A Halifax Daily News Article on the New Canadian Primate-Elect

Posted by Kendall Harmon

[Bishop Fred] Hiltz was coy with reporters yesterday - including journalists from overseas who are covering the Synod - about his personal views on same-sex unions.

"I don't think it's appropriate for me to simply declare my position and thereby pre-empt the outcome of the (weekend) discussion," he said.

But Hiltz made no secret of his irritation toward fellow bishops in African countries or "provinces," who have imposed themselves in the affairs of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church by assuming "oversight" of conservative North American congregations who were unhappy with the liberal views of their own bishops.

Bishops of one country "interfering in the affairs of another," said Hiltz, "is not on."

Speaking to delegates soon after his election, Hiltz said whatever pressures he faces during his tenure, he will work hard to keep Anglicans together in "one great company of disciples.

"I love this church. I'll always love it," he said. "I will try to the best of my abilities to be a Primate that drives the church together, to keep people at the table and not to isolate them ... to ensure that we remain together in Christ."

Read it all

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Anglican Primates • Anglican Provinces • Anglican Church of Canada • Canadian General Synod 2007

6 Comments
Posted June 23, 2007 at 1:21 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Tom Roberts wrote:

The comments were illuminating.
In Canadian, what does “interfering in the affairs of another is not on” mean? In English, ‘on’ requires some object, explicit or implicit.

June 23, 1:47 pm | [comment link]
2. Ross wrote:

“Not on” means “not right,” “not proper,” “not appropriate,” “not called for”... that sort of thing.

June 23, 2:02 pm | [comment link]
3. Irenaeus wrote:

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to simply declare my position and thereby pre-empt the outcome of the discussion.”

I hadn’t realized the Canadian primate had preemptive power. And if drawing the circle ever wider, wider, hasn’t tipped the outcome, could Hiltz? After all, Hiltz doesn’t sound like the sort of church leader who would engage in the sort of trickeroos we saw in both houses of ECUSA’s GC 2007.
_ _ _ _ _ _

Tom [#1]: Hiltz’s figure of speech parallels an on-on
switch. Interference is “not on” when the interference switch is off. To make interference on, you turn the switch on. On it now?

June 23, 2:03 pm | [comment link]
4. Irenaeus wrote:

Make that an “on-off switch.” Unless Ross [#2] has it right.

June 23, 2:04 pm | [comment link]
5. john scholasticus wrote:

Ross has it right. Evidently, this is Canadian English. It is also British English.

June 23, 2:24 pm | [comment link]
6. Martial Artist wrote:

I believe that the British English usage of “on” in this context is well illustrated in competitive situations, as in soccer, when one team having scored unexpectedly is subsequently answered by a score from the opposing sides, at which point the announcer may very well make the comment that “it is game on,” more or less with the sense that the game is now clearly being contested.

June 23, 8:38 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): The Canadian General Synod Afternoon Session from the Committee as a whole

Previous entry (below): A CNN Video report on the Tensions on Same Sex Blessings in the Diocese of LA

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)