TLC:  Dissenting Bishops Issue ‘Anaheim Statement’

Sorry, anyone who voted in favor of either resolution abandoned the communion of the Communion.  There is no excuse for even allowing them to sign.  They have broken faith with the Church, and with their fellow bishops.

Perhaps, however, we should leave their fate up to Integrity.  They stand convicted hypocrites to both sides.

Who voted for D025 and/or C056 AND signed the Annaheim Statement?  I looked on line and cannot find right off the list of votes.

I guess in the bizarro world of TEC, you call this kind of thing “living in the tension,” but I call it hypocrisy.  Do not eviscerate B033 with your votes. . .and then sign a statement authored by and for those who dissented from the actions of GC.  The Church is not served well by this behavior.  Let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No.”

#1 and #2, I agree with you both. But constant exposure to the Episcopal Church ‘moderates’ can cause a cynicism overdose. The mostly likely cause is that the bishops who voted for gay marriages etc and signed off on the Anaheim declaration are trying to have it both ways.

There’s a good chance that their votes will go under the radar both at home and abroad. If the votes get noticed, then they can hold up their signatures and attempt to change the subject. That way they get to have their cake and eat it too.

I would love to hear Sarah’s reaction to Henderson signing this after voting Yea.

I thought only dogs licked the hand that beats them!

Sloan of Alabama voted yes on both and signed the statement.  Parsely voted no on D025, but I think yes on C056 (he at least supported it in committee) and signed the statement.  They will both be hearing from me when they get back to Birmingham!

Someone can doublecheck, but IIRC, the following five bishops fall in the hypocritical category of voting for the outrageous pro-gay resolutions yet wanting to assert their commitment to walking with the AC instead of apart.

The five doubletalking bishops I spotted are:
+F. Brookhart, Montana
+D. Henderson, Upper SC
+D. Johnson, W. TN
+H. Parsley, AL
+P. Whalon, Europe

David Handy+

Exactly Matthew A (formerly mousestalker)#3. They are trying to have their cake and eat it to. I hope that their congregants in their diocese call them on this upon their return and I hope and pray tat the ABofC and the Instruments of Unity see this for what it truly is hypocrisy, fraudulent, deceitful, and disingenuous..

I think voting for the resolution, and then signing this, is worse than having voted and not signed.  It speaks volumes.

Wasn’t Dorsey Henderson the one who came up with the goofy language about how it’s a “mystery” who is called to serve?  That was the “compromise” that got through, if I remember correctly.

This is a bold statement to turn back the clock on Episcopal revisionism, about five days or so.

If it’s anything more than that, show me with actions. Until then, very unimpressive.

This is only so they can claim “we were only following orders” when the day of judgment comes.

Who is the guy from New Jersey?  He’d better hire a food taster before he heads back home.

Fr. Handy,
I think that +Romero might be a part of your list as well.

Some of these bishops, such as +Howe, +Beckwith, +Love, and I don’t know who else are not doubletalking, voted no on the whole kit and kaboodle.  But I don’t think it’s going to do them any good.  Do they think, should the rest of the Anglican Communion decide to separate from TEC, they will be named individually to remain in communion?  Is that possible?

Fr. Handy he is The Rt. Rev Sylestre Romero, Assistant—New Jersey. Formerly the Interim Bishop Of El Camino Real before Gray-Reeves was elected.

Goughdonna,
your question is a very good one. I do not see how anyone like these good and godly men like +Beckwith and +Love could honestly think that they remaining in a Province that has just gone off the deep end and walked away from the WWAC and the Instruments of Unity would get a pass to stay in said Province and yet still be in the AC. To me that is another having of ones cake and eating it too.

#4 - I would love to have a video of Sarah discussing his vote with Henderson…heh.

Floridian,
Ditto but something tells me that that will not happen.

And this be law, I shall maintain
Until my dying day, sir
That whatsoever king may reign,
Still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, sir.

Jackie, thanks for jumping on this.  I think there are other notable names that are glaringly absent from this list besides Charles Jenkins and Dabney Smith.

