Uruguay thwarted in attempt to switch provinces

By Marites N. Sison
Posted Nov 26, 2012

[Anglican Journal] The Diocese of Uruguay says it feels “abandoned and unsupported” after the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) turned down its request to change provinces.

The diocese, which is part of the province of the Southern Cone, has asked that it be transferred to the province of Brasil, which it says is “more compatible” in terms of theology, mission and philosophy.

It appealed to the ACC Standing Committee to review its decision, saying it feels “adrift, as if condemned to stay in a province where it doesn’t fit.”

In 2010, the diocese voted to seek another jurisdiction after a proposal seeking to allow dioceses individually to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood was turned down by the 10th Southern Cone synod. The Diocese of Uruguay, which currently has female deacons, has been requesting the ordination of women for more than a decade.

In a press statement, Uruguay’s diocesan permanent committee, said the Standing Committee’s suggestions for a way forward only focused on the election of a bishop coadjutor, which it undertook last year. This election was not ratified by the province, however.

Archdeacon Michael Pollesel, former general secretary of the Anglican Church of Canada, was elected in that process. The province has rejected his election twice, a move that the Uruguay diocese described as “the last straw.”

The diocese said it would have no problem holding another episcopal election, but that the ministry and mission of the new bishop and the diocese would “still be constrained by the missiological, philosophical and theological differences” with the province.  The Standing Committee appears to have overlooked these differences “and offers no way forward,” it said. The diocese has tried to “follow the rules and its request is still being ignored.”

The diocese had appealed a transfer to the ACC Standing Committee this past July. Formerly, it requested permission to leave the province. The request was denied.

Uruguay has been part of the Southern Cone since its formation in 1988. The Southern Cone also includes dioceses in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Peru.

The 15-member ACC Standing Committee includes seven members elected by the ACC, five primates, and the chair and vice chair of the ACC. Their mandate is to assist the churches of the 77-million strong Anglican Communion “in advancing the work of their mission worldwide,” according to the ACC website.

— Marites N. Sison is a staff writer for the Anglican Journal.


Tags


Comments (7)

  1. Joe Gilliland says:

    I know nothing in detail about the Anglican Church in Uruguay, But, considering its role as the receiving jurisdiction for those in Fort Worth and San Joaquin (and probably elsewhere) who left the Episcopal Church, I think I’d want to distance myself as possible from the reactionaries in the Southern Cone.

  2. Josephine (Chepi) DiCalogero says:

    This is an injustice to the faithful of the Diocese of Uruguay and to the greater Church. They have done everything according to the “rules” yet are not able to live by their conscience. I hope that whatever decision is made on their part, considering their longing to validate and promote women, that the new Archbishop of Canterbury will intercede on their behalf. Remember theirs is not just a diocese but a country.

  3. Bill Cruse says:

    Did the ACC Standing Committee provide any details for the denial of Uruguay’s request?

  4. Don McCleary says:

    If a Diocese chooses to ordain women why would the AAC standing in their way?
    Furthermore the Province is disallowing the Uruguayan Diocese’s selection of a Bishop.
    The AAC should be supportive of any Diocese that is moving forward on women’s ordination!

  5. Bruce Marshall says:

    This is a very poorly written article. The lead says that Uruguay was “thwarted” and the rest of the piece describes the reasons for that diocese’s discontent with the Southern Cone. But nowheree are we given any explanation for the action by the ACC or why Uruguay was thwarted. Yet the records of the recent ACC meeting were posted on its website. Why were the relevant portions not summarized in this report or at least a link to the web pages not provided? That is just sloppy reporting.

  6. M. Andrew Johnston says:

    Bruce Marshall is right: the article skates across the surface of the problem and provides no information about the substance of the problem. ENS owes the readership better.

    1. Scott Elliott says:

      Maybe the Cafe will have something on it in a day or two.

Comments are closed.