REFLECTIONS ON KENNETH KEARON'S LETTER TO BISHOP TITO ZAVALA OF THE SOUTHERN CONE The Anglican Communion News Service has posted a notice from the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) stating that he has written Bishop Tito Zavala who represents the Province of the Southern Cone on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO). In his letter the Secretary General withdrew Bishop Zavala's membership in that body, but asked him to continue on as a consultant. The problematic nature of the Secretary General's action has forced us to ask (a) what constitutes a cross border intervention, (b) were cross border interventions ever clearly proscribed by the Instruments of Communion, and (c) are the various moratoria of the same type and weight? These questions have led us into a morass of uncertainty, and we have come to the conclusion that our own uncertainties simply mirror those present within the Communion as a whole. The following essay is an attempt to unravel the confusions the Secretary General's letter serves to expose and to suggest ways in which these confusions can be clarified. We have undertaken this task because we believe that if the confusion remains, the Anglican Communion will break into pieces. As indicated, we begin with the Secretary General's letter. He writes that he has taken action because the Southern Cone, though requested to do so, has failed to give an explanation of the pastoral relation it has established with certain dioceses and parishes in North America. This request was made presumably because the action of the Province of the Southern Cone was thought to be an instance of cross border intervention first mentioned in the Windsor Report. In response, the Archbishop of the Southern Cone has asserted that he has spoken with both the Secretary General and the Archbishop of Canterbury about this matter, and that the province plans to discuss the subject in upcoming meetings We are not in a position to comment on the truth and adequacy of these claims and counter claims. However, it is possible, despite outstanding issues, to comment on the basis and appropriateness of the action taken by the Secretary General in respect to Bishop Zavala. In acting as he has, the Secretary General has failed to distinguish adequately between what the Southern Cone has done and other violations of the various moratoria requested by one or another of the Instruments of Communion. Further, he has assumed that the moratorium on border crossing has the same authority as the moratoria on blessing same sex unions and the consecration of persons who have entered such unions. He has not asked if these moratoria are of the same kind or of the same weight, and he has falsely assumed that border crossings have been proscribed by the Instruments of Communion in the same way as have the moratoria on blessings and consecrations. These are serious errors. To begin with, the Secretary General has failed to note significant differences between what has been done in North America by AMiA, CANA, ACNA and the Southern Cone. Because he has failed to make these crucial distinctions, in removing Bishop Zavala, he has acted in an unwarranted manner. He has as well mistakenly equated the gravity of what the alleged border crossers have done with the action of TEC that set off these reactions in the first place Why do we say these things? The Secretary General claims the Pentecost letter (28 May 2010) from the Archbishop of Canterbury as his authority for taking the action he has. In that letter, the Archbishop states that members from provinces that "through their Synod and House of Bishops" have adopted policies that "breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion"¦ should not be participants in dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged." The particular intervention on the part of the Southern Cone cited by the Secretary General is based upon the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group. This report notes that the Southern Cone, in a manner said to be contrary to the constitutions of TEC and the Southern Cone, has adopted and so incorporated TEC dioceses into its own jurisdiction. It notes also that some 23 congregations of the Anglican Church of Canada (under two bishops) have received membership in the Province of the Southern Cone. These are taken to be two examples of border crossing. We will not comment on the Canadian case. However, we will say that in the case of the TEC dioceses (San Joaquin and Fort Worth) the charge of border crossing on the part of the Southern Cone does not hold up to scrutiny. It is in very important ways quite different from other notable examples. We say this for several reasons. First, the cases of San Joaquin and Fort Worth are significantly different from other, more obvious, even notorious, examples. AMiA, the first group assumed to have crossed a border, planted a mission church in North America with the clear intention of providing an alternative to TEC. In a word, the sponsors of this project parked their tanks on TEC's front lawn. That AMiA took the action it did with the intention of undermining another Anglican province is beyond question. Less obvious but nonetheless generally considered an intervention is the case of CANA. This "mission" was established with the purpose of ministering to Nigerians and others not well served by TEC. The goals were more muted than those of AMiA but TEC certainly considered that another province had intervened in its affairs. CANA's purpose, like that of AMiA, was to provide an alternative to TEC on North American soil. What, however, is the case with San Joaquin and Fort Worth? No mission was begun; no