For example, I’m surprised and disappointed that +Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island apparently hasn’t signed (yet).  Likewise, +Gordon Scruton of W. Mass. (who abstained on D025).  Doubtless, other commenters can add further names.

David Handy+

goughdonna, aren’t they all diocesans? Hasn’t the ABC said that the diocese is the basis of communion?

DUPLICITY DUPLICITY DUPLICITY…

Goughdonna-
It is already the case for quite a number of Provinces.  Orombi and Venables have been quite clear that they remain in communion with orthodox Anglicans in TEC, although excommunicate from the leadership and many bishops.

PM (#20),

LOL.  Very apt.

I’m reminded that during all the turmoil of the early Reformation period in England, there was one bishop who managed to stay in office from the time of Henry VIII through the reigns of Edward VI, the Catholic reaction of Mary, and into that of Elizabeth.  Asked how he accomplished that astounding and perplexing feat, (alas, I don’t remember his name) he replied, “I smacked of the willow more than the oak.”

David Handy+

Oscewicee-
The ABC also said that he would put in place a pastoral council to oversee said dioceses with 6 weeks of Dar.
What he says and what he does are not necessarily the same thing.  To date, he has not committed himself to allowing dioceses to sign the covenant.  Or anyone else for that matter.  Until it gets out of committee.  Maybe.

PM, the vicar of Bray never met KJS- the rules here are somewhat different.

TJ, I realize that ABC doesn’t do what he says. (Has he been spotted *doing* anything?) But calling on him to do what he has said is an understandable tack.

Uhhh…oh wait…uhhh…am I missing something here???

The Rt. Rev James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev Franklin Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev Pierre Whalon, Convocation of American Churches in Europe
The Rt. Rev Paul Lambert, Suffragan-Dallas
The Rt. Rev David Reed, Suffragan-West Texas
The Rt. Rev Sylestre Romero, Assistant—New Jersey
The Rt. Rev John Sloan, Suffragan—Alabama
The Rt. Rev Jeffrey Rowthorn, Retired-Convocation of American Churches in Europe
The Rt. Rev Don Wimberly, Retired-Texas

TL (#16),

Thanks for the little bit of background on +Romero.  But I wasn’t the one who asked about him.  That was NB&S (#13), who I’m sure is thankful too.

David Handy+

Oh I apologize Fr. Handy. My bad. I must have caught Father Bob’s problem of not being able to differentiate posts. Eegghh! Sorry again.

Looks like one reasserter mostly gets it:
The Anaheim Statement, etc.
Bishops, mostly belonging to the Communion Partner Bishops group, have issued a statement regarding their support of continued Moratoria and an Anglican Communion Covenant. The other commitments made in this statement are shared by pretty much all the bishops, but these two are the differentiating points. Even there the differences are more subtle than supposed.

My sense is that D025 did not suppose that bishops would not exercise the restraint called for in B033 or the Windsor Report, but that The Episcopal Church would not itself call for that restraint. So the Communion Partner bishops are doing precisely what they are called on to do - exercise restraint as conscience and their reading of Scripture in the light of reason and tradition require.

The Anglican Communion Covenant, a work in progress, will shortly find final form and be distributed for final examination and acceptance. Again these bishops are of course free to hope for its adoption. The debate leading up to the next General Convention will be sharp and hopefully precise and the whole church will determine The Episcopal Church response to the Covenant. Again, bishops and all of us, are free to be hopeful and anticipatory or otherwise.

So what is this Statement about? It is about these bishops making it clear that they want in on Anglican Communion membership even if TEC gets thrown out.

What is unclear is just how much they want that. Do they want it badly enough to suggest that as dioceses “conforming” to the Covenant and obedient to the call for moratoria they are willing to be directly recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC as constituent dioceses in the Anglican Communion without reference to a provincial church? There are such extra-provincial dioceses and churches, not many but a few. They come under the direct metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Good luck.

BabyBlue reports, “It appears that this is a group aligned with the “Communion Partners,” a group of bishops and rectors who support the Windsor Report, the Dar es Salaam Communique, and the Anglican Covenant, and have chosen prior to this General Convention to work within the Episcopal Church structures and consider themselves directly in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. They also released an influential legal opinion on how the current Presiding Bishops has overstepped her authority - that report may be read here.”

