11/25/2006

So, Does Anyone Know?

I've heard no report that the gang from the Global South Steering Committee invited by the Presiding Bishop to meet with her actually did meet her.

I've heard nothing about a meeting between the Global South Steering Committee bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Perhaps it was not a happy meeting - the meeting between the Global South gang and the Realignment crowd.

Perhaps the GSSC folk were just too busy to meet with Presiding Bishop Katharine.

Perhaps the Archbishop found Rome more attractive than meeting with them.

But, who knows?

20 comments:

  1. The recipients of the new PB's publicly released "letter" have written to her privately, as is appropriate.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would that be the letter that was in response to +Schofield's publicly-released letter declaring the Episcopal Church apostate and unworthy of the Diocese of San Joaquin's membership?

    I'll admit, I'd want to take the letter writing private after that initial exchange myself. Clearly this PB is not going to let such public blustering pass uncommented.

    ReplyDelete
  3. babyblue...I didn't ask about letters. I asked whether anyone knew if some of them met with the PB. Do you know that they have actually written privately or otherwise?

    Hope you are well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The recipients of the new PB's publicly released "letter" have written to her privately, as is appropriate" BB

    NOW BB all-knowingly decrees how/what it/is "appropriate" when "reacting/rsvp-ing" to a friendly and OPEN "invitation" from one Primate to fellow Primates?

    I better re-check my Anglicano "Hostess with the Mostess" and "Miss Know-it-all" guides to "Behind-The-Scenes Puritianical Living/Schmoozing" for what is "truly correct" amongst the act *as if* you know stuff that you don't know crowd.

    Por favor, do you know anything or not BB?

    ReplyDelete
  5. BabyBlue said...

    The recipients of the new PB's publicly released "letter" have written to her privately, as is appropriate.


    So, I guess BabyBlue was involved in the writing process, as apparently she know exactly what happened...

    BB, could you tell us what was their answer?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill Carroll25/11/06 8:24 PM

    She confronted public acts of schism publicly. Seems appropriate to me. Especially given the gentle tone of the letter. If she had the kind of primatial authority conservatives seem to long for, how might she have responded? As it was, she gave her brother in Christ some pastoral advice, which is her privilege and duty. To do it privately would invite speculation about what she had said to him. Now the world knows. I assume that attempts have already been made to reach out to Bishop Schofield, et al, in some cases for decades. Now it is time to state things openly. There is nothing for her to be ashamed of. She is presiding, which is what she was elected to do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, my family had its annual "Gingerbread House Making Party today" and am now back home. Yes, the primates who were the recipients of the new PB's letter have written to her privately in response to her letter. That the PB hasn't released their private letters to her sounds like she's either realized that it's bad form to release personal letters to bishops and archbishops to the media or she is conferring with her media team for the next round.

    There is appropriate methods of communication between bishops and archbishops and it's not done through the media.

    Issuing "Open Letters" is a political act, not a diplomatic one. One learns that early here in DC. When one begins to engage in political acts over diplomatic acts, it usually means that the situation is deteriorating.

    bb

    PS Thanks, Mark, for the kind greeting. I do enjoy reading your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But bb, if it was a private letter, how would _you_ know about it? Where do _you_ get your information?

    susan s.

    ReplyDelete
  9. babyblue...thanks for the clarification of your understanding that letters back have been sent. Public or private, at least the GS Steering Committee carried through with their promise.

    Anonymous... I am glad bb shared this information. I too whould like more info, but how she go it is her business and revealing that might be politically or morally out of bounds, or both. That she shared the info and states that she knows it is true is enough for the moment. It will all unfold in its own time.

    I gather bb that correspondence is it...no actual meeting.

    Meanwhile...who gets to eat the Gingerbread House when it is finished?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Global South primates' intent to reply privately to the Presiding Bishop is a statement they made publicly some time ago.

    It may be read at the Global South website at

    http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/a_statement_by_the_global_south_steering_committee_on_consultations_apo/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Issuing "Open Letters" is a political act, not a diplomatic one.