pastoral initiative was undertaken on foreign soil. Rather, two dioceses with a commitment to an all male priesthood asked to be attached to a province that both shares their views and is clearly in communion with Canterbury. They did so because, with good reason, they believed that they would never be able to gain approval for another bishop who held the same convictions. It's at this point that the problem arises. The Secretary General, by relieving Bishop Zavala of his post has, either wittingly or unwittingly, interfered in the polity of an autonomous Anglican province. How so? In claiming that a border has been crossed, he has expressed an uninformed opinion in a matter that is not his to judge. The letter of the Secretary General by its unqualified citation of the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group implies that the action of the Southern Cone amounts to a border crossing that violates both the constitution of TEC and the Southern Cone. We will not comment on the constitution of the Province of the Southern Cone except to say that it is not up to the Secretary General to interpret that constitution. The Anglican principle of provincial autonomy lays that responsibility firmly in the hands of the Province of the Southern Cone. We will comment, however, on the question of border crossing and TEC's constitution. It may be the case that the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group states that the actions of San Joaquin and Fort Worth are unconstitutional. However, the dioceses of Fort Worth and San Joaquin are now challenging this claim in the secular courts. Further, both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General are aware of this fact. Consequently, the reason given for saying that a border has been crossed is illegitimate on several counts. First, there is a significant difference between starting a mission within the territory of another Anglican province on the one hand, and on the other responding to a cry for pastoral aid from a diocese that has left a province because it has a right to do so and because its integrity is being violated. Second, the reason given for disqualifying the Southern Cone representative (interference in the affairs of another province that violates the constitution of both the province that interferes and the province interfered with) is precisely the issue now under litigation. No matter what the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group may say, the Secretary General in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury has rendered an opinion in a case under dispute in an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion. The issue is whether or not San Joaquin and Fort Worth have a constitutional right to withdraw from TEC and place themselves within another jurisdiction or not? If they do, no border has been crossed. The issue hinges on the rights of a diocese under the constitution of the province to which it belongs. This is the question, and it is not up to the Secretary General to make a determination, as he has, about where justice lies in this matter. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, by taking these steps in respect to border crossing, the Secretary General has indirectly intervened in the internal governance of two autonomous provinces of the Anglican Communion. Consciously or unconsciously he has made assumptions about matters that lie beyond his rightful authority. He has expressed opinions about the constitution of another province without any competence to do so, and he has judged what may well be a perfectly legitimate pastoral response to be an illegitimate interference in the affairs of another province. In reaching this conclusion and taking punitive action based upon it he has made a serious error in judgment. Because it has not been carefully examined, the step the Secretary General has taken will do more harm than good. The case of the Southern Cone is different in important ways from other alleged border crossings. Much will depend upon the care and charity with which this dispute is addressed. The good news is that it presents the Communion with an opportunity to make careful distinctions about courses of action that further communion and those that do not. The bad news is that, on all sides, this opportunity is being missed because confusion and hostility assert themselves while clarity and charity cower in the corners. If, however, one takes a step back from the battle that now rages, it is possible to make a number of important distinctions. The most important are these. First, there is a difference between one province founding a mission within the territory of another and a province responding to a legitimate request of a diocese or a parish to be taken under its wing. The cases mentioned above fit under this rubric. Second, there is a significant difference between the previous cases and one in which a province solicits a diocese or parish intending to detach it from the province to which it belongs. Mercifully, we know of no case as yet that fits this example. Third, there is a difference between the above possibilities and a group of dioceses and/or parishes within an Anglican province (a) joining together to form an alternative to that province and (b) seeking recognition as an alternative or replacement province by the other provinces of the Communion. ACNA has acted in precisely this way. Fourth, there has emerged in the past weeks another possibility far more complex and challenging than any mentioned above. The Diocese of South Carolina has modified its canons so as to make clear that it is not subject to changes in the canons of the national