She believes these bishops believe themselves to be “directly in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.” She also references “an influential legal opinion” the paper referred to by some of the bishops and theologians who signed off on it as the “McCall” paper. In an odd way this reaffirms the claim that it was written by a lawyer as a “legal opinion.” That paper, if actually a legal opinion, loses its value as a scholarly paper written outside the legal fray of litigation. Rather than supporting an argument, it becomes part of the argument. But that’s another story.

I believe the bishops who produced the Anaheim Statement are doing what they think best and I am glad they have done so. They have indeed pointed to the specifics of the areas of disagreement within The Episcopal Church: the moratoria and the extent of acceptance of the Anglican Covenant. As to the need for direct communion with Canterbury, that is a mixed bag indeed. If throughout the world dioceses were to make the plea for direct communion, diocese by diocese, the Anglican Communion would finally become a little reflection of Rome, with all bishops immediately legitimated by their direct connection to the big guy in the head office.

Do they really want that? I hope not.

Make that ‘reappraiser’ (these terms confuse me, sorry).

Whew,
I was worried there for a minute r. Seitz, until I realized your entire #32 was a quotation.

Can you give us any explanation for why several bishops who voted in favor of D025 and C056 were allowed to sign this?  This makes no sense at all to most of us.

Do you have any links to those reports you quote Prof Seitz - I would be interested to read them.

Very interesting indeed.

Re: the Bps who consistently opposed the revisionist agenda and signed this: I think it was the right thing to do, even though I expect limited benefit.  Actions speak louder than words, but words are still important, and this is a good statement.

Re: the Bps who enabled the revisionist agenda and then signed this, I don’t think it’s fair to call them hypocrites.  I can understand - but disagree with - a position that says “I voted for D025 and/or C056 because I don’t think my own theology should be forced on the rest of the church, and other dioceses in other contexts should be entitled to some autonomy in these decisions.  But I personally will never undertake to use this new pastoral generosity in my diocese.”  That’s not really hypocrisy, but it’s still reprehensible for other reasons.  It’s really saying “I know what’s right, but feel free to lead your sheeple down the wrong road if you want to.”  It ignores the reality that a bishop is a bishop for the whole church, not just “his” diocese.  It’s also not loving to the sheeple in spiritual danger.

Connecticutian, I apologize for the “hypocrite” and I could understand your line of reasoning above except for one thing - one would not wish to impose one’s own view, therefore, one votes for a resolution that imposes someone else’s view on everyone?

I’m imposing a moratorium from posting on myself. I’ve grown very tired, disheartened, cranky, etc.

I hear that one of the diocesans who signed has said that D025 (which he voted for) “changed nothing”.

#37 oscewicee
Cranky?  you? no never - and moreover your are right, if you look at the ordination vows of bishops, those who manage to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time have some explaining to do.

So, Bp. Henderson, who voted yes to both, signed on. And Bp. Louttit, who voted no to both, did not sign on. Bp. Lawrence voted no to both and did sign on.

I’m confused. At least one of the three is acting coherently.

Dr. Seitz’ #32 are Mark Harris’ comments, from his blog:

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/

I suppose this is consistent with +Henderson’s statement that these resolutions change nothing. How a person could honestly hold such a belief is beyond me.

Parsley   YES   NO   YES   Alabama
Sloan   YES   YES   YES   Alabama
Love   NO   NO   YES   Albany
Howe   NO   NO   YES   Central Florida
Rowthorne   NO   NO   YES   Church in Europe
Whalon   YES   YES   YES   Church in Europe
Lambert   NO   NO   YES   Dallas
Stanton   NO   NO   YES   Dallas
Jacobus   NO   NO   YES   Fond du Lac
Allen, Lloyd   NO   NO   YES   Honduras
Morante   YES   NO   YES   Litoral Ecuador
Brookhart   YES   YES   YES   Montana
Romero-Palma   inaudible   YES   YES   New Jersey
Smith, Michael   NO   NO   YES   North Dakota
Little   NO   NO   YES   Northern Indiana
Alvarez-Velazquez   inaudible   YES   YES   Puerto Rico
Frey, William   not present   NOt   YES   Rio Grande
Lawrence   NO   NO   YES   South Carolina
Beckwith, Peter   NO   NO   YES   Springfield
Bauerschmidt   NO   NO   YES   Tennessee
Wimberly   NO   NO   YES   Texas
Henderson   YES   YES   YES   Upper South Carolina
Johnson, Don   inaudible   YES   YES   West Tennessee
Lillibridge   NO   NO   YES   West Texas
Reed, David   NO   NO   YES   West Texas
Adams, James   NO   NO   YES   Western Kansas
McPherson   NO   NO   YES   Western Louisiana

