TEC cheatsheet on Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh

Did you know that our very own Bishop Mathes here in San Diego is on this task force, the House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes (as he continues to sue several churches here who are unable to continue in heresy)?

And remind me again why a task force on property disputes is commenting on an issue of "abandonment of communion"??? Huumm???

So when they try to tell you the action against Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh has nothing to do with holding on to the property or keeping the money, just remind them that their own Task Force on Property Disputes is issuing info on Bishop Duncan's deposition - not exactly in their purview.

Questions and Answers about matters involving the Bishop of Pittsburgh

Meeting of the House of Bishops, September 2008

Q: Why is the House of Bishops contemplating action against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh?

A: At its meeting Sept. 17-19, the House of Bishop will be considering the report from its Title IV Review Committee, which certified in December 2007 that Bishop Robert Duncan had "abandoned the communion of this church," primarily because he has been involved with actions and decisions to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church and affiliate it with the Province of the Southern Cone. Under the provisions of Canon IV.9, this certification goes to the House of Bishops for it to consider whether or not to depose Bishop Duncan.

The House of Bishops' Task Force on Property Disputes, through its work to protect property assets within The Episcopal Church, also has concluded that Bishop Duncan openly renounced the discipline of The Episcopal Church, which constitutes abandonment of the communion of this church and requires his removal from ordained ministry, or deposition.

Q: What does "abandonment of communion" mean?

A: The Canons of The Episcopal Church define abandonment as "...an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church ..." (Title IV, Canon 10, Sec. 1)

Q: What kind of things has Bishop Duncan done to constitute this "open renunciation"?

A: Bishop Duncan has actively worked to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the authority of The Episcopal Church. (see House of Bishop’s Property Task Force Memo. "Evidence of Abandonment by Bishop Duncan") He has supported and encouraged the diocesan convention to change its constitution to accomplish this. He also has sought out affiliation with the Province of the Southern Cone, located in South America. All these actions point to his open and conscious renunciation of the authority of The Episcopal Church for him personally and, he hopes, for the entire diocese under his care.

Furthermore, he has used assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to accomplish this goal, and he has stated that he does not now, nor will he, have any obligation to protect the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for the use of The Episcopal Church.

Q: What has caused this rift between The Episcopal Church and Bishop Duncan?

A: This case is about Bishop Duncan's actions, not about his beliefs. For years Bishop Duncan has been a leading spokesman for conservative theological positions. But there are a wide range of theological convictions within The Episcopal Church, and there is room for all those within the church. The issue here is that he has renounced the authority of The Episcopal Church over him and seeks to have his diocese adopt the same policy through a vote of its convention.

Q: The final vote by the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention to split from The Episcopal Church doesn't take place until October 4. Why not wait until after then?

A: While the House fervently hopes that the Pittsburgh convention may yet decide not to vote to sever ties with The Episcopal Church, action involving Bishop Duncan is not tied to a vote on that date. Any action by voters in the Diocese of Pittsburg does not lessen the culpability of Bishop Duncan, since he is encouraging his diocese's departure from The Episcopal Church and is actively working to that effect. Whether or not delegates to the Pittsburgh convention vote to follow Bishop Duncan's abandonment of The Episcopal Church is one thing. That Bishop Duncan already has abandoned The Episcopal Church through an open renunciation and repudiation of its discipline is another, and already is well established.

Also, should the House wait until after October 4 to consider action against Bishop Duncan, the matter normally would not come up again until the spring meeting of the House in March, 2009. People in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, both supporters and opponents of Bishop Duncan's theology, have said that waiting until then to finalize the matter would leave the diocese in far too long a period of limbo to be sustainable. Acting before October 4 also would have significantly positive effects in protecting the assets of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for use by Episcopalians.

Additionally, because the Title IV Review Committee has certified that Bishop Duncan has abandoned the communion of this church, the canons call for consideration of such matters at the next meeting of the House after such a certification.

Q: Is this action just about trying to keep property in The Episcopal Church?

A: This matter, at its root, is about maintaining accountability for one's actions as a bishop within The Episcopal Church. However, there are a complex set of pastoral imperatives involved as well. As Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bishop Duncan controls millions of dollars in assets within the diocese. In a hierarchical institution like The Episcopal Church, canon law vests ultimate ownership of parish property with dioceses, and diocesan property with the wider Episcopal Church. Property is owned not for the benefit of individuals but of the church as a whole.

We are sacramental people who believe in the importance of "outward and visible signs." What happens to the sacred spaces in Pittsburgh matters a great deal to the many faithful members there who want to remain in The Episcopal Church and who have worked hard and given sacrificially to support these facilities. It is the obligation of The Episcopal Church to make certain that property intended for use by Episcopalians is available to future generations of Episcopalians for worship and for mission.

