The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will not take action against the clergy who left the Episcopal Church.
This is the diocese that remained in the Episcopal Church after the 2008 diocesan convention voted to secede from the denomination with Archbishop Robert Duncan.
The decision was announced today, a day after the one-year anniversary of the split. Instead of removing their clergy credentials, the Episcopal diocese will “release” them to become licensed in any church they choose.
Both bodies still call themselves the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The diocese that remained in the Episcopal Church has 28 parishes, while the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) has 57 parishes and is affiliated with both the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America and the new Anglican Church in North America.
One is speechless with gratitude at such undeserved generosity.
This is almost as good as a plenary indulgence from the Vatican.
And as meaningful as a barowload of Weimar banknotes.
Speak for yourself Azusa. I think many of us in Pittsburgh – on both sides – will welcome the fact that we have avoided a further twist of the sword presently dividing us. I suspect that we have to thank some of the communion conservative clergy in the TEC Diocese for this act of grace.
On the flip side, I always thought it was a trifle high-handed of my diocesan leadership to declare that they had [b]named[/b] Southern Cone clergy licenses made out for every priest in Pittsburgh directly after the 2008 vote. It would have been more tactful to have stated that those wishing to receive such licenses could remain behind to receive them when proceedings had concluded.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
My reaction is the opposite of #1, I am deeply grateful for this all too rare act of grace in the midst of so much hurt, animosity, rancor, and mistrust.
It serves in stark contrast to too many other actions by so many over the last couple of years.
I am moved by this act of generosity. It is justified on theological, pastoral and merely Christian motives.
I don’t know the personalities involved, so can’t judge. IF this was done truly out of a pastoral motive, then great! IF it was done to gain “points”, they boo on them! From what I’ve experienced, I can see it being either very easily. I hate to be skeptical, but it comes from experience!
I’m very appreciative that the TEC diocese has found another, more gracious way to handle departed clergy. So much for the excuse that depositions are necessary “to clear up the rolls.”
I too applaud this sensible action. It illustrates that the decision by other bishops to depose was not necessary and that other canonical options were available. For once a good showing by the TEC Pittsburgh diocese…
Why does the departing group continue to use the “Episcopal” nomenclature? I would think that would be confusing.
Because we have already heard promises and seen them broken by these honorable individuals, I will remain skeptical until I actually see assurances that they have not changed their minds again.
I agree that this is a good and gracious gesture. And I hope the PB won’t interfere and impose her will, as she did with property settlements.
I applaud the diocese’s decision, but I share teatime’s concern, given KJS’s past performance. I don’t trust that woman.
I have to admit that I am confused- very confused. According to the PB, her legal council and any number of diocesan bishops over the last 5 years, what Pittsburgh-TEC is proposing is canonically impossible. We have been consistently told by the entire TEC leadership that clergy could not be “released” and that depositions were canonically required. So, which is the truth? How can a diocese NOT be allowed to do this one day, and then the next, no problem?
I hope and pray that this is what it appears to be, which is to say, appropriate steps to take for those clergy leaving TEC for other Anglican jurisdictions. I suppose that after the treatment so many clergy have received in dozens of dioceses around the country, it is difficult to believe this is on the up and up. Analysis in 10 years will hopefully demonstrate in this case that those concerns were unfounded.
As a Deacon who was first inhibited and later deposed by Episcopal Bishop Jerry Lamb, I am deeply moved by the gracious gesture from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, their Bishop and their Standing Committee. I will keep the people of both Dioceses of Pittsburgh in my prayers, but I will especially pray for my fellow clergy in ACNA from Diocese of Pittsburgh. I am grateful that they will not have to face what the clergy in San Joaquin experienced from a Bishop and Standing Committee, who claimed, at every turn, that they sought only reconciliation.
Well as a foreigner I would hate to interfere or rain on anyone’s parade but this caught my eye:
“the Episcopal diocese will “release” them to become licensed in any church they choose”
Of course the diocese would have to be the lawful Episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh with a constitutionally valid leadership in order to “release” them? The same issue which arises in Fort Worth where the faux diocese has lost so far? Would those clergy in asking for “release” be admitting that the rump diocese is the lawful diocese?
Insofar as this is a genuinely Christian act without such strings one would encourage it but it may be that there may be intended or unintended consequences to this offer.
However I would say that I had hoped that Pittsburgh might set an example of a Christian way of doing things, but all the signs are that the remnant are preparing to put in place Mrs Schori’s nominee to act as the conduit for litigation against the departed diocese. One prays that Pittsburgh can show another way.
#14, I would simply note that the Standing Committee, I believe respecting precisely the concern you raise here, has not put the referenced clergy in the position of needing to request this action. They may simply ignore the message. The release is effected unless they specifically request to remain in good standing in the Episcopal Church.
Bruce Robison
Jeremy: You post brings to mind a question.
When were the departing priests of the EDP transferred to the SC? Was it before the vote to split off from the TEC or after?
And was Bishop Duncan ever re-instated as a Bishop in the SC?
I applaud the Standing Committee, of which I have been a critic, for this offer. It’s a rare example of grace in this whole mess.
#15 Bruce Robison – many thanks for your response. You are in my prayers.
Eugene (#16),
Subject to correction by others who were present, a letter was read to the special convention of 2008 after the realignment vote stating that Bishop Duncan had been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and he was subsequently reelected bishop unopposed at the realigned diocese’s convention in November.
The clergy were all offered Southern Cone licenses at the time of the special convention. I’m not sure if they have the same two-year window to make a final decision that has been offered to the parishes (which technically only expires in 2010). I imagine most have long since resolved the issue.
Jeremy and Eugene,
As a matter of fact, the House of Bishops voted to allow the Presiding Bishop to depose Bishop Duncan while the clergy of our diocese were at clergy conference in September, 2008. As that vote was announced, Bishop Duncan told us that he had received a message from Archbishop Venables indicating that by special action he was now admitted to the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone. This all happened two or three days before the Presiding Bishop signed the deposition, which Bishop Duncan was still in good standing in the Episcopal Church.
Per clergy licenses–diocesan staff stood at the back doors of St. Martin’s Church at conclusion of Convention in October, 2008, handing out pre-printed certificates of canonical residence in the Southern Cone. Those of us who did not pick the certificates up received them in mail early in the next week, with a cover letter indicating that we had up to two years to “request a transfer to return to the Episcopal Church.”
Bruce Robison
I just wonder how “they” (the fake diocese that “began” after the original one left the TEC )are able to do anything or say anything to anyone when they are absolutely not able to do any of that in the first place! You know, being set up illegally and all that from a “presiding bishop” over-reaching her bounds and all.
Pretty presumptuous of them on a large scale!
I applaud this measure. Even if you think that the TEC Diocese of Pittsburg does not have canonical standing or is not a “real” diocese, it does not matter. I applaud their Christian way of handling this. I don’t really care if their motive was to be honorable and charitable to their departed brothers and sisters or simply to score “good guy points.” In all honesty, I believe that their motivation is a bit of both and I will not speculate the percentages. I will leave their motivations to God and applaud their actions and take them at their word that they are doing this for the right reasons.
I will that +Lamb and +Gulick and any other bishop who had clergy depart TEC for what they believed to be a more faithful expression of Anglicanism would have done this.
The present troubles will not last for ever. Many clergy will see greener grass in ACNA or Southern Cone or Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda or AMiA, but after a brief sojourn there will want to come back to TEC. The Depositions make that impossible whereas transferring canonical residence makes it entirely possible and leaves the door open for reconciliation.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I don’t applaud this “deed” for it is no deed at all. It is farcecal designed to tie the hands of the judicial system, and if it is accepted, the conservatives are placing their own feet in the bear trap and releasing the trap mechanism on themselves!
Hello!
[i] Comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted by elf. Unnecessary sarcasm. Commenter warned. [/i]
Though I appreciate the heartfelt belief that the Schori diocese is showing Christian graciousness, I would gently remind everyone that it is still one of the parties in a lawsuit attempting to seize the diocese’s assets which is, as I read 1 Corinthians 6, not exactly a gracious Christian gesture.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
I have written a very strongly worded letter to Episcopal Life (indentifying myself as a liberal/inclusive member of TEC) in support of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s gracious and Christian witness.
I thanked them for allowing a wide and generous pastoral response to conservative brothers and sisters who choose to re-align as a matter of conscience.
I also stated my strong displeasure and disagreement with the policy of mandatory litigation over mediation.
I worded it as strongly as possible but with enough restraint to hopefully have a chance at being published.
Next on my list is a “tell it like it is” letter of opposition to KJS. I’m done with being silent on the mess being made of this church.
Would that others had the moral courage to act in the bold and godly manner that the Diocese of Pittsburgh has. May God bless them from the wrath sure to come from 815.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. Please- no word games. [/i]
Neither the article cited nor Fr. Robison’s remarks above suggest anyone on the TEC side is making a great claim to sainthood on the strength of this action (or non-action). As between an argument over property, where frankly I think both sides have an equally strong – or equally tenuous – [b]legal[/b] claim, and deposition from Holy Orders, I think this decision is far more important.
I would urge everyone to read the actual letter on the Schori Diocese website. There is considerably less generosity there than meets the eye. For one thing, it requires the cleric to “renounce” his or her ministry which is not so far as I am aware anything the clergy in ACNA are inclined to do.
Dan,
I don’t believe your reading of that is correct. No action is required of those who wish now to continue in their ministry as clergy of the Southern Cone diocese. If you don’t respond in the time frame indicated, the ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church will notify the Recorder of Ordinations of the Episcopal Church that you have been released from the responsibilities and privileges of ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church. Your status in Southern Cone will be unaffected. The only folks for whom this may be a problem are those who have asked the Standing Committee or, later, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Southern Cone for Letters Dimissory to another diocese of the Episcopal Church. If these Letters were signed by Bishop Duncan after the date of his deposition or by the President of the Standing Committee after October 4, 2008, they will not have been accepted by the Recorder of Ordinations, and those clergy thus remain, from the point of view of the Recorder, canonically resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-TEC. They thus will need to act constructively by contacting the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-TEC to request Letters Dimissory, or they will, along with the other clergy of the realigned diocese, be released from their standing in TEC and need to accept canonical residence in the Southern Cone.
Again, no member of the clergy is required to renounce his or her orders, nor are any being deposed.
All best,
Bruce Robison
Well, Dan, I did as you suggested. The first pertinent quote (to which I assume you refer) is:
[i]If you have done none of the above and wish to be “released from the obligations of the Ministerial office [b][as a Priest or Deacon in the Episcopal Church][/b] and deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination [b][in the Episcopal Church][/b]†and you do not instruct us to the contrary in writing, we will notify the Recorder of Ordinations to remove you from the list of clergy licensed to [b]exercise ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.[/b][/i]
Note the bolded clauses.
The second is:
[i]This does not affect your ordination, which you may register with whatever entity you choose. This is simply a way for us to gain clarity around the issue of who is licensed to practice ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.[/i]
Obviously, the simple issuance of letters of transfer would have been the ideal outcome (I assume ACNA clergy wouldn’t have accepted them as that would have called into question the legal status of the ACNA diocese), but we all knew that wasn’t going to happen. Readers will have to judge for themselves how “generous” the offer is, but given the present climate it wouldn’t hurt to at least give the authors the benefit of the doubt.
AHA!
Since when has it been normal on a transfer of clergy from one province of the Anglican Communion to another to be “released from the obligations of the Ministerial office” and “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination”…whether purporting to be limited to a particular church or not?
Shall we in the Church of England deprive TEC priests like Jim Naughten and Marilyn McCord Adams of their right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination AND release them from the obligations of the Ministerial office on their return to TEC?
Much as Mrs Schori did to Bishop Scriven?
Sorry that is not Jim Naughten but the bloke who sat around in the Anglican Communion Office taking photographs and organising gay eucharists as a deacon somewhere round the Tower of London.
