Someone clue me in please. What will happen if his election is once again declared “null and void?” Is it possible? Can/will the same standing committees,deny affirmation? Is there provision for this kind of … garbage?
T
It is indeed possible. This is a new election, and there is nothing that prevents a different vote, in either direction. Considering upcoming events, I suspect that there might be considerable behind the scenes pressure. If it is again blocked, SC will have to make some very hard decisions.
ECUSA would love to get thier hands on this diocese. It is thriving for one in terms of participation, and it has many very valuable parishes in historic Charleston (seems to be one on every corner!) and in the resort areas like Hilton Head, Pawley’s Island, etc. Sadly I think this will make it all the more difficult for the diocese to choose its own way should +elect Lawrence not receive sufficient consents.
Actually, give the timing of the consent process, it should be considered inevitable that it will be rejected a second time. It will come after the Sept 30th deadline. The diocese of San Joaquin, from which Father Lawrence hails, will probably will have seceded by then. The politicalization of everything will be at a fortissimo crescendo.
It is incumbent that leaders of SC to have a back up plan when the second rejection occurs and that the laity are kept well informed.
It’s too early to tell what SC will do, should Fr Lawrence fail to receive the necessary consents, but in any case, I’ve been reliably informed that we in DioSJ will vote again in December on the resolution to amend our constitution to exclude all mention of TEC, and it is expected to pass handily; resulting in our leaving TEC.
We, of course, are praying that Fr Lawrence receives the necessary consents, and the people of the Diocese of South Carolina are in our prayers.
Someone clue me in please. What will happen if his election is once again declared “null and void?” Is it possible? Can/will the same standing committees,deny affirmation? Is there provision for this kind of … garbage?
T
T,
It is indeed possible. This is a new election, and there is nothing that prevents a different vote, in either direction. Considering upcoming events, I suspect that there might be considerable behind the scenes pressure. If it is again blocked, SC will have to make some very hard decisions.
APB
ECUSA would love to get thier hands on this diocese. It is thriving for one in terms of participation, and it has many very valuable parishes in historic Charleston (seems to be one on every corner!) and in the resort areas like Hilton Head, Pawley’s Island, etc. Sadly I think this will make it all the more difficult for the diocese to choose its own way should +elect Lawrence not receive sufficient consents.
Actually, give the timing of the consent process, it should be considered inevitable that it will be rejected a second time. It will come after the Sept 30th deadline. The diocese of San Joaquin, from which Father Lawrence hails, will probably will have seceded by then. The politicalization of everything will be at a fortissimo crescendo.
It is incumbent that leaders of SC to have a back up plan when the second rejection occurs and that the laity are kept well informed.
It’s too early to tell what SC will do, should Fr Lawrence fail to receive the necessary consents, but in any case, I’ve been reliably informed that we in DioSJ will vote again in December on the resolution to amend our constitution to exclude all mention of TEC, and it is expected to pass handily; resulting in our leaving TEC.
We, of course, are praying that Fr Lawrence receives the necessary consents, and the people of the Diocese of South Carolina are in our prayers.