Facts and Questions for the Southern Cone HOB and Standing Committee

Canon Ashey The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey, J.D. Chief Operating and Development Officer Dearly Beloved in Christ, The House of Bishops of the Anglican province of the Southern Cone will be meeting this weekend to discuss a variety of matters. Among them will be the unprecedented action by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, purportedly on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Communion, asking Bishop Tito Zavala of Chile to withdraw from the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO). The bishops of the Southern Cone, gathered with Presiding Bishop Venables, will no doubt address the following questions based on the following facts: The Facts In the Communique of the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam (February 19, 2007), at paragraph 10, the primates restated the findings of the Windsor Report on the nature of cross-provincial interventions as "reactions to urgent pastoral needs." They stated that there is (a) no "moral equivalence" between violations of the Windsor moratoria on consecrating partnered homosexual bishops and blessing same sex unions, and violations on the moratoria on cross-provincial interventions because (b) such interventions "arose from a deep concern for the welfare of Anglicans in the face of innovation." In other words, such interventions were a pastoral response and a conscientious attempt to "mend the net" of apostolic faith and order (to borrow from the work of former Southern Cone Presiding Bishop Maurice Sinclair and Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies), ripped asunder by the doctrinal and disciplinary innovations of the leadership of The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC). Section D of the original Windsor Report, which deals with all three breaches of the moratoria, has no language whatsoever calling for or requiring an equal and commensurate response to breaches of all three moratoria. Archbishop Rowan Williams' Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion (May 28, 2010) stated that the members of those provinces that have "formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion" on sexually active homosexual bishops, same-sex blessings and the violation of provincial boundaries "should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged," and further, that members serving on IASCUFO from such provinces "should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members." On June 7, Secretary General of the ACC Kenneth Kearon announced that five American participants on the Ecumenical dialogue commissions had been informed that "their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued," while the sole American member of IASCUFO was downgraded to consultant status. The Secretary General also stated he had written to Archbishop Fred Hiltz asking whether Canada has "formally adopted policies that breach the second moratorium in the Windsor Report, authorising public rites of same-sex blessing," and to Bishop Venables "asking him for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces." In his Oct 14 press release, Secretary Kearon said "I have not received a response" to this request for "clarification" from the Southern Cone. He made no reference to his request for clarification from Canada. He then withdrew Bishop Zavala's membership from IASCUFO and invited him to serve as a consultant instead. No public action to date has been taken against Canada and its ecumenical representatives. In an interview with Anglican TV, Presiding Bishop Venables disputes Kearon's claims and reports having had two telephone conversations with Kearon and one with Dr. Williams about this issue prior to the October 14 press release. ++Venables further stated that he told Dr. Williams and Secretary Kearon in the three conversations that he could not give a definitive answer to Secretary Kearon's letter until after the October 29-31 meeting of the Southern Cone House of Bishops and Standing Committee. When questioned by the Church of England Newspaper about this discrepancy, a spokesman for the ACC confirmed that Secretary Kearon had indeed "followed up with two phone calls" his June letter to Presiding Bishop Venables. However, the secretary general had "received no clarification as to the current state of his interventions by mid July as requested," ACC spokesman Jan Butter said. He added that Secretary Kearon was "not made aware of the bishop's intention to bring the issue before his House of Bishops or Provincial Synod," but was now "delighted" to learn "that he will be doing so." A spokesman for Dr. Rowan Williams said that Presiding Bishop Venables "has not, as requested, confirmed his province's position in respect of interventions. Confirmation is still awaited." ++Venables also told Anglican TV he never received a copy of the revised Anglican Consultative Council constitution that was to have been distributed to all the provinces before it was adopted this summer, according to the assurances of the Anglican Communion Office. The Questions These facts raise troubling questions for the Southern Cone House of Bishops and Standing Committee to consider as they weigh their response to the October 14 letter and sanctions by Secretary Kearon. The questions may be grouped under three headings: 1. What is the nature of the alleged violation by the Southern Cone? In June of 2009, those former TEC Dioceses that transferred to the Southern Cone (San Joaquin, Quincy, Ft. Worth and Pittsburgh) and other individual congregations that found refuge in the Southern Cone (such as the churches under the Diocese of Bolivia) became founding members of the Anglican Church in North America. Many of those churches, such as the former "Bolivian" congregations in the new Anglican Diocese of the South, have surrendered their ecclesiastical residence in the Southern Cone to become fully resident in their new ACNA geographical diocese. Others are in the process of doing so. Moreover, since the formation of the ACNA, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no