The House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes
The Right Reverend Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, Chair
The Right Reverend Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Right Reverend Mark Hollingsworth, Bishop of Ohio
The Right Reverend John Howard, Bishop of Florida
The Right Reverend William Persell, retired Bishop of Chicago
The Right Reverend Dean Wolfe, Bishop of Kansas
The Right Reverend Mark Andrus, Bishop of California
The Right Reverend Philip Duncan, Bishop of Central Gulf Coast
The Right Reverend James Mathes, Bishop of San Diego

Read it all, and head over to Stand Firm to get a good break-down of the erroneous points in this Q&A.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Burnt toast: Two observations on the recent HOB meeting

One observation from a layman and one from a bishop, both arriving at basically the same conclusion - the Episcopal Church as we knew it is toast, and burnt toast at that.

From Captain Yips [boldface mine]:

. . . And revulsion over the descent of what’s left of The Episcopal Church into mere lawless chaos. With the contrived and illicit expulsion of the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the House of Bishops, the same House that tolerates the manifold inanities of John Spong, that couldn’t bring itself to bring James Pike to account, has declared its absolute irrelevance - to anything. How the vote was contrived and excused is not terrifically important. With it, the EpiscoLeft has declared that the revolution must go forward.

I am, happily, out of TEC and won’t return. The fight in the Diocese of Chicago was lost a long time ago, probably when I was in my 20s, and when we didn’t know there was a fight on anyway. . .

Read it all.

And from Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina [boldface mine]:

. . . Once again within a few months the landscape of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has changed—as if Gafcon and Lambeth were not enough. What does this deposition mean? Frankly, it is still unfolding, but I offer the following reflections:

• The House of Bishops whether intentionally or not has enhanced the power of the Presiding Bishop. With consequences far beyond the deposition of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, this vote by interpretation and application of Title IV.9, has established invasive reach for the PB. It is now possible for a sitting bishop of TEC to be deposed without prior inhibition or trial, rendering superfluous the role of the three Senior Bishops of the House. Beyond this is the quizzical ruling that it takes more votes from the House to receive the resignation of a retiring bishop then to depose a sitting one! Then there is the curious fact that it takes a two-thirds vote of the house to overturn a ruling of the chair, thus when combined with rendering moot the role of the senior bishops and the plain reference to a needed “majority of the whole house entitled to vote” in Title IV.9—there is enhanced power to the PB regardless of who may hold the chair, now or in the future. A development mercurial indeed, when one considers the PB and House of Bishops have repeatedly declined the authority to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church when queried for commitments by the Communion’s Instruments of Unity; deferring instead to the authority of General Convention. . .

All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy—but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted. To many of our minds this, far more than Pittsburgh’s present challenge to TEC’s discipline and polity, is what has led to this current crisis. Beyond this the checks and balances previously given to us in the Constitution & Canons seem profoundly weakened. Phrases long understood as clear apparently can be spoken of as ambiguous. If what appears to be the plain meaning of a canon can be dismissed with apparent ease and with no recourse; if the request from such a monumental gathering as Lambeth 2008 urging greater dialogue and forthright conversation within the body of Christ seems to count for so little here in the first action of the House—even after so many TEC bishops report being profoundly moved by the grace exhibited toward us from those provinces grieved and hindered by our prior actions; and when there seems to be so little recognition that it has been the very actions of our General Convention and HOB in recent years that has so alienated dioceses like San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and others that their laity and clergy vote in such large majorities to remove accession clauses—judicious governance and Christian unity will drain like water from an opened hand. One might have wished for a more generous spirit and greater patience toward our own aggrieved members. Indeed one has to wonder where such tone deafness and purblindness come from. . .

Read it all.
H/t to TitusOneNine.

Episcopal Church ‘in the clear’ after Lambeth

From George Conger:

There will be no consequences to the American church for its push for gay bishops and blessings, bishops attending the opening session of the US House of Bishops meeting in Salt Lake City said in closed door session on Sept 17.

On the opening day of the three-day special session, called by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to discuss the 2008 Lambeth Conference, but amended on Sept 12 by the Presiding Bishop to act upon her motion to depose conservative leader Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, the bishops offered their reactions to Lambeth.

Read it all.

Commentary on the HOB: The day the music died. . .

From Hills of the North:

. . . That said, for all intents and purposes the Episcopal Church as a church died yesterday. In purporting to depose Bishop Robert Duncan, two-thirds of those bishops who attended the House of Bishops meeting did something so blatantly and brazenly unlawful under the canons and so patently violative of Robert's Rules that they in effect announced that within our church words and laws and truth no longer matter. All that matters is power. Not the power of the Gospel, mind you--but raw human secular power, exercised for political purposes. Those bishops who voted to depose (and the one cowardly Judas who changed his vote after being sure it wasn't needed to destroy his brother bishop) openly and proudly embraced what was a lie--that there had been abandonment of Communion--and did so by embracing transparent lies about what the canons and parliamentary procedure actually said. Those charged to guard the truth yesterday gleefully showed their fealty to the very opposite. . .