church that are in violation of TEC's constitution and/or the constitution of the Diocese of South Carolina. The Presiding Bishop, through third parties, has sent a message that the "status" of the Bishop of South Carolina within the national church might be changed because of this action. She has, in short, threatened to inhibit the Bishop of South Carolina because the convention of that diocese has taken an action the Presiding Bishop believes to be contrary to TEC's national canons. The Presiding Bishop and the Diocese of South Carolina are in a full-fledged stand off over this matter. Each claims constitutional and canonical authority for what they have done or might do. It is at this point that a fourth possibility for charges of border crossing arise. Suppose TEC does act to inhibit the Bishop of South Carolina and perhaps withdraw recognition from the Standing Committee of that diocese. Suppose further that the original Diocese of South Carolina refuses to recognize the actions of the Presiding Bishop. Suppose finally that this diocese seeks recognition as the legitimate diocese of South Carolina by Primates from other provinces, and one or more of them grants this recognition. Has a border been crossed? Which of the above cases constitutes a bona fide case of border crossing? There certainly is a prima facie case for holding that starting a mission within the territory of another province constitutes border crossing. There is also a prima facie case for holding that taking advantage of a constitutional right to seek refuge within another province is not. Though we have no example of the third option (an overt attempt to detach a diocese or parish from another province) all things being equal, there is also a prima facie case for saying such an action would constitute an example of border crossing. It is an obvious attack upon the integrity of an autonomous province within a communion of provinces. What about the case of which ACNA is an example? Here the degree of complexity increases. ACNA, by its own admission, has been founded to replace TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada as Anglican provinces in North America. However, because its origins lie within TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and because it has established itself as a body independent of TEC, one must ask if indeed it has intervened in TEC's affairs. ACNA is not a Province that has come from abroad to cross a border. It is a group of former members of TEC (or PECUSA or ECUSA) who have banded together to replace TEC and gain recognition as the true Anglican presence in North America. This question becomes more complex when a single province or group of provinces within the Communion recognizes ACNA or one or more of its constituent members, apart from a general agreement on the part of the Communion as a whole. In this case, a province or group of provinces, apart from general agreement, recognizes a body that seeks to displace two provinces still recognized as such by the Communion as a whole. How is this action to be judged? When some provinces recognize ACNA as an alternative to TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada do they at the same time actually "de-recognize" the latter? If they do not "de-recognize" them, is their action then to be counted by the Communion as an act of border crossing? If they do "de-recognize" them (apart from the agreement of other provinces) is their action one that simply insinuates a local division into the entire Communion? Just a little thought shows that the issue posed by ACNA is one of the greatest urgency for the Communion as a whole. How is the Communion to address a situation in which some members recognize a group others do not? The identity of Anglicanism as a communion depends upon the answer given to this question. Finally, there is the example we will call the case of the excluded diocese. As in the putative case of South Carolina, suppose there is a diocese that has not left a province but has been thrown out in a highly questionable manner. Suppose also that a successor diocese has been established to replace the expelled diocese. Suppose further that another province or group of provinces continues to recognize the expelled diocese. Suppose finally that this province or group of provinces sets up a pastoral relation with the expelled diocese. Has a border been crossed? The answer to this question is hideously difficult to determine. If South Carolina has continued to adhere to TEC's constitution and exercise its legitimate rights as an autonomous diocese, all provinces of the Communion should continue to recognize it. Failure to do so would be to interfere in its affairs. From the perspective of some in TEC, however, recognition of the original (expelled) diocese of South Carolina might appear to be border crossing. As we say, the case is hideously complex. The complexities have not come to an end, however. Suppose the provinces involved made a pastoral rather than a juridical decision. Suppose they acted as they did because they believed a failure to act would lend support to false teaching and practice on TEC's part and so compromise a common witness to the Gospel on the part of the Communion as a whole. How is such a case to be assessed by the Communion? Despite significant differences, the similarities between this case and those of Fort Worth and San Joaquin suggest that it would not be a cross border intervention, but even if it were, would it nonetheless be the right thing to do? We have said enough to establish that the question of what constitutes a cross border intervention does not allow for a simple answer. Indeed, what we have said leads