The Report of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

The report of ECUSA's Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion was released on April 7, 2006, and is available in pdf format on the ECUSA web site here.

A very good analysis by the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner has been posted here on Titusonenine and is now also here on  the Anglican Communion Institute's web site.

I have attempted below to compare the specific draft resolutions in the report of the Special Commission (SCECAC) dealing with expressions of regret and moratoria (or not) with the corresponding provisions of the Windsor Report.

Expressions of regret for election and consecration: In paragraph 134 of the WR, ECUSA is invited “to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed.” The draft SCECAC resolutions would express regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to actions at GC2003 (A160) and regret for the extent to which General Convention contributed to strains on communion and caused offense “as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union” (A161). Repentance would be expressed only for the failure to consult adequately before taking the actions (A160).

Expressions of regret for authorizing public rites of blessing of same sex unions: In paragraph 144 of the WR, the bishops who have authorized public rites of blessing of same sex unions are invited “to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.” SCECAC draft resolution A162 (last paragraph) would call for expressions of regret only by bishops who have authorized public diocesan rites. Apparently a bishop who authorizes or permits priests to utilize rites that do not follow a prescribed diocesan form would not be included in the call to apologize. This corresponds to the apparent intent, referred to below, to have local option on same sex blessings so long as not officially “authorized.”

Moratorium on Consecrations: In paragraph 134 of the WR, ECUSA is invited “to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” SCECAC draft resolution A161 would not effect a moratorium but rather urge the exercise of “very considerable caution.” Moreover, the object of the exercise of caution would not be consecrations of persons in same gender unions specifically, but a more ill-defined category of persons “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” The commentary accompanying draft resolution A161 says that what constitutes such a manner of life would be left to the prayerful discernment of those involved in nominating, electing and consecrating bishops. As a result, there would be two levels of discretion to be exercised (at the diocesan or provincial level), as distinguished from a moratorium. First, there would be discretion in the determination whether the candidate’s manner of life presented a challenge to the wider church leading to further strains on communion. Second, even if it were concluded that the candidate’s manner of life did present such a challenge, the requirement would be only to exercise “very considerable caution.” (Interestingly, “very considerable caution” is used one place in the WR: paragraph 133, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury is urged to exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting the Bishop of New Hampshire to the councils of the Communion.) Finally, the evaluation of the propriety of a consecration in terms of whether the wider church would be “challenged,” as opposed to the more specific and theologically grounded reasons recognized in the Windsor Report, seems suggestive of the attitude that objections will result when the wider church is not up to the challenge. (Cf., Bishop Griswold’s comments, as recently as the announcement of the membership of the special legislative committee, to the effect that ECUSA’s actions followed a 40-year process while in offended provinces issues of human sexuality were discussed, if at all, only behind closed doors, and that criticism of the General Convention’s decisions resulted from the awkwardness of varying degrees that often surrounds conversations about sexuality.)

Moratorium on Public Rites of Blessing: Paragraph 144 of the WR calls for a moratorium on all public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions and recommends “that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion” in the matter of such Rites. SCECAC draft resolution A162 would not provide for a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions as WR 144 calls for, but would urge only a suspension of the authorization of such Rites. As Ephraim Radner notes, the SCECAC report seems to be putting forward an invitation to local option for same sex blessings, at least as long as they take place permissively without express authorization. Another paragraph in A162 affirms the need for a breadth of private responses in cases of individual pastoral care involving gays and lesbians, with WR paragraph 143 cited in support. The juxtaposition is suggestive that private blessings are envisioned. However WR paragraph 143 refers to a “breadth of response” as recognized in True Union in the Body, in which it seems clear that private blessings of same sex unions are not within the scope of the pastoral responses contemplated.

Comments

[Matt Kennedy+]

Great stuff Mike. I would ask how you see the Dromantine Communique fitting into this picture?

[Mike Watson]

Thanks, Matt. Here, I was attempting the limited task of a comparison of specific proposed resolutions with the directly corresponding paragraphs of the WR. I don't believe that the Dromantine Communique significantly altered these requests. (I'm not covering the boundary crossing issue here.) If anything, the DC in para. 18 affirmed the need for a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions (not just "authorized" rites) and the consecration of bishops living in relationships outside of marriage. Another observation would be that under DC para. 13, the time for completion of consideration of the WR's recommendations in accordance with its consititutional processes is at hand.

[Creighton+]

Thanks Mike. Good work.