The Report of the Joint Standing Committee

[PaladinValer]

http://www.aco.org/acc/docs/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf

I gave this a careful read, and I am quite pleased.

In short:

TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regard to placing a moratorium on Rites for the Blessing of same-gender unions in their dioceses.
TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regarding to placing a moratorium on the ordinations of non-celibate homosexual (and same-gender-inclined bisexuals).
That TEC has explicitly addressed both concerns and given the necessary assurances of them.
That in regard to the care of dissenting groups within the TEC as requested in three points by Dar es Salaam...
That the first point which is the readiness of TEC to fully embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report has been sufficiently met.
That ++Schori's initiative of "Episcopal Visitors" is a viable basis on which to proceed in the establishment of a system of pastoral oversight to allow parishes who have sought extraprimature oversight to return and to flurish.
That the continued litigation and the continued attempted alienation of property has sadly continued and that it must end in order to proceed further in the ceasing of all interventions as asked of in the Windsor Report.
That the integrity of TEC is an important element in addressing questions of pastoral oversight in the establishment of a Pastoral Council.
That the TEC House of Bishops makes a point that must be addressed urgently by their citations of previous Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils in terms of the interventions of other provinces within the juristiction of TEC. Furthermore, that the Primates who are interveening should be reminded of their own words and that the Windsor Report calls of them to express regret of their actions, affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and to establish a moratorium on all further interventions.
That while the Communion is converging around the position that it is inappropriate to establish Rites of Blessings of same-gender unions and to the consecration of bishops would would be living non-celibately in a same-gender relationship, that the Communion must take seriously the ministry of GLBTs within the church and the ending of discrimination, persecution, and violence towards them.The majority of potential signatures have been signed, including the signatures of the President and Vice-President of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Read on and discuss! :)

[DarkNLovely]

The 7th one is interesting. What do they want from the Communion in this regard?

[PaladinValer]

The 7th one is interesting. What do they want from the Communion in this regard?

That one is mostly a reminder to certain provinces that have done little or nothing to end discrimination, hatred, and violence towards gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals within their ecclesiastical juristictions.

Unfortunately, the primates of a few of these provinces have actually said or done things that contributed to the continued discrimination, hatred, and violence towards these people.

The Anglican Church is committed to the destruction of discrimination, as it affirms the integrity and character of all people.

[DarkNLovely]

That one is mostly a reminder to certain provinces that have done little or nothing to end discrimination, hatred, and violence towards gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals within their ecclesiastical juristictions.

Unfortunately, the primates of a few of these provinces have actually said or done things that contributed to the continued discrimination, hatred, and violence towards these people.

The Anglican Church is committed to the destruction of discrimination, as it affirms the integrity and character of all people.
Define descrimination in the minds of Episcapalians please? As I don't understand.

[higgs2]

Define descrimination in the minds of Episcapalians please? As I don't understand.

Encouraging their governments to outlaw homosexuality, or even speaking about homosexuality, with punishments like being thrown in prison. Calling homosexuals "animals" and "lower than dogs" and "disgusting". THat kind of thing.

[PaladinValer]

Encouraging their governments to outlaw homosexuality, or even speaking about homosexuality, with punishments like being thrown in prison. Calling homosexuals "animals" and "lower than dogs" and "disgusting". THat kind of thing.

Higgs2 basically summed it up nicely.

Remember when I said "both sides are at fault"? The same Lambeth 1.10 which TEC and the ACoC chose not to adhere to, other provinces like Nigeria also chose not to adhere to, just in the opposite direction. A few Primates have even championed laws that would throw LGBTs into prison for years and have called such people the titles that Higgs2 specified.

You can believe same-gender relations are sinful, but putting them in prison for even being what they are is simply outrageous.

[Aymn27]

http://www.aco.org/acc/docs/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf

I gave this a careful read, and I am quite pleased.

