Thursday, 4 February 2010
ACNA and Canada
Readers may recall this General Synod motion, which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment.
A paper rebutting the claims made about the Anglican Church of Canada, written by Alan Perry has been issued to General Synod members.
That paper can now be read in full here.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Thursday, 4 February 2010 at 4:55pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
| General Synod
Canon Perry, I note, has a law degree and is, I presume, admitted to the bar. Thus he is in an excellent position to refute the lies and half-truths of those who would have the Church of England endorse theft and fraud.
Or is this Master of Laws one of those Welsh (Cardiff Law School) Canon Law degrees Norman Doe is papering the Anglican world with!?
Canon Perry's law degree is in canon law (from Cardiff), and he's one of the Canadian church's experts on the subject. He is also former prolocutor of the Provincial Synod of the Province of Canada.
Not admitted to the bar, I'm afraid, nor admissible. My law degree is in Canon Law.
An eminent and very thoughtful canon lawyer.
The paper written by The Rev. Canon A. Perry LL M is an excellent rebuttal of the deluge of misinformation that ACNA has circulated with regard to the Anglican Church of Canada. However, I want to comment on one of Canon Perry’s observations when he writes, “It is true that Cyrus Pitman, the current bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador called his clergy to receive new licenses and take their oaths anew. This unusual action was entirely within his powers as a bishop.” I do not wish to contest the canonical correctness of either Canon Perry’s observation or Bishop Pittman’s action. The action bishop Pittman took in that instance may have been “within his powers as bishop”, but it was overdone nonetheless. The oath is to the bishop and the bishop’s successors. The solution put in place by bishop Pittman (perhaps on advice?) is perhaps best evaluated against the unwillingness or impotence, or both, on the part of the Canadian church with regard to the matter of retired Bishop engaging in interventions in a province in which he no longer resides canonically. Why not deal with Bishop Harvey’s actions directly. Why put in the political crossfire parish clergy who simply want to get on with doing their work under the oversight of the new bishop of Newfoundland and Labrador? –Rod Gillis