The meeting of Executive Council in Portland has concluded with the release of a Letter to the Church. The text of the letter is available here ... and this ENS article offers a summary of the work of council and some of the discussion around the drafting of the March 4th letter. The Living Church also has an article ... here
- Another ENS article outlines the decisions made by Executive Council here ... including:
Authorizing the presiding officers of Executive Council to appoint a work group, chaired by House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson, to consider the role, responsibilities and potential response of the Council to the issues raised by the Primates communiqué and report to the Council's June meeting - Reaffirming equal human rights for homosexual persons. Completes Resolution A168 from GC 2006.
- Urging no future General Conventions in states that prohibit domestic partnerships.
- Urging asylum for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender refugees or advocates for their rights (where illegal), and aid in their resettlement.
5 comments:
As mat ters stand, the candidate venues for the next GC would seem to be Boston, Bridgeport, Asbury Park and Rutland.
Susan, where's the text where they come out against the Nigerian legislation? I can't seem to parse it among all the resolutions. But since even the UN and the Bush administration have done so, I'm sure our Exec. Council did too. Help a struggling newbie-Episcopalian here!
Susan, I know you were present for part of the session. Help me understand this, please.
In the light of the well-funded onslaught against our church -- in the face of the jihad against the gay and lesbian Christians in our church --and in view of the primates' assault against the fundamental structures of our church (attacked by the Primatial Council) ... are you really saying that the best the Executive Council -- all travelling to and meeting in Portland for three days -- could accomplish was to authorize creation of a "work group"??
I really cannot believe this is the best they could do. Please, please correct me!
Lisa -- It may well be the best the church could do at this time and in that place. And kudos to Bruce Garner for calling it to do better than it was tempted to settle for.
Susan---why no explicit condemnation of the Nigerian legislation? I get that the call for asylum for GBLTs is based on it, but why no mention of the reason behind that resolution?
I had counted on Executive Council to take that stand. I am appalled that neither +Katharine or +Rowan has done so to date---now it seems that EC has also dropped the ball.
I appreciate that some delicacy is called for in weighing how we should respond to the communique, but I am beginning to despair that anyone has the courage to stand up and say "This is wrong and we will not tolerate it." If we cannot say that about the Nigerian legislation, what CAN we say it about?!!!
And what possible justification can there be for keeping silent about it? The letter that went to the Nigerian legislature last week was signed by 250 religious leaders, including several of our own bishops---but it did not include +Katharine's name. Why not?
(Sorry if I seem strident, but this seems so clear-cut to me. If there are negative consequences to speaking out, it would seem to me to be a no-brainer to pay them...but maybe I'm missing something?)
Thanks,
Paige
Post a Comment