceses out of the Church, and offering legal support for dioceses that have left the Church and b) actually leading your dioceses out of the Church?