"...such ongoing breaches of the moratorium on incursions do not rise to the same level of departure from the faith and order of the Communion as does the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians."

To me, this is the most telling comment that I have heard yet from the denizens of Lambeth that demonstrates the radical departure from traditional Anglicanism that has emerged there and elsewhere.

They disengenuously harken back to some imagined "good old days" that never were, when uniformity of belief and discipline reigned, which have since been distorted by innovations of modernity yielding disobedience, deviation and heresy.

Reactionaries of the worst kind.

Did Kearon+ respond to the question about our ecumenical partners who accept and bless same sex relationships and have lgbt bishops? Why aren't those ecumenical dialogues being ended?

So TEC had it coming, did it?

Well, perhaps the Secretary General should have known that if Canterbury were to try to impose some sort of theological uniformity on a loose family of independent churches, the very attempt would be an impossible effort and would fracture the Communion even further.

And from this there have resulted some difficult meetings? Why, exactly, does Canterbury find this surprising?

Canterbury took the bait seemingly dangled by the conservatives -- some sort of Anglican magisterium, although the phrase is a contradiction in terms.

Seeing an opportunity, Canterbury is trying to impose this magisterium, using structures not built for top-down authoritarianism.

Why is Canterbury surprised that chaos results?

The meetings are only going to get worse -- or less well attended. And that's Canterbury's fault.

If Canterbury wants the meetings of an international family of churches to be tea parties, then Canterbury shouldn't try to tell the other churches what to do.

Canterbury also shouldn't suggest that it has the power to tell other churches what to do. The suggestion is false, and it only raises the wrong kind of expectations.

"...such ongoing breaches of the moratorium on incursions do not rise to the same level of departure from the faith and order of the Communion as does the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians."

As an almost life-long Anglican, I have already begun attending an ELCA parish, but at this point, I have no desire to be Episcopalian, and will certainly not give a penny to that denomination, until that body separates itself from the Anglican Communion. One can only take so much; that TEC continues to support Lambeth defies belief.

Brian McMichael points out the fact that Lambeth is OK about the depredations of the GS Primates against the legitimate jurisdiction of the US and Canada, while yet refusing to recognise the independence of those 2 Churches in their pursuit of what they see as the Gospel imperative within their own Provinces.

For the ACO General Secretary to say that there is a deficit of responsibility for the independent action of GS Provinces and a greater category of blame incurred by the legal (Gospel related) independence of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, is to clearly present a bias in Lambeth's judgement of the real situation.

Notice, there is still no acknowledgement from Canterbury about the piracy of the Global South, which seems to indicate that ecclesial boundaries are of no consequence within the Communion! How then does this augur well for the need of, or place for, a Covenant based on collegiality with independence?

Clearly, there is a propensity on the part of the ACO to exert control - but only against those Provinces which they consider as being ahead of themselves (ACO) in the proclamation of a Gospel Inclusivity. It does appear to be a kow-towing to colonial hegemony. What they may not have realised is that the Global South contingent aren't really interested in any Covenant relationship; they have already declared their independence from Lambeth and Canterbury, but are hell-bent on doing as much damage as they can before they launch out on their own. After all, Nigeria has already excluded any reference to Lambeth and Canterbury from its Provincial Statutes.

I my opinion, Canterbury needs all the friends he can keep, and to sideline the USA and Canada, while embracing the fundamentalist sola scriptura attitudes of the Global South will only diminish the Anglican Tradition of 'Unity in diversity'.

Yes, indeed these are "reactionaries of the worst kind" as Brian Mc Michael posted in this thread. The other major related BREAKING story that happened at the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church today, is the "NO VOTE" on Canon Kearon's request that the Council proceedings be CLOSED and not open to the outside world. He received a NO to that request and the proceedings will be made public. This tactic that he tried failed. This is a commonly used tactic in the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Keep things "secret" and as a result of all of these "secrets" the Latin Rite Church hierarchy is a totally dysfunctional model that has caused millions of Catholic lay people and Religious to distrust the hierarchy and become suspicious of their motives. In other words, the hierarchy has lost their authority and respect based on their "secret" agendas and deceits. It is based on many instances where The People of God have felt they were double crossed. Vatican II was supposed to open minds and it was working until 1978. Then the process was reversed and progressive theologians and outspoken lay people" felt the pain of the maneuvers by reactionaries and thus began the reform of the reforms of the Council". A certain parallel is happening in the Anglican Communion. Let's hope it is stopped before the far right fundamentalists who are well funded complete their assault. The hypocrisy and deception that is being played out by the inner circle of handlers of The Archbishop of Canterbury and perhaps Rowan Williams himself will not be judged well by history. This is a shameful moment.

[Kearon]then began by saying that the "problem of increased and growing diversity in the Anglican Communion has been an issue for many years" and added that by the 1990s leaders in the communion began to name "the diversity of opinions in the communion and diversity in general as a problem and sought some mechanisms to address it."

Since when did diversity suddenly become a problem in the Anglican Communion...I'm speechless at his statement to the executive council of the Episcopal Church. And just who are these 1990 leaders that are so upset?? I bet in places where women and gays have no rights. ya think?

Talk about cheek. Surprised the man wasn't "run out on a rail". Imagine walking into a host's conference and telling them off like this. The man deserved a smack in the face.