OKAY my computer has a mind of its own - which come to think of it might not be a bad thing some days - but then I digress
the first column is the last name of the bishop, the second is their vote for D056, the 3rd is A025 and the 4th is if they signed the Anaheim statement.  REMEMBER THIS IS UNOFFICIAL.
I am working on a spreadsheet but am having a few techincal issues and need the some with real heavy <strike>geek</strike> technical knowledge to assist.  GG is evidently taking a sabbatical at the Denver airport and is MIA.

#36,
I can think of no way to put this charitably.  By your argument, a bishop would logically be allowed to raise an altar to Baal if he wanted to, and still sign on.  They voted to impose this on the WHOLE church.  This is not some local option, this is the policy of the WHOLE church.  The money that should go to the mission of Christ will instead be spent developing gay wedding liturgies.  The moratoria were not requested of individual dioceses, but of the WHOLE church.  As a bishop of the WHOLE church, it was indeed hypocritical of them to say that they require the WHOLE church to pay for this stuff, and to participate in this stuff, and then say that they are Windsor compliant because they have not personally performed such a rite in their own dioceses.

We are receiving a generous pastoral response from the ABC.

34—as I said somewhere, my instinct would have been only to allow NO voters to sign this, and I registered my views to that effect. I suppose the case could be made that this allows people to put themselves on display, and let the chips fall. If I were in U-SC I know what I would say to my bishop…
35—yes, it is Mark Harris. In my view he mostly tracks the logic. He has been consistent in this. The language of ‘extra provincial’ is not language we have used at ACI, but I suppose it could be used. Our larger goal has been to honour the diocese, dispute the notion of a ‘national church’ as consistent with our polity, and work for the logic of Section 4. I hope +RDW responds along these lines. He has spoken of ‘two-tier’ in the past. Harris knows that.

Those who voted yes on the resolutions and then signed this can go with any spin they like but it doesn’t change the fact that they are being disingenuous. This letter is supposedly to reassure the ABC, How do those who voted yes on the resolutions think their spin helps? The ABC didn’t ask for space, he asked for their votes and they didn’t give them.

#44, you need to nip that whole “Computer having a mind of its own thing” in the bud. There is no telling where that might lead.

Well, since I was drinking coffee when I read what some of these bishops had to say, I sort of baptized it by mistake.  So there you go. 

Thank you for the response Dr. Seitz.

BTW- is there an equivalent of the Communion Partners in Canada? The nearest US orthodox congregation being 2 hours away, and that AMiA.  Closest CP parish is 4 hours or more and inaccessible in the winter.  Canada might be a better choice most of the time for my location, but no ANiC anywhere in the vicinity.

Just amazing.

I never thought a Bishop who voted “yes” could make it worse. Yet a few did, by subsequently signing this statement.  They should be laughed out of their Dioceses, but both revisionists and reasserters.

51—this is and has been under discussion. I have been asked to speak in September on this in Toronto when I return. You may know that there are analogies and disanalogies across the border, within conservatives ranks. Grace and peace.

Here is part of what Bishop Doyle wrote on the Diocese of Texas Blog on Day 8:

From Bp. Andy Doyle on Day Eight
...
I am committed to the Windsor Report recommendations and process which include a moratoria on blessings and elections of partnered gay clergy to the office of bishop.

I am committed to the Covenant and a process.

I do this out of a vocation of my heart.