Years from now, this action by the House of Bishops may well prove to have been a tipping point for the Episcopal Church. There are many for whom this will be the final straw, not because they have any association or necessarily even agreement with Bishop Duncan, but because it reveals what a corrupt organization they find themselves a part of. Others will realize that they cannot any longer do business with (and certainly not follow) those for whom words are meaningless, law is nothing more than an instrument of power, and truth is nonexistent. And still others will leave weary of the fight, and yearning for spiritual refreshment they cannot get from what is now indisputably a secular organization (and actually something less than most secular organizations, since few could abide such dishonesty in their leaders). In short, the exodus of the orthodox will continue and likely accelerate. This is likely exactly what the Presiding Bishop and her minions want, as they undoubtedly believe that if all the retrograde evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics would just go away, there's no limit to the greatness a progressive Episcopal Church can achieve. The evidence, of course, has been quite to the contrary, but perhaps the accelerating membership loss will help put the lie to this fantasy. . .

Finally, it's worth considering what difference yesterday's events will have in an average Episcopal Church, ones such as our two parishes here. I think it's plain enough that there will be little if any effect in the short run. The chances that even a half-dozen parishioners knew the House of Bishops was meeting is pretty small, and fewer still probably have any idea who Robert Duncan is. What happened doesn't affect the work the altar guild has to do, or the music the choir is rehearsing. It doesn't affect a parish's social outreach. It doesn't change the liturgy (yet), or alter the service times. Certainly it won't occasion the interest of reorienting the furnishings in the church, or getting a new stained glass window. If the Presiding Bishop is betting on the ignorance or nonchalance of the average pew dweller, she is making a pretty sure bet.

That's not to say there won't be an effect eventually, and a pretty potent one. The average age of those in Episcopal Church pews is high and increasing, and it's not as if the average Episcopal Church is full of children and young people and young families. There's a reason churches all around ours are opening and growing, and ours are at best in a steady state, despite population growth. And the trajectory to which the larger Episcopal Church is now committed is not one that is likely to spur growth or giving. In time that will affect the average parish church, and the average parish church here. And some years from now when we wonder why our numbers are down, and why people aren't pledging, and why no new families are joining, and how this all happened, we will be able to point to the House of Bishops meeting of September 18, 2008, as the day our church, as a church, died.

Read it all.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Statements on Bishop Robert Duncan — updated

For the most comprehensive round-up on the HOB actions against Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh and world-wide reaction to those actions, check out TitusOneNine!

AnglicanTV: Interview with Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh

From Kevin at AnglicanTV, an interview with Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh:

You are welcome to embed this in your blog/website. However, you must credit AnglicanTV with a hyperlink.

Did I mention that I've left the Episcopal Church. . .

And this is one reason why:

“Today’s decision was difficult and emotional but a necessary action to care for the order of the Church, the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the collegiality of the House of Bishops.”

Bishop James Mathes of San Diego commenting on today's uncanonical and despicable action by the Episcopal House of Bishops, meeting this week.

The Chief Kaitiff plans a purge

If you want to understand what's going on with Bishop Robert Duncan in Pittsburgh, head over the the Anglican Curmudgeon and read, read, read:

Regular readers of this site will not be surprised by the announcement from the Presiding Bishop of her intentions to bring a resolution to depose the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh at the forthcoming fall meeting of the House of Bishops at Salt lake City. (A big tip of the Rumpolean bowler to Greg Griffith at StandFirm for making it available in advance.)

What may yet come as a surprise to some, however, is the brazenness with which the Presiding Bishop has laid out her plans in advance. She is without shame: she has announced to the House of Bishops, five days ahead of their meeting, the parliamentary rulings she will make on the canonical objections to proceeding with the resolution, and she lays out her specious, the-end-justifies-the-means reading of Canon IV.9 so there can be no mistake. (I had predicted such rulings would be made, but at the meeting itself---not five days in advance! I hope there will be some stalwart bishops present who will make the only response to such tyranny that can be made, and who by their departure will deprive those remaining of a quorum.)

The Presiding Bishop is a tyrant in episcopal garb. The tragedy is that she is aided and abetted in this power grab by so many Episcopal jurists, who now must be dubbed "soi-disant jurists."

(An aside: Up until now on this blog, I have striven to maintain the utmost civility and respect toward the Presiding Bishop, always addressing her by her proper title and name. With this latest dastardly and cowardly ukaze from her hand, however, I am forced to join the ranks of so many others who have lost their respect for her. From this point forward, I shall address her as: "The Chief Kaitiff of The Episcopal Church.")

The Chief Kaitiff first attempts to justify her crime against Canon IV.9 by summoning the support of her soi-disant jurists. . .

Read it all.

American Anglican Council weekly message, Sept. 5

Via email, from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

In the United States, there is high interest in what will happen at the TEC House of Bishops meeting in late September. Will Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori heed advice being given her and leave Bishop Duncan alone for the time being, or will she proceed with her deposition plans for him? If she tries to depose him based on what he might do in the future, will she succeed or fail? Also, will the fact that the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy are all poised to take votes in their respective Diocesan Conventions with regard to separation from the Episcopal Church affect the proceedings?

