Total visitors right now: 90

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Breaking: No text tonight…news conference live blog

Monday, September 24, 2007 • 5:57 pm


According to sources, the Drafting Committee has been told to start over fresh. The Draft Document is not acceptable to the house and the bishops cannot agree upon edited text…we’ll see in a moment if these reports can be confirmed.


Press Conference:

Bishop Alexander: there is no draft document at this point. we have made enormous progress today building a strong census. It is our hope that the document we’ve been working on will be redrawn tonight and tomorrow we will have a full response

Bishop Alvarez: This is a continuing process with regard to our relationship with the rest of the communion dealing with polity, our consecration of VGR and other matters that have arisen. But through this process we have proven the quality of this church in which we can differ, talk openly, and pray together. As Bishop Alexander said we are working on a document that will offer a good response

Bruno: we are a passionate group of humans we are working on being passionate and clear., My two fellow bishops have said everything that needs to be said. WE are men and women of integrity and strength and we work hard to respect one another

Question: Is there a consensus and what is it

Bruno: we have agreed that we need to have a statement that responds with clarity. IT must be clear and unambiguous and we are working in that direction. We really do intend to come out with a statement that will speak clearly to the communion and to the church.

Nolan from NO Picayune: We’ve been told there are a number of resolutions, how are they going to be incorporated?

Bruno: Nothing is sidetracked. There have been several different methods set forth for our response and there is debate about that. But it is important that it be clear.

Alexander: bishops have all contributed to the conversation. Many have put forward resolutions and proposals and this is good. People work better if they don’t just have a blank sheet of paper

Alvarez: we have been expanding our discussion tonight so that whatever document is approved will be a true reflection of the HOB.

AP: we were told that bishop Patterson spoke to you in private session…

Alexander: that is not true, he did not address the house.

AP: what about the draft that was given this morning

Alexander: We are well past that document and I would not believe anything it says at this point.

Bruno: you must know that we are working carefully together from conservatives to liberals to come up with a reflective document.

Alvarez: Several documents are flying around. none of them are right

Bates: How would you categorize the statement that you are going to give a full and complete statement or are you going to fudge?

Alexander: I believe we are going to give as full and forthright response as possible. What is important is that we have heard the request and we are responding as fully and completely and clearly as we possibly can.

Alvarez: We have been going carefully over each request carefully to give an answer that is clear.

Virtue: I have received a report there is the belief that there is enough fudge that the AC will split by the end of the year. There is the belief that TEC will not reverse itself.

Bruno: I do not have your information. I don’t have a comment because I do not have your information.

Alvarez: We have been addressing that question very carefully in our councils. We know that there are people who will not be in agreement with the majority but that does not mean that we can see a significant breakaway in TEC

Alexander: Our history has shown how tough our fabric is. Our recent history has been one of a hard pull on our fabric. But we are a tough bunch and I believe at the end of hte day the AC will find a way forward:

Chicago tribune: Are you in process of working out wording or still on a conceptual level. And what about the tone of the meeting, how is the feel of it?

Alexander: The tone has been good and frank both between bishops and between our guests. I would give the tone a really high mark. As to your first question. Where we are now is a place where a significant majority are finding a place to focus, the details are not worked out, but things are coming in focus

Bruno: there is good passion but we are coalescing around some specific ideas

Alvarez: the main theme of the documents go to answering with clarity the concerns expressed by the primates the ACC and clarifying our response from GC.

NPR: to Bruno, do you see any possibility of TEC reversing course with regard to sexuality issues?

Bruno: I don’t believe we’ll ever turn back the clock. We are not responding to that right now. WE are responding to what has been asked of us. As to whether we are going to withdraw our support for gay and lesbian people in the church. No they are fully franchised. Are we going to exacerbate the situation, no.

NPR: But specifically what about ssbs that are occurring in diocese…the communiqué wants them to stop.

BRUNO: as I said we are going to be dealing with the specific questions asked of us by the Communion

NYT: How is the communiqué different from the desires of conservatives who wish for you to reverse course on sexuality issues. Doesn’t the communiqué ask you to reverse course in the same way. How can you distinguish between what the conservatives want you to do and the Communique asks you to do?

Bruno: You have asked whether we will continue the process of General Convention. The fact is that we have never authorized same sex unions.

