(ENS) If a proposed Anglican covenant is released in mid-May for adoption by the Anglican Communion’s provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will “strongly discourage” any effort to bring that request to the 76th General Convention in July….

Anglican Communion provinces have until the end of March 2009 to respond to the current version of the proposed covenant, known as the St. Andrew’s Draft. The Covenant Design Group meets in London in April 2009 and may issue another draft of a covenant. That draft is expected to be reviewed by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) during its May 1-12, 2009 meeting. The ACC could decide to release that version to the provinces for their adoption.

If the ACC decides to do that, “my sense is that the time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church and I’m therefore going to strongly discourage any move to bring it to General Convention,” Jefferts Schori told the Executive Council. “I just think it’s inappropriate to make a decision that weighty” that quickly, she added.

Read it all.

There was much debate over the rightness, or better stated, the wrongness of this entire allegation, and there was considerable opposition to the charge against Bishop Duncan. The resistance to the action being taken was centered more on what was seen as pre-emptive action pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of General Convention [2006] and failure to provide due process. The pre-emptive action as applied to the Canons, and failure for proper process, rest in the fact that Bishop Duncan was never inhibited, nor did he have the right of a trial made available to him.

The ruling to place this before the House for deposition was made by the Presiding Bishop, and as I have previously written to the diocese, I was one of the bishops that challenged the ruling based upon the irregularities stated above. This required a two-thirds majority to overrule, and thus did not carry. This was subsequently followed by a request for a roll call vote being asked for by nine bishops, myself included. These things were not carried out in the form of a rebellious mood, but rather, with deep concern for the direction the Church is moving with total disregard for proper order, adherence to the Constitution and Canons, and a precedent being set that will enable the disruption of any bishop or diocese that does not subscribe to the present direction of General Convention or the Office of the Presiding Bishop.

Some, I am certain, will argue about the actions of Bishop Duncan and some of the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and seek to justify the action of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops. My argument is not whether or not he did something, but the fact that we have a new rule of order that has evolved, and it has not been brought about by the Councils of the Church nor is in keeping with Canonical structure. As I have shared before, this is a precedent that is a danger to the dignified order of The Episcopal Church as we have known it, and this must be corrected.

Read it all carefully.

She spoke to The Dispatch after receiving an honorary doctorate in divinity from Bexley Hall Seminary, which shares a campus with Trinity Lutheran Seminary.

Jefferts Schori spoke of her grief about the Pittsburgh Diocese’s decision to leave because of disagreements with the church over biblical teachings about homosexuality and salvation.

“That’s just profoundly sad,” she said. “Arguing about fine details of theology isn’t the main reason for our existence.” The focus instead should be on service and evangelism, she said.

The 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The relationship between the two has been threatened since 2003, when an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, was elected in New Hampshire.

Read the whole thing.

Here is the NPR blurb:

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first female bishop to preside over the Episcopal Church, has faced a number of crises since she accepted the post in 2006.

At least one diocese has seceded in response to the ordination of the Right Rev. Gene Robinson ”” the denomination’s first openly gay bishop ”” and more congregations may follow.

The events reflect a growing schism within the broader Anglican Communion, and the numerous social and theological pressures on Episcopal congregations.

The segment is just over 40 minutes, listen to it all.

Read it all.

1. Under the Canons and Constitution of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, it is not possible for the Diocese or parishes within the Diocese to leave the Church. People may leave the Church; dioceses and parishes may not. Therefore, parishes, clergy and laity that wish to remain in the Episcopal Church will not recognize the legitimacy of “realignment.”
2. At the close of Convention on October 4, we will no longer recognize those members of the current leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who “realign” as being legitimate. Ecclesiastic authority will shift to those members of the Standing Committee who are known to be remaining in the Episcopal Church.
3. Soon after October 4, the remaining members of the Standing Committee will determine whether any of the other members of the current Standing Committee are remaining in the Episcopal Church. Those who are not will cease to be recognized as members of the Standing Committee. The remaining members of the Standing Committee will appoint two additional individuals to serve as members of the Standing Committee.