to further questions of equal or greater complexity. One in particular applies to many of the cases mentioned above. In some of them the provinces that "crossed a border" no longer recognize the borders as borders, and perhaps with good reason! They take this position because, failing to recognize common teaching and practice, they have broken communion with the province whose territory they are charged with invading. They might well claim and indeed do claim, therefore, that since they are not in communion with TEC, the borders declared by TEC do not apply to them. This is an important yet overlooked point. In defending the actions it has taken, TEC has used a very "thin" version of what it means to be a communion. Communion, according to TEC, requires only the most vaguely defined doctrinal limits coupled with mutual aid in ministry and mission. It does not require much in the way of commonly recognized forms of belief and practice. What TEC does within its borders in respect to belief and practice is TEC's business. On this view communion consists in large measure of mutual aid in mission and ministry. Those who hold a "thick" view of communion do not see things in this way. In their eyes, communion may not require identity but it does require more extensive agreements that involve mutual recognition of belief and practice. Communion is rooted in mutually recognized forms of belief and practice from which cooperation in mission and ministry spring. If common recognition is not there, borders may be claimed but they have little or no authority. Because of this difference, there have been no agreed upon borders in North America since 2003, the year in which the Diocese of New Hampshire consecrated a bishop who has a partner of the same gender. Given the seriousness of the dispute, the only way in which agreement could have been reached is through joint action on the part of the Instruments of Communion. Though the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Pentecost letter referred to the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion, the Instruments have in point of fact not made a uniform request in respect to these moratoria. Indeed, as the following history makes clear there has been no operative moratorium on interventions based upon what the Primates have agreed since TEC rejected the agreements the Primates reached at their meeting in Dar es Salam in 2007. Since that time, there have been no commonly recognized borders, and the reason for this disarray is that there is no common understanding of what it means to be a communion of churches. The history of cross border interventions and the reaction of the Communion to them is long and complex"”so complex that we have included as an Appendix to this paper a more detailed account of this history. Complex or not, however, it is essential to keep this history in mind. One might argue that border crossing became a concern as far back as 2000 when AMiA was formed. At that time, Archbishop Carey labeled the group schismatic, and stated that the AMiA bishops could not be recognized until there was "reconciliation" with TEC. It is not unreasonable to assume that Lord Carey thought a border had been crossed and that this was a violation of Anglican order. However, border crossing as a recognized issue came into the full light of day after the consecration of Gene Robinson as the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. The Windsor Report was commissioned by the Lambeth Conference to guide the Communion in making a response to TEC's action and reactive interventions on the part of other provinces. In respect to border crossing, that report noted without reference to precedent or legislation that the Anglican Communion holds to the ancient norm that all Christians in one place should be united in prayer, worship and sacramental life. On this basis the report called for a moratorium on all further interventions. Many who oppose the suggestions of the Windsor Report rightly note that it is only a report. To become authoritative for the Communion the Instruments must in some way adopt its recommendations. However, on the question of interventions, they have been either unwilling or unable to do so in the terms originally proposed in the Windsor Report. At the meeting of the Primates at Dromantine, the Primates did not in fact go as far as the Windsor Report. They did not absolutely renounce interventions. They only made a qualified commitment to refrain from border crossing until the next meeting of the Lambeth Conference. Nor did the Primates adopt the full Windsor Report moratorium on border crossing at their meeting in Dar es Salam. Rather, they said that an absolute cessation was dependent upon TEC's readiness to "embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report." This is a decision that leaves space for border crossing when certain conditions are not met. One must conclude that after TEC rejected the communiqué from Dar es Salam, there was, according to this Instrument, no longer a basis for a moratorium. TEC had not fulfilled the conditions for its continuation. The next group to consider the moratorium on border crossing was the Windsor Continuation Group. With no citation of official actions, it treats the moratorium on interventions as if it is a well-known, well understood, and generally accepted means of procuring "gracious restraint" during the time in which the Covenant is being considered. There is without doubt much wisdom in the recommendation of the Windsor Continuation Group, but it is not based upon a foundation that has passed muster with the Instruments. When the Primates next met in Alexandria their discussion