Talk:Anglican Church of South America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uniform format proposal[edit]

A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia claim[edit]

I'm getting pretty fed up with the anonymous editor(s) who keep(s) calling Bishop Venables 'homophobic', saying that part of the church is not in communion with him (he's the Presiding Bishop) and linking a blog. It'll be treated as vandalism unless there's discussion here. — Gareth Hughes 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is going around saying that his Christianity is the ancient, Biblical, unchanged Christianity passed down from Christ, unaltered, to the modern day; whereas the Anglicans who show any support for homosexuality are post-modern liberals who haven't stayed true to the ancient Christianity. Sounds somewhat like homophobia (as pop culture has decided to define it) to me. --24.141.153.56 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum hominum is Latin for argument against the man as opposed to actually dealing with what the person says. Name calling such as 'homophobic' is clearly in the category of argumentum hominum and has no place in Wikipedia. The term 'homophobia' is heavily value-laden and is used in pop culture to demonize those to disagree with the accuser. I agree with Garzo|Gareth Hughes that it is strictly vandalism. John.honsberger (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Should this article be moved to Anglican Province of the Southern Cone? That's the version I have seen almost universally in English sources such as [1] [2] [3] etc. , though the official name is in Spanish. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Name? and couple of other things[edit]

I realize that this church province is topical b/c of current controversies within the denomination, but I'm thinking in different directions - about some simply facts. Why for instance, is it named "Southern Cone" - that's a pretty odd name. Is there some meaning to the name? An additional question is whether the "presiding bishop" should be entitled "archbishop". I have seen only the presiding bishop title for USA bishops (but this may be my limited exposure to the area), with others places calling them archbishop. It might be good to explain or link to something saying what "presiding bishop" means. Finally, I see there is controversy about the present "presiding bishop". It would seem to me that this might belong in an article about this man versus the church province. Kindly and respectfully, Fremte (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: I think this is more properly a mid-importance class of article. Why is it assessed as high? Fremte (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Southern Cone" is a not-uncommon geographical designation, as the southernmost third of the continent of South America resembles, on the map, an inverted cone (commonly used as shorthand for the nations of Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile in aggregate; here, clearly, somewhat expanded). "Archbishop" is the title of a man who presides over an archbishopric; the diocese of Argentina is not an archdiocese, nor is the Southern Cone: the office of chief bishop of the province could, I think, be passed next to the bishop of Chile, say, or to the bishop of Perú. Further, when introduced (when he was to me, at least), Bishop Venables is accorded the title of "bishop", not of "archbishop"; the Anglican church differs in styles of address from the Roman church or the Lutheran. Firstorm (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the national churches were assessed as high. If you disagree, feel free to join the project and help with assessments. -- SECisek (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican church does accord +Gregory Venebles the title of "archbishop" as he is the bishop of the archdiocese of the Southern Cone. Archbishop Venebles is also my archbishop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.19.71 (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place in society[edit]

I'd find interesting any informed commentary on the place of the Anglican church within the societies and culture of the Southern Cone. My impressions (from extended visits to the Southern Cone, as a Spanish-speaker but North American) are that Protestant churches there generally occupy much the same position as the Roman church in the United States -- a minority denomination, viewed as more than a bit foreign and as a resort of the poorer and less well-educated -- but, curiously, that the Anglican church is (at least in Argentina and Chile) accorded more respect than the Roman, except, perhaps, by the aristocracy of those countries, in part because of the high regard in which English entrepreneurs and technocrats are or have been held.

Has anyone else an impression formed from actual experience? Might anyone know of any study or analysis of this apparent phenomenon? Firstorm (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legality[edit]

It is illegal under the canons of the Province of the Southern Cone to exercise jurisdiction outside of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. The article suggests that jurisdiction over a diocese in the United States is somehow legal or unproblematic. What do editors think? fishhead64 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct. The "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin" is not recognized by Canterbury or the Anglican Communion as a whole, and then there is the issue of canonical jurisdiction. This group of dissidents may call themselves the "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin" but they do not (and very likely never will) have official standing within the Anglican Communion. Including them in this article is incorrect. TechBear (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support TechBear's statement here and the recent revision he/she did to the article. The San Joaquin diocese is mentioned earlier in the article and this is sufficient about it, otherwise it starts going in the POV direction and a lobby for a particular factional group. --Fremte (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin[edit]