Presiding Bishop Schori seems to have only one response to crises and that is to invoke the names of "Dewey, Sue'm & Howe" and commence litigation. We would suggest to her a great little book called "Getting to Yes" which might offer a few more options in conflict situations. If Bishop Schori opens up too much litigation all at once she may find herself in the same position that some nations have been - fighting in too many theatres of battle at once and unable to maintain adequate material and resources for each one. If she thinks she can use the trust fund reserve or the pension fund, she should look down the hall to the picture of Ellen Cooke, former TEC treasurer, who was sent to the "time out" box for just such actions.

North of the border in Canada, things are tense as the Anglican Church of Canada in the Diocese of New Westminster continues its assault on the orthodox Anglicans occupying their own property. The attacks by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada on faithful Anglican believers continue unabated in courtrooms across the North American continent.

In the US, most of the churches that TEC is suing are still able to occupy their buildings and hold services while litigation is underway, whereas in Canada several churches have effectively been thrown out onto the curb, pending full trial. Cheryl Chang, a lawyer and legal director for the churches, reported that the judge "ordered us out at both churches and gave both churches to the diocese until full trial."

The reality is that the orthodox primates of the Anglican Communion can help those under attack in North America with provincial recognition and strong intercommunion and missional ties, but when it comes to litigation, the provinces overseas can do little to help us win the court battles.

Recognition of a new North American province for the orthodox, and revocation of provincial status for the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC would both be helpful, but the latter is unlikely.

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, the election of a new bishop for Bangor, Wales occupies much space in the news and on the blogs. As we reported last week from a reliable source, plans are afoot to place the name of Dean Jeffrey Johns on the slate. Since he identifies himself as a celibate gay priest who is in a registered civil partnership, his becoming an Anglican bishop would pose problems for a great part of the global Anglican Communion. With the opposition mounting and threats by one senior cleric in Wales to quit if this happens, one wonders if Dean Johns' name will be officially put forward, and if so, whether he would gain sufficient support for election. His elevation to the episcopacy would pose a significant problem for many bishops, archbishops and primates, yet in the case of New Hampshire in the United States, the diocese went ahead regardless of the problems caused.

Surely Archbishop Barry Morgan advised Dr. Williams about this prior to it becoming public; if not, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the former primate of Wales) might have just cause to be cranky when reading of it in the London papers. Although, since the release of the Pitt letters, it is painfully clear that the arch primate himself shares a sympathetic view of homosexual issues, surely for the sake of the church he is charged with defending he can arrange for this to be turned aside. As we noted last week, everyone is aware of the situation in advance of the election and there are therefore no free passes.

Some claim that since Dean Johns identifies himself as being celibate, thus meeting the letter of the church's official standard, and since civil partnerships are legal, there should be no obstacle to his appointment. But consider this: does the church's rule need amendment? Is a bishop in a same-sex civil partnership a wholesome example to the flock?

It is time for Christian leaders to be clear about what they believe, speak boldly and publicly in such a way that removes ambiguity, and let their yes be yes and their no be no. So much of what bishops and leaders say today is double-meaning spiritual mush designed to offend no one. The Good News of Jesus Christ requires plain, clear, simple speech that can reach both the executive in his corner office and the plough boy in the field. May we recover that virtue and grace.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Anglican Curmudgeon: A primer on the crisis (the short version)

Excellent wrap-up of his longer posts by the Anglican Curmudgeon (A.S. Haley) [boldface mine]:

I have now devoted seven rather lengthy posts to the history and misuse, both past and current, of the "Abandonment of Communion by a Bishop" Canon (Canon IV.9). In response to some requests for a boiled-down, just-the-meat-of-it version, I am putting up this post. A printable version of it may be found here.

The Current Problem

The current problem can be summed up in the names of just two people: Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and her Chancellor, David Booth Beers. In recent proceedings under Canon IV.9 brought against the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield and the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox (who had been, prior to his so-called "deposition," the most elderly Bishop of the Church), they ran roughshod over the plain requirements of the Canon. When they were called on what they had done, they gave audacious responses that denied that anything had been done wrong. Not only that, but Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has just as audaciously announced her intention of going forward with a vote, at the next House of Bishops meeting in September, to depose the Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan from his see in the Diocese of Pittsburgh---on the same illegal basis as the one on which she proclaimed the "deposition" of Bishop Cox.

The Violations of the Canon

First, Canon IV.9 provides (see the end of this post for the text) that when charges of abandonment have been certified by the Title IV Review Committee, notice of the charges shall be given "forthwith" to the Bishop so charged. The charges against Bishop Cox were certified to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. She did not notify Bishop Cox of them until January 9, 2008---more than seven months later.

Second, before giving notice of the charges, the Presiding Bishop was required to seek the consent of the three most senior active Bishops in the House to inhibit Bishop Cox from performing any episcopal functions pending the vote on his deposition. She did not do so, and she did not obtain any consent to his inhibition, but obtained it in regard to Bishop Schofield.

