By its very name, and from its inception, this site is "pro-Covenant." The arguments pro and con are generally familiar at this point in the process. Those who oppose it invariably adduce arguments that end in something like "it concentrates curial-like authority in that hands of a few leaders from foreign countries, and is nothing more than a punitive instrument." Blogger Matthew Duckett offers something other than the usual fare, however. He critiques the Covenant (which at this point is between Mexico and Southern Africa, as those are the two provinces that have thus far bound themselves to it) on its own terms--that is, catholic ecclesiology. It seems worth both a read and response.

Go here for the whole thing, but here's the "money quote":

The Covenant is a confused document. It incoherently references different ecclesiologies, but its overwhelming tenor and direction is Protestant. The statement in 2.1.2 that Anglican churches have been “reshaped” by the Reformation is a worrying clue to this. In May 2008 Cardinal Kasper called on the Anglican Communion to decide whether it belonged to the church of the first millennium or to the Protestant Reformation. The repercussions of the possible answers to that are of course very much still with us. But the Covenant, insofar as it is clear at all, points to an answer which Catholics will find very difficult to accept.