Contrarian thought continues

The consequences:

We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.

- from the Draft Covenant

I fail to see

1. A definition of "extreme circumstances" except that we will know it when we see it (for me, the Communique also does not spell circumstances).

2. A plain statement of who will make such a finding - but if it by the common mind of all the Instruments of Communion that will so be ponderous as to be (happily) ineffectual.

3. What the consequences of such a finding would be - e.g., would it be second-class membership?

But my thoughts of late have been contrarian. Perhaps I just don't know how to read recipes for Anglican Fudge.

Trigger? What trigger? For what? By whom?

From the Communique (emphasis in the original) -

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007. If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

The consequences are not stated. Are they tangible? Ruth Gledhill thinks so:

The bishops of the Episcopal Church have been given until September 30 to respond. If they refuse to comply, action is certain to be taken to suspend in some way the province's membership of the central councils of the Communion. It would be doubly embarrassing for the province given that their Primate, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, was also elected onto the Standing Committee of the Primates, a highly-prestigious seat which places her at the right hand of the Archbishop of Canterbury and at the centre of the structures of power in the Anglican Church.

Doubly embarassing, or doubly unlikely? I would not be so quick to conclude "if they refuse to comply [by September 30], action is certain to be taken to suspend...." First, drop dead dates can always slip when there is evidence progress is being made. Second, will the Primates really want to carry out the threat? Third, if the punishment is to remove KJS from the Standing Committee we are simply back to where we were yesterday. I don't believe the lady gives a damn about embarassment over losing a battle over inclusion. Fourth, KJS just got closer to the levers of power in one of the instruments that would play a role in deciding guilt and punishment of TEC.

The comments of Charles Hohenstein are cogent:

ECUSA was not punished at all--the decision was simply postponed until after September 30th, when no doubt there will be more meetings and more obfuscation and another extension of the deadline for compliance. Note especially that ECUSA bishops don't have to ensure that no blessings of same-sex unions take place in their dioceses. They only have to give their assurance that no formal, public rites for the same will be adopted. ... ECUSA was not required to depose Gene Robinson. The bishops requesting alternative primatial oversight didn't get it. Instead they will get a sort of Vichy solution with the Presiding Bishop nominating two of the five members of the council, and deciding what powers to delegate to the vicar. Note well that nominations for the position of vicar will come, not from the Anglican Communion Network, but from the whole pool of so-called Windsor bishops, most of whom are only orthodox on paper....

Reading around the Episcopal blogosphere it seems my assessment is contrarian. See here and here for example.

Report of the Covenant Design Group and Primates Communique

Primates Meeting Communique
-Note that what is referred to as the "Schedule" in Paragraph 35 begins after Paragraph 37 at the heading "Recommendations of the Primates."

An Anglican Covenant, Draft prepared by the Covenant Design Group, January 2007 (pdf)

Covenant Design Group Report and Covenant Draft Text (pdf)

Gledhill also breaks the story that Jefferts-Schori has been elected to the Standing Committee. daily episcopalian clarifies what that means.

As to the Communique, I'll let others masticate on it before I jump in.

A roundup of links to initial reactions here from titusonenine.

Primates discuss Covenant, Listening Process; continue Windsor consideration

It's all there. Click the headline for the whole story.

One point to note: It seems the next real news (barring leaks, etc.) will come Monday 19 Feb. "The Primates said that they wish to share the Covenant with the bishops of the Anglican Communion before its public release. Copies of the Covenant Design Group report and the draft Covenant are expected to be made available, along with the Primates' communiqué, on February 19. Aspinall said that they hoped for initial responses from around the Communion within the next 12 months and for a revised version of the Covenant to be presented to the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Bishops."