Why single out African bishops who intervened?

Dear editor,

I write to correct a mistaken impression left by an article concerning the Windsor Report (Africans will not apologize for interfering December 2004). The story stated, "no group was asked to apologize for its actions, but rather, only the consequences."

In fact, the only group that was asked to express regret for the consequences of its actions was the bishops who intervened on behalf of dissenters in New Westminster and in the United States. The request made to New Westminster bishop Michael Ingham was quite different, namely "to express regret ... that the bonds of affection were breached" by the unilateral manner in which his diocese proceeded.

This apology has not yet been forthcoming. Bishop Ingham's statement of Oct. 18 expressed regret only for the consequences of New Westminster's decision, and linked those consequences to the attitudes of others, whose lack of understanding led them to be "dismayed" by his diocese's action. This falls far short of regretting the way the decision was made.

Two days later the bishop issued a letter to his diocese which acknowledges the real call of the Windsor Report, to express regret for the breach in the bonds of affection, and then simply states, "I have done so." Interested readers may well ask, when and to whom?

We are left with the sad situation in which no party has been willing to express regret in the way requested by the report's authors. The African bishops' conference simply responded in kind--why is it, then, that your headline singles them out?

Rev. Iain Luke 

Winnipeg