In short:

TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regard to placing a moratorium on Rites for the Blessing of same-gender unions in their dioceses.
TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regarding to placing a moratorium on the ordinations of non-celibate homosexual (and same-gender-inclined bisexuals).
That TEC has explicitly addressed both concerns and given the necessary assurances of them.
That in regard to the care of dissenting groups within the TEC as requested in three points by Dar es Salaam...
That the first point which is the readiness of TEC to fully embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report has been sufficiently met.
That ++Schori's initiative of "Episcopal Visitors" is a viable basis on which to proceed in the establishment of a system of pastoral oversight to allow parishes who have sought extraprimature oversight to return and to flurish.
That the continued litigation and the continued attempted alienation of property has sadly continued and that it must end in order to proceed further in the ceasing of all interventions as asked of in the Windsor Report.
That the integrity of TEC is an important element in addressing questions of pastoral oversight in the establishment of a Pastoral Council.
That the TEC House of Bishops makes a point that must be addressed urgently by their citations of previous Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils in terms of the interventions of other provinces within the juristiction of TEC. Furthermore, that the Primates who are interveening should be reminded of their own words and that the Windsor Report calls of them to express regret of their actions, affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and to establish a moratorium on all further interventions.
That while the Communion is converging around the position that it is inappropriate to establish Rites of Blessings of same-gender unions and to the consecration of bishops would would be living non-celibately in a same-gender relationship, that the Communion must take seriously the ministry of GLBTs within the church and the ending of discrimination, persecution, and violence towards them.The majority of potential signatures have been signed, including the signatures of the President and Vice-President of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Read on and discuss! :)
8. That the TEC has ocean front property for sale in Arizona that it will sell for market value once it completely and honestly complies with any one of the recommendations of Dar Es Salaam. And that those who buy this land receive a life time delivery of fudge, delivered three times daily to their front door. Afterall, if you buy one piece of the fudge - you buy the whole batch.

[Aymn27]

Encouraging their governments to outlaw homosexuality, or even speaking about homosexuality, with punishments like being thrown in prison. Calling homosexuals "animals" and "lower than dogs" and "disgusting". THat kind of thing.
I find the act of homosexual sex totally disgusting and repulsive - does that make me a "bigot" or "genocidal" maniac, etc? Please be honest.....I would say "lower than dogs" not in the worth of the person, but in that not even animals engage in such grotesque sexual acts...I'm not making that exclusive to homosexuals either...there are some heterosexual perversions that are more vile than even homosexual sex....

[Aymn27]

http://www.aco.org/acc/docs/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf

I gave this a careful read, and I am quite pleased.

In short:

TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regard to placing a moratorium on Rites for the Blessing of same-gender unions in their dioceses.
TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regarding to placing a moratorium on the ordinations of non-celibate homosexual (and same-gender-inclined bisexuals).
That TEC has explicitly addressed both concerns and given the necessary assurances of them.
That in regard to the care of dissenting groups within the TEC as requested in three points by Dar es Salaam...
That the first point which is the readiness of TEC to fully embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report has been sufficiently met.
That ++Schori's initiative of "Episcopal Visitors" is a viable basis on which to proceed in the establishment of a system of pastoral oversight to allow parishes who have sought extraprimature oversight to return and to flurish.
That the continued litigation and the continued attempted alienation of property has sadly continued and that it must end in order to proceed further in the ceasing of all interventions as asked of in the Windsor Report.
That the integrity of TEC is an important element in addressing questions of pastoral oversight in the establishment of a Pastoral Council.
That the TEC House of Bishops makes a point that must be addressed urgently by their citations of previous Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils in terms of the interventions of other provinces within the juristiction of TEC. Furthermore, that the Primates who are interveening should be reminded of their own words and that the Windsor Report calls of them to express regret of their actions, affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and to establish a moratorium on all further interventions.
That while the Communion is converging around the position that it is inappropriate to establish Rites of Blessings of same-gender unions and to the consecration of bishops would would be living non-celibately in a same-gender relationship, that the Communion must take seriously the ministry of GLBTs within the church and the ending of discrimination, persecution, and violence towards them.The majority of potential signatures have been signed, including the signatures of the President and Vice-President of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Read on and discuss! :)
MIDDLE EAST Bishop Blasts Joint Standing Committee over TEC Resolutions in NOLA

by Mouneer Anis

Assessment of the response the House of Bishops of TEC to the Windsor Report and Dar El Salam recommendation