I am very angry, having read this "man's" answers to these questions, not to mention his attempt to close the meeting to transparency, so I will limit my comments to this:

I believe, and I think it would be useful to investigate, where Rowan has *actually* "come from" in his theological life and development, and who is really backing him. It is clear, from Kearon's response, that outright lies and a game of pass-the-buck is going on, but what is *also* clear is that I was right: we have not responded as Lambeth wanted, and there is panic, as evidenced by the pomposity of trying to close the meeting and keep these half-truths and obfuscations out of the public eye.

One other thing, and this makes me glad and I'm very serious in this statement:

Perhaps, given that the Northern Province of the Moravian Church has voted to enter full communion with TEC and its long-standing relations with - well, pretty much every non-fundamentalist denomination in the U. S. - TEC would be *more* successful in ecumenical dialogue without the burden of CofE and the horrible atrocities practiced by churches in the global south alliance.

I sympathize with the R Williams as he faces various logical conundrums and double binds, but I am convinced that Jefferts Schori is on the Pauline side here, even if there is a lot more thought to be done on what full inclusion entails. All parties should strive to defuse rather than exacerbate the stress caused by this quaestio disputata. Recognizing that it IS a quaestio disputata is a first step in that direction, a step that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion seemed to have taken some decades ago. One has the eerie feeling that they are back reinventing the wheel or uninventing it. In the RCC Luke T Johnson, a conservative, urges that the issue of gay inclusion be seen as a quaestio disputata, and it seems clear that it is the banished figure like Charles Curran rather than the mantra-chanting bishops who best represent where informed Catholics find themselves now.

It's time to cut off the money. I understand that liberals don't want to give Bobby Duncan what he wants, TEC to walk and he steps in...So....We take the verbal abuse and just don't give them a cent.
I don't think the conservatives have the money they thought they'd have and seem to be losing the money they stole. I wonder who paid the air fare for this trip????

I wish KJS would not talk about colonialism and Celtic spirituality. Her strong point is this: "that gay and lesbian persons are God’s good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones." Just stick to that point and insist that it be respected in all its weight and depth, in a mature listening process, and not reduced to a petty quarrel about ecclesiastical etiquette (nor treated as an unbiblical heresy -- it has profound biblical warrant).

Spirit,

I vividly recall Luke T Johnson in this connection. He is, of course, a highly distinguished and prolific NT scholar (far better, in my view, than Tom Wright). He has a gay daughter, hasn't he, who fairly recently adopted a child? He wrote a piece about it (widely trailed on the Internet) which I read, tired, early in the morning, and weeping for its beauty.

I entirely agree about this Celtic spirituality nonsense, at least in this connection. The whole point about the Scottish Episcopal Church, virtuous as it is, is that, outside the big centres, it hardly exists. The Church of Ireland (my church) has done much better.

"Each instrument of communion, including the Primates Meeting, has condemned them (border crossings) and asked for them to cease, but we are a voluntary communion and have no [ability] to act against a province".

- Canon Kearon to TEC Executive Meeting -

Then why, in the name of God, does the ACO proceed to act against the Provinces of USA & Canada? We are all waiting with baited breath for Kearon's answers to question put to him by his questioners at this meeting with TEC.

I agree wholeheartedly with Fr Joe. (SofV2)

There can be no doubt in the mind of those who have followed this appalling story so far that TEC must have been perfectly aware that the RCC and some Orthodox groups have been telling the ACO for years that if they don't get rid of the openly pro gay churches or bring them to heel - then dialogues would cease.

As far I recall only one group of churches broke off relations with the ACO after Gene's consecration (the Oriental Orthodox), but as I say others have been putting on the pressure - and without the accolade of inter-church relations the ACO really would have had a VERY limited function up to now.

It is clear that the function of the ACO is developing as we speak. Look at the difference between the, balanced and elegant warning speech from the Deputy Secretary General to the Canadian Synod back in 2004 http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/000630.html and then consider the blunt and cheerless letter from Rowan Williams in the post Windsor - "process" format.

Examine carefully the decision to replace Canon Dr Gregory Cameron with Canon Dr Alyson Barnett-Cowan as the newly created Director of Unity, Faith and Order and the creation of IASCUFO in 2008 by the will of the Joint Standing Committee (which included my Primate as well as TEC's). Read this Commission,s brief http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/7/1/ACNS4638 - It's creation, along with other developments is given an airing by Ruth in her contemporary report here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4396934.ece

So when I read contributions here from those who attack the outcomes of this process as if this was all happening without the consent of TEC etc - I wonder what planet they have been living on for the past few years.

Chris Smith rightly rails against the establishment of a Curia and Magisterium - but the truth is we are getting 'em albeit in a somewhat different form and with the connivance of those we assume support our views.

"He acknowledged that the Archbishop of Canterbury considers certain activities of the Province of the Southern Cone to constitute an incursion." And the Nigerian Church and CANA? Not that difficult to dress down a province with 20 to 40,000 communicants - though with Williams and Venables said to be buddies, let's not hold our breaths on any action being taken - but Nigeria? Cold day in Hell when a letter is sent to them.

"The viability of our meetings are at stake,” he added…

Oh well then ...

I agree with Chris Smith that the TEC Executive Council's refusal to close the doors on its meeting with Canon Kearon was an important moment.

Too many international Anglican meetings are held behind closed doors. That was fine as long as the meetings didn't matter much.