new churches or dioceses received by the Southern Cone. Rather, the Southern Cone has been a strong supporter of the ACNA as the ecclesial body to which it is only too happy to release the churches and dioceses under its oversight. Why didn't Dr. Williams or Secretary Kearon contact Presiding Bishop Venables to ascertain these facts before the October 14 deadline - or whatever deadline they had in their minds? Why did they choose not to wait for the Southern Cone House of Bishops and Standing Committee to issue such a clarification from their meeting this weekend? Why didn't one or the other telephone Presiding Bishop Venables and simply ask about the statement the Southern Cone bishops and Standing Committee are likely to make on this issue before issuing sanctions? Secretary Kearon and Dr. Williams have said nothing of a response from the Anglican Church of Canada and have made no public sanctions against it. Grace has been extended to TEC to take years to approve the proposed Anglican Covenant. Why were Dr. Williams and Secretary Kearon unwilling to grant the Southern Cone even a modicum of such grace - a mere two weeks - before imposing sanctions? 2. What grounds are there for the actions announced in the October 14 press release by Secretary Kearon? The Primates of the Anglican Communion are by apostolic position and tradition best placed to address issues of faith and order in the Anglican Communion. The Primates have spoken on the issue of cross-provincial interventions: they are not morally equivalent to the innovations of the leadership of TEC and ACoC in consecrating non-celibate homosexual bishops and authorizing and/or permitting the blessing of same-sex unions. Moreover, the removal of American representatives from ecumenical dialogues and the IASCUFO had at least some logic to it. In both ecumenical and internal theological discussions, representatives of a church body must be able to faithfully represent the teaching of the church body they are representing. Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998) remains the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on human sexuality. Representatives of TEC cannot faithfully represent the Anglican Communion because the actions of TEC bishops in permitting and authorizing same-sex blessings, the decisions of GC 2009 authorizing the development of liturgies for same sex blessings, and the consecration of yet another non-celibate homosexual bishop are conscious and premeditated violations of Lambeth 1.10. The same holds true for Canadian representatives whose bishops and diocesan synods publicly authorize the blessing of same sex unions. Accordingly, there is no rational, doctrinal or disciplinary ground to administer the same sanctions to Bishop Zavala as were given to the representatives of TEC. As we noted last week, the Southern Cone is in firm compliance with Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and upholds it as among the reasons for its cross-provincial intervention in North America to protect Anglicans distressed by the innovations of TEC and ACoC. Bishop Zavala in particular was a significant contributor to the GSE4 Communique in Singapore (April 23, 2010) which again reaffirmed Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the official Anglican teaching on sexuality and Holy Orders over and against the innovations of TEC and ACoC. Why remove a representative who is in fact faithfully representing the official teaching of the Anglican Communion? Why treat him as if he were guilty of doctrinal innovations contrary to the teaching of the Anglican Communion? If sanctions had to be administered, why not make the sanction equal to the offense? Why not write him a letter of reprimand, or restrict his participation in IASCUFO to topics that do not include the alleged inviolability of diocesan boundaries? But the most troubling question is this: By what authority does the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office (ACO) make demands upon primates and provinces? Where in the new Constitution of the Anglican Communion can we find such warrant? And why was the draft of said new Constitution not received by the Southern Cone, or other Global South Primates and Provinces, prior to its approval this summer? For that matter, why was the draft Constitution not made publically available? What does such a breakdown in communications say about the legitimacy of the ACO, the ACC, the Anglican Communion Standing Committee, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the powers they are assuming for themselves? 3. What questions and implications are raised by the breakdown in communications between the ACO and the Southern Cone? Did Presiding Bishop Venables call Secretary Kearon twice just to say hello and chat? Did he call Dr. Williams to do the same? Presiding Bishop Venables said that he directly addressed the request in the June 7 letter from Secretary Kearon in his three phone calls with both Dr. Williams and Kearon. In fact, he said that he told both Dr. Williams and Secretary Kearon that he was bringing the issue before this weekend's meeting of the Southern Cone Bishops and Standing Committee, and could not give a definitive answer until they had the opportunity to discuss the matter. How can we reconcile Presiding Bishop Venables' statements with those of Secretary Kearon? Was Secretary Kearon suffering amnesia in his October 14 letter when he declared to the entire Anglican Communion "I have not received a response?" Is he still suffering amnesia, as evidenced by his latest statement through spokesman Jan Butter that he is now "delighted to learn" that Presiding Bishop Venables is bringing the matter before the Southern Cone bishops and standing committee? Or is there another explanation for Secretary Kearon's statements and Dr. Williams' spokesman's assertion that Presiding Bishop Venables "has not, as requested, confirmed his province's position in respect of interventions?" I bid your prayers for Presiding Bishop Venables, the Bishops and Standing Committee of the Southern Cone. Yours in Christ, Phil+ Next Week: Part 2: Conclusions