First, I would like to thank the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in America (TEC) for her kind invitation and for the great hospitality we enjoyed while we were in New Orleans. I am also grateful for the opportunity I was given to address the House of Bishops (HOB).

It is very unfortunate that not all the members of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) were present when a response to the HOB of TEC was drafted.

The lack of discussion and interaction will not produce a report that expresses the view of the whole committee.

The response of the House of Bishops of TEC represents a superficial shift from their previous position; the fact remains that their position since 2003 has not changed. The House of Bishops has not responded positively to either the Windsor Report or the Dar El Salam Primates recommendation.

Therefore I strongly disagree with the report of the JSC which states that "We believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them, and on which clarifications were sought by the 30th of September, and given the necessary assurance sought of them." The reasons for my disagreement are as follows:

On Public Rites for Blessing of Same-sex Unions

The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of Windsor Report that the "Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites". It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar El Salam that the Bishops should "make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese."

They did not declare a moratorium on authorization public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Instead the House of Bishops pledged not to authorize any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions. I understand moratorium as "cessation of activity". In the explanatory discussion they mentioned that "the majority", not all, of Bishops do not make allowances for the blessings of same-sex unions. This means that a number of Bishops will continue to make allowances for the blessing of same-sex unions. I see this as an equivocal and unclear response.

While the House of Bishop's response means that 'authorization' of the rites will not take place, but it also stated that some will continue to "explore and experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions". The exploration of liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions, keeps a window to continue such blessings under another title!! This unashamedly disregards the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion which is still torn over this issue.

On the elections non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate

Those who read the whole response of the House of Bishops of TEC, not only parts of it, would find the following.

* The House of Bishops clarified Resolution B033 of the General Convention 2006 in such a way that "non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in the restraint". But in the same response we find them saying "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." What does this mean? This statement contradicts their explanation of B033 which put a restraint on electing and consecrating non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate Order, as it restricts them from full participation in the church.

* The request of the House of Bishops to the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways for Gene Robinson to fully participate in Lambeth Conference demonstrates clearly that they see that the manner of life of Gene Robinson, as a non-celibate gay, does not present a challenge to the wider church and will not lead to further strains on the Communion. This again contradicts their clarification of General Convention Resolution B033 that it does indeed refer "to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons".

On the Pastoral Scheme

In regard to the recommendation of Dar El Salam Primates Meeting, for the establishment of a Pastoral Council "to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with the Episcopal Church", the House of Bishops did not respond positively. Their excuse was that such a pastoral scheme would compromise the authority of the Presiding Bishop, and place the autonomy of the Episcopal Church at risk.

The House of Bishops came up with another internal plan that allows the Presiding Bishop to appoint Episcopal visitors for Dioceses that 'request' alternative oversight. This is completely different from the Pastoral scheme recommended by Dar El Salam. The composition of the recommended pastoral scheme has the ability to stop the interventions of outside Provinces because it represents TEC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Suspending all Legal Actions

The Primates in Dar El Salam urged the representatives of TEC and of those congregations in property disputes with TEC to suspend all legal actions against each other. The House of Bishops did not address this issue.

Conclusion

The House of Bishops did not respond or meet the recommendation of Windsor Report and the Dar El Salam Primates Meeting Communique. Instead they used ambiguous language and contradicted themselves within their own response.

---The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis is President Bishop of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. He is a Member of the Primates Standing Committee

[PaladinValer]

It appears ++Anis has forgotten a few important facts.