But if Canterbury is going to play international power politics, it should have to do so out in the open. That way lies greater accountability, consistency, and truth.

Spirit of Vatican II writes today, as so often, with great grace and insight. We would do well to listen and to heed rather than go on notching up the stridency.

Remember, a large group of critical-thinking, charitable, inclusively-inclined, social-justice seeking, generous, forward-looking Christians able to mediate ambiguity and live in the contemporary world would be a a very difficult group of cats to herd.

Better, as the RCC is judging it to be to cull the herd of leaders and renegades with an internal locus of control, and thus to have a smaller herd of easily cowed, concrete-operations thinking, miserly, will-to-power oriented, status-quo/"good old days" worshipping, hard-hearted, moralistic, diversity-despising, water-carrying, play-book reading Church-goers. If you want to wield power and have things turn out to your benefit, better to have a sometimes-regrettably-destructive, but easily distracted and redirectable mob, than to have a loose body of deep-thinking, responsible, accountable, autonomous citizenry who might have ideas themselves of why and what to do, and how actually to go about getting things done. The latter arrangement does not serve the very wealthy or the very powerful.

Beware the red herring. Beware the divisive morality bone tossed into the masses fomenting protracted struggle and distraction over mere bones. Look carefully to see beyond even who is throwing the bones. Rather, look to see who is supplying the bones. Expect that the very same are cunningly reserving the prime cuts for themselves.

Yes, I stipulate, Nietzschean, but I think the shoe fits very nicely in these and related cases.

On the other matter raised by Fr Joe that the marriage of gay people and their ordination when partnered should be dealt with as quaestio disputata - we all thought that this had been settled upon in paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report: "Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion."

However it's important to note that Blessed Tom Durham and the ACI boys have done much to undermine this and Rowan recently compared the presenting issues and by implication the position of TEC and others with those who are against infant Baptism, whereas we have pressed the WO and pacifist comparisons.

And just to remind people how heavily all this has been telegraphed by Williams see: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502
and to feel your blood run cold read Blessed Tom's "interpretation" of the ABC's thoughts here: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=453

Martin Reynolds said, "So when I read contributions here from those who attack the outcomes of this process as if this was all happening without the consent of TEC etc - I wonder what planet they have been living on for the past few years."

I'm not sure exactly what MR means by this.

But if the meaning is that TEC and other liberal provinces have been allowing some Anglican centralization to occur, and have not been pushing back as hard as they should have, I agree.

There has been too much "going along to get along" in the Communion, and not enough pushback against Canterbury's centralization campaign.

Fortunately that shoe may have finally dropped. At least when it comes to TEC and Brazil.

More important is what Canon Kearon's remarks suggest about why Canterbury is trying to centralize. If ecumenical dialogues are indeed "at the point of collapse" -- a factual premise that I do not concede -- then surely this is because Orthodoxy and Catholicism are demanding that Anglicanism forgo its historic characteristics, indeed its unique gifts, of diversity and autonomy.

Why Canterbury thinks that these demands must be complied with is a great puzzle.

Let's see: diversity is a problem. Violation of diocesan borders, forbidden by the Council of Nicea, isn't important enough to address. He wanted the meeting closed. Don't let the peasants overhear their betters; they might be confused. Go home, you little, little man.

"We would do well to listen and to heed rather than go on notching up the stridency." - cryptogram

Instead, crypto, I would suggest that allowing hypocrisy and bullying and dishonest manipulation to prevail -- the "heed" aspect rather than the "listen" aspect -- will bring no peace, to anyone.

The words attributed to Pastor Niemoller come to mind, as a better lesson than worrying first about "stridency":

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Hats off to Brian McMichael for two brilliant posts in this thread. I would only add: Follow the MONEY. The money that is moving the select and powerful few who are in the inner circle of the CofE (Archbishops of York and Canterbury, Canon Kearon who is (Secretary General of AC but from The Church of Ireland, etc.) is coming from specific fundamentalist or right wing sources. We should be aware of this and follow the trail. It will probably not be a very pretty trail but it may give us some answers that we find shocking and I think, quite revealing in that it is essentially POLITICAL money from the rich and powerful who can no longer "control" free thinking or progressive theologians, lay people and clergy. The July Synod of The Church of England should be a watershed moment in this Church's history. Let's pray for some courage and backbone for those progressive voices attending this Synod, for they will have to be heard in the noisy cacophony of the reactionaries and right wingers in their midst. I bet the Roman Catholic hierarchy will have "Observers" at this Synod and I have a feeling Rowan may have been given his "marching orders" by Joe Ratzinger when he last visited Rome. I just bet there are many "secrets" being kept by the powerful few regarding this July Synod. It will be interesting to see how their plans for this Synod unravel before the public's eyes. The kind of decisions made at this Synod may ultimately lead to the total collapse of the "imperial models of hierarchy" in both the Roman and Anglican Communions. These models do not reflect the Church as The People of God. They reflect a Church of kings and princes. This was not the model that Jesus had for His Church on earth. The foundations of these types of models of Church are weak and will eventually collapse from their own corruption, arrogance and greed for both power and MONEY. So, Rowan Williams and men like Canon Kearon are no longer about inclusion but very much about exclusion of women, the glbt community and progressive thinkers. They are about marginalization and disenfranchisement of these types of Christians and history will not judge them well. Come Holy Spirit and shed a bright light on the July Synod of The Church of England.

