Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said December 5 that she had accepted Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker’s renunciation of his orders in the Episcopal Church.
The Presiding Bishop’s office released a one-page notification on December 5 saying Jefferts Schori had accepted Iker’s renunciation with the “advice and consent” of her advisory council. The document says that Iker made his renunciation in writing on November 24; however a spokesperson for Iker denies that such a renunciation has been made.
“I have chosen to follow this course rather than seeking consent of the House of Bishops to Bishop Iker’s deposition for abandonment of the Communion of this Church because I believe it to be a more pastoral response to Bishop Iker’s clear expression of his desire not to be a part of the Episcopal Church at this time,” the Presiding Bishop wrote in a letter to the House of Bishops. “I believe this course best expresses my hope and prayer that reconciliation in the future can be achieved by God’s love and grace.”
I wonder if the AC shouldn’t have their own Title IV Review Committee to apply the same definition of “abandonment” to TEC.
What a hoot!
RE: “”I have chosen to follow this course rather than seeking consent of the House of Bishops to Bishop Iker’s deposition for abandonment of the Communion of this Church because I believe it to be a more pastoral response to Bishop Iker’s clear expression of his desire not to be a part of the Episcopal Church at this time,” the Presiding Bishop wrote in a letter to the House of Bishops.”
I wonder if she knows that it’s transparently obvious and that we all know why she’s hastening to once again violate yet another different canon.
TexAnglican fortunately lets us all know precisely why she is lying in order to be doing what she is doing — and it ain’t the “pastoral” “reconciliation” rhetoric either:
http://texanglican.blogspot.com/2008/12/pb-schori-acts-swiftly-against-bishop.html
Funny how South Carolina had to go through not one, but two, bishop elections because some Standing Committee consents were not filled out EXACTLY according to canon. The PB said she had no choice but to rule out those that were not completely signed or were e-mailed. Now she can take an interview quote and rule that sufficient to meet the canon, which happens to require a written request?
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
The on-going saga of TEC should be called The Lawless Chronicles.
[i] Ad hominem comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Setting aside the question of how using an interview statement rather than a personally written letter addressed to the Presiding Bishop or HOB satisfies the canons, I’d like to ask about the implications of so doing. Namely, if the Presiding Bishop is taking the following sentence, “Since November 15, 2008, both the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and I as the Diocesan Bishop have been members of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone,” as evidence that +Iker has renounced his orders in TEC, would it also not be reasonable to conclude that the Presiding Bishop recognizes that the Diocese of Fort Worth has done the same? If one accepts the interview as evidence that one has left, doesn’t it mean that the same conclusion should apply to the second party, namely the diocese? Is there a lawyer who might comment?
[i] If one accepts the interview as evidence that [Bp. Iker] has left, doesn’t it mean that the same conclusion should apply to . . . the diocese? [/i] —LCF [#7]
Sounds reasonable. But KJS subscribes to Roach-Motel Eccelsiology: individuals can leave but not dioceses or property.
Comment deleted by elf.
Actually it wasn’t, but had I entered what I intended to say, it would have been. I’m teaching my children to say “comment deleted by elf” instead of swearing.
Slick. Get rid of someone without the controversy that now surrounds how she “deposes” bishops. Bp Iker is not deposed. He has implicitly renounced his orders. At least she is trying to be clever.