Third, the Canon provides the "inhibited Bishop" with sixty days to respond to the charges, and says nothing about any further proceedings against a Bishop who was not inhibited. Notwithstanding that language, when Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori notified Bishop Cox of the charges, she told him he had sixty days to respond before he would be deposed.

Fourth, when the sixty days had run, the Presiding Bishop brought a resolution to consent to Bishop Cox's deposition before the House of Bishops at its meeting in Camp Allen on March 12. Again, the language of the Canon provides that only a Bishop who has been inhibited shall be "liable to deposition," but in clear violation of those words, she took up the resolution with the House anyway.

Fifth, the Canon requires that the House of Bishops give its consent to deposition "by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote." Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution spells out which Bishops are "entitled to vote" in the House---counting those both active and retired ("resigned" is the technical term), there were 294 such Bishops entitled to vote as of March 12. Thus a majority of that number would be 148. But only 131 Bishops registered at the meeting when it began on March 9, and that number was down to 116 as of the last day, the morning of March 12. By the time the resolutions to depose came up for discussion, the roll call registered just the bare minimum of active Bishops needed for a quorum: 68. The vote on the resolution was by voice only; no record of the actual votes exists. But it is obvious that the requirement for a minimum of 148 votes to approve the deposition could not possibly have been satisfied.

Notwithstanding all these defects in the procedure, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori signed certificates of deposition with respect to both Bishops shortly thereafter. When she was challenged on the procedures that had been violated, she defended her actions by saying that she had been advised throughout by her Chancellor, David Booth Beers, and he himself issued a statement that the depositions had been conducted properly. . .

Read it all.

Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: An ominous sign (from the rector’s journal), 2007

From Stand Firm, more on the history of Matt Kennedy+ and his dealings with the bishop of Central New York [boldface mine]:

. . . The Diocese of Central New York had more pressing concerns than the status of Good Shepherd. The wheels were starting to come off of the diocese's contrived, trumped up, and ultimately failed case against Fr. Bollinger, former Rector of St. Paul's, Owego who had openly questioned the dioceses' failure to pursue accusations of sexual abuse against one of his predecessors. The lawsuit against St. Andrew's Syracuse had not gone well and the bishop was beginning to feel the heat for his legal adventurism.

It was not until July 2007 that I finally spoke with Bishop Adams personally by telephone. The conversation, however, was very productive. We discussed the steps Good Shepherd and the diocese might take together to best facilitate our departure and the bishop reiterated his desire to avoid litigation and his belief that it would be possible for us to retain our property. It was in that context that he asked that I write the following letter to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central New York, formally appraising them of the situation at Good Shepherd, our intent, and the discussions the bishop and the vestry had had up to that point. . .

I did not hear from the bishop again until the day we met for lunch during the House of Bishop's meeting in New Orleans in the latter half of September. It was a very important meeting and I came away feeling quite confident about the possibility of reaching a solution. On September 27th, I sent the following report to my vestry via email from New Orleans:

Dear Vestry,

I had an opportunity to speak to the bishop while down in New Orleans. We had a good conversation. He acknowledged that the national church was actively discouraging the sort of deals that we want to work out, but said that the national church was not going to force his hand, especially if the deal that we work out is quiet and there is little publicity.

I asked whether our departure would trigger a lawsuit. He said no. He said that the difference between us and the other churches was that we have not acted without consulting him. We have not embarrassed him or the diocese. We have, he said, a relationship of trust. I agree and as much as it depends on us, we should do everything to maintain that. . .

Read it all. And check out Matt's earlier posts:

• Part 1:To the People of the Church of the Good Shepherd, 2006


• Part 2: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Resolution and Correspondence, July 2006


• Part 3: Good Shepherd and the Diocese of Central New York: Hope for an amicable parting, Fall 2006

Five dioceses publicly oppose depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox

Here are the five dioceses (so far) that have publicly opposed the actions of the Presiding Bishop and the Episcopal Church house of bishops:

• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina (The Rt. Rev Mark Lawrence endorsed the letter) March 27


• The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Western Louisiana (in a resolution authorized by the diocesan Standing Committee and endorsed by the bishop, D. Bruce MacPherson, and Diocesan Council) April 14


• Diocesan Board and Standing Committee and Bishop John W. Howe of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida May 15


• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Springfield (The Rt. Rev Peter H. Beckwith endorsed the letter and actions of his Diocesan Council) May 22


• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana May 27

H/t to VirtueOnline.

Forward in Faith North America reacts to the inhibition of Bishop MacBurney

From Forward in Faith:

“It is a sad day when godly bishops are no longer free to provide pastoral care for those beyond our formal institutional boundaries.” FiF NA President

Today the Right Reverend Edward MacBurney, the bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy (Episcopal) received a Letter of Inhibition from Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA (TEC). The Inhibition forbids MacBurney from functioning as a bishop of TEC.

