|
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3732 Posted by David Virtue on 2006/3/10 7:30:00 LONDON: Hopes fade for mediating role of Panel of Reference Church of England Newspaper March 10, 2006
Hopes that the Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference can find a way through the fractious dispute over homosexuality are fading.
Canadian traditionalists this week accused the Panel's staff of bias and bureaucratic delay. Cheryl Chang, Executive Director of the Anglican Network in Canada [ANiC] told The Church of England Newspaper that the failure to provide safeguards for petitioners seeking alternative episcopal oversight, "is discouraging to parishes who are trying to work in the process called for by the Primates and established" by Archbishop Rowan Williams.
The Panel was created by Dr Williams after the February 2005 Primates' Meeting in Northern Ireland to offer mediation and guidance to "certain parishes" that "have been unwilling to accept the direct oversight of their diocesan bishops" for reasons of conscience. However, the Panel process has already drawn criticism from the Primates of the Anglican Communion for its dilatory pace.
Participants in the Panel process now tell The Church of England Newspaper that the structure of the process is flawed and have alleged bias by the Panel staff.
In early October 2005, ANiC filed a petition on behalf of 11 New Westminster parishes seeking alternative oversight. But Dr Brian Hanson, who staffs the panel, told the ANiC that it could not be a 'plaintiff' and asked for the names of clergy and congregations that sought oversight.
The group responded that they were unwilling to list names for fear of retribution. Their fears, it seems, were well founded when on October 11, New Westminster's diocesan council passed a resolution defining ANiC as a group "outside the structures" of the Church that sought to "promote an alternate Anglican structure in Canada". Bishop Michael Ingham subsequently fired one priest for joining the ANiC, Ms Chang claimed, and the Panel "can provide no protection from punitive actions from the diocese".
Hanson told Ms Chang that fear of retaliation was not an acceptable excuse. ANiC offered to amend its petition, listing Ms Chang and retired Bishop Don Harvey as petitioners. Panel Chairman, Archbishop Peter Carnley rejected this compromise and Ms Chang was told on March 6 that unless the petition was amended, "We won't allow it to go forward". Ms Chang said that four parish councils have agreed to stand behind the complaint and will submit their names as "plaintiffs". However, "the true plaintiff is the Network," she argued.
Ms Chang also claimed that the Panel was biased. She said that Dr Hanson's distillation of the 66-page submission to a single page was "something that could have been written by the New Westminster diocesan staff".
The quasi-legal language used by the Panel was also discouraging, Ms Chang said. "This is not a trial," she said. "We are not accusing anyone or seeking guilt or innocence," she explained, "we are seeking alternate oversight".
END
2b) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/index.cfm The Anglican Communion Official Website Panel of Reference The Panel of Reference, established by Archbishop Rowan Williams in response to the request of the Primates and Moderators of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion in their Communiqué issued from Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in February 2005, met in London from Tuesday, 12th - Thursday, 14th July 2005(...) Members of the Panel of Reference Chairman: The Most Revd Dr Peter Carnley Retired Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia
Members: His Honour Michael Evans, QC (QC - Queen's Counsel) Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Governing Body of the Church in Wales
The Revd Dr Joseph Galgalo Lecturer in Systematic and Contextual Theologies,St Paul's United Theological College, Limuru, Kenya
Mr Bernard Georges Chancellor of the Province of the Indian Ocean
The Rt Revd Khotso Makhulu, CMG (CMG - Companion (of the order) of St Michael and St George) former Primate of Central Africa
The Revd Canon John Moore former International Director of the Intercontinental Church Society (ICS)
Mrs Rubie Nottage Chancellor of the Province of the West Indies
The Rt Revd Claude Payne former Bishop of Texas
The Rt Revd Dr John Sentamu Bishop of Birmingham
The Rt Revd Maurice Sinclair former Primate of the Southern Cone
Mr Robert Tong Member, Church Law Commission, Anglican Church of Australia and Chairman of the Council of the Anglican Church League, Australia
The Revd Stephen Trott Church Commissioner, the Church of England
Ms Fung Yi Wong Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council
The Panel will be supported by Canon Gregory Cameron (Deputy Secretary General, Anglican Communion Office) as Secretary, and Canon John Rees (Legal Adviser, Anglican Consultative Council) as Legal Adviser, assisted by a senior member of Lambeth Palace staff in a liaison role for the Archbishop of Canterbury, together with other administrative support as required.
2c) http://andrewcarey.classicalanglican.net/?p=41 Rumours abound about the panel of reference May 10th 2005 Andrew Carey (10 months later) The Archbishop of Canterbury's panel of reference set up primarily to help broker satisfactory episcopal oversight for beleaguered North American parishes has been a long time in coming. I understand an announcement is about to be made. Rumours abound that the Primate of Australia, Peter Carnley, is to head up the Panel. Although he's known as a liberal, conservatives should not necessarily throw their hands up in despair. In my experience he is a fair-minded person. He was the main drafter behind the Dromantine communique. He will also be taken seriously by liberal bishops.