NYT: it happens on the diocesan level all the time.

Bruno: Not in my diocese. It does not happen without my permission.

NYT: But it happens in many dioceses on a private level. How do the questions of the communiqué differ from what conservatives want?

Bruno: I’ve answered it as best I can. If I were to answer it any more clearly we would break the promises we made in the house

Alexander: What the bishops are going to say must still be in the boundaries of what our church can do. We are a synodical church episcopally led. So we have constraints with regard to the way we do business. Take the requests of the primates with regard to ssbs…what can we say? What lies within the scope of our ability to declare? And what kind of interpretation can we give to the convention. That may seem overly nuanced but that is all we can do.

Final Statements:

Bruno: be patient and wait

Alexander: I am encouraged by the work we have done here. our conversations have been frank but productive. We have come today and done a great days work. By tomorrow midday or early afternoon is that we will have a statement and I think it will be well received by the AC and the majority of TEC

Alvarez: this is another example of the quality of TEC and the way we deal with these things in an open way and no one is shut down. We listen to everyone and gather a consensus/

Bruno: the most important thing is that we do not walk from the table because when we walk away from conversation and relationship we walk away from what matters most in our lives?/??(flubbed that last quote…sorry)


84 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Not surprising.  Probably needs more fudge topping.

[1] Posted by Greg Sample on 09-24-2007 at 06:18 PM • top

Hmmmm! Fudge toppping? Probably may want to throw some nuts and a cherry on top too! Wouldn’t be just flike ‘em to vcome back tomorrow and wind up not being able to get anything drafted. LOL! :0)

[2] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 06:21 PM • top

Actually, given the absolutely ridiculous nature of the entire session today, I think it is good that they should start over fresh…maybe this time they will be clear and concrete in declaring their position…at least one can live in hope.

[3] Posted by johnp on 09-24-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

Something tells me that had the temerity to offer something a little more robust than “Episcopal Visitors”.
This process is doomed.

[4] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

Echos of general convention. Save the most important piece of busines to the very end, and then throw something together after everyone is exhausted and go home.

[5] Posted by Jeff Thimsen on 09-24-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

I guess that means we can all sit back and have a beer from that “borrowed” beer truck.  Was there any Shiner Bock or Fat Tire on it?

[6] Posted by Jill C. on 09-24-2007 at 06:23 PM • top

ODC,
  It’s not so crazy…I seriously expect some long-winded bit about NOLA which finishes with something like ” The HOB fully concurs with past statements from various bodies of TEC.

[7] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 06:25 PM • top

Hmmm.  Maybe someone else took a sneak peek at tomorrow’s Epistle lesson from 1 Cor 5:

i Cor 5:6-8
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

[8] Posted by The_Elves on 09-24-2007 at 06:29 PM • top

Any estimate time of the SF/ATV round table discussion tonight?

[9] Posted by APB on 09-24-2007 at 06:29 PM • top

Echos of general convention. Save the most important piece of busines to the very end, and then throw something together after everyone is exhausted and go home.

Jeff Thimsen,
Didn’t they also do this at DES on the last day into the wee hours of the night/morning only to have KJS come back and say she didn’t sign it?

[10] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 06:29 PM • top

Teacher:  “Class, I’m assigning an essay.  “

Class:  (Collective groans)

Teacher:  “Grading will be Pass / Fail.” 

Class:  (Sobs and more collective groans)

Teacher:  “You will be delighted to know that you have eight months to complete the essay.  Please spend the generous amount of time graciously allotted to you, to do a good job on the essay.”

Class:  (Groans)

Complete text of class essays, (Midnight, the night before the due-date): 
“Essay:  What I did for summer vacation.”

[11] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 06:32 PM • top

WE are men and women of integrity and strneght and we work hard to respect one another

Excellent news, here, on the progress of the Integrity membership drive. That puts them up to, what, 2,993?

from the Briar Patch,

[12] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-24-2007 at 06:37 PM • top

Br’er Rabbit, the current membership of Integrity was 1931. Add a hundred bishops and you get 2031 (not 2931). The goal was 2500, so they are well on their way!

[13] Posted by rob-roy on 09-24-2007 at 06:46 PM • top

WE are men and women of integrity and strneght and we work hard to respect one another


Wow wonder who he’s been hanging around with?