of the moratoria was very general. They did not discuss the specific terms of the moratorium on interventions. They only called for a cessation of actions that cause offense and a continuation of gracious restraint. So much for the Primates! What about the ACC? It did call for implementation of the agreed moratoria, but it called for implementation of the requests of the Windsor Report as adopted at the Primates meetings of 2005, 2007 and 2009. Adoption by the ACC was therefore qualified by what the Primates had said at their meetings at Dromantine, Dar es Salam, and Alexandria. Thus the ACC, like the Primates, tied cessation of border crossing to certain conditions, and in the case of TEC these conditions were not met. From the previous discussion and history we draw two conclusions. First, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a cross border intervention; and second, since Dar es Salam, there has in point of fact been no ban on cross border interventions by the Instruments of Communion. Things are in a terrible muddle. No clear definition of a border crossing, no agreement about their cessation and most of all no agreement about what it is to be a communion! In respect to this last bit of the muddle, there is much confusion about the nature of the various moratoria and their relative weight in relation one to another. Are they of the same type and of equal weight? Are they indeed on all fours one with another? The implication of the Secretary General's letter to Bishop Zavala is that they are. TEC has been championing the view that they are of the same sort and of the same weight. TEC's position, and that of the Secretary General, would seem to be that the moratoria are firmly in place (which they aren't) and that a violation of the moratoria is a violation pure and simple. There are no significant differences in either weight or type. Nevertheless, the claim is at best misleading, and it is so for several reasons. TEC initiated the crisis--not those who crossed borders in reaction to TEC's action. Border crossing in the latter case was a response to a pastoral emergency. It was not the cause of that emergency. One might argue, therefore, that the breach of the moratoria by TEC is a more grievous offense against order than is the pastoral response to that breach. One might argue further that at least some of the border crossings were emergency actions taken because the Instruments of Communion proved unable or unwilling to respond effectively in a moment of crisis. For these reasons alone, the actions of say Rwanda or Nigeria in sponsoring AMiA and CANA should be considered and addressed in a different manner from the moratoria violations of TEC. Even if the moratoria were all firmly in place there would be a good argument for distinguishing between the violations of TEC, Nigeria and Rwanda based simply on the degree and nature of the harm done to the order of the church. However, the argument from good order does not get to the root of the problem. The real problem with treating as equal in weight TEC's violations and those taken in response to it is that they are not violations of the same kind. The action taken by TEC, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, is contrary to established Anglican teaching. That taken by Nigeria and Rwanda is contrary to what most people consider an Anglican understanding of good order. An action taken against established teaching compromises the common witness of the church. An action taken against order disturbs its harmonious functioning. In the first instance the church must act to protect its integrity in the eyes of the general public and its own members. In the second instance, the church may act to facilitate harmonious functioning, but it need not do so. The stakes are not nearly as high. In this entire debate, assumptions have been made that the moratoria are well understood, are of equal weight and have been accepted by the Communion as a whole. We have already shown the first two assumptions to be false, but so also is the third. The fact of the matter is that the Instruments have accepted two of the moratoria (cessation of same sex blessings and consecration of persons who have entered a same sex relationship) but have not accepted the third (border crossing). The Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking on the basis of consensus in respect to the first two moratoria, has stated that the Anglican teaching that lies behind them is "established." Moratoria fall into a different category. Nothing is established here. In the eyes of many, borders no longer apply because established teaching has been rejected. Church order, in their eyes, can be restored only to the extent that the more weighty matter is sorted out. Yet the letter of the Secretary General says nothing about the weightier matter. It does no more than propose a solution to a problem that is not the real problem. That problem, in the words of the Covenant, is not about the violation of borders. It is the inability of the Communion to recognize what TEC has done as being in accord with established Anglican teaching. TEC's claim that communion does not depend upon such recognition in the eyes of many means that their borders are no longer markers that ought to be recognized. What conclusions may be drawn from this entire analysis? For two reasons Bishop Zavala should not have been removed as a full member of IASCUFO. First, in respect to the Southern Cone and its relation to the Dioceses of Fort Worth and San Joaquin, no border has been crossed. Second, even if a border has been crossed (and we do not believe it has), the Province of Southern Cone, in contradistinction to