Comments: APO: Primatial Vicar proposed

What an elegant & appropriate arrangement.

Quick work too from the PB.

Nice one!

Posted by laurence at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 2:42pm GMT

Good...now more will be revealed and less concealed...TRUTH!

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 3:43pm GMT

Yet more playing nice.

I have the feeling this will end up in a boondogle.

Posted by John Robison at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 5:12pm GMT

Pity it has to come to this, but aces for style and a truly pastoral response to the situation. There's buy-in from the dioceses who are angry, there's still accountability to the PB...nicely done. Now, as Leo says, we'll see what's operating in the call for alpo.

Posted by Aaron at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 5:32pm GMT

Dead on arrival, if one reads the comments on Titus 1:9.

Recall +Jack Leo Iker's letter to +Peter Lee, Convener, in which he and +Bob Duncan notified the committee that they would not attend the November meeting of the group convened at the request of ++Cantuar. I am sure that +Jack Leo Iker and the usual suspects were aware that some kind of compromise solution was being devised.

There is no compromise for folks like +Jack Leo Iker, as long as they feel that they have the support of the self-appointed Primate and Metropolitan of the GS and the Anglican Communion-to-be, the egomaniac of ++Abuja!

Posted by John Henry at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 6:17pm GMT

Good on all the players for this one, including Schori.

John Henry, I looked up Titus 1:9, it was rather fun to go on a read 1:10-11 too :-)

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 7:07pm GMT

What John Henry said: I don't see this being acceptable to "the petitioners".

"2. The Primatial Vicar would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and would report to an Advisory Panel that would consist of the designee of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop’s designee, a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the petitioning dioceses, and the President of the House of Deputies (or designee)."

Those terms "accountable" and "would report to" are KEY.

I believe that the petitioners would want "their Primate" to, AT MOST, "report to" ANYONE connected to (the democratic majority of) TEC, including the PB. The petitioners want their primate to be, primarily, "accountable" to *themselves* [w/ a some cover supplied by the Primates---that is, the Primates that, again, THEY choose (as "orthodox" enough)!]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 7:21pm GMT

It seems to me that the voluntary absence of +Iker and +Duncan made an agreement possible. +Iker had already ruled out any solution which had ++KJS appointing anyone.

It's those girl cooties, you know.

Posted by ruidh at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 9:31pm GMT

I think what makes this a brilliant move is that it provides a framework for the ABC to decline to directly accede to the request for alternative primatial oversight, having bought into this compromise solution.

I echo the previous comments. Nicely done.

Posted by Lou Poulain at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 9:37pm GMT

Of course this proposal will not be accepted. Nor will any other less than a complete handover to the vocal minority of every last bit of TEC property, including the rapidly decreasing value of the local Anglican franchise. If this were about theology, they would have shaken the dust off their feet long ago and left for purer pastures.

The reasserter blogosphere will, of course, continue to holler “bloody murder” long and loud, pausing from pounding its indignant keyboard only long enough to go out on the porch in its bathrobe and yell at the neighbor kids to get off its damn lawn. But that is simply sound and fury covering –- sometimes unwittingly -- the machinations of the neoconservative “hard men” making one more move on the chessboard of their authoritarian agenda.

Posted by William at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 9:56pm GMT

Well, like any good political compromise, each party must give something such that none are exactly happy, but all sacrifice for the greater good....

Posted by Ron at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 10:55pm GMT

Another good reason for supporting women as priests! Gestation bares unexpected olive branches! Historically assertive women have learned the "ropes" of the "orthodox" the hard way, through broken promises and covert agendas.
PB Schori obviously knows her God and the collars that think she'll be timid among the other gender are in for a fun spin.

Posted by Deborah Sproule at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 11:02pm GMT

The petitioners will reject this because they know that the PB will appoint someone who any reasonable person would agree should be acceptable to them theologically but who is faithful to the Episcopal Church. Since this won't advance their agenda to appear to be forced out of the church by intractable liberals, they will find themselves having to explain why someone who is otherwise their ally is unacceptable to them as a Primatial Vicar. Now let's hope the ABC buys into this reasonable (and generous) compromise.

Posted by Mark at Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 11:54pm GMT

Somehow I think PB Schori's political acumen may come more from her experience of dealing with the politics of academia than childbirth. Where ever it comes from she obviously knows how to play the game. Note, for example, that she is supposed to consult with Archbishop Williams in appointing the Primatial Vicar. The solution reiterates that she's the boss, but also provides a reason (in the form of the consultation with Canterbury) for observers to expect that the person appointed would take good care of the conservatives and not push them harder than they could stand to be pushed. It does the same sort of thing with respect to the Constitution and Canons of TEC.

If there is significant buy in by the various Primates of the Communion (and it's sufficiently reasonable to make that plausible) the conservatives may find themselves stuck having to behave like reasonable participants in the ecclesio-political processes of the Communion.

Jon

Posted by Jon at Friday, 1 December 2006 at 1:40am GMT

Marks comment above is absolute genius and should be required reading for all, beginning with this statement" "The petitioners will reject this because they know that the PB will appoint someone who any reasonable person would agree should be acceptable to them theologically but who is faithful to the Episcopal Church."

Perfect!

Posted by Dallas Bob at Friday, 1 December 2006 at 3:01pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.