    And the actions of the shismatic fundamentalists have been classic Atwater/Rove wedge politics from the very beginning, which is not surprising, actually, considering where they get their funding.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Bad Form"...many think it's "bad form" from the Global South Primates side of this rudely cloaked silliness:

    http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002036.html#comments

    A OPEN INVITATION remains an OPEN invitation no matter how you care to blur/smug it into being *inappropriate* in Washington D.C. or anywhere else!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bill C.--This isn't about the Schofield correspondence; it is about KJS's open letter to the primates recently in VA, inviting them to "pay a call" on her in NY. People like Baby Blue, who are tuned in to protocol, have pointed out that an open letter in a tense time is no way to get positive things done.

    Thanks Mark, for your tone of spirit with BB. We could use a lot more of that. Your example compelled me to rewrite my opening above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am grateful to PB Katharine for making her letter to the GS primates an open one. There has been much too much "privacy" (read "secrecy" and "only those who have the right theological or other credentials") surrounding the many meetings designed to determine our (TEC) future and I quite frankly don't like secret meetings or "private" correspondence that has to do with decisions that effect me and those I serve.
    The Rev. Lois Keen
    Priest

    ReplyDelete
  15. Open letters in a tense time are exactly what are needed. If she didn't release such letters, then she would be criticized for not doing enough to meet with them. Secrecy is where lies fester. More openness fom our leaders!

    ReplyDelete
  16. A "open letter" is a letter intended for a wide audience...political or not, ready or not!

    "Many of the epistles of the Bible are open letters"

    The Primates visit to Virginia was announced to a "wide audience" or did they send a special private letter announcing their arrival to ++Katharine?

    Perhaps she was responding in "kind".

    Protocol? You must be kidding.

    Some of these "Primates" are seeminly void of everyday manners and unaware of basic HUMAN RIGHTS issues.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Babyblue,

    Tell me, what exactly would you expect the ever imperial ++Peter Akinola to say if ++Katherine were to show up in Nigeria and undertake liturgical acts or meetings with his bishops without permission? Here is the simple fact, the non-global South and the Network bishops not only acted very badly, they made the claim that any of them are "windsor compliant" an outright joke.

    ++Katherine is the public leader of a church that unlike the non-global Southern imperialists, elects its leader. She simply could not ignore the deliberate, nasty, insulting conduct of the non-globalists. They had by canon back to Nicea, Anglican rule back to the first Lambeth, and the (sacred to conservatives) Windsor report, no business being where they were, doing what they were doing while ignoring her office.

    An open letter, and a mild innofensive one at that, is far and away the mildest thing she could do.

    Here is what really offends you, and the schismatics. She responded to outrageous insult with the mild, outreach of a Christian turning the other cheek. And, as the Scripture promised, that burned them with "coals of fire" ignited by the reality of their bad conduct.

    Imagine a mere woman quietly making what they really are, men concerned with their position and power and not the minestry they were called to, visible and obvious. No wonder they were upset!

    Way to go ++Katherine!

    FWIW
    jimB

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well said, jimB! It appears our prayers for clarity and a path forward are being answered -- on both sides of the issue.

    I do love the image of +KJS going to Nigeria and bishoping around. She has far too much class to do so, but it would be fun to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  19. On another note, Mark, you must be very proud of Lisa Fox and her rumor-mongering. It's nice to see that the "Episcopal Majority" (your side) has such class. She is, after all, one that you associate with. And charity does not seem to be a strong point of hers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "On another note, Mark, you must be very proud of Lisa Fox and her rumor-mongering. It's nice to see that the "Episcopal Majority" (your side) has such class. She is, after all, one that you associate with. And charity does not seem to be a strong point of hers." Anonymous

    Dear Anonymous, what kind of classless coward are you?

    Are you the sneaky/closeted bigot or the out and out nameless spewing and snarling hate and feardriven selfrighteous type?

    Is it your intention to rub the Network Bishops NOSE in his self-imposed-shame? Or, are you just pissed that many people noticed his hidden reality and consider it "applicable" to the conversation against LGBT people at all levels of OUR Church life?

    Knock it off, facing his personal "orientation" is his own responsiblity/business and his "celibacy" is between him and God too(as is the case with many Heterosexual or Homosexual Priests, Canons, Bishops even if you prefer to not think about REAL people and their real sexual orientations and TRUTH).

    Adults and emotionally healthy Christians discuss REAL moral issues/challenges out in the open and don't lurk and hide before God and his people.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.