If, as I understand it, all deliberations have been behind closed doors, how can one be sure that the information is other than pure media speculation?

The answer to R Leggat's question can be found in the second Stephen Bates artilce which Simon has helpfully linked above. The reactionaries are leaking by mobile phone to their supporters camped nearby. Bates is clearly right: this has nothing really to do with gay people. It's all about power - who gets to control what Anglicans are seen by the world to believe and practise.

Many thanks to Simon and all for keeping us up to date. In Australia the meeting is being completely ignored by all news media.

While not necessarily agreeing with the language used by Rodney McInnes, I think he's got the facts pretty accurate. It's evident that David Virtue has inside knowledge and his site is pretty upfront about how he got it.

I do, however, think that Stephen Bates needs to be read with some caution. He has many admirable qualities, but he isn't - and doesn't pretend to be - neutral. First, I think Mr Bates is an example of a certain type of liberal Roman Catholic who thinks his wish-list will be fulfilled more readily in the Anglican Communion than his own Church - at least in the lifetime of the present Pope or any likely successor. Secondly, in the article linked above, he is rather easily shocked by a piece of rather old news. His cryptic remark about women priests being accused of disbelief in God actually refers to a survey which found that over a range of issues women priests were discernibly more heterodox than there male colleagues. (Really not at all surprising, since women priests are not drawn from the most theologically conservative constituencies.)

I read both Virtue and Bates with extreme caution.