Bishop Henry N. Parsley (Alabama): Mind of the House Resolution

Long story short….. %-p

This sounds like O’Neill at the press conference.
It is essentially doing nothing. Does Parsley really think everyone has gone through what they have to just end up where they started?

This is ripe for the CJ ‘treatment’.  I look forward to it

Seriously though, this offers nothing, and they have to know this.  They know the sub-group report was DOA and that DEPO is also.  Therefore is this not much more than PR, really?

Lastly, “It requires mutual respect and tolerance as we seek to work through differences with humility and patience.” - just like we did in 2003 (not).

Since this comes from a prominent “moderate” bishop, I think this is a sign it’s over.

I do find his saying he’d rather the ACC deal with matters amusing.  Daddy’s too mean, so he wants to run to Mommy.

“We the bishops of the Episcopal Church meeting in New Orleans greet you in faith and obedience to Jesus Christ and in the fellowship of the churches of the Anglican Communion”

Language like this gets ECUSA’s presumptions off to a fast start.

You know there are daily stories from every major and many minor news organizations almost daily on this issue. Every one has stated what the status quo is prior and all these resolutions basically say the status quo is good enough. Everyone, the media especially, are expected some kind of stand or resolution. The media, even major liberal leaning, will not be putting out favorable TEC stories if essentially nothing happens.
If anyone thought the status quo was enough no one would even be interested in this meeting. These resolutions are a PR disaster for TEC. At the very least they should take a bold stand. This isn’t even fudge, it’s like they couldn’t even be bothered to cook that up.

If this is adopted as a “Mind of the House” resolution, TEC might as well just take a digital picture of every bishop raising their middle finger and post that as a graphical “Mind of the House” resolution.

In our role as chief pastors of the Episcopal Church we believe that, consistent with the report presented to you by the Communion Sub-Group of the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee, our General Convention Resolution B-033 (On the Election of Bishops) is in accord with the requests of the Windsor Report and meets your concerns.

If this is true, then why not specifically use the language?  And what of the continued diocesan nomination of non-celibate homosexual candidates for bishop?

The Covenant Statement adopted by our House of Bishops in 2005 states that “we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006”. The General Convention of 2006 took no action on this matter and the Covenant Statement continues to have moral force among us as bishops.

If this is true, then why are dioceses continuing to authorize SSB’s?  Intergrity’s own website acknowledges this.  And since when does this state continue to have moral force (if it ever did)?  The proof is in the pudding - SSB’s are offered in TEC and are authorized in many dioceses and by many bishops.

and we desire for this church to be safe and welcoming for those with different viewpoints.

This is patently false as any orthodox clergy knows who ventures into a liberal diocese.  It is also proven to be patently false by Bonnie Anderson’s travelling road show into orthodox dioceses and by Stacey Sauls’ declaring conservative dioceses to be “problem dioceses.”  It is also proven patently false by the Mark Lawrence fiasco.

which has been found to be incompatible with the Constitution and Canons of our church.

So it has been said, but I have yet to see any substantiation of this claim.  No bishop has yet quoted a canonical provision or constitutional article which would prohibit the PC/PV plan.  This is simply a bald-faced lie repeated without any substantiation whatsoever.

This proposal is nothing but a direct and open challenge to the ABC and the primates and I hope it is seen to be such.

“We desire for this church to be safe and welcoming for those with different viewpoints”—-Bp. Parsley

Hasn’t this selfsame Bp. Parsley tried to intimidate orthodox clergy and congregations in his diocese from affiliating with the American Anglican Council or the Anglican Communion Network?

Correct, Irenaeus.  The bishop has no shame.

“Turn out the lights. . . the party’s over”  Dandy Don a prophet.  Whoda thunk?

Reads almost identically to +Lee’s and +Wolfe’s (Kan.) resolutions.  Form letter, anyone?

We recognize that in the polity of the Episcopal Church we as the House of Bishops acting alone cannot legislate for this church or alter resolutions of the General Convention.

Yeah, like, crocodile tears to you , dewds, because you’ve made an <i>ultra vires<> request.

Dear World,

Someone else gave you an answer we like so we refuse to answer for ourselves. Yeah, we know others have given answers we DON’T like, but this is the one we like and that’s the one you should officially accept. We don’t have to talk to you, anyway.

Secondly, although SSB are going on all the time and specifically allowed in many provinces within TEC, there’s nothing official about the word “allowed.” So neener.

Thirdly, get off our property, NOW! These are OUR cash donators. Go find your own.

Furthermore (because I’m not sure if I should write, Forth or Forthly), kindly talk to the hand, ‘cause we ain’t listnin’, girlfriend!

Finally, what business is it of yours, anyway? Who asked you to butt in?

lol antique, very nice

These are supposedly well-educated people, but these resolutions look more like a sophomore’s attempt to hand in a “snow job” to an English teacher than anything else.  Do they think that these statements will persuade anyone who is in the least bit suspicious of their actions?

Bp Parsley should simply thumb his nose at the Primates; it wouldn’t use up any paper.