TEC, has taken no action against established Anglican teaching. It is quite clear why a province that does not abide by established Anglican teaching cannot represent the communion in ecumenical discussions. Why, however, would a justifiable irregularity in church polity be a reason for disqualification? On the other hand, removal of TEC's representatives from IASCUFO, though an inadequate response to the crisis TEC has caused, was entirely appropriate. TEC has taken a step that places its teaching and practice outside the limits of Anglican diversity. It is entirely inappropriate for a province that does not hold to Anglican teaching to represent the communion in ecumenical dialogues. Though AMiA, CANA and ACNA on some accounts are all involved in one way or another in border crossing, the alleged crossings are not all of the same type. Further, their actions, unwise though we believe them to be, have been taken in response (1) to belief that TEC has strayed from established Anglican teaching and practice, (2) that no effective response has been made by the Instruments of Communion, and (3) that the witness of the Anglican Communion as a whole has been compromised by what TEC has done. Given these factors, it would be more appropriate to seek diplomatic solutions to these anomalies in Anglican polity than to allow for a "consequential" solution such as the one sought in the case of Bishop Zavala. The possibility presented in the putative case of South Carolina is more than a cloud on the horizon. It is an impending reality that presents as a matter of immediate concern an issue neither the moratoria breakers nor the Communion as a whole have even begun to consider. TEC has set its face. It has firmly decided to take a course the Instruments of Communion have said runs contrary to established Anglican teaching. Nevertheless, within TEC there are entire dioceses and a significant number of individual parishes that are not in agreement with the course TEC has taken. In response, the Presiding Bishop and her associates are seeking to establish an unconstitutional and centralized authority that can prevent these dioceses and parishes from establishing pastoral or juridical relations with other provinces within the Communion. They are claiming the autonomy of provinces and the inviolability of its borders as justification for doing so. In fairness to TEC's present leadership, it is certainly the case that border crossing (if indeed that is what has occurred) disturbs the peace and order of the church. Nevertheless, not all violations of the moratoria are of equal weight and not all border crossings are the same. What is more, some border violations are taken to protect established teaching and so also the integrity of the Communion. It is the violation of Communion integrity through compromising its established teaching that has led to the compromise of provincial borders. The first has resulted in the second. The first is more serious than the second. Nevertheless, as long as the first results in no consequences, the second form of violating the moratoria will continue. The answer to this dilemma does not lie in treating all cases of moratoria violation as of the same type and of equal weight. The answer lies in finding a way of addressing each in the appropriate order and in a manner suited to its type and degree of seriousness. No solution to this dilemma is possible if it does not make clear that contravening the established teaching of the Communion cannot, in the terms of the proposed covenant, "be recognized." If the issue of TEC's disregard for received teaching is not adequately addressed, no attempts to resolve the question of intervention can possibly succeed. If, however, TEC is made to suffer the consequences of its action, prudential solutions can be found for the various instances of intervention. Solutions to "border crossings" must involve first of all saying no to violations of agreed Anglican teaching in ways that protect the integrity of the Communion and second of all taking practical steps to bring putative violation of provincial and diocesan borders back within the confines of an Anglican understanding of church order. The first task involves preservation of the integrity of the Communion. The second involves the sort of prudential wisdom that promotes peace in the church. If the first task is addressed successfully, Anglicanism will continue as a communion of churches. If it is not, the Communion will fragment and become something other than now it claims to be. The process of fragmentation cannot be halted by focusing on border crossing as if it were on all fours with rejection of established teaching. Only if the real problem is faced will the fragmentation cease. The letter of the Secretary General does not face the real problem. It merely pushes it aside by focusing on a dependent issue. The letter of the Secretary General to Bishop Zavala simply walks around what might be called the dead elephant in the middle of the room. A more appropriate response to the present crisis would be a message from the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered by the Secretary General notifying TEC's Presiding Bishop that, because of TEC's rejection of established Anglican teaching, her status within the councils of the Communion has been altered. It is this message that can open the way to resolving the issue of border crossing. It is, of course, true that this solution will produce a two track or two tier communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he hates the idea of such a thing. So do we all, but the alternative is the sort of chaos he has stated he wishes at all costs to avoid. The hard choice of changing the status of TEC's Presiding Bishop within the councils of the Communion is the only choice that can preserve the Anglican Communion in recognizable form. Failure to do so perpetuates a charade in which all moratoria are treated as identical. They are not, and unless this reality is faced, the Communion will devolve into some form of association based upon pragmatic arrangements of mutual aid and a rapidly disappearing historical memory.
