![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe Anglican Church of Canada (Wikipedia) is currently going through some tough times, as conservative congregations of the Anglican Church opposed to same-sex blessings are starting to choose to leave the oversight of the Canadian church and place themselves under the conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The pro-secession Anglican Network's news release, worth reading in its entirety, says it all.
This last sentence hints at the ongoing tensions within the increasingly diverse Anglican Communion, as liberals and conservatives, First and Third Worlders find themselves at odds. I have no idea how this sort of issue could be resolved in the religious realm. I do suspect that, as described in The Globe and Mail, the secular realm may play at least as important a role in determining the split.
Despite my personal sympathies, the mother church's claim to the properties of those parishes does strike me as legalistic and perhaps a bit mean-spirited, although the exact nature of the financial arrangements that kept those parishes' properties going will determine much.
One last thing. Am I alone in finding the last two paragraphs of the above cited article a bit funny?
Three more Anglican congregations voted today to accept the offer of episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey, Moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), under the Primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. All three churches accepted this offer with strong majorities. Since this offer of episcopal oversight was first extended in late November 2007, 15 parishes and congregations have voted to accept the offer and join ANiC.
This means that these congregations are requesting spiritual care from and will come under the authority of Bishop Harvey and Archbishop Venables, rather than their former Anglican Church in Canada diocese and bishop who are walking away from established Christian teaching and globally recognized Anglican doctrine.
[. . .]
While orthodox Anglicans are in a minority in Canada, they are in the majority worldwide. What is happening in Canada is part of a much bigger controversy in Anglican churches globally.
This last sentence hints at the ongoing tensions within the increasingly diverse Anglican Communion, as liberals and conservatives, First and Third Worlders find themselves at odds. I have no idea how this sort of issue could be resolved in the religious realm. I do suspect that, as described in The Globe and Mail, the secular realm may play at least as important a role in determining the split.
Beyond the theological debate that has triggered those votes is a decidedly secular question: Who gets the property if a congregation splits with its leadership?
The leadership of the Niagara diocese did not wait long to move on that question, serving legal papers on Wednesday to gain possession of the property of St. George's Church in Lowville, Ont., and St. Hilda's in Oakville, Ont.
The Anglican Network in Canada, representing the dissident parishes, is questioning why the diocese acted so quickly. "It is not as if the building is getting up and moving anywhere," said Cheryl Chang, a director and a lawyer.
She said Anglican officials in British Columbia are moving much slower, agreeing to a cooling-off period during which time they will not discipline two priests at a Victoria-area congregation that voted last weekend to break from the national church.
However, Michael Patterson, an official with the Niagara diocese said the dissident parishioners and the Anglican Network were well aware of the likelihood of legal action, adding that they had brought along lawyers during a meeting in December. "This is not out of the blue," said Mr. Patterson, executive officer of the diocese.
The position of the diocese is that the dissident parishioners are simply a number of individuals leaving the church and so have no claim to the property; the parishioners say the congregation is the church, and therefore has a right to the church.
Despite my personal sympathies, the mother church's claim to the properties of those parishes does strike me as legalistic and perhaps a bit mean-spirited, although the exact nature of the financial arrangements that kept those parishes' properties going will determine much.
One last thing. Am I alone in finding the last two paragraphs of the above cited article a bit funny?
The Southern Cone takes a conservative position on more than just the issue of blessing same-sex unions - it also does not allow women to serve as priests, a position that conflicts with the position of both sides of the debate in Canada.
And that might seem particularly awkward for St. Chad's [in Toronto] - headed by Rev. Barbara Richardson, who supports the split with the national church. However, she and other dissident Anglicans say there is no parallel between the debate over female ordination three decades ago and today's clash over same-sex marriage. Besides, she said, the Southern Cone will not demand that the breakaway parishes stop ordaining women. "We still have our own rules," she said.