This debate, like that on WO, is, however, closed in the Catholic Church, and I earnestly applaud and support the exorcism of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in its legions from the Catholic Church. I am sure that such "spirits" would be much happier (unless they enjoy being professional and perpetual malcontents) and "at home" in Anglican purlieux than in the Roman Communion.

Hey! Something else happened yesterday beside the canon's visit!

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_123037_ENG_HTM.htm

I don't think that the full incorporation of gay and lesbian Christians into the life of the Church is as much of a barrier to ecumenicism as Lambeth seems to think. In a certain way, the idea that we must mend our ways to please the Vatican and the Phanar is a betrayal of Anglicanism's role of being both Catholic and Reformed.

"This debate, like that on WO, is, however, closed in the Catholic Church, and I earnestly applaud and support the exorcism of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in its legions from the Catholic Church. I am sure that such "spirits" would be much happier (unless they enjoy being professional and perpetual malcontents) and "at home" in Anglican purlieux than in the Roman Communion. "

What a nasty little post. I feel as if I've stepped in something malodorous.

No, Jeremey it is not that TEC etc have lain down while others pushed through the "Anglican Church Project" - for the past 30 years TEC has been at the forefront of the scheme - they were the major funders even paying over the odds to keep the last Secretary general in post (Follow the Money!) and as I say, as recently as 2008 were nodding to the establishment of an Anglican Inquisition.

If it is true that they no longer support this scheme, well, I can presently see little evidence for this.

"the RCC,...easily cowed, concrete-operations thinking, miserly, will-to-power oriented, status-quo/"good old days" worshipping, hard-hearted, moralistic, diversity-despising, water-carrying, play-book reading Church-goers."

How will ecumenical discussions ever continue without participants like you?

I must agree with crypto.

Vatican II was to many an embarrassing eruption of Catholicity that the Imperially-inclined have been tirelessly and ruthlessly beating back and burning out ever since that unfortunate, aberrant display was finally over. It's taken a few decades, but the work of getting the thralls back in the galleys is nearly done. Soon the Roman Borg Hive-Mind will be back in seamless, top-down, procrustean regularity ready to return to the prime directive of assimilation.

To ensure the reform-minded have learned their place and don't get out of hand again, the Curia and others have hatched, disseminated and unleashed a mighty batch of Urak Hai who at the earliest, and faintest whiff of abominable irregularities will turn in any and all straight to the Eye to be dealt with, and certainly won't hesitate to crack the whip on any snivelers as might get inklings of its own ideas.

"However, such ongoing breaches of the moratorium on incursions do not rise to the same level of departure from the faith and order of the Communion as does the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians."

To belabor the obvious: SEZ WHO????

****

Re "Kearon claimed that the communion’s ecumenical dialogues “are at the point of collapse”" (and @ M Reynolds):

While I am loathe to quote myself, 10 years ago I wrote in my dissertation (in ecumenics) "Ecumenism is what happens AFTER one (or more) parties have stormed out of the room."

So the RCC or EO reps would have gotten the vapors if we queer-lovin' Piskies had been at the table? Yes, and???

Hallelujah! That means Anglican/RC or Anglican/EO relations could finally BEGIN, not end. Reunions begin w/ anathemas... [See M. Scott Peck's ever-so-helpful book on community/communion, "The Different Drum". Like the Buddha (in the famous aphorism), "If you see PSEUDO-community on the road, KILL IT!"]

"Vatican II was to many an embarrassing eruption of Catholicity that the Imperially-inclined have been tirelessly and ruthlessly beating back and burning out ever since that unfortunate, aberrant display was finally over. It's taken a few decades, but the work of getting the thralls back in the galleys is nearly done. Soon the Roman Borg Hive-Mind will be back in seamless, top-down, procrustean regularity ready to return to the prime directive of assimilation."

Vatican II was an ecumenical council, an expression of the highest Church authority. Its implementation has been at the center of the work of all the popes since its conclusion.

Once again I have to ask a question of those who imagine some sort of suppression of Vatican II has occurred: In what particular? The teaching of Vatican II is no secret. It consists of hundreds of pages of constitutions, declarations and decrees. If you don't have a copy you can look at it here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

I would much appreciate it if you could let me know of any papal or curial deviations from the actual teaching of the Council, but with reference to the Council's actual teaching, not some imagined "spirit." And if you can't, I think some moderation of these characterizations of the Catholic clergy as Borg, imperial slave-masters, and Uruk Hai might be in order.

It seems to me that by pursuing full communion with other ecclesial bodies within the US ( and elsewhere) TEC is being more faithful to the future of the Anglican Communion articulated at Lambeth 1948 than the current "centralising" trends emanating from Canterbury and the ACC..ELCA and now the Moravians...perhaps other Lutheran bodies and the United Methodists might follow...building up a significant number of "reconciled" christians within liturgical and sacramental Churches.
ARCIC and the Orthodox dialogue has probably achieved all it can at the "full" anglican Communion level...more might actually be achieved in the future if, building on these dialogues, Anglican provinces developed or in many cases inaugurated bi-lateral dialogues...To take an african example..how much of a dialogue is in progress between Lutherans and Anglicans in Tanzania? a rather more useful exercise I would think than Tanzania getting mixed up in involved GAFCON.