The response of the House of Bishops of TEC represents a superficial shift from their previous position; the fact remains that their position since 2003 has not changed. The House of Bishops has not responded positively to either the Windsor Report or the Dar El Salam Primates recommendation.

Yet he doesn't explain why or how this is so when the facts show themselves...

On Public Rites for Blessing of Same-sex Unions

The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of Windsor Report that the "Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites". It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar El Salam that the Bishops should "make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese."

They did not declare a moratorium on authorization public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Instead the House of Bishops pledged not to authorize any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions. I understand moratorium as "cessation of activity". In the explanatory discussion they mentioned that "the majority", not all, of Bishops do not make allowances for the blessings of same-sex unions. This means that a number of Bishops will continue to make allowances for the blessing of same-sex unions. I see this as an equivocal and unclear response.

If Rites are not authorized, then they may not be used. Primate Anis forgets that (or does not know that), in TEC, the only authorized church-wide rites are those found in our canonical liturgical books (ie: Book of Common Prayer, Lesser Feasts and Fasts, The Book of Occasional Services). Specific rites within a diocese or parish must be approved of by the bishop. Since the House of Bishops made it clear that no Rites of Blessing for same-gender unions (et al) would be authorized and since TEC is, in itself sort of an autocephalousy within an autocephalousy since the Presiding Bishop is not an Archbishop, then it shows that not only has the national church in and of itself said it cannot perform such rites, but the dioceses and the parishes cannot either.

With that piece of vital information added, the fact that a moratorium has in fact been inacted shines quite clearly.

While the House of Bishop's response means that 'authorization' of the rites will not take place, but it also stated that some will continue to "explore and experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions".

Where? I copied the entire House of Bishop's' response into Word and did a find search for that quote. It found nothing!

Here, ++Anis seems to be untruthful.

Those who read the whole response of the House of Bishops of TEC, not only parts of it, would find the following.

* The House of Bishops clarified Resolution B033 of the General Convention 2006 in such a way that "non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in the restraint". But in the same response we find them saying "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." What does this mean? This statement contradicts their explanation of B033 which put a restraint on electing and consecrating non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate Order, as it restricts them from full participation in the church.

Full participation in the church doesn't mean "okay, you can be a bishop." It means being a member of a parish, can hold Wardenship, have voting rights, be a deligate in synods and convention, and be involved in various ministries. Not everyone can be ordained, after all.

I would have thought ++Anis would have known that as a Primate of the church.

The request of the House of Bishops to the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways for Gene Robinson to fully participate in Lambeth Conference demonstrates clearly that they see that the manner of life of Gene Robinson, as a non-celibate gay, does not present a challenge to the wider church and will not lead to further strains on the Communion. This again contradicts their clarification of General Convention Resolution B033 that it does indeed refer "to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons".

That would not be a contradiction since Resolution B033 was after his election and consecration. The request for the moratorium was asked after the fact, so unless ++Anis expects time travel, this sounds rather outlandish.

On the Pastoral Scheme

In regard to the recommendation of Dar El Salam Primates Meeting, for the establishment of a Pastoral Council "to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with the Episcopal Church", the House of Bishops did not respond positively. Their excuse was that such a pastoral scheme would compromise the authority of the Presiding Bishop, and place the autonomy of the Episcopal Church at risk.

The House of Bishops came up with another internal plan that allows the Presiding Bishop to appoint Episcopal visitors for Dioceses that 'request' alternative oversight. This is completely different from the Pastoral scheme recommended by Dar El Salam. The composition of the recommended pastoral scheme has the ability to stop the interventions of outside Provinces because it represents TEC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'm amazed that Primate Anis forgets that the Windsor Report, as quoted in the Report of the Joint Standing Committee:

We have called upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

to express regret for the consequences of their actions.
to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further intervention.We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accomodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care

It would seem clear that ++Anis' interpretation of the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam Primates' call is, in fact, contradictory to what these documents actually state.

