At the beginning of the session, Kearon tried, unsuccessfully, to have discussions take place behind closed doors with no press please as it might prove too embarrassing. Jefferts Schori asked the council to vote on his request that the session be closed to all but council members. Kearon got a thumbs down. His request was decisively rejected by a show of hands. The usually benign Episcopal News Service saw this as a golden press opportunity and reported it, warts and all.

Kearon unloaded on how bad things are among the ecumenical partners, "they are at the point of collapse" and then said the (lesbian) Glasspool decision put the church "out of step with the rest of the [Anglican] Communion on same-gender issues."

Kearon said at the outset that he would tell the council "the way I see it because I don't think the way I see it is the way any of you see it." Really.

He then began by saying that the "problem of increased and growing diversity in the Anglican Communion has been an issue for many years". He added that by the 1990s, leaders in the communion began to name "the diversity of opinions in the communion and diversity, in general, as a problem and sought some mechanisms to address it."

The Secretary General said TEC should have expected consequences for Glasspool's consecration. Ya think. Kearon also said there were "problems of increased and growing diversity in the Anglican Communion". Really.

All this comes from a man whose organization depends on TEC for 40% of its budget. Tough talk indeed from a fellow liberal traveler who actually has no problem, personally of course, with the Glasspool election, but has to keep a wary eye on the 80% of the Anglican Communion who thinks he has a strong personal relationship with the serpent in the garden.

Kearon also defended the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams saying he has limited authority beyond the ability to call meetings of certain communion bodies, make some appointments and "occasionally articulate the mind of the communion."

"Everywhere I go, everyone wants him to act as a sort of an Anglican pope, as long as he does what [they] want him to do," Kearon added.

If Williams has no real authority, this begs the question what is the value of disciplinary section 4 of the Covenant floating around the Anglican Communion?

Kearon turned on his financial captors stating that he had withdrawn her membership in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO) and inviting her to serve as a consultant to that body.

One of the charges of the IASCUFO is "to promote the deepening of Communion between the Anglican Communion and other Christian Churches and traditions." Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church have broken off all ecumenical talks with TEC over the Robinson consecration and that talks within the Anglican Communion itself are at a virtual standstill. Is the Archbishop of Sydney or the Archbishop of Rwanda remotely interested in talking to PB Jefferts Schori about anything?

After Kearon's assault on TEC, it was counter offensive time from TEC's Executive Council members who gave him an earful of questions he couldn't answer.

This resulted in Garner telling ENS that he had "never witnessed so much obfuscation in such a short period of time" in his entire life. "We were polite," he said, "but we asked him questions he could not or would not provide answers to."

Suddenly, liberal and revisionist Episcopalians were on the offensive against one of their own, living proof that the second law of the jungle is never to offend or devour members of your own clan.

There is also a boatload of irony here.

Usually, it is orthodox Anglicans like Bob Duncan or Peter Akinola or Henry Luke Orombi who come in for a thrashing from Episcopal revisionists because of their alleged "homophobia", but now the liberals were turning on one of their own and tearing the ecclesiastical clothes off of his back.

Here are some of the questions TEC's Executive Council asked to which he could not provide answers:

There is an Anglican covenant being considered that has in it certain processes, some of which have caused great concern for some of the provinces on how fairly they would be applied. For example, the Province of New Zealand gave only partial approval to the covenant, with members of its General Synod noting that Section 4 could "get into a situation where we sanctify a process of exclusion or marginalization" and that it might be implemented in ways that are "punitive, controlling and completely unAnglican." Do the recent actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury give credence to these concerns?

You have stated that the Episcopal Church does not "share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion." Given the place of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral in our common life as the Episcopal Church, how was it determined that the Episcopal Church does not share this faith and order?

I am Jim Simons, a priest resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, which, as I'm sure you are aware, went through a recent and painful schism. Currently, there are over 100 priests, deacons and one bishop canonically resident in the Province of the Southern Cone as well as another bishop canonically resident in the Province of Rwanda functioning in our diocese without licenses and laying claim to some of our parishes. This is in clear violation of the canons and it is also not unique to our diocese. What if any disciplinary action do you anticipate toward provinces that engage in such jurisdictional incursions?

As a lesbian priest, in a 20-year relationship, legally recognized civil union in my state for ten years, and serving in a congregation, I ask...is removing people by executive action counter-intuitive to furthering inclusion. How is the exclusion of Episcopal Church members reconciled with the language of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost letter?

The Church of England remains in full communion and ecumenical dialogue with the Old Catholic Church, which blesses same-sex unions, and the Church of Sweden, which has a partnered lesbian bishop and blesses same-sex marriages. Given this fact, how are we to reconcile the removal of Episcopal Church members from ecumenical bodies?

But Kearon needn't worry too much. The Presiding Bishop told a press conference that the money would continue flowing. The truth is she has little option but to go on funding the ACC. It is the only Instrument of unity left that will still speak to her and that she has any real leverage with. The ABC won't have anything to do with her (at least for the moment), most of the Primates won't speak to her (only a handful of the most liberal ones like Scotland, New Zealand, Australia will allow her to preach and celebrate in their provinces) and most archbishops, the orthodox ones that is, won't attend any gathering she turns up at. The last Lambeth Conference saw 30% of them, absenting themselves from her presence.

At a later news conference, Jefferts Schori tried to pour oil on the turbulent TEC waters by saying, "We look forward to the possibility, upon further reflection, that all participants of this conversation this morning may have had their understanding increased."

Right, and if you believe that, you'll also believe that Gene Robinson will repent of his sinful behavior, and that the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of North America Bob Duncan will return to the Episcopal fold. It will never happen and he won't.

END