The first constitution of the church, ratified in 1789, reflects these foundational principles. Parishes were led jointly by rectors and vestries: clergy overseeing worship and education, and elected laypeople managing finances and property, as well as calling new rectors. The tradition of colonial conventions led to state conventions, which were what we now call dioceses, presided by the bishop but that have power to determine the life of the diocese. The annual diocesan convention oversees finances, elects a bishop when necessary and a standing committee and other governing bodies (depending on the dioceses) to exercise jurisdiction.

So far these were not very different than the features of English church life. It was the creation of a “general convention” endued with specific powers that marked the American Episcopal revolution. In short, while the Church of England and most of the churches that came from it have an archbishop who serves as the metropolitical authority, that authority resides in the General Convention.

Thus on the face of it, the seven bishops [signed an amicus curiæ brief submitted to the Texas Supreme Court] are right. In The Episcopal Church, the classic church hierarchy of deacon ”” priest ”” diocesan ”” archbishop ends at the diocesan level. But this is to misunderstand what a hierarchy is.

Read it all.

In an order published…[yesterday], the Supreme Court of Texas has, following its announcements of decisions in a number of pending cases, granted Bishop Iker’s request for expedited oral argument and set the case for hearing on the same day as the San Angelo case (the appeal by Church of the Good Shepherd from the decision in favor of the Diocese of Northwest Texas) — October 16, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Each side will have twenty minutes for oral argument.

Read it all and follow the many links.

As ENS notes, the defenders of Title IV claimed their February 2011 response to our original critique “conclusively establishes the constitutionality” of Title IV. General Convention must have reached a different conclusion. In any event, we invite all concerned about Title IV to read our replies to their defense of Title IV before accepting the characterization that its constitutionality has been established: “Title IV Unmasked: Reply to Our Critics” (February 2011) and “Title IV and the Constitution” (March 2011). The latter in particular is a comprehensive review of the constitutional provisions for clergy discipline from 1789 to the present. Our own conviction after undertaking this work: “The conclusion that the 2009 Title IV revision is unconstitutional cannot reasonably be denied.” Our critics never answered these papers.

Read it all.

“Procedurally it’s a disaster. In terms of what it’s done to clergy rights it’s more than a disaster,” Diocese of Newark Alternate Deputy Michael Rehill told ENS. “It needed basic total revision. It was adopted hastily without anybody apparently having any thought about how it was actually going to work in some respects.”

In other ways, Rehill, insists, the drafters knew exactly what they were doing. He says their intent was to take away “all the rights of clergy” and give “incredible power to bishops to get rid of priests.”

Rehill, a former Diocese of Newark chancellor, is the chief operating officer of Canon Lawyer, which defends Episcopal clergy in disciplinary matters.

Read it all.

Following the General Convention, most of you heard me read from the pulpit (or have had an opportunity to read) Bishop Lawrence’s letter to the Diocese. In that letter, he stated that The Episcopal Church had now “crossed a line” in terms of changing the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church in such a way that his own personal conscience could not go. Asking for a point of personal privilege, he addressed the House of Bishops, stating the issues on his heart, and then left the Convention floor, returning early with five of the seven Deputies from our Diocese (Fr. John Burwell and Mr. Lonnie Hamilton chose to stay.)

On Wednesday, the Bishop addressed his clergy for the first time directly. We were shown a film giving a pastoral rationale for the changes in Canon Law that allow transgendered persons (those who have been surgically altered from their birthassigned gender) to have full access to all positions in this Church, including ordination to the priesthood (and one would deduce, the episcopate). It seemed to me that this change was far more troubling to our bishop than the proposed rites for same-sex blessing. The same-sex blessing rites are proposed, provisional, and can only be used with the permission of the local diocesan. In other words, Bishop Lawrence is not in any way bound by them. But these canonical changes are permanent, and it was at this point that the bishop simply said to us, I think I have crossed a bridge.

Read it all.

***We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do and encourages clergy to violate the canons, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and their vow to conform to the worship of the Church***

Some extracts From here:-

…….But there is a more ominous aspect to these resolves. They clearly purport to “authorize” something General Convention has no jurisdiction to authorize, thus usurping the authority of the very bishops they purport to authorize. And they invite (using the permissive “may”) bishops to use or adapt this rite in “civil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal.” This calls on bishops to ignore both the rubrics for marriage (including civil marriage) defining it as between a man and a woman and the marriage canon, which as the resolution itself acknowledges “applies by extension.” The House of Bishops was expressly advised that the intention of this resolution was to encourage clergy to perform same sex marriages.

One diocesan bishop has already reversed his position and will now allow clergy to perform same sex marriages, concluding “we are left with a situation in which the mind of this recent Convention appears to be to allow such services. However, The Constitution and The Book of Common Prayer still say something else.” For him “the mind of this General Convention” trumped both of these foundational instruments.

The incoherence of this position is demonstrated by the liturgical materials that were approved, which simultaneously opine that the rite can be used in connection with civil marriages and that “A bishop, priest, or deacon who violates the rubrics or the Canon risks disciplinary action under Title IV.”…
………………………………
Every bishop, priest and deacon undertakes at ordination “to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.” The recent action by General Convention purporting to authorize bishops to authorize a rite for blessing same sex couples raises in an acute way the question of what exactly is the worship of The Episcopal Church to which all clergy promise to conform. We look carefully at this question below. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows:

Ӣ The authority to define the worship of the Church is spelled out with precision in Article X of the Constitution.

”¢ Subject to the exceptions in Article X, the worship of the Church is that found in the Book of Common Prayer, which is to be used “in all the Dioceses.”

”¢ General Convention has authority only to amend the Book of Common Prayer or to propose revisions to the BCP and authorize them “for trial use throughout the Church” “at any time” “as an alternative” to the standard Book of Common Prayer.

Ӣ Diocesan bishops, not General Convention, have authority to permit supplemental forms of worship under defined conditions.

Ӣ The proposed rite was not conceived as a revision to the Book of Common Prayer and therefore General Convention had no authority to authorize its use by any majority or supermajority vote.

”¢ The action of General Convention was theologically incoherent in that it assumed that God’s blessing can be invoked provisionally and in some dioceses but not others.

Ӣ The resolution passed is unconstitutional because it exceeds the authority of General Convention and invites clergy to violate BCP rubrics.

Ӣ Bishops cannot constitutionally permit use of this rite in connection with civil marriages.