"Vatican II was an ecumenical council, an expression of the highest Church authority. Its implementation has been at the center of the work of all the popes since its conclusion."

- Rick Allen, on Sunday -

Now Rick. Just sit down and compose yourself. Where have you been all this time? Have you not read of one instance where the explicitly liberal recommendations of Vatican II policy have been reneged on? Shame on you. Just think for a moment about the overturning of the movement towards inclusion of women's ministry in the Sanctuary.

I am reminded of a local R.C. priest's refusal to allow anyone - male or female - to take part in the Footwashing ceremony of Holy Thursday. This was in response to a Vatican edict forbidding women to take part in this liturgical action (part of VII's reform). Just imagine what this does for the dignity of women as bearers of the image and likeness of God! This is only one instance of the overturning of Good Pope John XXIII's reforms.

Well, TEC's ecumenical endeavors have borne fruit -- Old Catholics, Mar Thoma, ELCA Lutherans , Moravians, (Methodists are in the works) -- The WWAC? Not so much (nothing, actually ...)

Earth to Rick Allen: Where have you been for the last thirty-two years? The papacy of John Paul II and Joe (Benedict) Ratzinger have been NOTHING BUT A REPUDIATION of the teachings and spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Triumphalism, loss of the doctrine of shared power (Collegiality of bishops) and the move to stop even the discussion of mandatory celibacy and women priests and bishops are a small number of topic these two Bishops of Rome have killed. It's one thing to be a shill for the reactionary elements in Catholicism but your facetiousness is really too much. Grow up and tune into what has been happening on Planet Earth. Propaganda time is over. Time for some truth.

I have a copy, thanks. Perhaps the point is that an argument is openly, shamelessly and vigorously posited that there have been no papal or curial deviations from the actual teaching of the Council, and denigrates vague notions of some imagined "spirit."

I don't have time to go over the turn of the screw and the trajectory of the machinations of the Curia since JP2 was ordained, but if you would steadfastly hold that there has not been a reactionary thrust to the politics of the Roman Church over the last 30 years, then we don't share the same reality.

I will concede that the spin is plausible, analytical and very juridical - such parameters being congruent with the aims of a manageable and stabilizing religiosity, piety and rectitude, but which inconveniently are grave distortions that a rabble-rouser with no credentials or social capital scandalously and unjudiciously wound up getting killed for preaching against in Roman Judea about 2 millenia ago. So, perhaps it is wiser to go along with in order to get along with those who hold the best cards and who have the most chips.

I will say that for my part, if ecumenical discussions come at the price of becoming more Pharisaical, I'll forego the discussions.

I will also say that there are few in TEC that are particularly surprised by the cause and effect, per se. We are surprised and saddened at what the components and functions in the Black Box are turning out to be. That's all. We get what's happening and why; we get that there have been warnings. It has been confusing that certain other things have been tolerated. So, these have made some of our decisions more difficult to make.

But, I think most are convicted that we are in fact and in truth taking a stand that is congruent with the Gospels and we are willing to pay a price for our discipleship.

Rick Allen, I refer you to the five volume History of Vatican II published by the institute in Bologna in several languages and to the books and essays of such scholars as Nicholas Lash, Alberto Melloni and Massimo Faggioli (3 different generations), who show with full documentation how the Vatican have been reneging on Vatican II.

I don't think full integration of gays is a sticking-point in ecumenical relations. If ecumenism were a grass-level movement I think Romans and Anglicans would not be too far apart on this; but the curial repression of Catholic thought has created an artificial ecumenical hurdle. Reading just now a piece by Rowan Williams I was struck by his total acceptance of Auden's relationship with Chester Kallman: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1617. I thought of another couple, Britten and Pears, and of how different their relationship to the Church might have been if the Church could have blessed their union.

With reference to Luke Johnson -- I recall that Commonweal published a reply to his article by one Eve Tushnet. Today she turns up on Andrew Sullivan's page, as a sorry instance of what curial thinking does to the catholic mind: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/trying-to-live-benedicts-dogma.html

I always like to check to see if I've missed anything. I have been familiar with Vatican II for years, but of course haven't studied it with a fine tooth comb. So, again, I ask for any particular in which the action of a post-Vatican II pope has been out of step with the Council's teaching and I get:

"It's one thing to be a shill for the reactionary elements in Catholicism but your facetiousness is really too much. Grow up."

"I don't have time to go over the turn of the screw and the trajectory of the machinations of the Curia."

"Rick Allen, I refer you to the five volume History of Vatican II published by the institute in Bologna in several languages."

Well, I don't really have the time to pour over five volumes. I was just looking for a plain example, and, once again, even with a slew of responses, I come up blank.

The closest anyone came was to the refusal to ordain women. Did the Council address that issue? And the refusal to abandon the clerical discipline of celibacy, which, as I recall, the Council praised to the skies. Specific opposition between Council documents and papal action? Once more I come up empty-handed. It is apparently so obvious, so widespread, so deep, that no one can come up with a particular example.

I'm not even arguing the point. Just asking for even the smallest teaching of Vatican II to which a pope has said "Nope." And for asking the question I'm a reactionary shill.

Amazing, that it would be posited that a plausible solution to the "problem" of same-sex attraction and love would be to "fix" the body by surgically modifying and thus "aligning" the genitals into a heterosexual configuration with the orientation. Wow, a basic misunderstanding of sexual orientation versus gender identity. I think Ms. Tushnet et alter think they are the same.