Until and unless references can be provided showing that the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is, indeed, a recognized, official member of this province, it would be factually incorrect and likely a violation of the Original Research and Verifiability guidelines of the Wikipedia to list it as a member of the province. It is sufficient, I think, to note in the lede that the province claims to have this group within its jurisdiction. TechBear (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishop is a member of the house of bishops, southern cone. To pretend that the only diocese of San Joaquin is the one recognized by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States would be terribly biased. Bo (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to an edit war here. I think this section should be rewritten, not just listing this diocese as pat of Southern Cone, but replacing it with a referenced section that respects both the relationship between SJ and SC and the conflict with the canonical structure. I do not think that the present situation is acceptable. --Fremte (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference citing the letter from the Primate of the Southern Cone. The fact is that San Joaquin was accepted by the Province of the Southern Cone. There is also a 'reconstituted' province by the same name in the Protestant Episcopal Churck in the US (San Joaquin under Lamb should be mentioned in the TEC article perhaps), and 'two dioceses - one place' is a matter for discussion in the appropriate articles.

This article is on the the Province of the Southern Cone, and San Joaquin is a member diocese. Bo (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For NPOV, you'd need a citation for the "other side" of the controversy, i.e., that the diocese is not. So the section is half way there. --Fremte (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look at you reference. it doesn't do it half-way, maybe 1/4 way. Section retagged, do not remove until this is properly settled. --Fremte (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the provided citation is valid in any way. Schofield's opinion does count as a reliable source with regards to canon law of the Anglican Communion. That canon law is crystal clear: No province may claim canonical jurisdiction outside its geographical borders. Until and unless you can provide a reference showing that the Province of the Southern Cone has been granted an exception to this basic rule, the Anglican Diocese of the San Joaquin has no official existence and thus cannot be listed as a member diocese. TechBear (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might be a cannon lawyer, but then again you might not be. Your understanding of the cannon law isn't really relevant. We are supposed avoid original research and findings are we not?
The Primate of the Souther Cone, and Bishop Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin both consider the diocese to be part of the Province of the Souther Cone. I see you cut out the 'reference' to the letter from the Roman Catholic News source, (in the base article).
Is the Letter from the Primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone good enough for you? www.sjoaquin.net/News/AB%20Greg%20to%20JDS%20pre%20Lambeth.pdf Bo (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Removal of Neutrality Tag
I'm sorry - it was an editing typo on my part (if I'm the one that removed it) - I intended only to point out that the TEC's actions against Bishop Schofield haven't been recognized by Canterbury or the Province of the Southern Cone. I DID NOT mean to indicate the article was now 'neutral' as it is still highly TEC flavoured... Bo (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though suspended and then deposed, he remains a bishop; the Episcopal Church, along with the whole of the Anglican Communion, holds that ordination and consecration are sacramental in nature and cannot be rescinded. That is not in disupute. His attendance as the Lambeth Convention is a reflection of his being a bishop and does not, in any wa, reflect official recognition of the Anglican Diocese of the San Joaquin. I will look for official lists of attendees online, which will show that Schofield was NOT listed as a diocesan bishops, while those bishops that headed recognized dioceses were so listed.
I am removing the mention of his attendance at Lambeth because it irrelevant to this article. TechBear (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Worth, USA diocese[edit]

This one is in the same category as the San Joaquin diocese?: diocese-of-fort-worth-council-endorses-realignment-with-southern-cone-province
--Fremte (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it, so the same type citations should be required for this one as well: until and unless official references show that this diocese is an acknowledged part of the Province of the Southern Cone, it is not listed as a member diocese of the province. TechBear (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts were to not repeat the problems with San Joaquin with this one. I'm not expert on either of these, being from Canada. Thanks!--Fremte (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting for the record. For what it is worth, I can easily see the issue of diocesan membership and canonical jurisdiction blowing up into revert wars. In an effort to forestall this, I have made a request to WikiProject Anglicanism for guidelines (see their talk page, heading The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone and dissident US parishes and diocese.) TechBear (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support. I have tagged the section of the article and added some comments above. --Fremte (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting re San Joaquin and Fort Worth[edit]

