Episcopal Church of Cuba votes to return to TEC

Presently it is affiliated with the Anglican Church of Canada.

From here:

Members of synod for the Episcopal Church of Cuba narrowly voted in favour of returning to the church’s former affiliation with The Episcopal Church at their recent meeting last month in Cardenas, Cuba.

The move came two months after the historic decision by the United States and Cuba to re-establish diplomatic relations after a 54-year hiatus. The Cuban church had been part of a province in The Episcopal Church until the 1959 revolution, which made travel and communication between the two churches difficult. The Metropolitan Council of Cuba (MCC)—which includes primates of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Province of West Indies and The Episcopal Church—was subsequently created to provide support and oversight.

Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, and Archdeacon Michael Thompson, general secretary, attended the synod—which ran from Feb. 19 to 22—as representatives of the MCC.

This will mean a big change for Cuban Anglicans: they will move from a Province that is radically liberal, blesses same-sex unions, boasts practising gay clergy, believes dogma is redundant, and is losing people faster than Obama is losing votes to a Province that that is radically liberal, blesses same-sex unions, boasts practising gay clergy, believes dogma is redundant, and is losing people faster than Obama is losing votes.

The decision was made, it seems, largely so Cuban clergy could retrieve their pension funds, proving that, no matter how vehemently they may protest otherwise, when it comes to their livelihood, Cuban clergy are just like their North American brothers: capitalist running dogs:

Hiltz went on to explain that one of the significant factors behind the drafting of the substitute resolution is “the frustration of a number of people in the church in Cuba with the fact that since the break with The Episcopal Church and the political situation between Cuba and U.S., the pension fund for clergy has just basically been frozen [in the U.S.].”

16 thoughts on “Episcopal Church of Cuba votes to return to TEC

  1. The article is spun very fast to help explain away Hiltz’s electoral rebuke. Perhaps they just don’t like him and voted against what he supported.

    • For once I agree with David, regardless of the snark with which he puts things: you don’t affiliate yourself with the Episcopal Church if what you want to do is let the Anglican Church of Canada know that you don’t agree with its orientations. They are much of a muchness.

    • What electoral rebuke? Do you mean the vote of the Cuban church to join TEC or something else? I haven’t been following the goings on of the ACoC in quite a while.

  2. To be consistent shouldn’t the Anglican Church of Canada now sue the Episcopal Church of Cuba for their properties?

  3. If the Episcopal Church of Cuba was genuinely interested in the Gospel it would have sought to unify with the Anglican Church in North America. Both the ACoC and the TEC are controlled and riddled with apostates.

  4. It´s interesting how superficially bigots treat delicate matters like this.

    First: The Episcopal Church of Cuba was never and is not affiliated with the Anglican Church of Canada. The Episcopal Church of Cuba was founded as part of TEC in 1901 and was always part of it until 1959 when POLITICAL reason severed it from the US. (you know, communism is social “dis-order” in Cuba since 1959). The church in Cuba found lost, with the impossibility to communicate with TEC and lot of clergy ousted of the countrybecause of communism. The pension (as the property and some trust funds) were and are forzen in the US BY THE US GOVERNMENT (Actually TEC and it´s communion partners has been founding the Church in Cuba troughout this years). To exist as part of the communion, the church in Cuba became an extrapovincial territory under the guidance of a metropilitan Council (Primate of TEC, Primate of the ACoC and Primate of West Indies). So as reasons for autonomy from TEC were only political and now there´s a path of reconciliation undergoing, it´s perfectly normal to come back now.

    A main point of the Church in Cuba, is their belonging to the Anglican Communion and ACNA is not part of it.

    Second: In Cuba we have really courageus priests who have worked in the Lords Vineyard for Free and with no pension for more than 50 years. Now most of them, as they were not able to afford a house are living from charity of their neighbors or the communities. It´s easy for a well paid clergy, living in a comfortable house, with a nice car and all the benefits of it´s capitalist world to come and say priests in Cuba are capitalist dogs… please, check yourselves.

    • Luis,

      A main point of the Church in Cuba, is their belonging to the Anglican Communion and ACNA is not part of it.

      ACNA is in communion with the majority of Anglicans worldwide.

      In Cuba we have really courageus priests who have worked in the Lords Vineyard for Free and with no pension for more than 50 years. Now most of them, as they were not able to afford a house are living from charity of their neighbors or the communities.

      I agree: they should have their pensions. Obviously you agree too, so I must presume that, since the pensions have been invested in a capitalist system, you are in favour of capitalism.

      It´s easy for a well paid clergy, living in a comfortable house, with a nice car and all the benefits of it´s capitalist world to come and say priests in Cuba are capitalist dogs

      What many North American clergy enjoy even more is earning their living through a capitalist system while vociferously denouncing it. The “capitalist running dogs” remark was used partly in jest to point out the hypocrisy of benefiting from capitalism while simultaneously criticising it. I am so glad to hear that this does not apply to Cuban clergy.

      So as reasons for autonomy from TEC were only political and now there´s a path of reconciliation undergoing, it´s perfectly normal to come back now.

      If it’s that clear-cut, why was it such a divided vote?

Leave a Reply