Monday, February 19, 2007

Jim Naughton Comments

Jim Naughton, Communications Director for the Diocese of Washington, has these comments at his blog Daily Episcopaliian

http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/02/the_schedule.html

I have to say that while I am receiving calls from reporters asking me what I make of the recommendations made by the Primates I don't really know what to say. The structures they are proposing seem cumbersome, and the opportunities for meddlesome abuse seem manifold, yet, under the right sort of leadership, I suppose it is just possible thatit can be brought off.

The definition of "authorizing," as in we must stop authrozing rites for same sex blessings by Sept. 30 will be hotly debated. As I have said before, I think we are being given some room here, as there is a difference between authorizing and allowing. But I know others disagree.

I am eager to hear from the Presiding Bishop, but it is about 3:45 a. m. in Tanzania, so I think that will have to wait for a news cycle (I certaily hope only one news cycle.)

6 Comments:

Blogger Jeff said...

Noooooo . . . this doesn't mean we have to change anything a'tall . . .

On the other hand, the candor is helpful. In a variety of ways.

6:02 PM  
Blogger David H said...

"The definition of 'authorizing,' as in we must stop authrozing rites for same sex blessings by Sept. 30 will be hotly debated. As I have said before, I think we are being given some room here, as there is a difference between authorizing and allowing."

Huh? How about this: authorize = allow = permit.

Precisely what the Primates are saying is OUT with equivocation, ambiguity, disingenuousness; IN with clarity, unity, and commitment. And: your choice.

6:21 PM  
Anonymous Alan Jacobs said...

Oh, david h, if only the world worked like that. But the spin never ends. "Don't authorize" doesn't mean "don't allow," you silly man! And if the Primates had said, "Do not permit same-sex blessings," after several hundred such blessings, reappraising bishops would say, "Hey, we never issued formal permission, so we are complying with the Primates' wishes." There are no limits to the power of reinterpretation.

7:26 PM  
Anonymous David H said...

Alan,

I take your point. All I was trying to do was look at Mr. Naughton's words from within the letter and spirit of the Primates' text. I think they're saying, Hey, we weren't born yesterday. Don't insult our intelligence. Don't equivocate, and please don't prevaricate. We can see through it. And it's not the way persons with honor and integrity do business, not to mention Christians going about the work of the Lord. If reappraisers have another view and want to go with that (lit. go with that), then let them say so. A remarkably fine piece of work by the Primates in a remarkably brief period. Thank you.

7:43 PM  
Anonymous Alan Jacobs said...

I totally agree, David: I think the Primates have been perfectly clear. But what we'll be hearing from reappraisers from now on is that "there's room to maneuver." So we should get used to it.

7:55 PM  
Anonymous David H said...

Alan,

I agree. But the beauty of the Primates' communique is that the wiggle room has been dramatically reduced. I'd say reduced to the point where the standard kind of maneuvering or obfuscation will be seen transparently for what it is. Indeed, that's why the liberal blogs tonight are alive with calls for outright rejection of the Primates' call.

On T19, for months (years?) people have been asking for clarity. Well, tonight things have got to seem clearer to all concerned.

dh

8:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home