I think that for NPOV, it needs to be developed like I have started. this is simply to be factual: The dioceses are wanting to be part of SC and the ECUSA is disputing this. How about we simply write this to represent the unresolved situation? And please, please, end the edit-revert war!!--Fremte (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental difference between wanting to be part of something and actually being part of something. As you said, these dioceses want to be part of the Southern Cone province. Until this desire has been formalized as actual membership in the province, it is factually incorrect to list them as a member diocese. TechBear (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is info that they are in process/in conflict/disputed etc re this. The issue is relevant. I do not think leaving it out is acceptable. You can rewrite further if you wish. --Fremte (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since we do not disagree about the lede, I have left that untouched. The rest I have separated out to its own section. I've provided enough information to explain the claims; if users are interested in further information, they can refer to the appropriate articles. As rewritten, this satisfies my main objections; if you agree, then we can leave this until the Anglicanism Wikiproject has a chance to weigh in. TechBear (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fremte, one other thing. The objections have been raising are not about the neutrality of the article, but the verifiability of what is being presented as facts and specifically the undue weight being given claims made by Bishop Schofield and Presiding Bishop Venables which are in direct contradiction to what is being said by the Episcopal Church and other members of the Anglican Communion. How would you feel about removing the neutrality banner and using the controversy template at the top of the Dioceses claimed section? TechBear (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy tag is fine - you are absolutely correct about this. If you wrote into the article pretty much as you have in the comment above, expanding as required, that'd do it: claims made by Bishop Schofield and Presiding Bishop Venables which are in direct contradiction to what is being said by the Episcopal Church and other members of the Anglican Communion. I like the "Diocese's claimed" title, because it frames that it is indeed controversy. This section will expand further as other dioceses go down the same path -- which, it appears, they indeed will. --Fremte (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the court document (added as reference for 'ongoing dispute' also be a appropriate for link for the 'claims in direct contradiction'? Bo (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The court document, I think so. But can you find a better link and not one that an anonymous person posted to a public document sharing site? The document itself looks valid, but the source does not meet Wikipedia standards for a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. I would think Frenso County has something official, as lawsuits are matters of public record. Also, please try to use one of the citation templates. A "bare" reference works, of course, but the template will put the reference into a standard format. I think the court case template would be best; just provide the information you have and delete any empty parameters. Look at the templates being used to see how it works. TechBear (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Living Church News is the organization posting the court document to the web. The Fresno Court doesn't make filings (only document entry listings) available over the web (at least not where I can find them...) http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/8/27/san-joaquin-placeholder Bo (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are making progress on agreeing about San Joaqin, I would like to suggest some changes in the article's lede. I think the two paragraphs can be combined, and most of the controvercial elements left out, as they are included in the section about dioceses in the United States. As revised, the lede would look like:

The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of America (Spanish: Provincia Anglicana del Cono Sur de América) is the ecclesiastical province of the Anglican Communion that covers the countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. As of 30 Nov 2007, the province reports 22,000 members[1] which are thinly spread across the nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay; this makes it one of the smaller provinces in the Anglican Communion in terms of numbers and one of the largest in geographical extent. It is officially made up of seven dioceses. The province also claims the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, which on December 8, 2007 voted to break with the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and ally with the Province of the Southern Cone.

Thoughts? TechBear (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good lead in paragraph to me. Bo (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support. Additional comment: the court document is required, but it has be the actual to be a credible reference as noted. I don't know if the version as discussed above is good enough. Realize of course, we are documenting a controversy and various claims in a brief way in this article and do not have to come to an "answer" as to whether the claims of dioceses by SC are going to fly or going to ground. --Fremte (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further developments pending[edit]

http://episcopal-life.org/79901_100561_ENG_HTM.htm
We're going to have a bit additionally to add over time, and if we anticipate this, we'll have noncontroversial info about the controversy. --Fremte (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We'll need to agree on what counts as a non-controversial, or at least acceptable set of sources - the episcopal-life site is 'verifiable' in that they don't actually lie (they just leave out 'unpleasant truths'), but they are biased (it is the house organ in effect). Best I can tell Virtue on Line and the Living Church News (in the 'news' sections, not speaking for any commentary) likewise tell no lies (but leave out unpleasant truths). Stand Firm seems to mostly site other sources, which MIGHT indicate the underlying sources are in the same class...
What do you think?
Would The Living Church News, Virtue On Line, or Stand Firm in the Faith be acceptable additional sources? Bo (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfamiliar with all of them. Being a Canadian. By initial sources are usually anglicanjournal.com and anglicansonline.org. Then follow-up from there. Both of these are normally secondary sources. --Fremte (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say 'yes but'. I prefer 'stronger' sources but sometimes they're not to be had. The situation in the Diocese of Recife wasn`t really covered in mainstream anglican outlets. In general I don`t like the 'poisoned well' approach to certain sources; in the end no source is without its bias. --Scarpe (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America". Quick facts. Anglican Journal. 2007-11-30. doi:2007-11-30. Retrieved 2008-09-14. {{cite web}}: Check |doi= value (help)

The Actual Name of the Province[edit]

There is in fact no entity whose name is Provincia Anglicana del Cono Sur de América. The name of the entity being discussed is "Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America". The church of that name constitutes a province of the Anglican Communion, which has that same name.