Read it carefully and read it all.

Most of us begin with the relatively easy, local initiatives like changing the light bulbs to compact fluorescents, or examining our use of disposable items, and then move on to upgrading building insulation and heating and cooling systems. Old buildings can be a challenge, but many have found creative ways to install photovoltaic systems on the roof and even power-producing windmills. General Seminary is doing the geothermal drill. Those who have the opportunity to rebuild or build anew can explore the latest in low-carbon or sustainable building footprints. Doing that kind of work in the congregation can be a remarkable teaching opportunity that will raise the skill of other pastoral gardeners in their own homes and the larger community. Discovering how much waste a congregation produces, and how much can be recycled, is another way of teaching and even changing community norms. There are still too many local communities that make no provision for recycling, or have only inadequate programs.

In the same way that frequent moving of the flock can raise the productivity of the grassland, recycling reusable resources brings another kind of abundant life. I saw a great example in New Hampshire this last weekend. St. Andrew’s, West Manchester is collecting and sharing food with the hungry through its food bank. They are collecting and sharing clothes and other hard goods with those in great need. They are renovating an old house behind the church parking lot to both provide an apartment for a low-income family and provide a more accessible space for their thrift shop. In the process, they’re offering ministry opportunities for seniors and the otherwise unemployed to share their gifts with others. That is good pastoral care at almost every level ”“ it’s simple and yet profound.

Read it all.

The fact, timing and manner of the action taken by the American House of Bishops toward Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh has filled us with dismay. He is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and is guilty only of guarding his people from false teaching and corrupt behaviour as he promised to do. Once more the upholders of the orthodox faith are made to suffer at the hands of those who have introduced new teachings.

However, the action has also had the effect of clarifying matters even further. It is now impossible to believe that the exhortations of the Lambeth Conference and the Windsor Continuation Group will be heeded. No Pastoral Forum has been established. We remain convinced that the faithful Anglicans of North America need to have their own Province recognised by the Communion as a whole. We are determined to stand with Bishop Duncan and those who, like him, have protested in the name of God against the unscriptural innovations which have caused such divisions amongst us.

In the absence of other substantive provision from the historic structures of the Communion, the Primates’ Council gives its full support to Archbishop Greg Venables in receiving Bishop Duncan as a Bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone.

First, I am dismayed that Bishop Duncan has taken several actions that he has….

But the bulk of my sadness and anger is reserved for the Presiding Bishop and those who have attempted to buttress her course of action. No, I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on TV. But I do read and write English with a modicum of fluency. I know what lots of words mean. I can diagram sentences. And I can spot ambiguity from a mile away. There is nothing ambiguous about Canon IV.9. That the HOB’s lawyer-bishops cast aside common sense in order to “find” ambiguity that they could then resolve in favor of the Presiding Bishop’s desires is to their shame. So ”¦ shame on them. As a result of their work, the best hermeneutical tool for understanding the polity and discipline of the Episcopal Church these days is, alas, Alice in Wonderland, where words mean only what those in power say they mean.

I am also sad and angry””well, mystified might be a more accurate term””at the tunnel vision of the HOB majority. It is actually doing harm to their own cause. Before they took on the Duncan matter, our bishops took some time to bask in the afterglow of the Lambeth Conference, wherein they made lots of new friends and reached deeper levels of mutual understanding with their episcopal peers from other provinces. So it is incredible to me that they cannot see how their action in deposing Bishop Duncan is likely to be interpreted abroad as a pre-emptive purge of an annoying colleague, convicting a man for what he thinks and plans rather than for what he has done (shades of the film Minority Report), yet another example of TEC’s “progressive” juggernaut steamrolling all opposition.

Read it all.

From here:

That this Synod: noting (1) the deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh in The Episcopal Church, by the assembled bishops of that church, on 18 September 2008; (2) the good standing and high reputation Bishop Bob Duncan has as an orthodox Anglican bishop, as represented by statements of support being expressed in recent days by the Archbishops of Sydney, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Cone, West Indies, Kenya, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Singapore, numerous bishops within The Episcopal Church itself, and the Bishops of Winchester, Rochester, Chester, Exeter, Blackburn and Chichester; (3) various developments in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada in recent years which place increasing pressure on faithful orthodox Anglicans to conform to changes in theology, liturgy and ethics rather than to uphold and maintain the 2000 year old teaching of the church; offers its support to Bishop Bob Duncan, to the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and to all bishops and dioceses in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada as they seek to find a way forward which embodies the true spirit of orthodox Anglicanism.

Have we come so far from our Catholic tradition that we have forgotten the power of martyrdom, on which the Western church is built? Does no-one in TEC understand any more the meaning of sacrifice?

Because a martyr is what Bob Duncan now is. The Episcopal Church should not need a heretically catholic Anglican such as me to tell it that the next step up from martyrdom is sainthood. Bishop Duncan’s office has been inundated with emails, phonecalls and letters of supportm since the ill-advised deposition. Since Friday, he has had personal messages from six primates, including ++Anis and ++Chew, indicating their intention not to recognise the deposition and to support the Pittsburgh “remnant”. There have been all kinds of other ones as well from various bishops, clergy and laity all over the world. They are being catalogued on a new site, set up specially to venerate the deposed bishop.

And now in England, six bishops are pledging their support and saying they will continue to recognise him. Surely that is momentous enough to warrant an archiepiscopal comment? Or perhaps all pretence of episcopal collegiality has been abandoned.

Read it all.

The “Sentence of Deposition” does not reflect, however, her interpretation of the canon. It includes the recitation “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented to this Deposition at a meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City , Utah , on 18 September, 2008”¦.” That is, the Sentence does not read, following the Presiding Bishop’s own memorandum and ruling, “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops present,” nor does it recite the actual language of the relevant canon. Instead, the Sentence adopts the plain reading of the canon the Presiding Bishop overruled: “a majority of members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented”¦”

Surely one thing all parties can agree on is that this did not happen in Salt Lake City . There are close to 300 members of the House of Bishops “entitled to vote.” Only 88 consented to the purported deposition. Far from a majority, this is fewer than a third of the bishops entitled to vote. So why does the “Sentence of Deposition” now concede the legal point made by bishops and others who requested canonical integrity? Is it because an accurate recitation, one using the Presiding Bishop’s own words, “a majority of bishops present at the meeting,” would be invalid on its face? This Sentence of Deposition only confirms ACI’s stated concern that the legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question by this proceeding.

Read it all.

(ACNS) Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Dr Hellen Wangusa, Anglican Observer at the United Nations, cordially invite you to attend An Interfaith Service of Recommitment and Witness to the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

Presiding Bishop and Primate of The Episcopal Church The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, Officiant.

The Archbishop of York The Most Honorable Dr. John Sentamu, Guest Preacher.

This service is part of the high-level event on the Millennium Development Goals taking place at United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 25, 2008. At the halfway point towards the target date, significant progress has been made, but urgent and increased efforts are needed by all stakeholders in order to meet the goals by 2015. Convened by the United Nations Secretary-General and the President of the United Nations General Assembly, the event will be a forum for world leaders to review progress, identify gaps, and commit to concrete efforts, resources and mechanisms to bridge the gaps.

From here:

The Episcopal Church
The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate

September 22, 2008

Robert W. Duncan
125 N. Linden Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15208

Dear Bob,

I wanted to write you personally to inform you that following the House of Bishop’s decision to consent to your deposition, of which you are already aware, I have signed the Sentence of Deposition, a copy of which is enclosed.

I think the press statement following the vote accurately sets forth the prayerful and thoughtful atmosphere of the discussions.

Please know that I urged the bishops gathered to hold you in prayer, and to do what they can to maintain a pastoral relationship with you. I pray that you may know the peace of Jesus Christ, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

“In their deliberations at the special session last week, the House of Bishops was clear that this action is based on Robert Duncan’s actions and statements to facilitate the departure of congregations out of the Episcopal Church,” Robertson told ENS. “This was not based on Robert Duncan’s theological position.” Duncan has taken a conservative stance on such issues as church attitudes toward homosexuality.

The Title IV Review Committee had certified in December that Duncan had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church under the terms of Canon IV.9.1 “by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church.”

The Presiding Bishop moved to inhibit Duncan (restrict his episcopal acts) during the time between the certification and the time she brought the matter to a meeting of the house. However, the House’s three senior bishops could not agree unanimously with Jefferts Schori’s request. The canon on abandonment does not call for a formal trial, as do the disciplinary canons.

John H. Lewis, Duncan’s attorney, said in a September 18 statement that was posted on the diocese’s website September 22, that Duncan “was denied his fundamental right — the right to a church trial ”¦ because the Presiding Bishop believes that his ‘deposition’ will assist her in her desire to seize the property of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.”

Read it all.

The Communion has repeatedly asked TEC to make pastoral provisions and avoid steps that will alienate further those within TEC who wish to live by the Anglican faith which they believe to be true and remain in fellowship within the Anglican Communion. Even as recent[ly] as at the recent Lambeth, the great majority of Bishops present, including those from TEC, have expressed sincere desire for healing and reconciliation and to observe restraints on contentious issues for the Windsor-Covenant process to proceed.

The HOB has instead proceeded to depose a faithful bishop of the Gospel and the diocese under his care. This raises serious questions yet again, and more strikingly so soon after Lambeth, as to how sincere TEC and some of its bishops are in wanting to bring reconciliation, healing and resolution to the Communion crisis at hand.

Read it all.

Under the revised canons, inhibition occurs as soon as the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee certifies sufficient grounds to proceed with a hearing. Retired bishops, who by and large have not attended meetings of the House of Bishops in recent years, will lose their status as voting members of the House.

During a press conference sponsored by the American Anglican Council (AAC) shortly after the deposition vote on Sept. 18, the Rev. Philip Ashey, president of the AAC, observed that it was now easier to depose a bishop for abandonment than it is for a bishop to resign or for the House to approve a 10-minute recess during debate. The loosening of procedural safeguards for the accused greatly expands the Presiding Bishop’s curial powers over the church. From its inception right up through its recent submissions to the Covenant Design Group, a curial style of polity is something that most Episcopalians have strongly resisted.

The deposition of Bishop Duncan prior to his actually leaving The Episcopal Church may further future litigation interests against the current diocesan leadership in Pittsburgh, but is likely to “tear the fabric” of the Anglican Communion further. The ham-handed manner in which this deposition was advanced also may diminish the number of conservative delegates to the annual meeting in Pittsburgh who will vote to remain with The Episcopal Church on Oct. 4.

Read it all.

The numbers really start to get interesting, however, when one looks at the geographical spread of the data, and considers the level of each diocese’s 2007 contribution to the TEC budget. Here is where the data starts to be telling: it shows that Bishop Duncan was deposed by a combination of the dioceses that are the biggest contributors overall to TEC, as well as by those that are in what has been called, in the political arena, the “blue-county corridors.” (Click here for an animated map of how these areas have changed in the presidential elections from 1960 to 2004. Are we surprised?)

Total contributions to TEC by “Yes” dioceses: $20,593,549 (72%)

Total contributions to TEC by “No” dioceses: $ 6,237,162 (22%)

Total contributions by unrepresented dioceses: $ 1,621,881 (6%)

Do you begin to see how TEC is run by the wealthiest players? Only fifty-four percent of the dioceses voted to depose Bishop Duncan, but they contribute 72% of the funds coming to TEC from all the dioceses.

Read it carefully and read it all.

The House of Bishops believes that by this vote they have cancelled +Duncan’s ordinations as deacon, priest and bishop, and rendered him a layman in the church. For those of you who may have forgotten, Bishop Bob Duncan was not only the Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, but is still the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and moderator of the Common Cause Partners Federation. This last organization is seeking recognition from the GAFCON Primates’ Council as an orthodox Anglican Province for North America.

Immediately following Duncan’s deposition, Primate Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone (an Anglican province encompassing much of South America) announced that he and the Southern Cone House of Bishops welcomed Bishop Duncan in as a member of their Anglican province, thus preserving his holy orders as a bishop and giving him episcopal standing internationally.

Duncan’s alleged wrongdoing boils down to his being prophetic and speaking to TEC leadership that they have lost their spiritual legitimacy. For this truthful word they charged him with something he hadn’t done, leave TEC, so this was an execution based on anticipatory actions in the future. These allegations, without trial or proper procedures being followed, led to an ecclesiastical lynching, and 88 bishops of the church were the ones responsible.

We do applaud the 35 bishops who voted no the first time to the illegal actions taken. The Presiding Bishop announced in advance that she had reviewed all of the likely legitimate challenges to her proceedings and in anticipation found them failed. Her attempted refutation was based on her and her chancellors’ interpretation, and with a lynch mob dressed in Episcopal purple they were “somber and soberly” bent on getting their jobdone. Most people would take the plain meaning of the canons and bylaws, but she fashioned such mental gymnastics to justify setting aside the codified procedure that you might lose track of where she was going. She created ambiguity where there was none and then announced that in cases of ambiguity the final advantage had to rest with the presiding bishop’s point of view. In the United States there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and any ambiguity goes to the accused, but not so in the Robespierre Court of the HOB. The bishop and Diocese of Albany issued in advance a well-reasoned letter of protest describing the faults of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s process ….[which should be carefully digested by everyone].

Read it all.

Jim Naughton: There is the case made in blogs today that the House of Bishops ran afoul of its own rules in the Canons of the Church in deposing +Bob. The 5 day issue that Bp. Lawrence raised is one. Didn’t this deposition need to be looked at under diff canon? There is the notion screaming in the blogs today that +Bob’s deposition was done all wrong. Give us a sense of the actions taken.

Bp. Michael Smith: If you are referring to the notice being given 30 days prior and to the 3 senor bishops have to agree to inhibition prior to deposition, let me say this. Meeting notice wasn’t an issue. We knew it would be on the agenda at the September meeting. There were 2 challenges to the Presiding Bishop’s ruling on other two issues in question. I offered one (the need for the three Senior Bishops to agree to inhibition prior to deposition) and Bp. Mark Lawrence offered the second (with regard to the number of bishops needed to vote on this issue.) This is a contentious issue and area of great disagreement. In our system, there is no Supreme Court. In the context of any meeting we are free to challenge the Presiding Officer. We did that. We were overruled by 2/3 majority of this House. The ruling will stand. Eventually, General Convention will change those canons and/or clarify them….

Rich: Pittsburgh realigns and new diocese will be formed in TEC?
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori: Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will not go away even if convention will make the inappropriate vote to realign. One member of Standing Committee will remain within TEC (rumored to be the Rev. Jim Simon) and will be the center of the new diocese. People from across the aisle are rejecting realignment. They are coming together to act against and actively protest these schismatic actions. It is a vastly different situation than San Joaquin and we will move quickly to reestablish the diocese of Pittsburgh.

Read it carefully and read it all.

One consequence of TEC’s deposition of the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan—surely overlooked in the “prayerful” rush to judgment—is to confirm that The Episcopal Church is not a hierarchical organization.

How did that happen? I shall explain.

TEC is now forced to regard the see of Pittsburgh as vacant. And who can fill the vacant see? The Presiding Bishop? No. The House of Bishops? No. The House of Deputies? No. General Convention? No. The Executive Council? No. (I shall call all of these together “the usual suspects.”)

Answer: Only the clergy and parishioners of the Diocese of Pittsburgh can.

That’s some hierarchy. Were this the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope or a Cardinal would have a new bishop in the office on Monday.

Or consider this: who has the power to call a diocesan convention in Pittsburgh, now that there is no diocesan? Any of the usual suspects? No.

Answer: Only the Standing Committee of the Diocese, acting as the Ecclesiastical Authority when there is no bishop, can call a diocesan convention.

Again, that’s some hierarchy.

Read it all.

There were 7 rectors, inclusive, gathered from across both the geographical and theological landscape. The membership threshold of parishes represented seemed to be roughly 2500+ people. I knew one person personally, the others by reputation.

From my perspective, two of the rectors were of a conservative/re-asserting nature and five from a more to very liberal/progressive/reappraising position. And, of course, add to this mix the PB and her Canon, The Rev’d Dr. Chuck Robertson.

The conversation which ensued consisted primarily of the rectors speaking to one another with the PB and her Canon attentively listening, asking a few questions and very occasionally adding an opinion/perspective. Dinner was more free-flowing and social and less focused on church or theology….

Read it all.

From here:

The Anglican Communion Institute receives favorably the news that considerable canonical discussion took place, or was sought, by as many as 36 Bishops in yesterday’s proceedings. It is significant that over a quarter of the House of Bishops (and, including the probable votes of those not present, it would be close to a third) voted against this deposition, many apparently on the basis that the Presiding Bishop and her supporters were overturning the constitutional and canonical foundations of the church on this matter. The legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question before the eyes of the Communion and the larger public. No one should minimize the role this may play in the unfolding re-establishment of the Communion’s common life.

Over the past weeks we have been pleased to be able to post Mr Mark McCall’s discussion of these and other matters, of interest to all who do not wish to see the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church bent to foreign purpose. The Communion Partner Bishops and many others on this occasion clearly recognized the danger of dismissing procedures put in place precisely to avoid preemptive deposition of a Bishop of the Church (the inhibition phase and a required majority of all Bishops). We are grateful for their witness. We will shortly be posting a response from Mr McCall on the issue of hierarchy and canonical order in TEC. This addresses a paper, prepared for a group in Pittsburgh , defending a form of hierarchy which arguably extends to what was manifested in yesterday’s vote to depose.

Jefferts Schori described the Georgia Diocese as “healthy” and one that “represents the broad range of the church across the nation.”

“There’s room for everyone who wants to be a part of this body, and I think this diocese is a good example. There is room for people who want to use the 1928 prayer book, and there is room for Integrity,” she said, referring to a national Episcopal group that supports the blessing of same-sex couples and the ordination of people who are openly gay.

“The difficulty can be when one member of the body says another can’t be a member.”

Jefferts Schori briefly addressed the church’s pending lawsuit against Christ Church Savannah, a 275-year-old congregation known as “the mother church of Georgia” that voted in 2007 to leave the Episcopal Church but keep its historic downtown property.

“I’ve heard you say you need to protect the property of the Episcopal Church, that it’s your fiduciary responsibility,” said Robert Lundy, spokesman for the theologically conservative American Anglican Council based in Atlanta. “At what point is it just not worth it to sue people who believe they are Christians just like you do?”

“We’re not suing people because they believe they’re Christians,” Jefferts Schori said. “I lament that, and I would bless that journey. But it’s not my right to send with them the family heritage.”

Read the whole article.

1. The process against Bishop Duncan has been flawed from the start.

The Presiding Bishop’s letter of September 12, 2008, to the bishops states that she made a submission to the Title IV Review Committee in November 2007 “suggesting” that Bp. Duncan had abandoned the communion of this Church. She states that the “thrust” of her submission was not that he had already left TEC, but that by claiming that the diocese had a right to do so and should exercise that right he had made an open renunciation of the discipline of TEC. She then states that the Review Committee “evidently” agreed with her analysis because it sent her a certification of abandonment.

The reason for the Presiding bishop’s uncertainty about what the Review Committee concluded is that the Committee did not specify the basis for its certification, which is plainly contrary to the requirement of Canon IV.9 that the certification contain “a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment.” The certification simply referred to voluminous evidence of news clippings and other materials dating back to 2003.

Taking a different approach, a memorandum from the Task Force on Property Disputes, dated September 5, 2008, claims that “Bishop Duncan has conclusively completed his own separation from TEC” and that “there is no doubt that Bishop Duncan has left The Episcopal Church.” (Emphasis supplied.) This submission relies on materials obtained in August 2008 in the civil lawsuit brought against Bp. Duncan, raising the question whether the purpose of that lawsuit was not to use the civil courts to assist in the deposition attempt. In six pages of highlighted documents from the lawsuit, the Task Force memorandum manages only to establish the unsurprising conclusion that Bishop Duncan proposed that the diocese amend its canons to permit re-alignment and supports passage of the canon amendments. And that conclusion is not made any more surprising by attaching the adverb “actively” to every bullet point. Note the inconsistency between the Task Force’s claim that Bp. Duncan “has conclusively completed his
own separation” and the Presiding Bishop’s complaint that “Bishop Duncan has unfortunately announced that he will not attend this meeting of the House.” And not even the Presiding Bishop knows where the Review Committee stands on this issue, but she assumes they “evidently” agree with her.

It is one thing for the Presiding Bishop to speculate as to what the basis of the Review Committee’s certification was, but another thing for the respondent to have to guess….

Read it all.

The Presiding Bishop’s memo (see below) is a fascinating read. I do not wish to engage the issue of whether Bishop Duncan should or should not be deposed. I am concerned that he or any other Bishop facing deposition should be treated fairly.

The difficulty facing the PB and HoB is clearly, and I think fairly, presented by our Presiding Bishop. “Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a ‘regular or special meeting of the House’ and, second, be ‘by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.’

Problem: these days it is difficult to get “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to attend an interim meeting of the HoB. And even if that goal were achieved, then a motion to depose would require an almost unanimous vote by the Bishops present.

Pierce’s translation: taking the two requirements together (vote at an actual meeting and a super majority is required), it is difficult to depose a Bishop for abandonment.

Pierce’s observation: I think that was the intention. Note the additional requirements for deposing a priest or a deacon (see Canon IV.10)

What do to do? The PB speaks:

“In these circumstances, I concur with my Chancellor and the Parliamentarian that any ambiguity in the canon should be resolved in favor of making this important provision work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied because a majority or nearly a majority of voting bishops are no longer in active episcopal positions in the Church and their attendance at meetings is hampered by age, health, economics, or interest in other legitimate pursuits.”

In secular law any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant or the accused. The general principle is that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be punished. Here, however, exactly the reverse is being argued. In order for “this important provision [to] work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied,” the three in authority have decided to reduce the majority required to the absolute bare minimum, ie a majority of Bishops present and voting. In other words, the bar has been set high, discipline may be stymied, therefore lower the bar.

The PB then states: “I concur with this advice, and that will be the ruling of the Chair. Any member of the House may appeal the ruling of the Chair, which may be overruled by a two-thirds vote pursuant to House Rule XV, p.192.”

If there be any integrity remaining in our House of Bishops, the ruling of the Chair will indeed be successfully appealed.

–The Rev. Nathaniel W. Pierce is an Episcopal pirest and blog reader who lives in Trappe, Maryland

“I shall present to the House the matter of the certification to me by the Title IV Review Committee that Bishop Robert W Duncan has abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9,” she wrote.

However, the rules of the House of Bishops forbid modifying the agenda of a special session after the meeting has been announced, placing her plans in legal and canonical limbo. Whether the bishops will challenge her request is unclear, however, as her past legal missteps in the cases of Bishops John-David Schofield and Williams Cox provoked protests from bishops and dioceses distressed over what they perceived was her abuse of office, but no action followed.

On Aug 20 Bishop Schori wrote to the bishops stating “as discussed in our spring meeting and confirmed in our time at Lambeth, we will hold a special meeting of the House of Bishops September 17-19 in Salt Lake City, Utah.” “The main purpose of this meeting,” Bishop Schori wrote, “will be to reflect and deliberate together following the Lambeth Conference.”

In the schedule appended to the letter, two sessions are labelled “Lambeth de-brief”, two “Business meeting”, and one “Theological Education.” No mention is made of Bishop Duncan or any disciplinary action in the formal letter calling the special session.

Following the release of the Presiding Bishop’s letter, a number of bishops contacted her to ascertain whether or not rumours that Bishop Duncan would be brought up on charges before the session were true.

Read it all.

As the House has been informed previously, in November 2007 I directed a submission by my Office to the Title IV Review Committee that enclosed materials suggesting that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9. That submission recited that Bishop Duncan had supported first readings of amendments to the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh at the last Diocesan Convention that, among other things, would delete the unqualified accession by the Diocese to the Constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. The submission also recited Bishop Duncan’s leadership of a program under which delegates to the next Diocesan Convention in October 2008 would determine whether or not to adopt a second reading of the proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution deleting the “accession” clause, and pass a resolution purporting to make the Diocese a member of another Province within the Anglican Communion. Further details of Bishop Duncan’s program were outlined in a second submission to the Review Committee by certain lay and clerical members of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The thrust of the foregoing submission by my Office was not that Bishop Duncan had already left the Episcopal Church, but rather that he had in his episcopal leadership role taken the position that the Diocese had the option of either remaining subject to the Constitution and canons of this Church or leaving this Church for membership in another Province of the Communion; and that in that role he was encouraging the Diocese to choose to leave. The submission suggested, therefore, that Bishop Duncan, by pressing his position that the Diocese had such a choice and should exercise it by disaffiliating from the Episcopal Church, had abandoned the Communion of this Church by “an open renunciation of the … Discipline … of this Church” within the meaning of Canon IV.9(1)(i).

The Review Committee evidently agreed with that analysis and on December 17, 2007 certified to me as Presiding Bishop that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the Communion of this Church. Shortly thereafter, I asked the three senior bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, pursuant to Canon IV.9(1), to consent to Bishop Duncan’s inhibition pending presentation of the matter to the House of Bishops, but not all these bishops gave their consent.

Read it all

Some local Episcopalians will soon have a chance to personally ask questions of the church’s top U.S. official.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, will visit parishes in Augusta, Savannah and Statesboro on Sept. 12-14.

Jefferts Schori’s visit starts with a closed meeting with clergy of the diocese and those studying for ordination Sept. 12 at Trinity Episcopal Church in Statesboro.

She will meet with laity and diocesan officials Sept. 13, at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in two, two-hour sessions. The morning and afternoon meetings each include an hour of question-and-answer with the audience. Some questions will be submitted in advance but some will be taken from the floor.

“We’re trying to do this so she gets a fair breadth of diocesan concerns,” said the Rev. Jim Parker, spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia.

The diocese is issuing tickets to the sessions at St. Peter’s, which holds seating for “several hundred,” Parker said. The church comfortably seats at least 400 people in the pews.

The event is not open to the public. Episcopalians who would like to attend are asked to contact their pastors.

Read it all.

But the forms and structures of the various provinces of the Anglican communion have diverged significantly, in ways that challenge those ancient ties to England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those provinces are the result of evangelism tied to colonial structures, whether of Britain or her former colonies, and that colonial history has still to be unpacked and assessed. The present attempts to manage conflict in the communion through a renewed focus on structural ties to old or new authorities have generated significant resistance, both from provinces who largely absented themselves from Lambeth and from dissenting voices among the attending bishops.

The Anglican communion’s present reality reflects a struggle to grow into a new level of maturity, like that of adult siblings in a much-conflicted family. As we continue to wrestle, sufficient space and respect for the differing gifts of the siblings just might lead to greater maturity in relationship. This will require greater self-definition as well as decreased reactivity. Jesus’ own example in relationships with his opponents and with his disciples will be instructive.

Read it all.