The problem ultimately is a failure of empathy and compassion. There is a basic narcissism that the arbiter of acceptability is one's own reaction to the thought of or to the display of non-heterosexual attraction, affection and sex. It appears that walking a mile in the moccasins of the other has not even occurred, much less honestly and deeply reflected upon. No reflection that for most straight orientation comes in the mail with one's sex drive, unbidden and unchosen. The failure includes not reflecting that it could happen the same way for another but emerge, unbidden and unchosen, as oriented toward same-sex people, and that for these folk the feelings of disconnection and even so far as revulsion that straights may feel toward same-sex expressions of attraction, affection and love might just be felt by gay and lesbian people about opposite-sex attraction, affection and love.

No sense emerges that they have considered a scenario where they might be born as an opposite-sex-attracted deviant born into a hypothetical gay/lesbian society. No reflection that such a person could be perfectly happy with the sex of their own body at the same time. No reflection upon the pain that would be experienced. No reflection that they would be pressured to change their orientation to fit the needs of that society. No sense that they would quickly come to understand how miserable and how routinely doomed-to-fail, or that any "success" would be a pyrrhic victory of questionable validity.

I am straight. I have thought and felt through such a scenario. I would quite honestly fail to re-orient and would be subjected to all the costs of my "failure" in such an uncharitable, hypothetical society.

Such a scenario is unacceptable to me a Christian. For the Church to inflict such sorrow on fellow human beings is a non-option for me. I will take my lumps for this.

"The closest anyone came was to the refusal to ordain women. Did the Council address that issue? And the refusal to abandon the clerical discipline of celibacy, which, as I recall, the Council praised to the skies. Specific opposition between Council documents and papal action? Once more I come up empty-handed. It is apparently so obvious, so widespread, so deep, that no one can come up with a particular example."

I commend rick allen for his persistence in asking this factual question, which has received in reply nothing but obfuscatory rhetoric -- and on the part of Fr. O'Leary references to weighty tomes which supposedly unveil the "real meaning" of Vatican II as opposed to what its documents actually say (but, then, what else would one expect from someone with the moniker "Spirit of Vatican II?").

At least Fr. O'L, though, refers to a real world historical event, the Second Vatican Council -- as opposed to "Chris Smith" whose comments display little knowledge and less interest in that event, but only in his own fanciful notions about its decisions. So let me ask Mr. Smith -- have you read and studies the documents of Vatican II? Or are you simply calling a council of your own wits, and calling the fantasies which you have spun out of this solipsistic council "Vatican II?"

Perhaps it is time for TEC to play RWs global games, without forking over the money or letting his limited vision/mis-understandings of any number of alleged Anglican faith/order topics set limits on reaching out, connecting, and helping to fund real world service/witness initiatives.

We can be quite good Anglican citizens without joining in and submitting to RWs preferred police/punishment regimes. Got to be a lot more careful about that money ... no more funds to folks who will surely preach, before and after meeting with us, that queer folks got cooties and women, too, most likely?

"Vatican II was an ecumenical council...."
- Rick Allen

Ahem, no it wasn't. They only had Roman Catholics as full participants there. Best not to confuse a group that is merely one branch of the worldwide church with the whole thing.

When Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Copts (among others) all sit down in the same room as a church council then we will have an ecumenical council. Until then it is just the pretensions of Rome to be the whole of the body.

Rick Allen, if you don't have time to pore over the standard history of Vatican II, or even to read the incisive and entertaining pieces of Nicholas Lash, collected in Theology for Pilgrims, 2008, let me give one concrete example: Vatican II promoted the collegiality of bishops as a counter-weight to the unfinished Vatican I's one sided stress on the Papal Primacy. As a result episcopal conferences became a substantial theological voice within the Church, and a triennial Roman Synod of bishops was established as well.

After the reaction of episcopal conferences to Humanae Vitae in 1968 the Vatican started chipping away at the theological status of episcopal conferences (with Ratzinger's 1981 work Theologische Prinzipienlehre as the charter for this) and limiting their rights to give any substantial teaching (as is graphically outlined in an essay by Massimo Faggioli). Meanwhile, traditional customs in parts of Europe that made episcopal elections more participatory and democratic were systematically undercut by Rome, and even the practice of consulting the diocesan clergy became such as empty form that many priests no longer bother filling in the terna. More than at any point in history the appointment of bishops became a direct action of the Roman Curia. And they were appointed as ciphers in an ultramontane centralizing project. Many of these bishops turned out to be unworthy or incompetent, and the general level is far inferior to what it was in the 1970s. Hence we have the embarrassing spectacle of the English speaking bishops rubberstamping a fatally flawed translation of the liturgy in order to please the bureaucrats in Rome (who discover, after giving it their recognitio, that it is full of flaws -- not to worry, they will be corrected by an American monsignor in the Vatican...). Moreover, the triennial synod has been gutted, since the Pope rewrites its findings, as was fully documented in the case of the synod on marriage by a group of Leuven theologians.

"I view with equanimity the prospect of a thorough routing out of things at Rome. Not till some great convulsions take place, which may go on for years and years, will red-tapism go out of Rome and a better spirit come in, and Cardinals and Archbishops will have some fo the reality they had in the middle ages."

William Tighe, quis dixit?