Last year MacBurney was invited by the Presiding Bishop & Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, to make a pastoral visit to a Southern Cone parish in San Diego, California, on his behalf. In a spirit of Anglican unity and Christian generosity, Bishop MacBurney agreed to respond to the pastoral needs of those outside TEC with whom TEC claims fellowship.

“This is an alarming move against a godly man who, without publicity, rightly helped a brother bishop provide care for his people,” said the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith NA and current TEC Bishop of Quincy (IL). This move against Bishop MacBurney is a clear warning that the leadership of TEC is endeavouring to bring the days of the biblically orthodox within TEC to a close. “Schori clearly has no intention to ‘live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything’ as she was quoted in Saturday’s interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Sandi Dolbee. “While Schori extolled the imperative to worship together, her Inhibition is to prevent others from worshipping with Bishop MacBurney,” said Father Keith Acker who was also interviewed by Dolbee on Schori’s weekend visit to San Diego.

Internationally this is an attack upon the many world leaders of Anglican Churches (Primates) who have responded to the “burning house” of the ever increasingly post-Christian theology of TEC and its abandonment of the Bible as the Word of God in any meaningful sense.

Bishop MacBurney welcomes the opportunity to defend his actions from the scandalous neglect of Christian charity led by Katharine Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC. Bishop MacBurney will have 90 days to respond to the charges.

The Right Revd Keith L. Ackerman
President of Forward in Faith North America

Irony abounds

From Captain Yips Secret Journal:

Back in the 1960s, a core of orthodox bishops variously exasperated by James Pike persisted in efforts to try him for heresy, to the point that Pike eventually demanded a trial. Pike was the prototype of the New Episcopal Bishop - personal life pretty much a mess, lover of publicity, seeker after the sensational, adopter of one cause after another - that is with us yet. In the long run, no trial occurred. Even some of the orthodox bishops felt that the cost of such an old fashioned thing as "heresy" would be bad for the church, so they managed to do the Episcopal thing - they referred the mess to committee, and the committee managed to speak out of both sides of its mouth by saying, "Yes, he says stupid things, but no, we're not going to remove him from office." And to be ever so slightly fair, we need to remember the temper of the time. 1967's summer of love (centered in Pike's San Francisco) was fast approaching, Viet Name protests were gaining massive publicity, and any publicity that the then-PECUSA would have gained from upholding Christian orthodoxy would have been negative - for a while. Yet Bishop Bayne was entirely wrong when he said that Pike's views "nowhere near threatening the church's jugular."

Those orthodox bishops could not have imagined that 40 years later the church that they sought to spare from scandal and notoriety would be engaging in bizarre (and definitely scandalous) manipulations of church law to silence and expel today's orthodox bishops. Whatever else may be said about them, today's revolutionaries have a zeal for ideological purity that accepts no compromise and does not shirk confrontation. . .

Read it all.

Weekly update from Bishop David Anderson, AAC

Via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Much of the news this week centers on the recent actions of The Episcopal Church House of Bishops (TEC-HOB) and the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (KJS) in relation to a vote to depose retired bishop William Cox and former TEC bishop John-David Schofield (JDS). Dovetailing into these legally questionable depositions are two subsequent issues: the fact that the deposition notice for Bishop Cox misstates his title and the diocese he retired from; and the calling for a Special Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin to elect a new bishop.

An article in the Living Church states: "In a March 12 press conference, Bishop Schori stated she had not followed rules governing the requirement that the 88-year old retired bishop be granted a speedy trial, that he be informed of the charges against him in a timely fashion, and that the consent of the church's senior bishops be solicited by the Presiding Bishop to suspend him from office pending trial." Additionally, for Bishop Cox and Bishop JDS, the issue of whether there were votes enough to depose is at stake. If the rule of law is at the whim of the chief executive, no one is safe, conservative or revisionist - it's just a case of when KJS will come for you.

Please bear with me and we will go through the details. According to TEC canon law, a quorum to conduct business is a majority of (nearly) all of the bishops in TEC (Article I.2 TEC Constitution), but it is believed that fewer than that number of bishops were present at the officially called meeting. This would mean that no binding business could be lawfully transacted. To have a quorum would have required one half plus one of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote, which includes Diocesans, Suffragans, Coadjutors, and Assisting bishops (Retired bishops and those "In assignment to positions created or endorsed by the General Convention", although having a vote, apparently do not count toward establishing a quorum).

The canonical standard to depose a bishop is harder, and requires a majority vote of (all) the whole number of the bishops entitled to vote (Canon 9:Sec.2). This does include those who are retired or in assignment to positions created or endorsed by the General Convention. The majority required to depose is of the full body as if all were present. This is a "super majority" in actuality, since seldom would the "whole number of the bishops entitled to vote" be present. The problem was that this number of bishops wasn't even in attendance that day. Even if all of those bishops in attendance had voted for deposition (and they didn't) there still would have been an inadequate number of votes. How could the Presiding Bishop and the Chancellor David Booth Beers (DBB) determine that the proceedings were lawful when they violated the canons? Because they believe they can do this and get away with it - and the truth is, in today's Episcopal Church, they may get away with it. The corruption in Christology, Theology, and Moral Discipline in TEC extends into gross arrogance and the use or disregard of Canon Law as is convenient to KJS and DBB.