We conclude: taken as a whole, Resolution A049 is not just a legal nullity and theologically incoherent, although it is that. It is also profoundly unconstitutional in that it purports to do something General Convention is not authorized to do and encourages clergy to violate the canons, the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and their vow to conform to the worship of the Church.
But this is only one instance of the proliferation of unconstitutionally authorized liturgical materials for a church in liturgical, theological and canonical chaos. General Convention itself has called attention to this problem and concluded “it is time”¦to honor the spirit of the prayer book rubrics.” We agree.

Read it all.

Finally, there is potential for a constitutional crisis of major proportions should anyone in the Church even try to proceed under the new Title IV with respect to anything that the Diocese of South Carolina or any of its clergy may do. The reason for that statement is simple: the Diocese of South Carolina has not adopted, and will not adopt, the new Title IV because it regards those Canons as beyond the powers of General Convention to enact and remain consistent with ECUSA’s Constitution. And as noted many times before on this blog, the Canons of General Convention are without any binding force on any Diocese that refuses, on constitutional grounds, to recognize their validity.

And short of a Constitutional amendment to make General Convention the supreme legislative and judicial authority in the Episcopal Church (USA), there is nothing that anyone in ECUSA can do about that situation. It is the same situation we had in the United States when it was under the Articles of Confederation; Congress had no power to impose any of its laws on an individual State against its will — because there was no Supremacy Clause in the Articles. (It was by reason of their experiences with the stalemates thus generated between Congress and the several States that the Founders included a Supremacy Clause in the new Constitution drafted in 1787, and finally ratified in 1789. And tellingly, some of those same Founders chose not to include a Supremacy Clause for General Convention when they participated in 1789 in drafting ECUSA’s Constitution, also adopted by the several Dioceses in that same year.)

If a collision is coming, it will have to be one that the national leadership has actively sought by its actions to date, and that it will seek by its actions to come. Will that leadership be wise enough to pull back before it commits itself to still more? We shall have to bide our time, and see.

Read it all.

[This post was originally’made ‘sticky’ at the head of the blog list of posts – with new posts below it – for a good while during the summer of 2012 (see also index)]
July 15, 2012
7th Sunday After Pentecost

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Some of you have actively followed the decisions of the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Others have been blissfully unaware that our denomination even had a General Convention. We have. And the actions taken mark a significant and distressing departure from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.

In conversations with clergy, and from the emails I have received, I know there is much uneasiness about the future….
Some of us are experiencing the well-known stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. And, of course, I must acknowledge there are those for whom the recent decisions are a cause for celebration. For me there are certainly things about which I was thankful at the convention in Indianapolis. I might even have taken encouragement from the resolutions that were passed regarding needed structural reform, and for the intentional work in the House of Bishops on matters of collegiality and honesty. Unfortunately, these strike me now as akin to a long overdue rearranging of the furniture when the house is on fire. Why do I say this?

There are four resolutions which were adopted that bring distressing changes to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church that every ordained person in this church has vowed “to engage to conform,” and which stand in direct conflict with the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them.

First, let me mention resolution C029. While this was amended during the debates in a more temperate direction, it still moves the Church further down the road toward encouraging the communion of the unbaptized which departs from two thousand years of Christian practice. It also puts the undiscerning person in spiritual jeopardy. (I Corinthians 11:27–32)

Plainly, the resolution that has received the most publicity is A049 which authorizes rites for Same-Sex Blessings. This resolution goes into effect in Advent 2012, but only upon the authority of the bishop of each diocese. It hardly needs to be said, but for the record let me say clearly, I will not authorize the use of such rites in the Diocese of South Carolina. Such rites are not only contrary to the canons of this diocese and to the judgment of your bishop, but more importantly I believe they are contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture; to two thousand years of Christian practice; as well as to our created nature. Many theologians down through the centuries speak of what we are as human beings by Creation; what we are by the Fall; what we are through Redemption (that is in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ); and what we shall be in our Glorification. Our marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer is rooted in this understanding. Because of this, it is biblical, it is Christian, and it is Anglican. I would also add, it is beautiful and it is true. Therefore the Episcopal Church has no authority to put asunder this sacramental understanding of marriage as established by God in creation and blessed through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It has no authority to do this either by revising the marriage rite to include same sex partners or by devising some parallel quasi-marital sacramental service. I remind you of the elegant words of our Prayer Book which echo the teaching of our Scriptures:

“The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. It signifies the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people.”

This speaks of a “given-ness” in this age that is good, and is emblematic of our Christian Hope. It prepares us for the age to come; when God the Father summons his Church to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

There is however an even more incoherent departure from the teaching of Holy Scripture and from our Episcopalian and Anglican Heritage to be found in the General Convention’s passage of resolutions D002 and D019. These changes to our Church’s canons mark an even further step into incoherency. They open the door to innumerable self-understandings of gender identity and gender expression within the Church; normalizing “transgender,” “bi-sexual,” “questioning,” and still yet to be named ”“ self-understandings of individualized eros. I fail to see how a rector or parish leader who embraces such a canonical change has any authority to discipline a youth minister, Sunday school teacher, or chalice bearer who chooses to dress as a man one Sunday and as a woman another. And this is but one among many possibilities. Let me state my concern clearly. To embrace an understanding of our human condition in which gender may be entirely self-defined, self-chosen is to abandon all such norms, condemning ourselves, our children and grandchildren, as well as future generations to sheer sexual anarchy. So long as I am bishop of this diocese I will not abandon its people to such darkness.

Some have said to me, “But bishop the culture is accepting this. To continue to resist these innovations is to put ourselves on the wrong side of history.” I say to such thinking, you cannot be on the wrong side of History if you are on the right side of Reality. Archbishop William Temple was correct when he wrote over 70 years ago: the Church needs to be very clear in its public teaching so it can be very pastoral in its application.

This Monday afternoon I will be meeting with my Council of Advice. On Tuesday I will be meeting with our Diocesan Standing Committee. Then during the remainder of July I will be meeting with the deans and with clergy in various deaneries. Given these changes in the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church the question that is before us is: “What does being faithful to Jesus Christ look like for this diocese at this time? How are we called to live and be and act? In this present context, how do we make Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age?”

On the penultimate day of General Convention, in a Private Session in the House of Bishops, I asked for a point of personal privilege and expressed my heartfelt concerns about these changes. I listened to the words of others and then departed with prayer and charity. I left at that time because at least for me to pretend that nothing had changed was no longer an option. Now that I have returned to South Carolina it is still not an option. I ask that you keep me and the councils of our diocese in your prayers as you shall be in mine. We have many God-size challenges and, I trust, many God-given opportunities ahead.

Faithfully yours in Christ,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Mark Lawrence is Bishop of South Carolina

(Please note that if you wish to see a signed copy of this letter, you may find it there)–KSH.

The level of support for C029 when it was presented to the House of Bishops on 12 July 2012 was markedly different. The Rt. Rev. William Gregg, Assistant Bishop of North Carolina, was the first to rise and offered a strong statement of rejection of the resolution.

It was “not up to one denomination” to change the universal church’s teaching on baptism, Bishop Gregg said.

The Bishop of Southern Ohio, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Breidenthal, agreed the issue needed further study and urged defeat of the resolution….

The Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, Bishop of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, urged his colleagues not to refer the matter to committee but to vote for adoption. There were large numbers of non-baptized people in Europe, he noted, and by recognizing the need for pastoral sensitivity this permitted bishops to address local needs. Without this recognition the hands of bishops were tied, he said….

Read it all.

The Diocese of Central Florida is committed to making disciples of all nations and loving one another as Christ loves us.

The Deputation from the Diocese of Central Florida has an extraordinary sense of sadness and disappointment that the Episcopal Church has chosen to adopt a provisional rite for same-sex blessings.

We recognize that to the vast majority of those members participating in the councils of General Convention, this represents progress. To us, it represents a step back from the clear teachings of Holy Scripture and a disregard for the unity and teaching of the Church.
Our Lord Jesus Christ emphasized marriage between a man and a woman as a divine ordinance for the ordering human relationships. For that reason, he sternly warned against human interference with marriages. Jesus said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ”˜made them male and female,’ and said, ”˜For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt. 19:4-6)

The 77th General Convention’s decision represents denominationalism. In matters of ethics and morals, we have shown blatant disregard for the unity of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, we in the Diocese of Central Florida stand in solidarity with our communion partners within the Episcopal Church and within the Worldwide Anglican Communion who “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 1:3) . We deeply lament the costly repercussions that these decisions will have within the Episcopal Church and for Anglican Christians around the world especially those under anti-Christian totalitarian regimes.

The actions of General Convention also represent a departure from the rubrics and worship of the Book of Common Prayer and the stated Canons of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are not recognized in the Diocese of Central Florida as being consistent with either the laws of the State or the canons of this Church on Marriage. The Book of Common Prayer says, “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God. In the Episcopal Church it is required that ”¦ the marriage conform to the laws of the State and the canons of this Church.” (p. 422)

While we are greatly saddened by the General Convention’s action, we are not discouraged. We know that we are called by God to “stand firm”. If any are discouraged, let us bear one another’s burdens and cast our cares on the Lord in prayer for one another. Our faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord gives the strength and hope needed to serve without compromise within the Episcopal Church and the world, “for our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh”. (Ephesians 6:12) Our faith is not in the human institutions of the Church, but in the unwavering faithfulness of Jesus Christ our Lord””his grace is sufficient.

We stand behind our Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Gregory Orrin Brewer, in his endorsement of the minority report known as the Indianapolis Statement.

The Rev. Charles Holt, Chair
The Rev. Phylis Bartle
The Rev. Danielle Morris
The Rev. James Sorvillo
The Rev. Eric Turner
Mr. Charles Armstrong
Mrs. Anneke Bertsch
Mr. Sid Glynn
Mr. William Grimm, esq.
Mrs. Sonya Shannon

(It is very important that you read the previous thread on this as well as the comments there first). Here again is the full text–

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 77th General Convention direct the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies to appoint a special commission charged with conducting a study of the theology underlying access to Holy Baptism and Holy Communion in this Church and to recommend for consideration by the 78th General Convention any amendment to Title I, Canon 17, Section 7, of the Canons of General Convention that it deems appropriate; and be it further Resolved, That the General Convention request the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance to consider a budget allocation of $30,000 for the implementation of this Resolution.
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that The Episcopal Church reaffirms that baptism is the ancient and normative entry point to receiving Holy Communion and that our Lord Jesus Christ calls us to go into the world and baptize all peoples. We also acknowledge that in various local contexts there is the exercise of pastoral sensitivity with those who are not yet baptized.

You can find a copy of it here. Please note that in the House of Deputies debate today there was an attempt at an amendment that failed. The vote totals as announced were–Lay Order 85 yes, No 16, divided 9; Clergy 70 Yes, No 24, Divided 16.

Even more troubling is the Episcopal Church’s official embrace of transgenderism. Here is essentially a Gnostic faith that mental and emotional self-realization trumps physical reality. Each self-actualized individual can in fact perpetually reinvent himself or herself into endlessly possible new sexual identities. Male today, female tomorrow, then some yet to be determined new gender next week. The Christian hope and understanding that the human body is called to be a sacred temple of the Holy Spirit that will ultimately resurrect, as Christ resurrected, for all eternity is largely lost or ignored under the transgender ideology.

What is the ultimate ceiling or floor of this strange new course upon which the Episcopal Church is launched? Only God knows.

Read it all.

There have been a number of occasions over the years in TEC like this where a key document or statement has come out, and the response has been, shall we say, less than satisfactory. Therefore there needs to be some preparation on our part so as to try to react in a Christian manner. Herewith some suggestions:

(6) Expect the discernment to be a corporate activity. We still seek to be part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and we need one another. We are. as Ephesians says (4:15), to speak the truth in love. May the way we respond demonstrate this–KSH.

By the way–anyone recognize most of the language here? It is from something I wrote in 2007. Nick Knisely wrote [now Bishop-elect of Rhode Island] at the time that he found himself “pretty much full agreement with [my]suggestions”

So what, exactly, did the Bishops do today (July 9), besides “pass” a piece of paper labeled “Resolution A049”?

Did they amend the Book of Common Prayer?

They did not.

Did they approve an alternative to the BCP for trial use on a Church-wide basis?

They did not””the proponents of A049 knew they did not have the votes to do that.
Instead, at the last minute, they carefully reworded their Resolution to take out the word “trial [use]” wherever it appeared, and put the word “provisional” in its place. In this way, the rudderless Bishops apparently believed they were not opening up a route to amending the Book of Common Prayer, by triggering the requirement of the need for a supermajority under Article X of the Constitution (as discussed in this post).

But did they approve, then, an experimental rite for “special occasions” and for use only with the permission of a bishop, as discussed in this earlier post?

No, they did not manage to do that, either….

Read it all.

Back to work at 2:15. The Bishops dealt with a sensitive issue. Seven bishops–some retired or no longer Episcopalian–had signed a friendly brief for the court proceedings in Fort Worth to support the parishes who left The Episcopal Church and are trying to keep their property. Because much of our conversation was private, I can only report that we had a unanimous roll call vote to support the Episcopal parishes, the right of the Episcopal bishops in the dioceses struggling with property disputes, and affirmation that the Episcopal bishops are the only rightful bishops in these dioceses. It was a hard but grace filled conversation.

Read it all.

Post on Complaints filed against 9 bishops of the Episcopal Church and Philip Turner under Title IV

Post Last Updated 24 October 2012

[Latest Update: 24 October 2012: See this story for the latest news.]

[Further Update 8th July: Following a further closed session of the House of Bishops on Sunday 8th July 2012 a Resolution of the House of Bishops was issued expressing support for the continuing dioceses. Provisional Bishop Buchanan of Quincy is reported by Episcopal News Service to have “told the house I am grateful for the support and help the resolution provides, but it’s not what I asked for. I asked for clarification around the hierarchical character of our church.”]

Latest updates:
*An ENS Article on the Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Passed Today [8th July 2012]
*Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution, July 8, 2012, as Passed [8th July 2012]
*Full Text of Letter from Eight bishops to TEC House of Bishops Refuting disloyalty allegation [7th July 2012]
*(Fort Worth Diocese led by Bishop Jack Iker) Motion filed for expedited hearing [7th July 2012]
*[Eight] bishops respond to charges brought to the House of Bishops [Updated] [7th July 2012]
*House of Bishops reaches No decision as of yet on complaint brought by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan [7th July 2012]
*House of Bishops to hear complaints from Fort Worth and Quincy on 6 July 2012 [6th July 2012]
*Current TEC Bishops in Fort Worth and Quincy write PB Jefferts Schori about recent Charges [6th July 2012]
Title IV Complaint Filed Against Philip Turner [4th July 2012]
*South Carolina Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
*What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church? [3rd July 2012]
*[Allan Haley] Bishopsgate Plot Thickens: Complaint Timed to Intimidate Witness [3rd July 2012]
*Central Florida: Statement by Bishop Brewer and the Standing Committee [3rd July 2012]
*Bishop Howe responds to “Presentment” [3rd July 2012]
*Dr Ephraim Radner: How To Kill a Christian Church in Four Easy Steps [3rd July 2012]
*Dallas: Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
*Albany: Bishop Love’s Letter to the People of the Diocese of Albany [3rd July 2012]

A brief guide to the action being taken against 9 bishops of the Episcopal Church under the new Title IV Disciplinary Canons and against Dr Philip Turner with links in reverse chronological order so that the newest items appear first in each category. The Elves hope these links from T19 posts and elsewhere will assist the understanding of readers.

[A] UNOFFICIAL INTRODUCTION [Updated 8th July 2012]
On 28th June 2012 Bishop Clayton Matthews, Intake Officer for the Episcopal Church issued two communications:

1. To 3 bishops, Edward Salmon, former Bishop of South Carolina and current Dean of Nashotah House Theological Seminary, Peter Beckwith, former Bishop of Springfield, and Bruce MacPherson, sitting Bishop of Western Louisiana stating that he will initiate disciplinary process against them following complaints “for your action in signing affidavits” in proceedings regarding the Diocese of Quincy

2. To 7 bishops [including Bishop MacPherson again], Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, John Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, Paul Lambert, Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, William Love, sitting Bishop of Albany, Bruce MacPherson, sitting Bishop of Western Louisiana, Daniel Martins, sitting Bishop of Springfield, James Stanton, sitting Bishop of Dallas stating that he will initiate disciplinary process against them following complaints “for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church” [n.b. there is no court involvement of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, however there is one in respect of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth]. An Amicus Curiae Brief is a third party submission offered ‘as a friend’ of the Court usually about something the Court will want and need to know.

Neither the identity of the complainants nor the specific canonical breaches alleged have been disclosed to the bishops. However the complaint seems to be that they gave submissions to the Courts regarding the polity of the constitution, canons and history of the Episcopal Church and in particular as it relates to dioceses and that their opinion may have differed from the assertions of the Episcopal Church litigators who claim that the polity of the church is hierachical with dioceses subservient to and at the total whim of the National Church bodies and in particular its General Convention and through that its central church offices under the Presiding Bishop. The bishops appear to be speaking up for the rights of the Dioceses in the polity of the Episcopal Church. [Update 3rd July 2012: see this post What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church?]

[Update 8th July 2012: Responses have been issued from Springfield, Albany, Dallas, Central Florida and from Bishop Howe.

On 4th July 2012 The Very Reverend Dr Philip Turner former Dean of Berkeley Divinity School, Yale ascertained that Title IV proceedings were being brought against him in the Diocese of Texas – read his statement here.

On 6th July 2012 the text of a letter of complaint by the provisional bishops of the dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy [reformed and funded by the Presiding Bishop’s office in the wake of departures] to the House of Bishops was released. It states: “We respectfully urge that the House of Bishops set the record straight on the polity of this Church regarding its hierarchical character” and sets out four grounds of complaint which they make about the bishops.

Eight of the nine bishops have written to the Presiding Bishop refuting each of the four grounds of complaint and setting out their reasons of principle in defending the polity of The Episcopal Church in their Amicus Brief. Read the full text here.

It is reported that the House of Bishops together with Goodwin Proctor partner and Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop David Booth Beers met in closed session on the evening of Friday the 6th, and at the start of the afternoon session of Saturday 6th.

In further developments it appears that the General Convention litigation package may be about to impact on the current Court actions in ways which those who put it together may not have envisaged]

[Further Update 8th July: Following a further closed session of the House of Bishops on Sunday 8th July 2012 a Resolution of the House of Bishops was issued expressing support for the continuing dioceses. Provisional Bishop Buchanan of Quincy is reported by Episcopal News Service to have “told the house I am grateful for the support and help the resolution provides, but it’s not what I asked for. I asked for clarification around the hierarchical character of our church.”]

[B] FULL INDEX OF POSTS:

CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE BISHOPS AND PHILIP TURNER
The Presiding Bishop is at it again [30th June 2012] – dealing with 2 Anglican Ink articles breaking news of the charges brought

Allan Haley comments on the aggressive action taken against 9 TEC Bishops on the Eve of GC 2012 [30th June 2012] legal analysis of the charges by Canon lawyer Allan Haley

Newspeak to become Official Language of TEC: Innovative Loyalty Oath Plan Put Forward [1st July 2012] containing allegations about the bishops by lawyer Kathleen Wells and the Bishop and Deputation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

[*NEW] Title IV Complaint Filed Against Philip Turner [4th July 2012]

[*NEW] Current TEC Bishops in Fort Worth and Quincy write PB Jefferts Schori about recent Charges [6th July 2012]

[*NEW] House of Bishops to hear complaints from Fort Worth and Quincy on 6 July 2012 [6th July 2012]

[*NEW] House of Bishops reaches No decision as of yet on complaint brought by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan [7th July 2012]

[*NEW] (Fort Worth Diocese led by Bishop Jack Iker) Motion filed for expedited hearing [7th July 2012]

[*NEW] Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution, July 8, 2012, as Passed [8th July 2012]

RESPONSES AND DEVELOPMENTS
[*NEW] Full Text of Letter from Eight bishops to TEC House of Bishops Refuting disloyalty allegation [7th July 2012]

[*NEW] [Eight] bishops respond to charges brought to the House of Bishops [Updated] [7th July 2012]

South Carolina Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]

Central Florida: Statement by Bishop Brewer and the Standing Committee [3rd July 2012]

Bishop Howe responds to “Presentment” [3rd July 2012]

Dallas: Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]

Albany: Bishop Love’s Letter to the People of the Diocese of Albany [3rd July 2012]

Bishop Dan Martins: Speaking Truth in Love [2nd July 2012]

ANALYSIS
[Allan Haley] Bishopsgate Plot Thickens: Complaint Timed to Intimidate Witness [3rd July 2012]

ACI: The Quincy Three, The Fort Worth Seven And Title IV: What Now? [2nd July 2012]

Communion Partners: Title IV Exposed [1st July 2010]

COMMENT
[*NEW] An ENS Article on the Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Passed Today [8th July 2012]

Dr Ephraim Radner: How To Kill a Christian Church in Four Easy Steps [3rd July 2012]

An ENS report on Bishopgate [2nd July 2010] from ENS staff working on Sunday

Open Thread: Tell us about an interesting experience you have had recently with an Opinion [1st July 2010]

Dr Peter Carrell: The Open Church and its Enemies [1st July 2010]
from a New Zealand priest

Mark Harris: Say it isn’t so”¦. seven bishops charged with misconduct [1st July 2010] from an Episcopal priest in Delaware and former Executive Council member

Robert Munday: Have you ever been stung by a dead bee? [1st July 2010] – from a former Dean of Nashotah House Theological Seminary and Episcopal Priest

Standfirm: Charges Deployed to Silence ECUSA Bishops in Court [30th June 2012] – note the comments from Allan Haley

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
[*NEW] What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church? [3rd July 2012]

Bishop Bruce MacPherson – A Prescient Diocesan Address from 2008 [1st July 2012]

Prayers from Lent and Beyond and more here

ACI: Friend of Court Brief Filed in Fort Worth Lawsuit [23rd April 2012] – with link to Amicus Curiae Brief

Online text of current Title IV Canon

From here:

Resolved, That Episcopalians in the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin–lay and clergy–be commended for their unflagging efforts to continue to witness to God’s mission as The Episcopal Church during recent difficult times as they reorganize their continuing dioceses in that same spirit; and be it further

Resolved, That the leadership in each of those four continuing dioceses be commended for their similar efforts, including in particular the Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth; the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; the Rt. Rev. John C. Buchanan, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of Quincy; and the Rt. Rev. Chester L. Talton, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and especially the strong lay leadership of each dioceses.

You may read more there.

Update: You can check to see the headline chosen by the TEC affiliated diocese of Fort Worth there.

6 July 2012

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefforts Schori
Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Presiding Bishop:

We write to address allegations that have been made against us””both those made by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan in their letter of yesterday and unknown others made in Title IV disciplinary complaints that we have not seen. Bishops Ohl and Buchanan have asked that the record be set straight. That is our intention in this letter.
No charge is more serious to us than the one that we have acted against our own Church””in other words, that we have been disloyal. We assure each of you that we have acted out of a profound loyalty to this Church we love. We knew our decision to file an amicus brief in Texas and affidavits in Illinois authenticating our earlier statement on Church polity would be controversial. We took these actions, however, precisely because we thought it our duty to do so in order to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church as we all have pledged to do. We hope that if you agree with us about nothing else, you will recognize that upholding the constitutional polity of the Church as we understand it is not disloyalty. Because our views have been mischaracterized, we welcome this opportunity to clarify what we believe and what we have said in our legal submissions. Our primary concern is that the polity that has defined this Church for two centuries is being transformed due to momentary legal
objectives in the secular courts. We do not question these objectives. We only believe that the constitutional polity of the Church””the discipline we pledge to uphold””should not be sacrificed in pursuit of these goals.

We can summarize what we were taught years ago and still believe about our governance as
follows:

”¢ The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church and the hierarchical authority for matters within a diocese is the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese, which according to our Constitution is the diocesan bishop. Ours is not a Metropolitical church, but a church with a dispersed hierarchy. We did not invent this understanding of our governance. It has a long and venerable pedigree. For example, in “The Church’s Teaching” series volume on polity, Canon Powel Mills Dawley of General Seminary (working with a committee of church leaders under the auspices of the Church Center) concluded that:

“the dioceses possess an independence far greater than that characteristic of most other Churches with episcopal polity”¦.Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.”

”¢ As noted, we are not a metropolitical church. Our Constitution has no “Supremacy Clause”; it specifies no office or body with supremacy or hierarchical authority over the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese for matters within a diocese. And as bishops, we take no vow of obedience to any other office or body. Priests and deacons pledge conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church and obedience to the diocesan bishop. Bishops only give the Declaration of Conformity. This was a matter of extreme importance to our founders. Church of England bishops give an oath of “Due Obedience” in which they “profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Archbishop and to the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury [York] and to their Successors.” Our founders very intentionally rejected such an oath for The Episcopal Church. We pledge obedience neither to an archbishop nor to a metropolitical church. We pledge to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church, but each diocesan bishop is the Ecclesiastical Authority in the diocese.

Ӣ Under the First Amendment, secular courts may not make extensive and searching inquiries into, and thereby interfere with, church doctrine or polity in order to decide secular legal cases. This is standard Supreme Court jurisprudence.

If you do not immediately agree with all these points, we invite you to read our Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church, which we published in April 2009. It is a comprehensive examination of these issues. This puts succinctly what we have said in our court submissions. We made these submissions, however, only after we became concerned that the courts were misinterpreting””and thereby forever changing””our constitutional polity based on what we believed was erroneous information about our history and governance.

We began this letter by reiterating, however briefly, what we did say because most of the objections seem to be directed at things we did not say. Turning now to the specific charges made by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan, we can only say that none of them accurately describes what we actually said in our submissions.

1. We do not represent or argue that “dioceses can unilaterally leave.” We stated explicitly on the first page of our amicus brief that “the amici oppose the decision by the appellants (“Diocese of Fort Worth”) to leave The Episcopal Church, but in its ruling against them the court has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The Episcopal Church.” We do not address in the brief whether withdrawal is permitted under the Constitution. Indeed, some in our number have at great cost ruled such proposals out of order in their own dioceses. Our legal submissions are concerned only with the nature of authority in our Church; we do not address the exercise of that authority by Bishop Iker or any other bishop.

2. We do not “deny the Dennis Canon.” In fact, we do not address property issues at all. The Dennis Canon and property trusts are not even mentioned in our amicus brief. The Episcopal Church parties in the Texas litigation have presented extensive argumentation to the Texas Supreme Court that they are entitled to the disputed property even under neutral principles of law. We do not address this issue at all, but our legal analysis that secular courts must use neutral principles of law if they cannot readily identify the nature of a church’s hierarchical authority can hardly be prejudicial to the Episcopal Church parties when they argue themselves that they win under such a standard.

3. We neither deny that this Church can “recognize its own bishops” nor claim that Bishop Iker is still the bishop of the diocese recognized by our Church. In fact, we explicitly state in the amicus brief that “The Episcopal Church clearly has the constitutional right to select a new bishop.” We recognize Bishops Ohl and Buchanan as the bishops of the TEC-recognized dioceses. Indeed, one of our number participated in the installation of Bishop Ohl’s predecessor. We acknowledge that Bishop Iker was the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese until the vote to withdraw, which is the crucial time period in this dispute, but that is undeniable. We conclude that if the court applies a deference to hierarchy standard””an issue on which we explicitly take no position””the Ecclesiastical Authority at the time of the vote to withdraw was Bishop Iker. We consider that conclusion inescapable given our polity. To the extent that this is a question of nomenclature, the Texas Court has previously ruled that Bishop Ohl and his diocese are not yet entitled to claim the name of “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” pending the final result of this litigation. Thus, Bishop Iker and his diocese continue to use this name. This ruling, however, plays no role in our analysis. It is not our concern.

4. Strangest of all is the claim that we have violated episcopal jurisdiction. We have performed no episcopal acts in another diocese. All we have done is exercise our civic””not ecclesiastical””rights to petition the government. To our knowledge, no one has ever before suggested that petitioning the legislatures or courts in Washington or state capitols””our brief was filed in Austin, not Fort Worth””requires the consent of the local bishop. To the extent that the claim really is that our submission might have an effect inanother diocese, we would reply that we are simply responding to submissions by others that will themselves have what we believe to be very profound and harmful effects on all our dioceses, not only in Texas but across the Church. And we note that we are not the first bishops of our Church to file an amicus brief this year with the Texas Supreme Court. Others filed a brief in another property dispute involving Bishop Ohl’s former diocese. Clearly, it is the views we express, not the act of filing a brief, to which objection is taken.

This brings us back to where we started. We are convinced that the venerable polity of our Church is under threat due to the temporary exigencies of secular litigation. However much we may understand and sympathize with these objectives, we consider it our greater duty to uphold our constitutional polity. Whether or not you agree with our interpretation””and we all must acknowledge that our polity is in some ways obscure””we hope you will recognize that we are doing our duty to uphold the good order of the Church as we perceive it and that it is no small part of the burden of that duty to know that others take offense from our actions.

Faihfully,

–The Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith
–The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe
–The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert
–The Rt. Rev. William H. Love
–The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson
–The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins
–The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon
–The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton

From here:

Attorneys for the Diocese, Corporation, and congregations have filed a Motion to Expedite Oral Argument in our appeal to the Texas State Supreme Court. This extraordinary request was prompted, in part, by the threat of ecclesiastical discipline against the seven TEC Bishops who filed a brief in April as friends of the court, describing the structure of TEC hierarchy, as expressed in the Constitution and Canons which govern TEC’s General Convention and its relationships with member dioceses.

The Motion seeks a date for oral argument not later than October 16 this year. That is the date the Court has set to hear arguments in the appeal of Church of the Good Shepherd, San Angelo.

Because the Court is currently in recess, it is not expected to consider the Motion before it reconvenes in August. Action against the bishops was initiated at the end of June.

You may find the Motion to Expedite Oral Argument there and also please see an Anglican Ink article on this matter here.

Read it all.

Update – Eight bishops have now signed

The session was held to address the two bishops demand that the “House of Bishops set the record straight on the polity of this Church regarding its hierarchical character.”

Details of the discussions have not been disclosed, though one bishop who asked to remain anonymous said they were rather “warm”.

At the evening press conference, House of Bishops spokesman the Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel, Bishop of East Carolina did not mention the discussion in his briefing on the bishops’ day. However, he said that the bishops, as was their custom had “met in private for an hour.”

Read it all.

For [Bishop Wallis] Ohl, the first goal of the request “is to bring some reconciliation into the House of Bishops” because the fact that the bishops acted as they did without at least informing either him or Buchanan was “a violation of the norms of our house.”
The other goal is to “give some indication to the people in the dioceses of Quincy and Fort Worth that they have the support of the House of Bishops,” he said.
The two bishops, [Bishop John} Buchanan said, hope for “a message to the world in general about our view of the polity of this church, and the reason that would be helpful is that the view of polity of this church that others have presented is, in my opinion, erroneous.”

