Up on the ACoC website is an open letter written by Archbishop Fred Hiltz to the primates in the Anglican communion. You can read the whole thing here, excerpts below (with added editorial in italics ):

Regarding SSU:

In the spirit of that statement and in the interest of clarity I feel it is important to write to you regarding conversations dealing with the blessing of same-sex unions in Canada. I hope to dispel rumour or misunderstanding by sharing with you what is actually happening. You can trust us.

Since the late 1970s there has been a long and significant history of statements from our House of Bishops and from our General Synod that have affirmed the place and contributions of gays and lesbians in the life of our church. So please do realise where these conversations are going, eh? Since the early 1990s our General Synod, a gathering of more than 300 bishops clergy and lay people that meets every three years, has devoted major blocks of time to consider the blessing of committed same-sex unions. We understand such unions as adult, monogamous, intended lifelong, same-sex relationships that include sexual intimacy. These conversations have evolved over a significant period of time. It is important to note that the Anglican Church of Canada has not altered its doctrine of marriage (yet) as outlined in our prayer books and canons. We do, however, live in a country where the federal Government in 2005 approved legislation that allows the marriage of same-gender couples. As we are a church of the world, we do need to find a way of suitably solemnising this legislation.

I believe that the manner in which the blessing of same-sex unions has been and continues to be discussed throughout our church is comprehensive and respectful of diversity of perspective. Well, OK, as long as it is the correct perspective. As a church, we welcome and respect freedom of individual conscience and the theological convictions of our diverse membership. Our General Synods have consistently sought to honour every voice as we work patiently through this contentious and difficult issue. Eventually, we hope that the right result will be obtained, after which we promise the whole question will become out-of-bounds.

In June, 2007, the General Synod received and concurred with the opinion of the St. Michael Report, prepared by the Primate�s Theological Commission, (a group of 12 theologians from diverse perspectives) that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but not creedal. In other words, while this matter relates to important questions of doctrine, it is not ranked alongside doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion and Death of Christ, the Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. The 2007 General Synod asked the Primate to request the Primate’s Theological Commission to consult with dioceses and parishes and to report in advance of our next General Synod in 2010 on:

� The theological question of whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine;

� Scripture’s witness to the integrity of every human person and the question of the sanctity of human relationships.

We hope by the time that they do this to have created enough facts on the ground to render their opinion moot.

I have responded to this request and the Primate�s Theological Commission has begun working on these matters.

General Synod also endorsed an April 2007 statement from the Canadian House of Bishops making provision for what was described as “pastoral generosity,� whereby gay and lesbian couples who have been civilly married might ask the church for prayers for their relationship. These petitions, not to be confused with a nuptial blessing, would be offered in the context of the prayers of the people within a Eucharist. Requests for this provision have been granted in a number of places.

Notwithstanding the fact that the 2007 General Synod defeated a resolution, “affirming the authority and jurisdiction of a diocesan synod with the concurrence of its bishop and in a manner respecting the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish to authorize the blessing of same sex unions,� we have chosen to ignore it as three dioceses — Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara — have since voted by strong majorities to request their bishop to consider authorizing public rites for the blessing of same-sex couples who are civilly married. A little known canon law allows us to ignore General Synod resolutions as long as the diocesan majority voting for a contrary resolution achieves a super-majority.

I believe these resolutions present an opportunity to test the mind of the local church and the results speak of a pastoral need that cannot be ignored. You do catch my drift, don’t you? In each case the bishop has indicated that he will consult widely before making a decision. Which of course makes everything alright.

Regarding Those who have the temerity to disagree with the New Thing:

General Synod 2007 also concurred by resolution with the opinion of the St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions should not be a communion-breaking issue. Nonetheless some people feel compelled to leave our church over this issue. Why they should feel the need to do this after the General Synod resolution is beyond us. After all, General Synod resolutions are highly regarded, binding instruments that you’d never find us ignoring. Their decision is regrettable given the fact that the bishops have made adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of our church including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod. Yes, we are the ones to determine adequacy and appropriateness, do not let anybody tell you otherwise! These provisions are contained in a document known as Shared Episcopal Ministry approved by the House of Bishops in November 2004 and commended in September 2006 by an international Panel of Reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The fact that it’s sitting on a shelf gathering dust somewhere is irrelevant. We shall continue to wage reconciliation!

In light of these provisions, as well as the bits we liked in the ancient canons of the church, statements of successive Lambeth Conferences, the Lambeth Commission on communion (the Windsor Report), and the 2005 and 2007 communiqu�s from the Primates, we believe that recent interventions by another province in the internal life of our church are unnecessary and inappropriate. And we don’t like the ‘ice cream cone’ metaphor, either. Our concern was voiced publicly in recent statements by the Council of General Synod (Nov. 16, 2007) and in a joint Pastoral Statement from myself and the Canadian Metropolitans (Nov. 29, 2007). We should emphasise that this scurrilous intervention has taken place for no reason whatsoever, in fact we wish to categorically assert that we were not there when certain diocesan resolutions didn’t happen. I have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury in his capacity as one of the Instruments of Communion and as chair of the Primates’ Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention and to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism. Should we get a clear statement, it will affirm our belief in miracles.

Once again, another fair and balanced letter from our primate.