[14] Posted by Eclipse on 09-24-2007 at 06:49 PM • top

Uh, do these guys know that humility is a Christian virtue?  Do they even know what it is?  Did they ever hear of prayer, of trying to discern what the Lord wants them to do?  They sound as self-satisfied as politicians announcing that they’ve brought home some colossal pork-barrel project.

[15] Posted by In Newark on 09-24-2007 at 06:51 PM • top

But it is important that it be clear.

There was another quote from +Chane about being “crystal clear” too.

Considering what a circus this seems from what has been live blogged ( God Bless +Matt)  the only thing anyone can hope or pray for is clarity.
Please Bishops stand up for your convictions, whatever they may be.

[16] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 06:54 PM • top

For Bruno to say with a “straight face” that ssb happen in his diocese without his approval is a bold-faced lie and a great indicator of what the document will say.

[17] Posted by Daniel Lozier on 09-24-2007 at 06:58 PM • top

Alexander:

By tomorrow midday —or early afternoon is that—we will have a statement and I think it will be well received by the AC and the majority of TEC.

OK, so much for actually considering any resolutions from the floor—no matter how far in advance they were circulated.  815 (i.e. Bruno/Beers) simply will not relinquish any control whatever; they are at this point desperate (and hence even more dangerous than usual).

Have your respirators ready, kids, sulfur fumes in this part of the ride…

[18] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-24-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

.

WE are men and women of integrity and strneght and we work hard to respect one another.

Too bad it has to be hard work.

Bruno: I dont believe we’ll ever turnn back the clock. We are not resoponding to that rigjt now. WE are repsonding to what has been asked of us. As to wheteher we are going to withdraw our support for gay and lesbian people in the churhc. no they are fully franchised. Are we going to exasorbate the situation no.

And there you have it!

Bruno: You have asked whether we will continue the process of General Convention. The fact is that we have never authorised same sex unions.

Has he looked in the newspapers lately? And if this is true then why aren’t hese priests who are doing it not having presentment charges brought on them if it’s not authorized?

[19] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 07:00 PM • top

Somebody needs to post the thread on the ssb that just took place in Beverly Hills up for all the HoB to see. Bruno needs to be called on his lies!

[20] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

Apparently a lot of bishops think the first draft was not a clear enough rejection of Dar es Salaam.  Good for them.  Clarity is what is most needed now.  Make it crystal clear that there is no turning back for TEC.  That way all will know where to go from here.

[21] Posted by David+ on 09-24-2007 at 07:05 PM • top

Daniel wrote,

For Bruno to say with a “straight face” that ssb happen in his diocese without his approval is a bold-faced lie and a great indicator of what the document will say.

A month ago, someone referenced a news story where Bruno performed himself a SSUB.

[22] Posted by rob-roy on 09-24-2007 at 07:06 PM • top

Man NYT and NPR are roasting them. TEC is beginning to understand the major media I think. They may be liberal as all get out but no so liberal as to spend time, money and column space to set up a non-story. TEC is going to get roasted in the press with no clear statement.

Bruno: It does not happen with my permission’

I guess “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” works here eh Bishop? Unbelievable.

[23] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 07:07 PM • top

815 (i.e. Bruno/Beers)
simply will not relinquish any control whatever; they are at this
point desperate (and hence even more dangerous than usual).

They have always been dangerous. Why Bruno wasn’t deposed decades ago I am still wondering? He is a fault on our conservative part. Shame on us!

[24] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 07:07 PM • top

“A month ago, someone referenced a news story where Bruno performed himself a SSUB.”

Yes, but he didn’t APPROVE it.  He just went ahead and did it, and looked the other way when he found out.

[25] Posted by Paul B on 09-24-2007 at 07:09 PM • top

“Jon Bruno, bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, conducted a union ritual for the Rev. Canon Malcolm Boyd, poet laureate of LA, and his long-time partner. Mark Thompson.”

[26] Posted by frwalkeratsaintalbans on 09-24-2007 at 07:12 PM • top

Like I said…..Someone needs to post these somewhere there in NO for the whole of the HoB to see and then re-ask Bruno the question? This guy is a joke and a mockery to Christiandom.

[27] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 07:16 PM • top

If I recall correctly, Bruno was the principal author of the HoB statements last March in Navasota unequivocally rejecting Dar and going on and on about wonderful American independence.

It’ll be interesting to see what he comes up with this time…

[28] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-24-2007 at 07:16 PM • top

Well, a “union ritual” is not a blessing-

[29] Posted by Katie in Georgia on 09-24-2007 at 07:16 PM • top

Christian Century,  June 29, 2004
J. John Bruno, the Episcopal bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, has confirmed that he presided over the blessing of a same-sex union of author Malcolm Boyd, 80, and his partner of 20 years, Mark Thompson, 51. Present were five other bishops, including Frederick H. Borsch, who preceded Bruno in the Los Angeles office.
Bruno said he did not do the blessing as a political statement: “I did it because it was the blessing of two human beings who have lived in a faithful relationship.” Bruno performed the blessing in May, he told the Los Angeles Times in early June.
COPYRIGHT 2004 The Christian Century Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

[30] Posted by frwalkeratsaintalbans on 09-24-2007 at 07:17 PM • top

I just had time to read through Matt’s typing above. Points to the NYT for not letting Bruno get completely away with a cheesy lie.

[31] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2007 at 07:19 PM • top

The story linked above is very damning to +Bruno’s claims today.  Just FYI, there was also Susan Russell’s well publicized “marriage” [what she called it] to her partner Louise.  At All Saints Pasadena, presided over by it’s clergy.  Can’t imagine +Bruno never saw or approved that liturgy.  Here are the links.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=11821
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=11481

first is liturgy (points to PDF link) 
second is announcement

[32] Posted by The_Elves on 09-24-2007 at 07:22 PM • top

Can you believe that the bishops ignore ssb but try to have a 1928 service and they go crazy!!

[33] Posted by aghsteel on 09-24-2007 at 07:22 PM • top

Who is going to bring these stories up and confront Bruno?

[34] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 07:23 PM • top

Thanks Matt your continued dialog is so important to us mere mortals at Parish Level…..some TEC diocese’s and parish’s keep there head in sand and wont even acknowledge these so important communion issues nor acknowledge the HOB meeting with prayer. The LORD blessed us with folks like you and Internet communications ......

[35] Posted by AnglicanRon on 09-24-2007 at 07:26 PM • top

Really, is anyone supposed to believe the President of Integrity got “married” in Bruno’s Diocese and he had no knowledge?

[36] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 07:28 PM • top

Quick, somebody grab a fire extinguisher!  The bishop’s pants are on fire!

[37] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-24-2007 at 07:45 PM • top

Bruno: You have asked whether we will continue the process of General Convention. The fact is that we have never authorized same sex unions.

NYT: it happens on the diocesan level all the time.

Bruno: Not in my diocese. It does not happen without my permission.

Since it has been proven that SSBs happen in Dio LA, I take Bruno’s comment to mean that he approves them in advance.

If he is stating that SSBs do NOT occur in Dio LA, then he is lying AND telling the truth in the same breath! 

He must be hoping that two negatives equal a positive!

[38] Posted by GrandpaDino on 09-24-2007 at 07:45 PM • top

Bruno: I dont believe we’ll ever turnn back the clock. We are not resoponding to that rigjt now.

Of course not. That’s exactly what you have been called to do. Just ignore it all and proceed with the apostacy.
I guess there’s nothing like getting the middle finger from a bunch of bishops.
Since they have chosen to no longer represent and uphold the church, I guess they have proven, yet one more time, that they represent nothing more than self serving policies. It’s a shame to see a once respected denomination dragged into the sewer.
It’s really beginning to stink now.

[39] Posted by Laytone on 09-24-2007 at 07:47 PM • top

A bishop’s blessing
Advocate, The,  July 6, 2004
Leaders of the Episcopal Church USA gave tacit approval to the blessing of same-sex rations last August, and the Right Reverend J. Jon Bruno took that as license to do what he had wanted to do for a long time. Bruno is reported to have become the first sitting Episcopal bishop to bit, as a gay couple in the church, presiding over the union of well-known gay authors Malcolm Boyd, 80, and his 51- year-old partner of 20 years, Mark Thompson, in Los Angeles on May 16. “I have to offer the stone (sic ?) rite of blessing to these people when I am asked as I would do for any other human being,” Bruno said.
The American Anglican Council, a conservative church faction that formed in response to the consecration of openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson, criticized Bruno’s action.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Liberation Publications, Inc.

[40] Posted by frwalkeratsaintalbans on 09-24-2007 at 07:51 PM • top

Uncle Dino has a wonderful grasp of the English language!

Since it has been proven that SSBs happen in Dio LA, I take Bruno’s comment to mean that he approves them in advance.

[41] Posted by Katie in Georgia on 09-24-2007 at 07:54 PM • top

Baby Blue has the photo
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/say-what.html
Greg—How about a separate article on this lie in the interest of clarity (Bruno’s word).

[42] Posted by Gator on 09-24-2007 at 07:57 PM • top

Oops! I see it now.

[43] Posted by Gator on 09-24-2007 at 07:58 PM • top

Clarity is what we all want and it sounds as if we already have it. TEC will not repent of its divisive, hurtful and anti-blibical actions.  Okay then, let TEC walk apart.  The Anglican Communion in the USA is set to march forward without TEC. A new day is dawning!  Thanks be to God.

[44] Posted by Alice Linsley on 09-24-2007 at 08:00 PM • top

AP: what about the draft that was given this morning

Alexander: We are well past that document and I would not believe anything it says at this point.

Hmm…I wouldn’t necessarily accept the next draft as gospel either. smile

[45] Posted by Catholic Mom on 09-24-2007 at 08:04 PM • top

Uncle Dino - Bishop Bruno was addressing the reporter’s contention that it happens “all the time” as if there has been some blanket permission given by the bishops to priests to perform ssbs. Bishop Bruno responded by saying that was not true in his diocese. In his diocese it only happens when he gives individual permission for it to take place.  No lying - simply trying to correct a misrepresentation of how ssbs are taking place in LA.

[46] Posted by C.B. on 09-24-2007 at 08:05 PM • top

No lying indeed.  Then let’s just call it a blatant effort at deception.

[47] Posted by Alli B on 09-24-2007 at 08:16 PM • top

CB :

No, read it again.  He’s emphatically saying it does NOT happen in his diocese with his permission.

Who knows how in the world he thought he could say such things. 

You know, I don’t know what’s worse in loosing track of reality - ivory towers or ‘cathedrals’ - because these guys are just clueless.

[48] Posted by Eclipse on 09-24-2007 at 08:16 PM • top

CB,
If that’s true then how do you explain this from Babyblue who was at the press conference abouut the SSB in the NYT:

Bruno said he knew nothing about it. And also said he doesn’t read the New York Times.

He knew nothing about it and it sure happened….
Either he allowed it which would make his statement untrue, or he didn’t know which makes it just as untrue.

[49] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 08:19 PM • top

I thought that the conservatives have already left:

Bruno: you must know that we are working carefully together from conservatives to liberals to come up with a reflective document.

Are there still conservatives present in the HOB meeting?

[50] Posted by TonyinCNY on 09-24-2007 at 08:20 PM • top

Some body can check the media reports, but I remember reading that Bruno did the “blessing ” of Otis Charles and his partner.  (I could be thinking of Malcom Boyd, as it was a while ago)  Bruno was a year behind me at seminary.  He was a liar then and he has not changed.

[51] Posted by revted on 09-24-2007 at 08:28 PM • top

In the statement, which was drafted by a 16-member committee that included Bishop Diocesan J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, the bishops also addressed the matter of same-sex unions. They pointed out that the national Episcopal Church has not authorized rites for blessing same-sex couples: however, the bishops said that they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being. Clergy in dioceses that already practice same-sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice.

From a story in ENS about “Covenant Statement” issued after Navasota retreat in March 2005.

http://www.ladiocese.org/episcopalnews/UpdateArchives/NewsArticlesview.php?key=743

Since Bruno’s Diocese clergy were already doing it he makes clear here they can continue to.

[52] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 08:43 PM • top

revted, Otis Charles wasn’t married by Bruno. Photos of the wedding are here. In particular, there is a picture of Charles and his homosexual partner here dancing about the altar. The partner had been married four times before.

[53] Posted by rob-roy on 09-24-2007 at 09:13 PM • top

The text is being made ‘perfect’ – at least that was the project for the leading contender resolution this morning. I would guess the attempt would be to make a new text perfect also. So no text. Easy.

[54] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 09-24-2007 at 09:14 PM • top

that’s it… perfect the original language. perfect, perfect

[55] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 09-24-2007 at 09:16 PM • top

The partner had been married four times before.

Great! A five time offender!

[56] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 09:17 PM • top

Self congratulatory and macho.  Doesn’t sound very liberal. We’ll see.

[57] Posted by wvparson on 09-24-2007 at 09:24 PM • top

I wonder if the Joint Standing Committee of the primates/ACC have noticed that Bruno’s nose is getting longer and longer.

[58] Posted by Passing By on 09-24-2007 at 09:29 PM • top

Alvarez: this is another example of the quality of TEC and the way we deal with these things in an open way and no one is shut down. We listen to everyone and gather a consensus/

Need they say anymore!  This whole thing is a big joke and everyone in the media knows it.  It is a testimony to limosine liberalism at its worst!

[59] Posted by Jacob on 09-24-2007 at 09:45 PM • top

Is anyone in the HOB going to have the courage to stand up and call out Bruno for the liar that he is and ask that he be removed from the meeting?  And for that matter, remove his collar.
If no one has the courage to confront him and his brood of vipers, TEC is doomed.  It will have no legitimacy as a credible organization, much less a Christian organization.
Whom amongst the Bishops will Stand Firm for the Faith?

[60] Posted by carpprop on 09-24-2007 at 09:57 PM • top

Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars,Liars…
I am sorry I could not hold it back any longer.

Prayers for Pittsburgh,

Intercessor

[61] Posted by Intercessor on 09-24-2007 at 10:20 PM • top

I think it is pretty clear from the final statements with the mulitple uses of the word majority that there will be nothing in what they pass which will even acknowledge the need to address any minority, except for the Blessed LBGTs of course. There will be clarity at long last though, which is at least a blessing.

One thing is for sure there is going to be a picture very soon of +++RW shaking and dropping his head in dejected frustration.

[62] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 10:29 PM • top

BTW—-that was one wasted question from Virtue. Did he expect them to go “OOOOO, David you got us!”? rolleyes

[63] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 10:33 PM • top

I dunno. I don’t think they’ve come up with squat, frankly. Their statements, saying “oh, yes, we’re working passionately on a document and everyone’s going to like it, yes indeed! Just wait and see, you’re going to be sooooo impressed! The Communion’s going to like it, too!”, sounds a whole lot like my little boy going on and on about my birthday or Mother’s Day present, which he usually put together “passionately” about an hour before he gave it to me, LOL.

It just sounds so hollow, so patronizing.

[64] Posted by teatime on 09-24-2007 at 10:43 PM • top

I don’t know teatime. I think they will outright reject anything more than DEPO and that they think B033 and not authorized blessings meet the DES requests. But I also think they will add a statement which will make clear that when GC changes these things, as they fully expect they will, then we fully expect to have gay Bishops and authorized SSBs in the near future.

[65] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 10:48 PM • top

You know, I do believe, that C.B. is correct - Bruno’s quick use of the double negative allowed him to say a positive (“They do hapopen with my permission”) while sounding like he was saying a negative.  He wasn’t lying, just obfuscating.

And what was all this talk of clarity?  Old dogs, you know…

[66] Posted by MJD_NV on 09-24-2007 at 10:57 PM • top

“Through this process we have proven the quality of this church in which we can differ, talk openly, and pray together”
—-Bp. Alvarez Velasquez

This is the same Bp. Alvarez Velasquez who (as I recall) ordered a priest to keep silence because the priest had written a book upholding traditional Christian teaching about sexual conduct.

Free to differ? Free to talk openly?

[67] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-24-2007 at 11:07 PM • top

Irenaeus, can you provide us any more details on that?

[68] Posted by Deja Vu on 09-24-2007 at 11:15 PM • top

Irenaeus is, of course, correct. The story of the deposed priests (who fled to AMiA) is here.

But Irenaeus, maybe Bp Velasquez meant that one can differ, talk openly, and pray together…and then get deposed.

[69] Posted by robroy on 09-24-2007 at 11:33 PM • top

The stories above of Bruno’s lies, betrayal, and deceit are just a speck of what the 4 parishes who disassociated had to endure.  Yet people wondered why we did it…questioned the manner in which we did it.  And there are still people sitting in the pews of L. A. area parishes that if we tell them the truth, they profoundly object and do not believe it.

[70] Posted by Daniel Lozier on 09-25-2007 at 12:15 AM • top

Daniel Lozier,
It is very sad that those still in the pews are that blinded. But, in the end you will not be in their shoes facing God but in your own. Keep yourself on His path and in His will and you will be blessed.

[71] Posted by TLDillon on 09-25-2007 at 12:21 AM • top

C.B. - Since open-minded and tolerant Fr. Jake feels it important to delete all comments that he disagrees with or which threaten the “party line” on his blog, I guess we will have to have the free and open discussion over at the nasty, wicked, closed-minded StandFirm.  Interestingly, StandFirm doesn’t delete your comments though.

Anyway, you say

Uncle Dino - Bishop Bruno was addressing the reporter’s contention that it happens “all the time” as if there has been some blanket permission given by the bishops to priests to perform ssbs. Bishop Bruno responded by saying that was not true in his diocese. In his diocese it only happens when he gives individual permission for it to take place.  No lying - simply trying to correct a misrepresentation of how ssbs are taking place in LA.

Wait just a minute.  Let’s follow the Q&A;.  We first have this exchange:

NYT: How is the communiqué different from the desires of conservatives who wish for you to reverse course on sexuality issues. Doesn’t the communiqué ask you to reverse course in the same way. How can you distinguish between what the conservatives want you to do and the Communique asks you to do?

Bruno: You have asked whether we will continue the process of General Convention. The fact is that we have never authorized same sex unions.

It is quite obvious here that Bruno is attempting to suggest that SSB’s have never been authorized in TEC.  As we are always told, TEC is a church united by “common prayer”, in other words, a liturgical church unified by a common liturgy.  Bruno is clearly suggesting that SSB’s (a liturgical act) have never been authorized to be performed.

To which the NYT reporter expresses his grave doubts.  The reporter suggests that SSB’s are, in fact, authorized.

NYT: it happens on the diocesan level all the time.

Bruno: Not in my diocese. It does not happen without my permission.

Bruno then says “not in my diocese.”  That is a bald-faced lie, which he then changes to say “It does not happen without my permission.”

Well, C.B., if SSB’s happen in his diocese with his permission, then they are authorized.  But Bruno just said “The fact is that we have never authorized same sex unions.

You can varnish this whatever way you want, C.B., and Jake can try to silence the truth by censoring his comments, but the objective facts are that Bruno attempted to deceive the reporter.  The reporter called him on it, and he tried to weasel his way out of it.

And then we hear from Susan Russell the following:

When contacted by The Living Church, the Rev. Susan Russell, associate rector at All Saints’ Church, Pasadena, and president of Integrity, clarified the apparent contradiction.

“Same-sex blessings occur in the Diocese of Los Angeles all the time,” she said listing several parishes including her own of which she was aware. “We don’t ask for permission because Bishop Bruno has told us that he cannot give it until General Convention approves an official liturgy.

Now, C.B., what was the exchange we discussed earlier?

NYT: it happens on the diocesan level all the time.

Bruno: Not in my diocese. It does not happen without my permission.

Once again, I say, C.B., you can deny this as long as you like, and Jake can censor people till he looks blue in the face, but the plain facts are the plain facts.  Bruno is caught lying to the press.

[72] Posted by jamesw on 09-25-2007 at 12:32 AM • top

Deja Vu: Here’s an article from Virtueonline. It refers to Bp. Alvarez moving to depose the priest in question:

“The Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris told Virtuosity that the Rev. Dr. Manuel A. Rivera and he had received letters from the president of the Standing Committee summoning them to appear before the committee on February 19, to defend themselves against the bishop’s accusations.
“Dr. Paris wrote a book against the arguments given to favor the consent for Gene Robinson and presented it at the University of Puerto Rico, where he is a full time graduate professor, teaching Counseling and Human Sexuality courses. A day before the local Diocesan Convention, which was held last October 25, Bishop Alvarez sent Dr. Paris a letter inhibiting him in the diocese, for writing and presenting the book. The Rev. Dr. Rivera and another priest, the Rev. Pedro Balleste, were also inhibited on the same day, for participating in a panel discussion of the book, at the University of Puerto Rico.”
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=332 (includes text of Fr. Paris’ letter to standing committee)

[73] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-25-2007 at 12:39 AM • top

Well the panel of bishops here seem to have the utmost of integrity! Yeah right! Titus 1:7-9 is not what these men have.
Titus 1:7-9
  For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, [8] but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

[74] Posted by TLDillon on 09-25-2007 at 12:53 AM • top

Alexander: I am encouraged by the work we have done here. our conversations have been frank but productive. We have come today and done a great days work. By tomorrow midday or early afternoon is that we will have a statement and I think it will be well received by the AC and the majority of TEC

That’s a tremendous relief!  I figured the HoB would come up with something wishy-washy or unacceptable to the AC.  NOT!

[75] Posted by Randy Muller on 09-25-2007 at 01:05 AM • top

Randy Muller,
Don’t get to happy yet/ Read this:
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3832

[76] Posted by TLDillon on 09-25-2007 at 01:09 AM • top

It’s too late and I’m too tired to write about this, but consider this secular analogy from the law of agency (which relates various types of legal relationships, including employer-employee, client-lawyer, customer-broker).

Let’s say an agent (cf. Bacon, Bartz, Newman, Regas, or Russell) performs an unauthorized act. Such an act would not normally bind the principal (cf. Bp. Bruno). But the principal can RATIFY the act if he knows or should know about it and fails to disavow it. Ratification gives the act the same legal effect as if the principal had authorized it in the first place.

If Bp. Bruno knows about SSBs occurring in his diocese (month after month, year after year), his acquiescence is analogous to ratification. For better or worse, Bruno bears moral responsibility for the practice. He cannot avoid that responsibility by insisting that he “did not officially authorize” the blessings—-any more than Inspector Renault could avoid responsibility by professing shock at the thought of gambling in Casablanca.

[77] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-25-2007 at 01:09 AM • top

INSPECTOR RENAULT offers an apt analogy here.

Bp. Bruno’s protestations would be like Renault saying, “I accept Rick Blaine’s bribes. I sit by the roulette wheel in his cafe. But I have NEVER ‘authorized’ gambling in Casablanca. Only the French government could do that.”

[78] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-25-2007 at 01:33 AM • top

Let face it, not one of his fellow bishops has the balls to publicly tell +Bruno that what he said is a lie.  No, instead they allow him to stand for them, sling fudge, and PONTIFICATE about his integrity. 

Sadly, “our guys” are no better at standing up on issues like these.  Do you believe that one of them will stand up today and even go so far as a cautious “I think my brother bishop misspoke last night…”.  Heck, you can even get Democrats to go that far about Bill Clinton.

Somebody got it right earlier when they wrote that calling these men and women weasles is an insult to weasles.  On the first day I called them quislings, well Quisling was only dealing with men’s lives, not their souls.

RSB

[79] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-25-2007 at 06:57 AM • top

Leave it to David Virtue to ask the loaded question. David - I love you brother, but sometimes I wish you’d ask it with a bit more tact.

[80] Posted by Festivus on 09-25-2007 at 07:29 AM • top

R S Bunker,
I am the one that called them weasels and I have since apologized for it. However, I have also been asking the question whom, who is someone there in NO, will post these references that refute Bruno and call him out on the carpet to expain his out right lies. And yo are right! His brother bishops sat rightthere and listened and allowed his continuing lies to be spewed for the whole world to hear and then to top it all off he has the audacity to clalim that he himself and the rest are working with integrity!
BOFFO!

[81] Posted by TLDillon on 09-25-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

One Day Closer,

Let me say, on befalf of weasles everywhere (I spent years working in political campaigns so I believe I am an acceptable spokesperson) we accept you apology, and extend our oilly hand of friendhip and our shalom.  More over we hold it up as an example to the Bishops of TEC as an example of the healing power of apology and forgiveness, and beg that they should likewise apologize to the Anglican Communion and prepare for the spirit of forgiveness that will flow to them.

RSB

[82] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-25-2007 at 09:15 AM • top

Having seen the news conference on You Tube, what Bp Bruno actually said (representing his emphasis) was, “It does not happen in my diocese with my permission.” This is considerably different from what is reported above.

[83] Posted by Unsubscribe on 09-25-2007 at 10:04 AM • top

“This is considerably different from what is reported above.”

Huh???

[84] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-25-2007 at 10:09 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.