A weblog of The Living Church Foundation

stacks_image_AC887424-CEAC-428F-99AB-F2774632384B
stacks_image_3DE77F75-F39E-43E3-932A-7E8F5FA12CE1
Douglas LeBlanc's avatar
ACI: New Zealand and the Covenant

Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm
The relevant question is not “Is Paragraph 4.2.8 appropriate or lawful under the ACC constitution and UK law?” but rather “Is the standing committee of the ACC as governed by the ACC constitution and UK law legally permitted to perform the functions required of the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ as defined by Section 4 of the Covenant?”
Tags:

 Discuss this post

An excerpt:

The relevant question is not “Is Paragraph 4.2.8 appropriate or lawful under the ACC constitution and UK law?” but rather “Is the standing committee of the ACC as governed by the ACC constitution and UK law legally permitted to perform the functions required of the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ as defined by Section 4 of the Covenant?” The Covenant and the ACC constitution are independent documents. Neither is subordinate to the other. The ACC constitution can no more render “inappropriate” part of the Covenant than the Covenant can amend the ACC constitution. If the ACC standing committee cannot legally do what 4.2.8 requires, it cannot act as the committee defined by Section 4. But that does not make 4.2.8 inappropriate or unlawful; it merely disqualifies the ACC standing committee from serving as the Section 4 committee. Thus, the relevant legal advice is not on the question of the “appropriateness” of Paragraph 4.2.8; that is a question for the covenanting churches, not lawyers. The legal question is whether the ACC’s standing committee is disqualified from acting as the Standing Committee defined by Section 4 of the Covenant absent amendment to the ACC constitution.


The full text is here.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.    Facebook Favicon    Google Favicon    LinkedIn Favicon    Live Favicon    YahooMyWeb Favicon

Be First to Discuss    Printer-friendly version