Furthermore, the apointments made by ++Schori are of bishops who disagreed with the consecration of +V. Gene Robinson and are conservatives who could identify with those disaffected by +Robinson's ordination and could provide pastoral care at the episcopal level. This is, after all, what both the report and the call have asked for.

The Primates in Dar El Salam urged the representatives of TEC and of those congregations in property disputes with TEC to suspend all legal actions against each other. The House of Bishops did not address this issue.

It might also be pointed out that the other side, as I noted, have not stopped their attempt to alienate the property of TEC away from her, mainly because of the fact that Primates of Rwanda, South East Asia, Uganda, and Nigeria have not ceased their extrajuristictional encroachments in the primatural episcopal sovereignty of TEC.

Conclusion

The House of Bishops did not respond or meet the recommendation of Windsor Report and the Dar El Salam Primates Meeting Communique. Instead they used ambiguous language and contradicted themselves within their own response.

The conclusion is based however on incorrect assumptions of TEC polity, as I've shown above, as well as, it seems, a misunderstanding of time and space and a contradictory interpretation of the Windsor Report with the plain text's reading.

As such, I am disappointed with the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis' reply. However, to make an important note and to make a major observation:

It has been made very evident since 2003 that many of the Primates, including +++Williams himself, are not entirely familiar with the polity of TEC in terms of its ecclesiastical structure, form, and process of the establishment of canons. I believe that ++Anis, as shown above, has made a critical critique based on an infamiliar knowledge of TEC's polity. As it has been stated (I believe) by +++Rowan Williams that the Primates need to become more familar with said polity, it seems likely that, upon erudition, I believe ++Anis will understand his unintentional mistake.

[DarkNLovely]

Isn't it true that in general the Anglican Church does not see homosexuality as sin?

[Phinehas2]

In general the Anglican church does see same-sex sex as sin, though homosexuality and heterosexuality not necessarily.

[DarkNLovely]

In general the Anglican church does see same-sex sex as sin, though homosexuality and heterosexuality not necessarily.
That dosen't make sense. Are you saying they believe that these people cannot help themselves and are born this way? Or that to struggle with these desires is not sin but the act is?

[Phinehas2]

ISnt KJS one of the people on the committee? one of the ones who hasnt complied?
The TEC reponce is unacceptable.
There is no mention of the Communion standard on sexual behaviour which
Dar es Salaam: Lambeth 1.10 requires acknowledgement of.

The TEC were asked not to authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention yet the response merely says the TEC wont authorize public ‘rites of blessing’.

No mention of the covenant.

Dar es Salaam: required that the TEC would embrace ‘The Windsor Report fully’ the TEC just says ‘in spirit and content’

The TEC clearly rejects the position on Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme

The TEC has not met the commitment requirements that

The TEC fails to address the litigation issues.

The TEC has given its own statement
New Orleans: we oppose anything that violates gay or lesbian persons’ ‘dignity as children of God’… ‘we proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children including gay and lesbian persons are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s church.’

This is not affirmation of Lambeth 1.10

The rest of the Anglican Communion was waiting impatiently for the answer yes or no, not a new bargaining position.

[Phinehas2]

Dear DarkNLovely,
That dosen't make sense. Are you saying they believe that these people cannot help themselves and are born this way? Or that to struggle with these desires is not sin but the act is? It does make sense, and its the Anglican Communion position. See Lambeth 1.10
If someone is heterosexual or homosexual then they have sexual attraction either the opposite sex or the same sex. Now we know that fornication outside marriage is sin so until either a heterosexual or a homosexual fornicates outsdie marriage they havent necesarily sinned.
Yes I know Jesus also teaches that to lust is to also sin, but that could be a heterosexual or a homosexual.