"I'm not even arguing the point. Just asking for even the smallest teaching of Vatican II to which a pope has said "Nope." And for asking the question I'm a reactionary shill.

- Posted by: rick allen on Monday -

I sometimes wonder, Rick Allen, if you ever actually read any of the answers to your questions on this blog. If you had done so, you may have noticed my drawing attention to a little matter of the ministry of women in the sanctuary - in any capacity - servers, for instance. Also the embargo issued by the Vatican on women presenting themselves on Holy Thursday as candidates for the Foot-washing ceremony.

This may not seem much of a doctrinal turnaround to you, but I'm sure it means a great deal to the under-valued women of the Roman Catholic Church. This matter was drawn to my attention by the action of a local RC priest, who cancelled the Foot-washing ceremony in his parish, in sympathy with his female parishioners. No doubt, this would have led them to question the retrograde steps taken by the Pope - against the affirmative action of Vatican 2 towards women.

I wonder if you know anything about the number of Roman Catholic nuns who would dearly love to be able to have one of their own Sisters to preside at the Eucharistic Celebration - instead of having to await the infrequent Eucharistic ministry of their male priestly Visitor. These women spend 24 hours a day in the presence of God. Why should they have to await the ministry of a priest to share in the actual Celebration of the Mass?

Answer to my quote quiz: J. H. Newman, Nov. 1866 letter. He added: "We are shrinking into ourselves, trembling at freedom of thought". Quoted in N. Lash, Theology for Pilgrims.

"William Tighe, quis dixit?"

Dream on, Father. Meanwhile, "God bless the pope, the great, the good" -- and may his years exceed those of Leo XIII.

"Why should they have to await the ministry of a priest to share in the actual Celebration of the Mass?"

Why should I, for that matter? Or your own parishoners? Why shouldn't they be able to consecrate the host at home, instead of coming into your church? All good questions, I suppose, but irrelevant to what I was discussing, whether these things represent some sort of rolling back of Vatican II.

"you may have noticed my drawing attention to a little matter of the ministry of women in the sanctuary - in any capacity - servers, for instance." I did, but I don't know what the point was. I've been a member of five parishes, now, and every one has had female administrators, altar servers, eucharistic ministers, lectors, teachers, principals, catechists, directors of Christian education, members of parish and financial councils--maybe that's not so in your part of the world, but it certainly seems to be the norm everywhere I've been. Women, as I suppose you know, do not perform the sacerdotal functions of the clergy. You are quite free to disagree about that. What I don't understand is your conviction that that particular state of affairs offends against Vatican II. Again, if you could point me in the direction of any such statement I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I think you should refrain from claiming that the retention of the traditional form of the clergy represents some sort of papal revolt against the last ecumenical council.

SoVII, I had posted a long response to you last post, but apparently it was too long. I suppose it ran afoul of the 400 word limit rule. Another masterpiece lost in the black hole of cyberspace, I suppose.

Anyway, the gist of it was this. I don't say I agree with everything done by curia or pope. The discussion here was begun with my reacting to claims that the popes were dismantling Vatican II. You apparently said that they were doing so with respect to bishops' conferences. I cited in some detail the material on bishops' conferences from the third chapter Decree on bishops, and the language on the authority of bishops with respect to the bishop of Rome from teh third chapter of Lumen Gentium to suggest that, even if one disagreed with the pope's actions, none were in derogation of what was taught at Vatican II. If you can show me otherwise I'd appreciate it.

Again, you seem intent on arguing that the pope has done awful things, appointed crummy bishops, kept the (crummy) bishops from acting independently, etc. I'm only saying, "Fine. But how does that amount to subverting Vatican II?"

It seems to me, Rick Allen, that you have gotten stuck in your determination to defend the post-V.II inaction of subsequent popes towards the carrying out of the full intentions of V.II's intention to liberalise attitudes of the Church towards women in ministry. No matter how much we try to dialogue with you on this issue, you are obviously determined to insist that 'black-is-white' and vice-versa. There are none so blind as those will not see! May God restore your sight - in time for you to enter the realms of reality!

Vatican II promoted episcopal collegiality in an effort to counteract the papal monopoly of Vatican I.

Forty-five years later the papal monopoly is even more entrenched and the voice of bishops even more disregarded (for example in the issuance of the Motu Proprio restoring the Tridentine liturgy).

So in effect one of the main thrusts of Vatican II has been neutralized or actually reversed.

That is what people mean when they talk about "subversion".

That is why Ruggieri, a friend of the Pope, says: "The great struggle at the heart of the Church in the coming decades is the struggle for the Council" -- the struggle to sustain the program of reform that the Council initiated.

Nicholas Lash writes: "Powerful forces in the Vatican, unable to make a scholarly case for their Orwellian reinvention of what when on between 1962 and 1965 are reduced to having recourse to abuse and misinterpretation" in their panning of the History of Vatican II.

William Tighe -- it was not my dream but Newman's -- partly realized at Vatican II, and possibly realizable when Vatican II is rediscovered.

"V.II's intention to liberalise attitudes of the Church towards women in ministry."

Which is indicated where?

"There are none so blind as those will not see! May God restore your sight'

And may you enlighten me by letting me know where I should look in the documents of Vatican II for the expression of its intention to liberalize the Church's attitudes toward women in ministry.

"Vatican II promoted episcopal collegiality in an effort to counteract the papal monopoly of Vatican I."

