father thorpus: day 8

Hi, Father WB.

Resolution A160 passed by 67.8%, expressing regret for
'straining' not 'breaching' the bonds of affection.

Resolution A161 sought to establish moratoria on new
bishops "whose manner of life may represent a
challenge to the Communion" (the Archbp. of York and
other voices from the wider communion have said this
language is too vague), and on same-sex
blessings/marriages. The committee's report said
[paraphrased] that there was a wide diversity of views
on the committee itself, that they had tried to
adherer to the Windsor Report, and they believe the
wider Communion will accept this language. This will
keep TEC in the dialogue, at the table, but not
passing it will threaten our status as part of the
communion. One lesbian committee member said she did
not like a lot of this resloution, but she was mindful
of the Archbishop of York's question, "where are the
marks of crucifixion?" We should "sacrifice" and
"stand down our call for justice" for the sake of
unity. This response creates space for further
conversation.

Debate was long and the HoDep had to adjourn for the
evening. Yesterday, Day 8, they took it up again in
the morning.

First, however, they wanted to get Beisner's consent
passed because it has been such a strain on him and
his family to wait for consent. he's the one who's
married for the third time. However, a motion was
made from the floor to suspend consent until after the
vote on A161, because Beisner might just be one of
those bishops "whose manner of life represents a
challenge to the wider communion." If we take that
seriously, said the deputy, we should wait on this
consent. The motion needed 2/3 to pass, passed with
67.4%.

so they went on to A161 again, this time allowing
procedural motions. Amendments and substitutions were
proposed, including one that was strictly Windsor
compliant. None passed. In the afternoon sesion they
finally voted on the language of A161 that came out of
committee, that which had swung way right after the
big hearing. The vote was by orders with a divided
delegation counting as a 'no'. Lay votes: yes 38, no
53, div. 15; that makes 38 yes vs. 68 no+div., motion
failed in the lay order. Cergy: 44 yes, 53 no, 14
divided; that's 44 yes, 67 no + div.; motion fails in
the clergy. This meant we had almost no response
whatsoever to the Windsor report's call for moratoria
-- quite literally, silence. '

Thropus +