I support a group of bishops who I believe will make a similar statement. I am writing to you directly.

As the bishop of the Diocese of Texas I am letting you know about my votes and the reasons for my votes. And, I am writing to you so that you may know my commitment to our life together as one church. And, that you will know of my very clear intention to continue on the Windsor Path and to engage as a Bishop Diocesan in the Covenant process all as a full and active member in the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

emphasis is mine
[url=http://edotnews.blogspot.com/]http://edotnews.blogspot.com/[/url]

I wonder if the Anaheim Statement is the “similar statement” he referred to?
I wonder if he will sign on to it later?

There are only a few explanations adequate to explain voting yes and then signing this. In the light that everyone else knows what the resolutions mean, none of the explanations are very flattering.

I still don’t know what the intent of the statement is. I don’t know if the bishops who voted no are saying that they plan to remain in TEC or what. Both sides are somewaht lacking in clarity, it seems to me.

OK, Here is the plan: We have the Bishops who signed the Anaheim Statement meet at 11 PM and cordinate a mutual move over to The Anglican Church in one sweep.  There is no way that the Queen of Darkness could send her legal beagle after them at once.
Don’t you just love a good plan…?

#57- That plan is doomed to failure Tom.  According to the published reports, several of the signers voted in favor of either or both D025 and C056.  Therefore they are by definition not in Communion with either the GS or ACNA and cannot serve in that church, or any church of 10-15 provinces of the Communion (or more, pending statements tomorrow through Monday).
By allowing the bishops who betrayed the Communion to sign on, they destroyed the validity of the entire document.

I would also say that as far as the Annaheim Statement goes, if it is true that a small but growing minority have signed, it notwithstanding drafting, speaking and voting for Resolutions D026 and C056 this is very peculiar.  Anyone would think it is a wrecking move, designed to muddy the waters, or provide some fig leaves for those who voted for the resolutions and are now going home to explain things to their dioceses.  Perhaps that needs to be looked at and signatories called on what they think they are doing.

Dilution produces mud.

My bishop (Bauerschmidt) talked to us about the fact that a few bishops who had voted for one or both of the resolutions in question had signed the document. His point was that they signed because they don’t believe, for example, that D025 changes anything concerning B033 or that C056 moves us into the realm of authorizing same-sex rites.
So you could argue that even [some of]the bishops who signed those resolutions don’t really know what they mean.

Or they don’t want to know. It seems to me pretty clear.

So you could argue that even [some of]the bishops who signed those resolutions don’t really know what they mean.

And why would someone ever assent to something which they admit they do not even know what it means?

His point was that they signed because they don’t believe, for example, that D025 changes anything concerning B033 or that C056 moves us into the realm of authorizing same-sex rites.

And people are supposed to believe this when those who proposed these things stood up at the discussion to state the entire purpose of the resolutions was to allow these changes and foster movement?

#61…I think you’re right…and I don’t like to say that I’m cynical, as I am naturally an optimist when it comes to people…but we just have to look at history and the sheer ping-pong style of obfuscation of recent days that frames what this paper means or might mean or what they think we think it means or what we think they think we think it means…it’s endless and that’s what is desired…to string us along…

“I voted for D025 and/or C056 because I don’t think my own theology should be forced on the rest of the church, and other dioceses in other contexts should be entitled to some autonomy in these decisions.  But I personally will never undertake to use this new pastoral generosity in my diocese.”  That’s not really hypocrisy, but it’s still reprehensible for other reasons.  It’s really saying “I know what’s right, but feel free to lead your sheeple down the wrong road if you want to.”

This reminds me a new joke term in military doctrine, the phrase, “that’s a technique.”  The listed meaning is, “that’s a really f***ed up way to conduct this operation and you’ll probably kill your entire unit, but if you want to do it that way, go ahead.”

However, in this case it follows unavoidably from the Episcopal Church’s unwillingness to declare any given idea absolutely unacceptable unless the New York Times has done so already.

My bishop (Bauerschmidt) talked to us about the fact that a few bishops who had voted for one or both of the resolutions in question had signed the document. His point was that they signed because they don’t believe, for example, that D025 changes anything concerning B033 or that C056 moves us into the realm of authorizing same-sex rites.

