Discussion took place about the re-examination of the statement on the common cup (this was due to a concern expressed because of the spread of AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis "B" in society today).
Some members suggested that a new statement would risk sending an unintentioned message to the constituency. It was agreed that TB is of growing concern and would warrant a re-investigation about the tradition of the common cup. However, AIDS is not (a concern), and any new statement would have to be clear about the distinction. It was agreed that the national Doctrine and Worship Committee together with the library would be requested to prepare a summary of contemporary material for the House of Bishops for its consideration.
That the Doctrine and Worship Committee draft a summary of recent literature regarding the use of the Common Cup and report back to the House of Bishops. CARRIED
Bishop Lemmon was pleased to extend an invitation for the bishops to hold their Fall meeting in 1995 in Fredericton, noting that in 1995 the Diocese of Fredericton is to celebrate its 150th anniversary. He suggested that the Fall meeting might be held in October.
That we accept, in principle, the invitation and ask for further discussion between the Diocese and the Bishops. CARRIED
That the June 1992 meeting of the House of Bishops include an educational component and that the spouses of the bishops be invited to participate in the educational programme; and
That the Planning Committee for the June 1992 meeting should include some wives to assist in the planning, and be in touch with St. George's Church, St. Catharines, and be available to work with St. George's Church on the development of the agenda.
That this motion be tabled and brought forward later at this meeting. CARRIED
That this House of Bishops accepts with gratitude the sum of $10,000 from the Assessment Budget toward the costs of the spouses attending the national House of Bishops educational event in June, 1992. Additional costs to allow the spouses to attend this important event will be raised by members of the House.
We recognize the fact that this is an educational and training event for the spouses and the bishops together. For this reason we apply to have all costs for all bishops and their spouses to attend the training event in 1995. This means that the Administration and Finance Committee of the General Synod should be alerted to this immediately so that the budgetary considerations for the future may be met. CARRIED
Bishop Lackey spoke regarding a Human Rights monument in Ottawa, the only one of its kind in the world. He requested permission, on behalf of the diocesan executive of the Diocese of Ottawa, to request contributions from other dioceses.
That the House grant permission to the Diocese of Ottawa to request contributions from other dioceses for the Human Rights monument. CARRIED
Archbishop Peers introduced Archbishop Stewart Payne as the House representative on Primate's World Relief Committee and Mr. Robin Gibson, Director of the PWRDF.
Mr. Gibson had requested an opportunity to speak to the House of Bishops about the Parish and Diocesan Partnership Program which was an outcome of the diocesan consultations held in 1993. The program's objective is to pursue the work at the national level in partnership with dioceses and parishes. The message received (from the consultations) by the PWRDF was that the constituency wanted the opportunity to participate in a way other than simply as "donors". The decision was then made that there should be a person appointed both in the dioceses and in the parishes to act as a link with the national office.
The PWRDF is now working on identifying key people to be those links. Volunteers will be appointed for a two-year term only. Mr. Gibson said that he hoped when the diocese appoints a staff person or refugee coordinator for the PWRDF, that it would do so in consultation with the national office.
Archbishop Payne invited questions and comments. Two main points were brought up. The first was the reality that some dioceses are undergoing cuts in their staff and resources due to economic realities. Therefore although the work of the PWRDF is recognized as being important, it may not be possible to appoint a staff person solely for the PWRDF or even at all. The second point made was that some dioceses already had their own procedure for appointing staff and volunteers and again, because of downsizing may not have the resources or energy to make changes in the way appointments are made. Mr. Gibson sympathized saying that he understood and that the PWRDF had also recently undergone reorganization which included cutting several staff positions at the national office.
That the House of Bishops support the PWRDF proposal for Parish and Diocesan Coordinators in principle with the understanding that flexibility would be allowed to those dioceses which already have a procedure in place. CARRIED