[DarkNLovely]

Dear DarkNLovely,
It does make sense, and its the Anglican Communion position. See Lambeth 1.10[/COLOR][/B]
If someone is heterosexual or homosexual then they have sexual attraction either the opposite sex or the same sex. Now we know that fornication outside marriage is sin so until either a heterosexual or a homosexual fornicates outsdie marriage they havent necesarily sinned.
Yes I know Jesus also teaches that to lust is to also sin, but that could be a heterosexual or a homosexual.
Thanks! But that doesen't answer my question! LOL!

[Phinehas2]

Dear DarkNLovely,
Well yes it does, you have already stated the resson doesnt make sense to you, I was just trying to help you understand the reason.
Let me add to your question
[quote] That dosen't make sense. Are you saying they believe that these people cannot help themselves and are born this way? Or that to struggle with these desires is not sin but the act is?
The latter isnt sin. We all struggle with plenty of desires which lead to sinful acts.

[norbie]

I believe we should see this in a more down to earth way: we all know that there are same sex people around, and even clergy, so I think we miss the point here. It's not about the same sex relationship, why this happened doctors still don't know - the church worry is about going public with it, and THIS IS WHAT WE ARE AGAINST IT!. Especially for our young people, they must not get the idea that the church support it, that it is something normal, right to do. That's all we have to fight for without discriminate against this poor, sick people. Just my thoughts.

[gtsecc]

The general teaching of the Church is that some are born gay, and that in it self is not a sin. It is the act of sex, outside of marriage which is a sin, be it straight or gay.

[Aymn27]

The general teaching of the Church is that some are born gay, and that in it self is not a sin. It is the act of sex, outside of marriage which is a sin, be it straight or gay.
"general teaching" of which church? and there is NO marriage available for same-sex couples - no matter who writes the rites of thinks they're authorizing it...the Bible does NOT ever say that a man shall leave his parents and become one with another man - that is against Scripture, Tradition, Reason and even nature...

[Aymn27]

http://www.aco.org/acc/docs/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf

I gave this a careful read, and I am quite pleased.

In short:

TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regard to placing a moratorium on Rites for the Blessing of same-gender unions in their dioceses.
TEC has met the requests of the Windsor Report through their clarifications asked of them by Dar es Salaam in regarding to placing a moratorium on the ordinations of non-celibate homosexual (and same-gender-inclined bisexuals).
That TEC has explicitly addressed both concerns and given the necessary assurances of them.
That in regard to the care of dissenting groups within the TEC as requested in three points by Dar es Salaam...
That the first point which is the readiness of TEC to fully embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report has been sufficiently met.
That ++Schori's initiative of "Episcopal Visitors" is a viable basis on which to proceed in the establishment of a system of pastoral oversight to allow parishes who have sought extraprimature oversight to return and to flurish.
That the continued litigation and the continued attempted alienation of property has sadly continued and that it must end in order to proceed further in the ceasing of all interventions as asked of in the Windsor Report.
That the integrity of TEC is an important element in addressing questions of pastoral oversight in the establishment of a Pastoral Council.
That the TEC House of Bishops makes a point that must be addressed urgently by their citations of previous Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils in terms of the interventions of other provinces within the juristiction of TEC. Furthermore, that the Primates who are interveening should be reminded of their own words and that the Windsor Report calls of them to express regret of their actions, affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and to establish a moratorium on all further interventions.
That while the Communion is converging around the position that it is inappropriate to establish Rites of Blessings of same-gender unions and to the consecration of bishops would would be living non-celibately in a same-gender relationship, that the Communion must take seriously the ministry of GLBTs within the church and the ending of discrimination, persecution, and violence towards them.The majority of potential signatures have been signed, including the signatures of the President and Vice-President of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Read on and discuss! :)
Primate of Uganda: Episcopal Bishops Were Coached

by Steve Waring
The Living Church
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3853 (http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3853)
10/5/2007

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's participation in the evaluation of the House of Bishops' response to the primates was a "gross conflict of interest," according to Archbishop Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda.