Then Bishop Bauerschmitt paid no attention whatsoever to the ABoC and never read the Windsor report. It appears to me that TEC and virtually all the US commentators have entirely missed the point here.  From the Communion point of view, B033 is NOT what is important.  The Windsor Report and Lambeth 1.10 are what is important.  Something like 15 Primates are on record as saying that B033 did not comply with Windsor.  D025 Certainly does not comply with Windsor.  The moratorium on gay bishops itself is a watered down version Windsor’s call for a prohibition until such time as the Communion spoke with one mind on the issue.  And Windsor is a watered down version of Lambeth 1.10- which called for a halt to gay ORDINATION.
It is quite evident from the records of the bishops meetings that they knew full well that they were voting on Communion breaking issues.  One after another, the CP bishops rose and spoke to exactly that point (and may God bless them for their witness).  The Archbishop of Canterbury himself pleaded with them not to do this. Any pretense that they did not know full well what they were doing is an outright lie. In my humble opinion, of course.

Again, I say horse manure. How could Bauerschmidt and his buddies sign this if they didn’t understnad what it meant? And that BS about his own theology not being forced on the rest of the church reminds me of all the Catholic politicians who say they don’t personally believe in abortion but they won’t let that influence their votes. Wouldn’t anyone with any integrity vote according to his conscience? It seems to me we could save a lot of money both in the church and in the government if we just took polls and didn’t bother with leaders, since apparently leaders today think of themselves as followers.

Here is Henry Parsley’s 7/17 letter to the Diocese of Alabama:
[url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/1187/Bishop_Parsley_s_Letter_07-17-09.pdf]http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/1187/Bishop_Parsley_s_Letter_07-17-09.pdf[/url]

Regarding C056, Bishop Parsley says:

No authorization was given for liturgies for same gender blessings, as some of the press has reported. Especially in states where same gender marriage has been made legal the resolve affirms bishops offering generous pastoral care.

But, he never goes on to say that “generous pastoral care” means that they will be authorizing liturgies for same gender blessings.

I have wondered for a very long time just “how I’d feel” when this train got to the abyss? Would I feel “vindicated” for having left? Would I feel “theologically correct”? Well, here we are and my most pervasive feeling is “profound sadness”. I am so very sad for all the broken relationships, the lost souls, the wayward leadership. But most profoundly sad at the pain this causes all the “little old ladies”, the grand magnolias of the Church. All those who have spend decades as the ECW, Altar guild, etc, who may still be hoodwinked by reports such as my ex-Bishop Henry. After reading his latest letter to the Diocese, I noticed a few glaring omissions. I understand that he voted NO because, while he desires “inclusion”, the Diocese, “needs to brought along” some more. So, if the those in the pews in Alabama were a more enlightened, would he have voted “yes”? I am sure he would have.
I am sad today. But always prayful that God is in charge and while He must be sad too, He has a far better plan that any of us…..on either side of this widening aisle.
Lord have mercy.
PS And I do have a personal relationship with the Lord.  And so very grateful for a home in ACNA.

Any chance conservative bishops might just allow parishes to go their own way without litigation or a “severance fee”? Would love to see Schori and TEC take on the burden of fighting an additional 100 [200?] courtroom battles across the country.

Not in Central Florida.

From another thread:

Another interesting list is what we can call the sorest crotches Bishops (from extreme fence straddling). These voted for D025, against the Rowe amendment, and for C056 (maximally liberal) and yet signed the Anaheim statement. These are:

Pierre Whalon of Churches of Europe
Dorsey Henderson of USC
Don Johnson of West Tennessee

There could have been an easy way to dispense with this dilution if the statement had said that “we grievously oppose the actions taken by this house in their approval of resolutions C056 and D025.”

Because the Anaheim statement was inadequate, it will be counterproductive in the long run. It allows for all those who signed to sleep well at night despite their votes.

CORRECTION: Bishop Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida did in fact sign the Anaheim Statement. The complete list of signatories is available at Thinking Anglicans.