The urgent questions are these. Firstly, how come it took so long to set up a panel of reference, when the need is so urgent? While negotiations have been going on to bring it into existence, hundreds of applications have mounted up. Some parishes can now no longer benefit.
Who else is on the Panel of Reference? The membership is clearly important. It has to have the confidence of both sides in this crisis, and clearly the mainstream Anglican voice should be predominant.
How is the Panel to be staffed? It will not do just to co-opt an ACC staffer and hope to wing it. A great deal of work needs to be done immediately and urgently(...)
2d) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1646759,00.html The Times June 09, 2005 (9 months later) Church appoints tribunal to bring peace on gay row By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, appointed an international tribunal of clergy, lay theologians and lawyers yesterday to help to bring peace to the Church's long-running dispute over homosexuality(...)
Dr Chris Sugden, a director of Anglican Mainstream, the international body of orthodox Anglicans, said that the panel would help the Church to remain in one piece until the gay dispute was resolved at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the ten-yearly meeting of bishops and archbishops.
"It is an emergency protection," he said. "Many of our churches are bleeding. People are saying they cannot remain members of the churches in the US and Canada while this is going on. It includes at least two people who are openly sympathetic to the conservative position."
A further five members are also understood to be from the Church's evangelical wing, giving conservatives an overall majority. Dr Sugden said: "The acid test for the panel will be whether the protection it offers proves adequate for those who are being harassed, oppressed and forced to leave their jobs and their churches. Only time will tell whether the panel is able to pass this test(...)
2e) http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2471 Posted by David Virtue on 2005/5/16 19:20:00 (10 months later) CHOICE OF CARNLEY SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR COMMUNION News Analysis By David W. Virtue
The choice of retiring Australian Archbishop Peter Carnley to head the "Panel of Reference" created by Archbishop Rowan Williams response to the request of the Primates Meeting last February in Dromantine, Ireland shows nothing but contempt for the Anglican Communion(...)
2f) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/00/acns3948.cfm ACNS 3948 | ACO | 24 FEBRUARY 2005 (almost 13 months later) The Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting Communiqué, February 2005 (...)15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates' Statement of October 2003 (xii).(....) xi) The Windsor Report, paragraphs 124 - 132. xii) " … we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates."
3) http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/03/11/1482434.html Canada too permissive on abortion By MICHAEL COREN Toronto Sun Saturday, March 11, 2006 Last week, several days after Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated that he would not reopen the abortion debate, the governor of South Dakota signed legislation that would ban almost all abortions in that state.
Many other jurisdictions in the U.S. are discussing limitations and bans. Even in liberal Europe, there is no country with such a permissive attitude towards abortion as Canada.
Which should oblige us all to analyze our position on this life-and-death issue. Once again, I state clearly and loudly that I am pro-life. As to why, here is just a sample of reasons.
The proposition that abortion is acceptable because a woman can do what she likes with her own body is absurd. The inherent assumption is flawed, in that a woman cannot do what she wants with her body. She cannot, for example, sell her organs for transplant purposes or obstruct the public way.
Further, the argument is not about what she can or cannot do with her own body because it is not just her body that is involved. Within her is an unborn child, unique at conception and a distinct character and soul. If the contents of her womb were mere tissue, there would be no discussion.
But no mother ever tells people with delight that she "felt the tissue kick today" or announces that she has chosen a name for her tissue. Nor does she speak of her "fetus." It's a baby. It is referred to as a fetus by pro-abortionists because it's easier to kill what one has dehumanized.
We invariably hear people who favour what they describe as "choice" say they would prefer there to be fewer abortions. Yet if abortion is merely the removal of tissue without any moral or emotional consequences there is no reason for there to be fewer of them.
We deny, we disguise, we kill. Clearly, it is a life. A life whose sex can be determined even before implantation, a life which at 17 days has its own blood cells, which two days later is developing eyes and the day after has an entire nervous system established.
A life that at 28 days is forming arms and legs, at 30 days is developing ears and nose and at 49 days is a miniature person with complete fingers and toes.
So convinced are we now that this is a genuine life that in Britain some pro-abortion doctors want anesthetic to be administered to unborn babies before the procedure. In Canada, however, medics who object to performing abortions risk losing their jobs. Several have already paid that price.
This has nothing to do with so-called unwanted babies. There are legions of couples who want to adopt children. Even if there weren't, we still do not have the right to take an innocent life simply because we are larger and more powerful. That is the style of the thug and the fascist.
Nor is there a population problem. In fact, Europe and North America have a crisis of under-population. Where starvation occurs, it is the fault of the greedy West rather than the over-populated developing world. Again, even if there were a problem, it would not give us the right to kill.
We have to provide care and help for mothers in need and guarantee community support for children from conception to birth to adulthood to death. We have to know that the human person, which should be at its safest in the womb, is now, obscenely, at its most vulnerable.
God forgive us. And God change the minds and hearts of our politicians. ************************* o You can e-mail Michael Coren through his website, http://www.michaelcoren.com
o Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to editor@tor.sunpub.com
Next Ed-Mail Same-sex Blessings |