Saturday, July 11, 2009

Speaking of Transparency

I stayed off the blogosphere for a whole 14 hours last night and this morning! Hooray for me! (Of course, several of those were spent in sleep ... Oh well.)

One of the first I read today was a piece on James’ The Three Legged Stool, in which he reports that today
the bishops will discuss B033 in executive session, a secret session, a closed to the Public session where they can be the fraternity they enjoy being and swear everyone to silence like the Skull and Bones Society.
James rightly contrasts the House of Bishops' secrecy with the House of Deputies and the committees, which have conducted all their sessions and hearings in public – with visitors and reporters welcome; some of those sessions have even been webcast live.

But the bishops apparently need the cover of secrecy for their conversation. Just like they needed their “panel on same-sex relationships” to be given the shroud of secrecy. [Hmmm … “Shroud.” Perhaps a felicitous choice of nouns.]

Anybody else see a disturbing trend here?

P.S. Since writing this piece this morning, I see that Jim Naughton broke the story last night. Jim is a brick!

2 Comments:

Blogger JayV said...

In private, huh? Where's the transparency in that?

Remember last month, about the deleting of the reference to the Episcopal Church's transparency on the IAmEpiscopalian site?

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/transparency.html

I thought the excuse given by the TEC media spokesperson was lame.

Yeah, I see a trend, Lisa.



- Jay Vos

7/11/2009 9:16 PM  
Blogger James said...

Yes Lisa and JayV - the cone of silence is never a good portend and I'm afraid our GLBT brothers and sisters are going to learn that first hand -- again.

When my purple sources gave me the news Friday night [always look at the time stamps :)]about the secret conclave, I thought they were joking.

7/12/2009 12:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home