This disregard for the rule of law by TEC means that KJS and her Chancellor DBB are functioning as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and most of the other TEC bishops fall in dutifully behind them. One must ask, "Where are the sometime "Windsor Bishops" in all of this? We see no protests except from Bishop John Howe and now from South Carolina; have the "Windsor Bishops" lost their voices? " Speak now or forever hold your peace," would be one way of phrasing it.

Since the legality of the deposition of JDS is in serious doubt at the present moment, the position of Bishop of San Joaquin may not be vacant! How can KJS call a Special Convention for San Joaquin, nominate Bishop Lamb as the next San Joaquin Diocesan, chair the meeting and elect her nominee? This doesn't look like a good government model for the free world, instead it looks like a pogrom against orthodox Anglican church leaders still in TEC as well as those whose departure was recent (and hastened by the abuse to which they have been subjected).

American journalist Steve Levin of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Jefferts Schori will begin to poll bishops nationally in April in an effort to move the deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan ahead to May. She has perhaps several agendas at work, one being to depose him soon so that the Archbishop of Canterbury has the excuse to "dis-invite" Bishop Duncan from Lambeth publicly and further undercut the orthodox Anglicans. A second reason is so she can declare the Diocese of Pittsburgh vacant and move her minions into position. The Diocese isn't set to formally decide on staying or going from TEC until the October-November time frame, but without a bishop, she can begin the attempt to undercut the Standing Committee of the diocese.

As preparations for TEC's 2009 General Convention begin to unfold (yes it is coming like an asteroid in Earth orbit), one area of critical note for clergy will be changes in the misconduct canons. The "Title IV Task Force II" is proposing changes which would expand the definition of the chargeable offence "conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy" to include virtually any public criticism that offended someone, including telling the truth about the outrageous conduct of the Episcopal Church or its people and policies. It would cover not only sermons, newsletter articles, and teachings in parish coffee hours, but blogs and online postings.

Unless there is massive pushback from those still in TEC, clergy will be disposed of rather easily. As soon as TEC is able to acquire a Mind Reading Machine, they can depose clergy for inner thoughts, too - why wait until they say something? What is next, you ask... perhaps if a priest is found to be reading the AAC's Encompass Magazine, or the Leaders or Weekly Updates, or the StandFirm website, or David Virtue's Virtue on Line, that will be conduct unbecoming and subject to immediate execution. The future inside TEC is going to get hotter after 2009. An inconvenient truth: Ecclesial Warming ahead!

The good news we are hearing is that responses are being received to the Global Anglican Future Conference and Pilgrimage invitations, and although there are limited seats available, there is high interest in filling those spots. The AAC is providing a working team of several of our AAC staff to help with support tasks such as the registration process, etc. Donations for scholarships for bishops needing assistance to attend GAFCON can be made online at the American Anglican Council website or at this link.

Some have jested about the Send-A-Bishop-to-GAFCON funding request: if you like the bishop you can give him a round trip scholarship and let him get home again. Seriously, do give the scholarships to GAFCON some thought and prayer.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the AAC

Mathes V. MacBurney: Dean Munday of Nashotah House weighs in

From SanDiegoAnglicans.com [boldface mine]:

Bishop Munday's blog is my favorite new (to me anyway) weblog. Add his feed to your favorite RSS reader for insightful and uplifting commentary about everything happening in the American churches. Even in his recent post about the cruel and useless charges being brought against Bishop Macburney, he manages to make the topic Christian Joy.

From here:http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-being-joyful.html:

"In the midst of the turmoil last week over the deposition of Bps. John David Schofield and William J. Cox and the threatened deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan, the news could have been overlooked regarding the Presiding Litigator's intention to depose Bishop Edward MacBurney. I wrote these words to the House of Bishops/House of Deputies listserv in response to another Deputy who said that he believed the words of the PB calling for compassion toward Bps. Cox and Schofield were sincere:

You wrote, "I believe that the call of our Presiding Bishop to be compassionate toward these two bishops is genuine..." Let me state emphatically that I do not believe this to be the case. Bishop Cox had already been received into another province. He should have been spared this action. The PB was informed that Betty Cox is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and that the action against Bishop Cox was causing her severe mental distress. The PB was informed of this publicly by Kendall Harmon at the clergy day during her trip to the Diocese of South Carolina. [You can watch the video of Kendall Harmon speaking to the Presiding Bishop about Bishop Cox here. It is approximately 7:00 minutes into Part 5 of the series.] Bishop Cox has said that the PB never contacted him except for the letters pertaining to his deposition. If she did not show compassion toward Bishop Cox prior to his deposition, what reason is there to believe that she will do so now?