APPENDIX: SCOPE OF THE MORATORIUM ON INTERVENTIONS
In determining whether the moratorium on interventions has been breached it is necessary to consider the precise terms of that moratorium as enacted by the Communion's Instruments. In particular, one must start with the recognition that the moratorium was not in fact adopted by the Instruments in the terms formulated by the Windsor Report. This appendix traces the development of that moratorium as originally proposed, as later amended and adopted by the Primates and as further amended by the Primates and ratified by the Anglican Consultative Council. 1. The Windsor Report was the first to propose a moratorium on cross border interventions, but as often said, this was just a report. It had no operative effect in the life of the Communion until its proposals were adopted by the Communion's Instruments. In any event, the Windsor Report began by noting the ancient tradition of one bishop for all Christians in a given territory and then moved without further explanation to the proposal that this principle should be adopted by all Anglicans. At the outset, one must note that this is not a principle, however reasonable it may be prima facie, that has been universally followed by Anglicans (or even Roman Catholics): 154. The Anglican Communion upholds the ancient norm of the Church that all the Christians in one place should be united in their prayer, worship and the celebration of the sacraments. The Commission believes that all Anglicans should strive to live out this ideal. Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions. 155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own: to express regret for the consequences of their actions to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and to effect a moratorium on any further interventions. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm 2. The Primates first considered this recommendation at Dromantine in 2005. The Primates adopted a moratorium on interventions at that meeting, which made this moratorium operative in the Communion for the first time, but they did not adopt the moratorium on the terms proposed by the Windsor Report: 14. Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognize the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph 8) 15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates' Statement of October 2003.12 Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions. (Emphasis added.) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique%20_english.pdf As adopted, the moratorium was subject to the following conditions: (i) it was limited to the period leading up to the Lambeth Conference while TEC and the ACoC considered their response to the other recommendations in the Windsor Report; (ii) it was subject to supervision of theological disputes by the Panel of Reference; and (iii) it was limited to encouraging and initiating interventions"”there was no moratorium on interventions per se. By it express terms, this moratorium is not applicable after 2008 at the latest. Moreover, in the context of the Southern Cone's relationship with the dioceses of Fort Worth and San Joaquin, it is important to remember that the Panel of Reference found in favor of Fort Worth when that diocese submitted its dispute to the Panel of Reference as contemplated by the Dromantine communiqué. The Panel's recommendation was immediately rejected by TEC and the Panel itself ceased operations shortly thereafter. TEC's rejection of the Panel's supervision and the disbanding of the Panel effectively terminated the operative provisions of the moratorium as adopted at Dromantine. 3. The Primates further amended the terms of the moratorium on interventions at their meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007: 31. Three urgent needs exist. First, those of us who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report. 32. Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. 33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church there are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to bring an end to all interventions. 34. Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs simultaneously. 35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended Episcopal ministry required. (Emphasis added.) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique2007_english.pdf As amended at Dar, the moratorium on interventions was explicitly conditioned on (i) "change" in TEC--its genuine and full embrace of the recommendations of the Windsor Report; and (ii) adoption by TEC of the "robust scheme of pastoral oversight" outlined in the Primates' communiqué. When the Dar communiqué was immediately and summarily rejected by TEC, the explicit condition to the moratorium failed and there was no longer any operative moratorium on interventions according to the Instruments. 