The archbishop said the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates inserted themselves uninvited into a process the primates originally devised.

"Our Dar es Salaam communique did not envision interference from the Communion in the American House of Bishops while they were considering our requests," Archbishop Orombi said in a written statement provided to a reporter for The Living Church. "Yet, members of the Joint Standing Committee met with Presiding Bishop [Jefferts] Schori in the course of the preparation of their House of Bishops' statement in order to suggest certain words, which, if included in the statement, would assure endorsement by the Joint Standing Committee."

At their meeting in Texas in March, the House of Bishops adopted a resolution inviting Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the members of the primates' standing committee to attend the House of Bishops' meeting in New Orleans. It is unclear at what point or how the members of the ACC standing committee were included.

Archbishop Orombi and Bishop Jefferts Schori are two of the five primates on the joint standing committee. Archbishop Orombi said he was suspicious that the joint standing committee presence would prevent an honest response from the Episcopal bishops, and therefore he declined to attend.

The joint standing committee report was released this week without endorsement from four of the 13 members who attended. Bishop Mouneer Anis, Primate of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, has subsequently issued a minority report, objecting to the process by which the report was developed and its conclusion that the bishops' response was acceptable.

"The report is severely compromised and further tears the existing tear in the fabric of our beloved Anglican Communion," Archbishop Orombi wrote. "It is gravely lamentable that our Instruments of Communion have missed the opportunity in this moment to begin the healing that is so necessary for our future."

Archbishop Orombi said the primates never asked the House of Bishops to make new policy for The Episcopal Church. Given that General Convention would not meet again for three years, he said the primates wanted the Episcopal bishops to clarify parts of two General Convention resolutions which the primates believed could be interpreted several different ways.

"TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements," Archbishop Orombi said. "They write one thing and do another. We therefore cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions."

[ebia]

I believe we should see this in a more down to earth way: we all know that there are same sex people around, and even clergy, so I think we miss the point here. It's not about the same sex relationship, why this happened doctors still don't know - the church worry is about going public with it, and THIS IS WHAT WE ARE AGAINST IT!. Especially for our young people, they must not get the idea that the church support it, that it is something normal, right to do. That's all we have to fight for without discriminate against this poor, sick people. Just my thoughts.
That makes absolutely no sense. It reads (to me anyway) as "it's ok to have gay bishops as long as they lie about it" and "the church needs to fight discrimation by being seen to discriminate".

[ChaliceThunder]

MIDDLE EAST Bishop Blasts Joint Standing Committee over TEC Resolutions in NOLA

by Mouneer Anis

Assessment of the response the House of Bishops of TEC to the Windsor Report and Dar El Salam recommendation

First, I would like to thank the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in America (TEC) for her kind invitation and for the great hospitality we enjoyed while we were in New Orleans. I am also grateful for the opportunity I was given to address the House of Bishops (HOB).

It is very unfortunate that not all the members of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) were present when a response to the HOB of TEC was drafted.

The lack of discussion and interaction will not produce a report that expresses the view of the whole committee.

The response of the House of Bishops of TEC represents a superficial shift from their previous position; the fact remains that their position since 2003 has not changed. The House of Bishops has not responded positively to either the Windsor Report or the Dar El Salam Primates recommendation.

Therefore I strongly disagree with the report of the JSC which states that "We believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them, and on which clarifications were sought by the 30th of September, and given the necessary assurance sought of them." The reasons for my disagreement are as follows:

On Public Rites for Blessing of Same-sex Unions

The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of Windsor Report that the "Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites". It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar El Salam that the Bishops should "make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese."

They did not declare a moratorium on authorization public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Instead the House of Bishops pledged not to authorize any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions. I understand moratorium as "cessation of activity". In the explanatory discussion they mentioned that "the majority", not all, of Bishops do not make allowances for the blessings of same-sex unions. This means that a number of Bishops will continue to make allowances for the blessing of same-sex unions. I see this as an equivocal and unclear response.

