Fred’s view of what happened in Alexandria at the Primate’s meeting is here.

My observation is that in those dioceses where resolutions have been passed requesting the authorizing of rites for blessing same-sex unions the Bishops have shown gracious restraint. They have called for continuing discernment in some cases through the drafting and testing of such rites in a limited manner and have advised the House accordingly.  I am of the opinion that while our church struggles to honour the call for gracious restraint in blessing same-sex unions, those who are the proponents of cross-border interventions have and continue to show no restraint. I have endeavored to address this situation since the Lambeth Conference and I regret to say that to date a conversation with the pertinent parties has not been possible. I am disappointed and dismayed. My feelings are grounded in my care and concern for the Bishops and dioceses most adversely affected by these cross-border interventions.

First: the reason that phrases like “gracious restraint” are used is that it is impossible to pin down exactly what they mean. Thus, Hiltz can say that the New Westminster, Niagara, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto dioceses are exhibiting this quality – while obdurately doing what they have been asked not to do –  and bishops, clergy and others of a sensitive disposition do not swoon in horror at the audacity of the lie.

Second: Hiltz’s contention that the “proponents of cross-border interventions have and continue to show no restraint” is completely false: ANiC parishes have, to my certain knowledge, been restraining themselves for at least 30 years. During that time Hiltz and his predecessors have never deviated from their agenda of de-Christianising the Anglican Church.

Third: by using the phrase “proponents of cross-border interventions”, Hiltz is implying that people like Greg Venables are poaching in North American territory in order to expand their own empires. In assuming this, he makes the usual mistake of those whose life is given to grasping power: he cannot conceive that others might have motives that differ from his own. Venables wants to spread the gospel – at all costs; the parishes that have come under his jurisdiction wish to do the same.

Fourth: the “conversation with pertinent parties” is probably a reference to this, where Venables shrewdly asserts : ‘”I talked to Fred about this at Lambeth, but it never occurred to me that a private discussion would become public without us both agreeing first,” Bishop Venables told The Living Church. “It looks more like a publicity stunt than a serious desire for dialogue.’ Venables and Hiltz were at Alexandria together; if Hiltz was that keen on having one of his wretched “conversations”, I’m sure he could have.

Fifth: Hiltz mentions his feelings for “Bishops and dioceses most adversely affected by these cross-border interventions”. How about the people in the parishes that are being sued by the bishops that you have such feeling for, Fred? Again, the gospel is subservient to the power structure of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Malcolm Muggeridge used to say, ” you can have power or love, but you can’t have both”. Hiltz has chosen power.