4. The report of the Windsor Continuation Group in 2009 discusses the moratorium on interventions without considering at all the precise terms as adopted and amended by the Primates: 26. The moratoria then arose from the necessity of gaining commitment to "gracious restraint" all round in which conversation and discernment could take place. Such a season was also envisaged as a period in which the Covenant process (see below) could come to fruition. The Windsor Report identified three areas in which "gracious restraint" would be necessary: Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union Permission for Rites of Blessing for Same Sex unions Interventions in Provinces 27. One of the most difficult areas of the life in the Communion at the moment arise from the differing extent to which the requests for such moratoria, recommended in the Windsor Report, and reflected in the requests of the Primates to their Churches in the Dromantine Communiqué (2005), have been adopted and are in force in the life of the Communion.... 33. It is in respect to the third moratorium (on interventions) that there has been the least discernable response. As noted in the JSC Report of October 2007, there has apparently been an increase in interventions since the adoption of the Windsor/Dromantine recommendations by the unanimous voice of the primates. The adoption of dioceses into the Province of the Southern Cone, inconsistent with the Constitutions both of TEC and the Southern Cone; the consecration of bishops for ministry in various forms by different Provinces and the vocal support of such initiatives by the Primates associated with the Gafcon have all taken place, apparently in contradiction of the 2005 Dromantine Statement, although in each case, the primates involved would cite a conviction that their actions were provisional, born of necessity, and reactive rather than taking the initiative. From their perspective, some of the intervening primates have indicated that they will hand back those within their care as soon as the underlying causes have been resolved. 34. One of the aggravating factors in these circumstances has been the fact that a fourth moratorium requested by the unanimous voice of the Primates at Dar es Salaam in 2007 - to see the end of litigation - has also been ignored. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm Three things to note: (i) the scope of the moratorium at Dromantine is misrepresented--it was qualified to a certain period, based on certain actions by TEC and the Panel of Reference (which found in favor of Fort Worth only to be rejected by TEC); (ii) this moratorium was revised by the Primates at Dar--never mentioned by the WCG; (iii) the related fourth moratorium on litigation was completely ignored (as was the recommendation by the Panel of Reference on this subject). As noted, the fourth moratorium was unanimously adopted by the Primates and has not been rescinded. When it was considered by the ACC in 2009, it was defeated by a margin of one vote after Uganda's clerical representative was excluded. But it is still an operative moratorium as adopted by an Instrument of Communion"”two Instruments in effect since the Archbishop of Canterbury agreed to it at Dar. The action by the ACC is irrelevant to this moratorium since it was adopted by two other Instruments. The ACC does not enjoy veto power over the decisions of other Instruments, each of which according to the Covenant "may initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches." 5. At their meeting in Alexandria in 2009, the Primates did not discuss the specific terms of the moratorium on interventions, saying only the following: 12. There are continuing deep differences especially over the issues of the election of bishops in same-gender unions, Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, and on cross border interventions. The moratoria, requested by the Windsor Report and reaffirmed by the majority of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, were much discussed. If a way forward is to be found and mutual trust to be re-established, it is imperative that further aggravation and acts which cause offence, misunderstanding or hostility cease. While we are aware of the depth of conscientious conviction involved, the position of the Communion defined by the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its entirety remains, and gracious restraint on all three fronts is urgently needed to open the way for transforming conversation. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/Pastoral%20Letter.pdf This communiqué also called, however, for the establishment of a "provisional holding arrangement" for ACNA, which has not happened. There is no change to the terms of the earlier communiqués regarding this moratorium, and certainly no commitment to cease any recognition of ACNA until such time as a holding arrangement is established. 6. Finally, at its meeting in Jamaica in 2009, the Anglican Consultative Council affirmed the three moratoria initially proposed in the Windsor Report as adopted by the Primates' Meeting: [The ACC] affirms the request of the Windsor Report (2004), adopted at the Primates' Meetings (2005, 2007 and 2009), and supported at the Lambeth Conference (2008) for the implementation of the agreed moratoria on the Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union, authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for Same Sex unions and continued interventions in other Provinces; http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc14/resolutions.cfm#s9 By its own terms, therefore, the ACC formulation of this moratorium is subject to the conditions initially adopted by the Primates at Dromantine, Dar and Alexandria and outlined above. To summarize, there has never been an unconditional moratorium on interventions in effect. And since TEC rejected the pastoral scheme in the Dar communiqué out of hand in 2007 the conditions applicable to this moratorium have not been satisfied and no operative moratorium has been in effect.