While the House of Bishop's response means that 'authorization' of the rites will not take place, but it also stated that some will continue to "explore and experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions". The exploration of liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions, keeps a window to continue such blessings under another title!! This unashamedly disregards the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion which is still torn over this issue.

On the elections non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate

Those who read the whole response of the House of Bishops of TEC, not only parts of it, would find the following.

* The House of Bishops clarified Resolution B033 of the General Convention 2006 in such a way that "non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in the restraint". But in the same response we find them saying "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." What does this mean? This statement contradicts their explanation of B033 which put a restraint on electing and consecrating non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate Order, as it restricts them from full participation in the church.

* The request of the House of Bishops to the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways for Gene Robinson to fully participate in Lambeth Conference demonstrates clearly that they see that the manner of life of Gene Robinson, as a non-celibate gay, does not present a challenge to the wider church and will not lead to further strains on the Communion. This again contradicts their clarification of General Convention Resolution B033 that it does indeed refer "to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons".

On the Pastoral Scheme

In regard to the recommendation of Dar El Salam Primates Meeting, for the establishment of a Pastoral Council "to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with the Episcopal Church", the House of Bishops did not respond positively. Their excuse was that such a pastoral scheme would compromise the authority of the Presiding Bishop, and place the autonomy of the Episcopal Church at risk.

The House of Bishops came up with another internal plan that allows the Presiding Bishop to appoint Episcopal visitors for Dioceses that 'request' alternative oversight. This is completely different from the Pastoral scheme recommended by Dar El Salam. The composition of the recommended pastoral scheme has the ability to stop the interventions of outside Provinces because it represents TEC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Suspending all Legal Actions

The Primates in Dar El Salam urged the representatives of TEC and of those congregations in property disputes with TEC to suspend all legal actions against each other. The House of Bishops did not address this issue.

Conclusion

The House of Bishops did not respond or meet the recommendation of Windsor Report and the Dar El Salam Primates Meeting Communique. Instead they used ambiguous language and contradicted themselves within their own response.

---The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis is President Bishop of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. He is a Member of the Primates Standing Committee
He was rather unhinged at the HOB meeting.

[ChaliceThunder]

Isn't it true that in general the Anglican Church does not see homosexuality as sin?
That is true.

[ChaliceThunder]

Primate of Uganda: Episcopal Bishops Were Coached

by Steve Waring
The Living Church
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3853 (http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3853)
10/5/2007

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's participation in the evaluation of the House of Bishops' response to the primates was a "gross conflict of interest," according to Archbishop Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda.

The archbishop said the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates inserted themselves uninvited into a process the primates originally devised.

This is where Abp. Orombi shows his ignorance. They WERE invited.

[norbie]

That is true.
This would be what YOU think - I believe we can't generalised.

[PaladinValer]

He was rather unhinged at the HOB meeting.

Could you, if possible, develop this statement? You've perked my curiosity.

This is where Abp. Orombi shows his ignorance. They WERE invited.

Not that I don't believe you, but could you prove a quote or something else as proof?

++Anis' reply I've already demonstated is simply rediculous. If ++Orombi's is too, then it is simply more proof of members of the Global South's leaders' noncommitment and hypocricy.

[PaladinValer]

Looks like ++Orombi was invited, which makes his critique fall apart.

So far, there has not been a Primate who has given a valid disagreement. Things are looking very good!

[higgs2]

I find the act of homosexual sex totally disgusting and repulsive - does that make me a "bigot" or "genocidal" maniac, etc? Please be honest.....I would say "lower than dogs" not in the worth of the person, but in that not even animals engage in such grotesque sexual acts...I'm not making that exclusive to homosexuals either...there are some heterosexual perversions that are more vile than even homosexual sex....

The question was about what constitutes "discrimination" towards gay people, I never used the words "bigot" or "genocidal" or "maniac". Let's stick to the point, kay? ;) :thumbsup: