[David] Bane resigned from Southern Virginia on February 11, 2006 after years of division in the diocese culminated with a report from three Episcopal Church bishops said that the diocese needed “deep systemic change.”
Bane said in an interview with Episcopal News Service that the invitation to work in the Diocese of Pittsburgh came to him after he tried to find a way to minister in the Episcopal Church, but was rebuffed at every turn. “I was not wanted in ministry no matter how hard I tried,” he said.
Bane added that he “never desired” to leave the Episcopal Church and is sad and disappointed both with his status and with the divisions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
“I don’t have any big vendetta or anger,” he said. “I am just sad and disappointed.”
The language of the C&C is precise:
[blockquote]If any Bishop of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. The Presiding Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the person’s moral character, shall lay the matter before the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, and with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of the Advisory Council the Presiding Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is accepted, and that the Bishop is released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations.[/blockquote]
Bp Bane states that he denies renouncing anything. It is then silly to think that he expressed “a desire to be removed therefrom.”
Last year, KJS “inhibited” Bp MacBurney without the approval of the three most senior bishops. (Despite pleas from Bp Ackerman to delay because Bp MacBurney’s son lay dying in a hosptital.) No letter of renunciation was even mentioned.
But that’s OK because there is precedent. Bp Iker sent no letter and a public press release was taken to be such a letter (again despite no specific renunciation nor any expressed desire).
Robroy: I do not understand your point. Do any of the Bishops you named really want to be Bishops in TEC?
If so which ones?
If not they should be happy to be out of TEC.
No problem
Sigh. Eugene, abuse of Canons is a misuse of power and wrong. The leadership of the EC talks about being inclusive and having room at the table for everyone, even if you are a traditional reasserting Christian or Priest in the EC. Abuse is abuse. Misuse of power by a leader of the Episcopal Church is uncharitable, unchristian, and a horrible witness to the rest of the world.
Herein lies the problem. You are probably correct that none of these deposed persons want to be in the EC. However, harm has been done by the action of one who is to witness to Christ as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
This is the point and it does matter.
And yes, Creighton+, it matters very much! That woman has arrogated unto herself authority which has never been given any Presiding Bishop, as far as I can determine. The harm she has caused is traumatic not only to these bishops, but to their families, and by way of extension, to their extended families in the Church. These actions are totally unbecoming a person who claims to be a Christian bishop, and how anyone who claims to be a Christian can support her actions is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
Eugene, justice is suppose to be a big thing with the liberals: “We need to make homosexuals clergy and bishops, otherwise it is an [i]injustice[/i].”
The C&C are very clear. Bishops just can’t quit. There are procedures for good reasons. I am very doubtful that there was any letter of Bp MacBurney. There apparently were public statements of Bp Bane. What Ms Schori is doing is a gross miscarriage of justice. That liberals aren’t disgusted is troubling but not unexpected.
Bishop Bane has joined with a diocese which is no longer in TEC. He therefore has no rights with respect to his membership in TEC. I do not know about the other Bishop.
Bishop Schori is making sure that such a Bishops do not try to play it both ways. Who knows, they may, like Bishop Duncan before them, encourage people to leave TEC. That is not what Bishops are to do. The honest Bishops resign from TEC and join whatever group will have them. Fair enough. But they can’t scream for their rights when they leave.
It is also my understanding that a bishop is made a bishop of the entire Anglican church, not just the Episcopal church. Therefore, whether one is serving TEc or Uganda, or the Southern Cone, one is still a bishop. Removing them from ministry and stating that [he] [blockquote]is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations [/blockquote] seems out of order, ungracious, and certainly does not reflect the light of Christ in the world.
She could have issued a letter of transfer. I do not believe she did anything to the bishops who left to go to the Roman Catholic Church. At least, I did not read anything about it.
Eugene, it’s TEC that is trying to have it both ways. Either it is in the AC or it is not. If it is, then going to another AC provence is not abandonment of communion.
TEC is playing fast and loose with the constitution and canons and that should bother you.
Br. Michael: Don’t you think theat Bishop Bane will join ACNA? The ACNA is not yet in the AC.
And remember it is abandonment of the TEC communion that is meant by Bishop Schori’s letters not of the AC.
PAX
Eugene, “abandonment of the TEC communion?” WHAT TEC communion? Surely you don’t mean to imply that TEC is a communion all by itself? Wportbello is right in saying that bishops in the Anglican Communion are bishops of the ENTIRE Communion…..NOT just TEC! So by what right did Dr Schori deprive these bishops of their right to act as bishops of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
And may I remind you that many of the other provinces are still in communion with TEC, yet Dr Schori sees fit to “depose” any clergy who dare to leave and function as clergy in these provinces, and refuses to give them Letters Dimissory so that they can transfer their membership?
Where is the rightness of her actions?