Read it all.

A letter accusing nine bishops of disloyalty to the Episcopal Church and violation of its canons is scheduled for discussion on 6 July 2012 during a closed session of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops meeting at the 77th General Convention in Indianapolis.

Read it all.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefforts Schori
The Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY, 10017

Re: Request to set the record straight

Dear Bishop Jefforts Schori:

We, the bishops of the Dioceses of Quincy and Fort Worth, with the support of the Standing Committee and Council of each diocese, respectfully urge the Church’s House of Bishops, at its meeting at the 77th General Convention in Indianapolis, to set the record straight regarding recent statements by certain bishops in our Church. The subject bishops are:

1. The Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez (resigned, Diocese of Texas);
2. The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe (resigned, Diocese of Central Florida);
3. The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert (suffragan, Diocese of Dallas);
4. The Rt. Rev. William H. Love (diocesan, Diocese of Albany);
5. The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson (diocesan, Diocese of W. Louisiana);
6. The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins (diocesan, Diocese of Springfield);
7. The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton (diocesan, Diocese of Dallas);
8. The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith (resigned, Diocese of Springfield); and
9. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon (resigned, Diocese of South Carolina).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The House of Bishops is well aware of the litigation across this Church resulting from breakaway factions who left The Episcopal Church but claim to have taken parishes and entire dioceses, and all the historic church property, names, records, and funds, with them, and claim to “be” the continuing parish or diocese. In the Dioceses of Quincy, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh, these breakaway efforts were led by former members of the House of Bishops.

Recent events illustrate that there are still bishops in our Church who harm the Church by officially misrepresenting the polity of the Church; invading the episcopal jurisdiction of other bishops; taking official, formal, affirmative actions directly against their own Church and sister dioceses; and even recognizing the continuing authority of breakaway former bishops over the bishops who are recognized by this Church. In doing so they give aid and comfort to breakaway factions who would take title and control of substantially all of the real and personal property of this Church and cripple its mission and ministry.

Specifically, on April 23, 2012 Bishops Benitez, Howe, Lambert, Love, MacPherson, Martins, and Stanton, purporting to act in their oficial capacities as bishops of The Episcopal Church and its House of Bishops, caused to be filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief n litigation in support of a breakaway faction led by former bishop Jack Iker and against this Church and its Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

Similarly, on October 6, 2011, 2011, Bishops Salmon, MacPherson, and Beckwith, purporting to act in their official capacities as bishops of The Episcopal Church and its House of Bishops, caused to be filed affidavits in litigation in support of a breakaway faction led by Alberto Morales and against this Church and its Episcopal Diocese of Quincy. The details of their misrepresentations are reflected in the documents themselves. However, generally the bishops falsely claimed as follows:

1. They Represented that Dioceses Can Unilaterally Leave: These bishops give aid and comfort to breakaway factions trying to alienate this Church’s historic property and identity and urge a false view of polity that would purport to authorize each bishop across this Church to lead his or her diocese and church property in the diocese out of The Episcopal Church.

2. They Denied the Dennis Canon and Failed to Safeguard Church Property: These bishops advocate that the breakaway parties should prevail in the litigation against The Episcopal Church and the loyal Episcopalians in those dioceses and assert positions that would strip millions of dollars of historic property and funds, lovingly accumulated by generations of Episcopalians, from the mission and ministry of this Church, and instead urge that they be used by breakaway factions for the mission and ministry of a new church. They thus would nullify this Church’s trust interest in all the real and personal property of congregations in those dioceses and, indeed, across The Episcopal Church and fail to safeguard property of the Church and its dioceses.

3. They Recognized the Wrong Bishops: The amicus bishops in the Fort Worth case expressly claim that Iker, not Bishop Wallis Ohl, repeatedly recognized by the Church, is still the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth; in the Quincy filing the affidavit bishops imply that Morales, not Bishop John C. Buchanan, repeatedly recognized by the Church, is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy. By this claim these bishops not only reject this Church’s authority to recognize its own bishops but they arrogate for themselves, in direct defiance of this Church, the authority to determine the episcopal authority of every other bishop in the Church, substituting at will their personal standards for those of this Church and trying to inject chaos into core ecclesiastical functions of The Episcopal Church itself.

4. They Violated Episcopal Jurisdiction: By their public filings in local litigation, without invitation or consent of the ecclesiastical authority in those sister dioceses, these bishops directly violated the ecclesiastical authority and episcopal jurisdiction of Bishop C. Wallis Oh1 and Bishop John C. Buchanan, respectively, who have been consistently recognized by The Episcopal Church as being the current bishops of Fort Worth and Quincy. By inserting themselves in local litigation against the ecclesiastical authority in those dioceses, the subject bishops have violated the longstanding prohibition against “acting in another diocese without the consent of the diocesan authority”’ and have engaged in boundary crossing to interfere profoundly in the mission and the very existence of a sister diocese and the jurisdiction of other bishops of this Church.

CONCLUSION

This is not a matter of a few unhappy bishops stating their personal views on church polity. They each affirmatively and officially acted by injecting themselves, intentionally and without invitation from the bishops exercising jurisdiction, into local litigation, opposing this Church and sister dioceses on core ecclesiastical issues regarding the very identity of other dioceses.

We respectfully urge that the House of Bishops set the record straight on the polity of this Church regarding its hierarchical character.

Respectfully submitted,

(signed)

(The Rt. Rev.) C. Wallis Ohl (TEC) Bishop of Fort Worth

(The Rt. Rev.) John C. Buchanan (TEC) Bishop of Quincy

Latest updates:
* BREAKING* Title IV Complaint Filed Against Philip Turner [4th July 2012]
* BREAKING* South Carolina Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
What is it that the Bishops are saying about the Polity of The Episcopal Church? [3rd July 2012]
[Allan Haley] Bishopsgate Plot Thickens: Complaint Timed to Intimidate Witness [3rd July 2012]
Central Florida: Statement by Bishop Brewer and the Standing Committee [3rd July 2012]
Bishop Howe responds to “Presentment” [3rd July 2012]
Dr Ephraim Radner: How To Kill a Christian Church in Four Easy Steps [3rd July 2012]
Dallas: Standing Committee Statement [3rd July 2012]
Albany: Bishop Love’s Letter to the People of the Diocese of Albany [3rd July 2012]

You may find the full post with all the links there.

