They just don't know when to quit! Part of the problem has to be that since they don't know how to use logic, they have no way of telling when they have lost the argument. So, let's wade on in (I have added the bold, for emphasis):
A correspondent who prefers to remain anonymous, but whose credentials are those of a canon lawyer, has sent me the following note concerning the Province of the Southern Cone and its reception of dioceses outside its territory.Now this is rich, truly rich, coming from this particular blog. Has its author just forgotten that he put up a post last spring which was felicitously titled: "Who the Hell Wrote the Undisclosed Memo?" Or has he decided simply to overlook what he said in that post, such as this:
So we have a memorandum which is not offered for public scrutiny, authored by an unknown "international lawyer" for a group of concerned bishops, whose concern does not extend to having us know who they are, circulated to bishops and certain well placed correspondents, and not otherwise made public by any bishop in the course of nine days. We might well ask, "What the hell is going on here?"
. . .
Perhaps their lack of confidence is actually in their arguments, since they seem unwilling to let the world see the [authors?], know who they are and who commissioned them to write.
Well, never mind; apparently anonymous legal opinions are just fine when they support the liberals' point of view. Let's examine just what the opinion says:
. . . They [the Province of the Southern Cone] cannot, under their own rules, accept a diocese from outside the territory listed in their constitution. Nor can they do so within the norms of Anglican Canon Law.Now, this is interesting. There is a little problem in that the Province has not formally "accepted" the Diocese of Pittsburgh into its territory, and has only given it "temporary emergency shelter" until a new Province in North America is formed---but we will let that go. What interests me is the assertion that even such a temporary and emergency arrangement is said to violate "the norms of Anglican Canon Law."
And pray, tell: Just where might those "norms" be found? Would they be found, perhaps, by looking at the example of the extraprovincial Episcopal Church of Cuba, which has not one, but---count them---three Metropolitans to which it is subject? What did the "norms of Anglican Canon Law" have to say about that arrangement, and if what the Southern Cone is now doing is against those norms, why were they silent on the case of Cuba?
Or again: what gave The Episcopal Church the authority to take under its wings the various dioceses of Central America, who have only recently made themselves into a separate Anglican province?
"Norms of Anglican Canon law?" Certainly---I'll have a few of them myself, thank you.
But wait---the full depth of liberal logic is not yet on display. For next we have this point:
On top of that, there is no way under generally accepted canonical principles that they can receive and license a bishop or other cleric who has been deposed, or who has voluntarily relinquished his or her orders in the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada (or elsewhere, of course).
The Global South howl that Gene Robinson is not just a bishop in the Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion, and they are correct to say that, though I don't personally understand why they are so distressed about it. But it equally holds that deposition or relinquishment of orders has effect throughout the Communion, and not simply locally within one Province. Ergo, Robert Duncan is simply not a bishop, and this is true not only in the Episcopal Church, but throughout the Communion. He cannot be licensed as a minister of word and sacrament in the Anglican Communion, and any Province that purports to do so has stepped completely outside the bounds of Anglican canonical norms."
This is liberal doublespeak at its very finest. "The Global South howl that Gene Robinson is not just a bishop in the Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion"??? Maybe that is what you think, Mr. Anonymous Canon Lawyer, but I assure you it is not what the Global South knows. Was Gene Robinson received at the Lambeth Conference this last summer? Then how can he be considered a "Bishop in the Anglican Communion?" (And, to make matters worse, you liberals--who "don't personally understand why they are so distressed about it"---were warned that he would not be so recognized, but you went ahead and consecrated him anyway.)
To top that, you proceed to "depose" a validly recognized Bishop of the Anglican Communion, who was received this summer at Lambeth, for supposedly "abandoning" that very same Communion. (If he had not abandoned it in August 2008, what precisely did he do between then and September 2008 to abandon it? Ah, I see, the logic of it escapes you.)
Not only that, but you expect the rest of the Anglican Communion apparently to respect your House of Bishops' blatant and willful---and despicably hypocritical---distortion of the canonical language, Mr. Anonymous Canon Lawyer. I have news for you: they aren't buying it.
Is your respect for canon law so little that you can be told that the language means one thing when used to depose a Bishop, but means exactly the opposite when counting the vote of a parish that decides to leave? Shame on you, sir.
And the Rev. Mark Harris, because he shares the same disrespect for language and logic, goes along with Mr. Anonymous Canon Lawyer:
The fact that the PSC has received him as a bishop in spite of his deposition says only that they and he do not believe that he ever ceased being a bishop in the Anglican Communion. It appears that they are wrong.Yes, indeed. There it is.
Well, there it is.