A Brief Note
Posted: 14 July 2009 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Moderator
Avatar
Total Posts:  78
Joined  2008-12-23

Alas, I got back to my room too late to blog coherently last night, and this morning D020 (my resolution on the Covenant) is being considered by Committee 8, so I want/need to be there.

The big news yesterday, of course, is that the House of Bishops concurred (essentially) with D025, and by a surprisingly (IMO) wide margin—something like 2:1. They did amend it, but the amendments are not substantive in either direction, nor are they clarifying, so I don’t anticipate it will have any trouble passing the HOD when it comes back.

What does this mean? It’s too early to tell, really. It’s being spun different ways. You already know my take. In the HOD, the President’s chancellor said during debate, “This does not repeal B033.” I know of at least one self-identified “conservative” deputy (not from a diocese known for being so) who voted Aye for that reason. In the HOB, there is a reported exchange between the Bishop of Kentucky and the Presiding Bishop to the same effect. I hope reactivity can be kept low. In any case, it’s not convention that decides to end a moratorium; it’s the Standing Committees and Bishops-with-jurisdiction who decide to do so by giving consent. Let’s see the big picture.
View the original post

Share on Facebook
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2009 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2009-01-31

Hi Dan, I lost a post somewhere so I’ll be short and sweet.  Perhaps someone (you?) could ask from the floor what the purpose of D025 really is, if not to repeal B033.  If its purpose is merely descriptive (as some are saying), then is it even “in order?”  GC is after all our legislative body.  What are we legislating in D025? Thanks.  Glad to hear you weren’t displeased with what happened to your resolution.

Share on Facebook
Profile