Like a coward, I’ll post some childlike faith (Matthew 18:1-4) – setting a far better example:
(And yes, I’ve posted this video before, but it really is awesome and well worth a re-watch.)
A blog is not a place where we can take a vacation from Christian ethic.
UPDATE: Bishop Michael Gill:
At first I debated with myself whether to dignify this attack with a response, or not, as it is not right to turn Fr Anthony’s blog into a warzone, but in the interests of transparency, the following should be brought to the attention of all who read this posting:
The voting form specified:
I do not support
Abstain from It further recorded that the vote is an action taken to determine a vote of confidence/no confidence in the Primate in Office.
1. The e-mail in question was received from the writer (?) on 1 December 2011 at 02:41AM 2. On 6 December 2011 at 08:54 AM I sent an e-mail asking: “A point of clarification please. I did not get a reply confirming that I could put you down as abstaining. Is that in order?” 3. On 8 December 2011 at 05:34PM the results of the poll in spreadsheet format was sent to all original recipients of the voting form, whether a reply was received or not.
To date no objection had been received from the “anonymous Bishop” to ask for amendment of the results to reflect him/them as anything but “ABSTAIN”
My question is : If not, why not?
Section 6.1 of the Concordat clearly defines the individuals in the TAC with voting rights.
To the best of my knowledge and belief only one person was inadvertently omitted from the mailing list. I apologise for the oversight. The matter has since been rectified.
Mark Twain: “There are lies, and there are statistics”