Vatican II certainly did not "counteract" Vatican I. It specifically ratified and re-affirmed it:

"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful."

I don't know how much more explicit that could be.

"Forty-five years later the papal monopoly is even more entrenched"

This is a strange phrase to me: "papal monopoly"--Like Vatican II was supposed to engender papal competition?

The relationship of the bishops to the papacy is again set out fairly clearly in Lumen Gentium:

"the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head. This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ."

This is admittedly contrary to what many believe, or would prefer. But it is the teaching of Vatican II.

Of course Vatican II does not contradict Vatican I which it repeats in the passage you quote. It is COMPLEMENTARY to Vatican I, not CONTRADICTORY. You need to read the passages which counterbalance what you quote.

A papal MONOPOLY cannot be a healthy thing.

"The very ancient discipline whereby the bishops installed throughout the whole world lived in communion with one another and with the Roman Pontiff in a bond of unity, charity, and peace; likewise the holding of councils, in order to settle conjointly, in a decision rendered balanced and equitable by the advice of many, all questions of major importance; all this points clearly to the collegiate character and structure of the episcopal order, and the holding of ecumenical councils in the course of the centuries bears this out unmistakably."

I suggest that this collegiality has not been given adequate expression in the Church since Vatican II, since the Vatican have been far more anxious about papal than about episcopal authority, and have in effect whittled away the latter. As Bishop Geoffrey Robinson noted, this has now placed the Vatican in an impossible position. Claiming responsibility for the whole Church they have not been able to provide the leadership such responsibility entails (notable in regard to the abuse scandals; and one could add in regard to the Liturgy). A billion people cannot be well governed by one man and his court.

"A billion people cannot be well governed by one man and his court."

There I absolutely agree with you. Vatican II is quite clear that the authority of bishops is de divino, not some mere delegation of papal authority. And quite obviously the bishops do considerably more governing in the local church than the pope. The national bishops' conferences continue to set norms and policies, and so far as I can tell, the Synods of Bishops continue to meet at Rome.

That's not to say that the popes have always listened as they should, or that terrible errors in governance haven't been made. The continuing scandals associated with clerical sexual abuse provide "Exhibit A" for such failures. It is something that needs more serious attention from all levels of Church governance. The pope has to provide leadership, and exact consequences, but obviously he can't do it alone (or the head of Dottrina Fidei).

That said, I think, even granting the worst, there is a vast difference between a pope governing poorly and a pope subverting the norms of a general council. We can come to different judgements about whether the post-Vatican II popes have have done their jobs well or poorly. But I don't see how their actions have set anything in Vatican II aside, or subverted it. And the obligation to consult still entails the oblication to make an independent decision which may be different from advice received.

Like all texts, those of Vatican II require interpretation. Of course there will disagreements. What I find so discouraging is that those texts seem never to be referenced in these kinds of discussions. And we get the strange phenomenon of progressives praising Vatican II to the skies, and traditionalists excoriating it, while both seem to be oblivious to what it actually taught.

"However, he said that in the recent removal of Episcopal Church members from some Anglican Communion ecumenical dialogues “the aim has not been to get at the Episcopal Church, but to find room for others to remain as well as enabling as full a participation as possible for the Episcopal Church within the communion.”

- Canon Kearon's latest message to TEC -

As a priest in the Anglican Church of New Zealand, I am appalled at the crassness of this statement from Canon Kearon to TEC - as an invited guest. The lack of humility in his state-ment here would seem to exacerbate the tension in relationships between the Church of England and TEC - at a time when the C.of E.'s own strategy for mission is being questioned by the rest of the Anglican Communion, and even evident in the ethos of dissent at the General Synod towards the ABC's and the ABY's attempt to mollify the reactionary opponents of women's ministry by a block-buster amendment - which was denied validity

What Canon Kearon obviously has not realised, is that his un-diplomatic attempt to mollify TEC by trying to explain the dismissal of TEC's right to be representated as part of the Anglican Communion on ecumenical bodies, may just have backfired - bringing about a situation where TEC, justifiably, may no longer consider itself welcome as a working partner within the structure of the Communion - preferring its own ecumenical outreach to fellow Churches in America that share TEC's desire to share the Gospel with ALL people, regardless of gender or sexual-orientation.

For an official of the ACO to lecture TEC on its perceived call to ordain whom God is calling into ministry within it's own Provincial structure, is to try to assert an authority that is enuous, to say the very least. TEC, and some of the other Provinces of the Communion, are not of a mind to kowtow to magisterial rules within the Communion - especially on matters affecting what they see as the call of the Gospel to minister within the special context of their own situation.

To withhold Communion responsibilities from TEC, in order to support the prejudices of any other Province of the Church, is not an acceptable way of seeking Unity. Justice cannot simply support a policy of 'Unity at any Price' - where the cost is the integrity of participating Provinces. If Nigeria's membership is going to be at the cost of that of TEC or any other Province, then the way forward may be to disengage, in order to pursue the Gospel in separate contexts.

Kearon's strategy seems very like that of the 2 Provincial Abp.s of the C.of E., in their attempt to accommodate the anti-women-bishops Faction in the C.of E. - Appeasement of a prejudiced entity, in order to achieve a perennially combative state of 'Unity'. 'Unity' at the expense of Truth and Justice can never be a distinguishing feature of the Christian Church