Antique,  As the ad says, “Priceless”!

If you can’t write it in short declarative sentances you are hiding something.

Try this:

Frist, We are sorry

Second, We were wrong and we will not do it again;

Third, We will not bless or cause to be blessed non clelibate same sex relationhips.

Simple.

RSB

...we desire for this church to be safe and welcoming for those with different viewpoints.

This is a bit like hoping the barn door gets fixed after the horses have already run away.

I simply do not understand why anyone would believe anything definite (by definite I mean a straight-forward easy-to-understand statement taking a certain [positive or negative depending on your viewpoint]position) will come from this HOB meeting.

Parsley’s statement is also a bid to get the nod for PV.  He makes statements that both the institutional middle and the liberal left can take comfort in.  And every one knows that he’s out to defeat the network and AAC folks by lawsuit and intimidation.  He’s like a +Saul but without the law degree.  Schori’s safest pick.

About what I would expect from someone who has more credibility as a garnish than he does as a bishop.

the snarkster

Heh, clever, snarkster.

Thank goodness this is from an orthodox bishop.  I can only imagine what Chane might propose.

If General Convention is the absolute authority for TEC, how is it we could have eleven women ordained without approval, a gay minister consecrated as bishop without approval, same sex blessings (clearly outside of the permissible liturgies of the Prayer Book), etc., etc., etc., . . . without consent from G.C.?

I think that I know the answer. There are unwritten rules and regulations which vary, depending on where your a Liberal or a Conservative.

Frankly, I’ve grown weary of the TEC power mongers constantly decrying that they are “an oppressed minority in need of understanding and affirmation.”  There will never be true reconciliation so long as there is this blatant disdain toward sin and repentance on the part of those who openly claim that “there is no sin, hence, no need for repentance.”

I got to the word “polity” and gave up.

Wolverine

“Thirdly, we affirm once again our unequivocal commitment and care for all the dioceses, parishes, and members of the Episcopal Church, as evidenced in our Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight plan”
—-Bp. Parsley

This paragraph of the resolution is an unsung whopper. Think about it: “our unequivocal commitment and care [for the orthodox] as evidenced in [DEPO].”

That’s a little bit like Sudan’s rulers voicing their “heartfelt care for the people of Darfur as evidenced by the community-building work of the Janjaweed.”

“He’s like a +Saul but without the law degree”—-AnglicanHopeful

Or perhaps he’s like a Saul who throws suits instead of stones.

That’s a little bit like Sudan’s rulers voicing their “heartfelt care for the people of Darfur as evidenced by the community-building work of the Janjaweed.”

LOL!!

Parsley asserts this:

The Covenant Statement adopted by our House of Bishops in 2005 states that “we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006”. The General Convention of 2006 took no action on this matter and the Covenant Statement continues to have moral force among us as bishops.

But that is plainly untrue.  Smith of CT, in announcing a new diocesan policy to allow SSB in Oct 2006 said this:

As we prepare to take this step, I must be clear that we are not creating or authorizing a new sacrament. Nor are we giving a green light for public ceremonies that look and sound like weddings. Nor am I authorizing any public rite or liturgy.  What I am inviting us to do is create pastoral and prayerful occasions in which we can gather as Christians to pray and pronounce blessing. So we will be able to offer Christ’s blessing for those same-sex committed partners among us who seek, in faith, the recognition, prayer and support of the Church for their lives as followers and servants of Christ.

Is it any wonder the Primates are asking for clarification?  Is this a distinction without a difference?  Smith says (relatively) plainly that the priest will proclaim Christ’s blessing on the partners.  Parsley says Smith can’t do that, even in a “private” ceremony (as if the privacy was material to the efficacy of the blessing.)

“The General Convention of 2006 took no action on this matter”
—-Bp. Parsley

Meaning that no action has been taken, right?

In the class with +Lee, but gets detention for using lower quality paper than +Wolfe, Kansas.

AND, this is a reality show, fellow judgers of output!  Jesus said that it was not what a person ate that made them unclean, but what came out of them.  This is going to be tough one to judge for top prize.  The competition is keen.  Truthiness is preferred to truth;  loquacity to communication.

Here’s what the link to the Telegraph on the Jonathan Petre thread had to say re the Parsley resolution:

But the Daily Telegraph has seen a draft document drawn up by a senior bishop who urges his colleagues to adopta far less clear position that will be open to a wide range of interpretations, allowing liberal American bishops considerable leeway.

Insiders said they believed that the document by the Bishop of Alabama, the Rt Rev Parsley, who is head of the American Church’s theology committee, could well form the basis of the House of Bishops’ final statement next week.

So, is this what the ABC meant by “room to maneuver”?

DWStroudMD: Your contest criteria have much to be said for them, but don’t insist on loquacity: acting sure of oneself is often more effective than content or verbal artistry.

Snarkster, et al…You sound like those in the 1970’s who said “Why do you think Henry Parsley is qualified to be a priest?  You Know He Can’t Even Kneel!”  Perhaps if you all went and played with your seven cats you might feel less stressed!