wfn.org | ACNS Response to the Presidential Address by the Bishop of New

[Worldwide Faith News <wfn@igc.org>]

Westminster

ACNS 3134 - ACC12 - 17 September 2002

A Response to the Presidential Address by the Bishop of New Westminster

September 16th, 2002

I recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury's concern for the unity of the
Communion. Indeed I share it, along with all other bishops. I think he
sincerely believes his remarks today will further our unity. My expectation
is that they will do the opposite.

Is it an appropriate use of the Presidential office to comment on complex
matters in individual dioceses in highly selective ways? Is it ethical to
name individuals and personal situations in a primatial address of this
nature? Bishop Bennison of Pennsylvania and a priest whom he has disciplined
are both named today, yet neither the bishop nor the priest is here to
respond, and the Council itself has no access to the facts of the case.

His remarks about the Diocese of New Westminster fail to honour the careful
way both the synod and I have made decisions about the blessing of same-sex
unions. The archbishop refers selectively only to those clergy in rebellion
against their bishop and synod, and makes no mention of the pastoral
provisions made by the bishop and synod for those same clergy. This
oversimplification does a great disservice to truth, and to the great
majority of clergy and parishes - including the traditionalist ones - who
remain loyal to the bishop and synod.

It is not correct to say that New Westminster has acted "without regard to
the rest of us." In fact, the position of the bishops at Lambeth '98 has
constantly been before the diocese and its synod members. I have twice
withheld my consent to same-sex blessings in part because of the potential
impact on other areas of the Communion. However, bishops are responsible not
only to the Communion but to their own dioceses. Bishops in our province, as
in most, are elected by synods and are accountable to them, as well as to
each other. Lambeth resolutions are not binding on diocesan synods.

It remains to be seen what the Council wishes to do with the archbishop's
resolution on "deference to superior synods." The subordination of synods to
higher bodies is, in fact, a matter for provincial authorities to determine.
In any case, New Westminster has acted consistently within the legal and
canonical authority of a diocese within the Canadian church and in
deliberate consultation with its national House of Bishops and General
Synod.

We are of course not dealing simply with matters of constitutionality. There
are questions here about both unity and justice. Unity is not a matter of
uniformity. Nor can members of the Communion be compelled to act against
their conscience in matters of justice. The Diocese of New Westminster
believes that Christ died for all humanity, and that the unity of the church
cannot be built on unjust discrimination against minorities, such as
homosexual Christians.

I regret the archbishop's remarks today will confirm and deepen the
impression that he has not heard the cry of these, his own children in the
church. Until all voices are heard, the unity we all seek will remain
elusive.

_________________________________________________________
The ACNSlist is published by the Anglican Communion Office, London.

Please send QUESTIONS or COMMENTS to acnslist@anglicancommunion.org. Any 
comments about the content of the article should be directed to the author. 
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message, as any replies are discarded 
automatically.

You can subscribe/unsubscribe online at 
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/subscribe.html

ACNS mailing list