As requested of all provinces, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church has submitted its response to the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican Covenant.
The response is here (PDF). Episcopal News Service has a story here.
One excerpt from the American response:
The vast majority of diocesan deputations had significant concern about Section 3.2.5 and following. The concern focused on what was perceived as an embrace of binding arbitration, mediation and evaluation, as well as “moral authority.” This section was perceived as being overly juridical in its process: e.g., while 3.2.5.e affirms autonomy, it also affirms the force of binding decisions, including “a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose….” The inclusion of the appendix, though intended not to be a part of the covenant, cannot be ignored specifically because it is consistently referred to in 3.2.5.a-e. Those deputations who did mention the appendix found it to be highly problematic because of its embrace of juridical process for resolving disputes in the Anglican Communion.
Compare this with the Church of England draft response:
47. The major development between the Nassau and St Andrew’s Drafts is the proposed draft appendix in the latter exploring the procedural implications of entering a covenant and complaints about breaches of the covenant. The legalistic tone of the Appendix has been frequently criticised and at the Lambeth Conference it was described as ‘too punitive’.9 The CDG has signalled that the current draft appendix will be subject to further revision (and perhaps incorporation as a fourth section of the covenant) in the next draft.
48. It is clear that the Covenant must have procedural implications if it is to have any effect at all and that the Church of England has always acknowledged the need for discipline within the life of the Church….
Related: Our earlier coverage of the CofE response.