Today [3/13/08] it became public that charges are being brought against the Rt. Rev. Edward MacBurney for his visit to a non-Episcopal church in San Diego. (Bishop MacBurney is the bishop who ordained me to the diaconate and priesthood.) The Diocese of Quincy informed 815 some time ago that the MacBurneys are dealing with a son who is in hospice care with terminal cancer. If the PB wanted to demonstrate compassion, she could have waited until later to deal with this (if it had to be done at all). . .

Read it all. This is beyond legalistic - this is outright cruelty dressed up as polity.

More on charges against Bishop MacBurney

From George Conger:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is gauging her strength among the members of the US House of Bishops to see if she has sufficient political capital to depose traditionalist Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh before the July Lambeth Conference.

Bishop Schori’s admission came in the same week as word of new litigation against a retired conservative bishop was announced. The former Bishop of Quincy, 80-year old Edward MacBurney is charged with violating the church’s canons by visiting a non-Episcopal church in the diocese of San Diego without the permission of the local Episcopal bishop. . .

Bishop MacBurney, however, has not been charged with abandonment of communion at this stage of the ecclesiastical proceedings, but merely with canonical violations. In a statement released by the Diocese of Quincy, his lawyers noted the novelty of the charges against their client as to “whether an Episcopal bishop exercises total control over a certain geographical territory or whether a Bishop merely exercises control over the Episcopal churches within that territory.”

The current Bishop of Quincy, the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman has given his full backing to Bishop MacBurney, saying his actions had been done in “good faith” and were motivated by the claims of conscience. Forward in Faith called the charges “pastorally and politically inept.”

The attack on Bishop MacBurney “will alienate others across the Communion who have not yet grasped the extent of the graceless and totalitarian mindset which now dominates the Episcopal Church,” it said on March 14.

Read it all - I've just concentrated here on the info about Bishop MacBurney since that has a San Diego connection.

George Conger: Doubts over HOB deposition trial

From George Conger, very interesting [boldface mine] :

. . . However, the revelation that the trial failed to conform to canon law, and by failing to garner enough votes to depose Bishop Schofield, had resulted in his legal acquittal, sparked a firestorm of controversy.

The Presiding Bishop’s lawyer, David Booth Beers released a statement on March 15, stating that his “position” was that the requirement that all bishops eligible to vote could be interpreted to mean all eligible to vote who happened to be present at the meeting.

What steps will now be taken to remedy the situation are unclear as both sides are confused as to how to act. Bishop Schori has already nominated a new bishop to serve as her designee in San Joaquin—retired Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb. However, leading clergy of the diocese who wish to remain within the Episcopal Church have declined to meet with him, citing the failed trial as evidence that Bishop Schofield remains the Episcopal bishop. . .

Read it all.

David Trimble: Commentary on last week's HOB vote

From Still on Patrol, a synopsis of the current state of The Episcopal Church (one which I agree with completely):

. . . With TEC, while it appears that PB Scori and her allies in the HOB will end up with total control of the entity known as TEC, what will they have won? Membership, attendance and giving are declining at an alarming rate. Parishes are closing and properties are being sold. If TEC wins its litigation over departing parishes (and Diocesan) property, it will be left with a very nice collection of mostly empty buildings with no means of support. TEC is also rapidly losing what little credibility it has among other religious denominations. These events are not taking place in a vacuum. Religious leaders of all stripes have been watching TEC and more than a few have commented on the situation, most of them unfavorable. TEC's standing at any ecumenical table has been immeasurably diminished. The historical significance of the Anglican faiths in the history of America has been left in tatters.

"Agenda, Agenda Uber Alles." Not for this poor, dumb country boy.

Read it all.

Kangaroo court full press

From BabyBlue Online [boldface mine]:

. . . To illustrate why there is a failure of principled moral and democratic reasoning in this debacle - we can imagine what would happen if the House of Representatives could impeach a President of the United States with the simple majority of a quorum. What havoc would break out - we'd be having impeachments every time the president vetoed a bill or made a speech or wore the wrong necktie. No, they must have the majority of the entire membership vote, not a quorum for heaven's sake - and that's why they call the roll (and why their votes are recorded, especially for something as severe as that). To impeach a president is a grave thing to do and leads to a trial in the U.S. Senate and finally to the removal from office.

We are now faced with something at least as serious as that in the Episcopal Church - the actual removal from ordained ministry of a seated Diocesan Bishop with Jurisdiction. What the Presiding Bishop attempted to do was impose an ecclesiastical-version of a death penalty sentence on the ministry of a Diocesan Bishop of the Church, duly elected by the clergy and laity of his diocese, by taking a simple voice vote of the majority of a quorum - not the membership entitled to vote. What is more severe than this?

As we recall, the Bishop of San Joaquin's resignation was rejected and so was not recognized by the House of Bishops. The Presiding Bishop put all her eggs into one basket. But it sure wasn't an Easter Basket. . .

Read it all.