A Statement by Dr Philip Turner received by email
When I learned that complaints had been registered against the Bishops who might serve as witnesses in the case involving the diocese of Quincy and against those Bishops who had submitted an Amicus brief in the Fort Worth case, I wondered if a complaint had also been made against me. I also may be a witness in the Quincy case and was among those who submitted the Amicus brief. Accordingly, I enquired as to whether a complaint against me had been lodged with my diocese. I was told by an unimpeachable source that in fact a complaint against me had been received. I have not seen the complaint. I do not know what the complaints are or who the complainants are. The process is said to be confidential at this point, but confidentiality of this sort means that the nature of the complaint and the identity of the complainants are withheld from the accused member of the clergy. Only the complainants and the diocesan office know the relevant information. It is my belief that this complaint will be judged to be both without substance and frivolous. Nevertheless, an anonymous complaint whose source and content are unknown to the accused is not a matter about which I feel it right to remain silent.

Philip Turner

It was with great sadness that we heard of the decision of the Presiding Bishop’s office and Bishop Clayton Matthews to “initiate a disciplinary process” against nine faithful Bishops of the Church (including Bishop Salmon) for their “action in signing affidavits in opposition” to The Episcopal Church’s motions for Summary Judgment in the Dioceses of Quincy and Fort Worth. These Bishops are facing disciplinary actions for simply expressing their faithfully held factual understanding and belief that The Episcopal Church is not the unitary hierarchical body claimed by its attorneys in litigation. That this action has been possible validates our concerns with the changes made to the Title IV disciplinary canons. That such an attempt is being made to silence the remaining conservative voices in the church is a troubling sign of what may lie ahead. As the details of the charges and their nature are made clear in the days ahead, their seriousness and character will become evident. Until then, we as the Standing Committee wish to express first our unswerving support for Bp. Salmon and the eight other faithful bishops facing disciplinary action along with him. We similarly express our united contempt for such a predictably partisan use of the disciplinary canons and we pray that those responsible will have the good sense to promptly drop these proceedings. They can only bring further injury and dishonor to the Church we love.

If you wish to see such, you may find a signed copy here.

Bishop Howe writes, in part:
[blockquote]I am at a complete loss to know how the filing of this brief could constitute an offense for which any of us could be charged!

At this point, formal “charges” have not been filed. A “complaint” has been submitted, but we have not been told who filed it.

My understanding is that Bishop Matthews (Director of the Office for Pastoral Development, and “Intake Officer” regarding this matter) could dismiss the complaint on his own reconnaissance – unless the Presiding Bishop were to direct otherwise….[/blockquote]
Well, Bishop Howe — and any others who may be wondering about both the timing and the substance of these complaints — let me shed some further light on the matter for you.

It turns out that in the Diocese of Quincy litigation, each side was scheduled to file last Friday, June 29, a list of the witnesses, both lay and expert, whom they plan to call to the stand at the trial scheduled for next April.

What a curious coincidence, then, that on the day before the Anglican Diocese of Quincy had to file its statement (i.e., on June 28), one of the Bishops which they planned to list as an expert witness received an email from the Intake Officer, the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews, that a complaint had been lodged against the Bishop for providing testimony earlier in that same case.

…….

When it comes to Church property litigation, Bishop Buchanan and those attorneys all work directly for the Presiding Bishop, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Who just happens to be the “Diocesan Bishop” with authority to agree to dismiss the complaints filed against the Bishops.

Enough said. This whole affair reeks to high heaven.

Read it all [Update: Also available on Anglican Ink here]

The Elves weren’t sure, so we thought we would find out. Follow the links and see what you think:

1. The key document:

Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church April 2009 Pdf with notes or online text without notes

2. For an overview/summary:

Losing Their Nerve: What The Courts Would Discover If They Examined TEC Polity Afresh – A talk given in February 2010

3. The full research paper supporting the Bishops’ Statement:

Is The Episcopal Church Hierachical? September 2008 [89 pages] Pdf

Read as much as you wish and this will be added to the Resources section at the foot of the main index post

Bishops Edward Salmon, Peter Beckwith, Bruce MacPherson, Maurice Benitez, John Howe, Paul Lambert, Bill Love, Dan Martins and James Stanton charged for supporting the Constitution of The Episcopal Church

Two Breaking stories – read them all:

Anglican Ink: Bishops Salmon, Beckwith, and MacPherson charged with misconduct: Charges filed for endorsing brief filed by the ACNA Diocese of Quincy

Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against three bishops of the Episcopal Church under the provisions of Title IV for having endorsed a legal pleading filed in the Quincy lawsuit.

On 28 June 2012, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., former Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House seminary, the Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith, former Bishop of Springfield, and th Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana received an email from the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews stating that the charges had been leveled against them.
…
The bishops have not been informed what canon they violated. But they appear to be accused of violating the canons for having filed a brief in opposition to the national church’s motion for summary judgment in the case of the Diocese of Quincy v. the Episcopal Church.

The 16 Dec 2011 Judge Thomas Ortbal of the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court in Adams County, Ill., dismissed the claim that as a “matter of law” the Episcopal Church was a hierarchical entity with dioceses being subordinate to the national church. The judge rejected the motion for summary judgment brought by the national church against the breakaway Diocese of Quincy and set the matter for trial. Read more

Anglican Ink: Seven more TEC bishops charged with misconduct: Support for ACNA pleading is grounds for discipline complaint alleges

Seven bishops have been charged with misconduct for having endorsed a friend of the court brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute in the Diocese of Fort Worth case.

On 28 June 2012, the Rt Rev Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, the Rt Rev John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Rev Paul E. Lambert. Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt Rev William H. Love, Bishop of Albany, the Rt Rev D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt Rev Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield, and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas were informed they had been charged with misconduct.
…
The bishops have not been notified with violation of the canons they have committed, but Bishop Matthews’ notice refers to the pleading they endorsed in the Diocese of Fort Worth case presently before the Texas Supreme Court.

In an amicus brief filed on 23 April 2012 the seven bishops and three scholars from the ACI ”“ the Rev. Christopher R. Seitz, the Very Rev. Philip W. Turner, and the Very Rev. Ephraim Radner — argued a Tarrant County, Texas trial court misconstrued the church’s constitutions and canons by holding that the Episcopal Church was a hierarchical body with ultimate power vested in the General Convention. Read more