The situation is the same for the Anglican Province in the United States. Its name (as a "national" church, and as a province of the Anglican Communion), is "The Episcopal Church in the USA". There is no entity whose formal name is "The Anglican Province of the United States of America".

It is of course reasonable to speak colloquially of The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, but that is not the formal name of anything.

Reference: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/index.cfm

Doug Kerr (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is an error. In addition, there is the question of which language to use. Sometimes (Japan, China) we use the native language; sometimes (Brazil, Mexico) we use English. I think we should generally use English, We cannot simply use the name on the Anglican Communion site, alas, because they get things wrong ("Episcopal Church in the USA," for example). But there isn't any doubt that we should use the correct name here: the doubt is, for me, whether we should use Spanish or English--and it seems to me that this decision should be made and all the province pages should be made to conform to some sensible decision. Normally, this is the English Wikipedia, and we should use English names. Tb (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name fixed. Tb (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent edits[edit]

A new editor disagrees with the edits made by Bhuck and me to this page recently, and with edit logs claiming that I'm pushing a POV or using unacceptable weasel words. He does not seem to understand what "weasel words" mean in the Wikipedia context, nor has he explained what POV I'm supposedly pushing. I would invite comment about the following items:

  • "claims that it includes" in the lead, with reference to the US claims of the province; the editor wants this phrase dropped. I believe it is essential, because the claim has been advanced, but not recognized by, for example, the Anglican Communion Office, and is disputed by the Episcopal Church and others. The situation is explained fully later on in the article; the question is simply what the lead should say. I believe that "claims that it includes" is clear and fair.
  • "have seen as untoward novelties", which the editor wants to read "loudly criticize as grave immoralities". This is not fair to the actual statements of the US dioceses in question, which repeatedly stress novelty, and do not use the language of "grave immorality" in the statements I have seen. "loudly" is also a difficult term to substantiate.
  • Characterization of Venables' positions. I am happy with saying that he "advances a conservative position on homosexuality", but the new editor wants the text to read, "has been an [sic] vociferous critic of the ordination of homosexual clerics and has likewise maintained the traditional Anglican view on other issues, such as the inspiration of Holy Scripture."
    • First, regarding homosexuality, Venables takes a conservative position not merely on ordination, but the topic as a whole;
    • second, as Bhuck pointed out, "vociferous" is a value-laden word we should avoid here;
    • third, "the traditional Anglican view" is POV, since there is dispute about what that is and whether Venables has it right; and
    • fourth, the reference to inspiration of Holy Scripture implies, likely incorrectly, that Venables' opponents do not hold the traditional view here.

I invite the comments of other editors. Tb (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an intermediate edit which alleviates some of the worst POV implications, but in general agree with Tb here. Particularly the question of "includes" vs. "claims that it includes" is one which it would be misleading to say "includes" when the claim is not generally recognized. The question of "untoward novelties" vs. "grave immoralities" is one to which I would like to give further thought regarding the context. Perhaps it would be good to document Venables views on homosexuality in general, beyond the question of ordination. The values with which the word "vociferous" is laden are perhaps a two-edged sword...the word is not always used in a positive way. Regarding the "traditional Anglican view" and the question of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, I have linked another article and changed some of the context surrounding the attribution of this view to Venables so that it is clearer that his views on that question are far from unique within Anglicanism.--Bhuck (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After further reflection on the untoward novelties vs. grave immoralities question, it would seem to me that the subject of the sentence (those doing the criticizing) is the vague group of "conservatives", rather than any specific US dioceses. My perception of such conservatives is that they are indeed quite loud, though it would be more objective if we could provide a specific decibel level in a footnote.--Bhuck (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Personal Ordinariate[edit]

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision November 2011[edit]

I am trying to complement the historical data and improve the references. There is still some way to go, please be patient! --Jpacobb (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglican Church of South America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Church_of_South_America&oldid=1198743942"