This is of course a challenging problem. Clergy who continue under the canonical authority of the Episcopal Church do not “transfer” to other parts of the Anglican Communion, and there never has been a canon to provide for such transfer. They may of course inform the ecclesiastical authority that they will be exercising their ministry in another province of the Anglican Communion, and, assuming the consent of the bishop of the diocese to which they are moving, with that TEC bishop’s consent they do so. Nonetheless, they continue to be listed on the roster of the Recorder of Ordinations of the Episcopal Church, and to be of canonical residence in their TEC diocese. (They may be given residence as well in another province. Nothing in the TEC canons prohibit “dual citizenship” within the Anglican Communion.)
It is my belief that if any of my friends of the Pittsburgh Southern Cone diocese were to apply to the Standing Committee of the TEC Diocese for permission, while continuing to be a priest in the Episcopal Church and under the authority of the TEC diocese, to function in the Southern Cone, and with the consent of the bishop of that Southern Cone diocese, that permission would have been granted.
However, the simple reality is that such requests have not been made. That leaves very few canonical options for the TEC Standing Committee. In some other places there have been Abandonment of Communion charges and depositions. I am pleased that our Standing Committee chose to use the Title III canons instead, which simply state that the ordained person in question is no longer recognized as a clergy member of the Episcopal Church. Again, if my friend Dan or others wish to be so recognized, they are required to take affirmative action.
If these clergy are now clergy in good standing in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, they may continue to relate to the Episcopal Church, and may if they someday wish return to the Episcopal Church, under the provisions of the Title III canons related to clergy from churches in communion with this church, which are themselves fairly straightforward.
Again, it would be nice if Title III permitted Letters Dimissory to be sent to other Anglican provinces. But there is no such provision. And even if there were, my understanding is that none of the affected clergy would have been willing to request such a Letter. So it’s academic.
Bruce Robison
The letter sent our states that the release is pursuant to Canon III.9.8, “Renunciation of Ordained Ministry.” This is the same procedure used by the Presiding Bishop in the cases of Bishops Iker and Duncan. Even if there were few canonical options, why characterize “renunciation of the ordained ministry” (which must be in writing) as a generous “release.” See Canon III.9.8 below:
[blockquote]Sec. 8. Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry
If any Priest of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon
IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese in which
such Priest is canonically resident, a renunciation of the ordained
Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall
be the duty of the Bishop to record the declaration and request so
made. The Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not
subject to the provision of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and
for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the Priest’s moral
character, shall lay the matter before the clerical members of the
Standing Committee, and with the advice and consent of a majority of
such members the Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is
accepted, and that the Priest is released from the obligations of the
Ministerial office, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and
spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments
conferred in Ordination. The Bishop shall also declare in pronouncing
and recording such action that it was for causes which do not affect
the person’s moral character, and shall, if desired, give a certificate to
this effect to the person so removed from the ordained Ministry.[/blockquote]
Sorry, make that Bishops Iker and Scriven.
I was about to post this comment but see that in fact Wildfire’s post above has answered a couple of the issues:
In that circumstance I don’t understand why the standing committee of the alleged diocese feel it is necessary to take any action at all [assuming that they have any legal authority whatever to do so].
1. Why do you feel it necessary to remove the record of these priests ordinations rather than their current licences?
2. Why did TEC not do the same to Canon McCord Adams when she moved to England where she functions now?
3. What practical difference is there between being “deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination” and deposing them; indeed is there any even in semantics?
4. Why should people like me not consider that this is not just a continuation of Mrs Schori’s scorched earth policy?
Pageantmaster,
Might I suggest that part of the answer to your question is that this is the first time in the history of the Anglican Communion that we’ve had to deal with parallel provinces.
It might be most helpful at this point if you were rallying your acquaintances on General Synod to support next year’s resolution recognizing that the Church of England is in communion with ACNA. Until that happens, jurisdictions in North America where there are parallel dioceses are likely to continue to exist on the basis that neither side will acknowledge that the other group legally exists (as a diocese). Frankly, I wish we could get away from the legalistic language of “faux diocese” or “Schori diocese” that currently haunts us; I don’t see it serves any better than the other side maintaining that Bishop Duncan was properly deposed in the first place.
#40 Jeremy Bonner
The ACNA constitution was due to be laid before our house of bishops at their last meeting but all we have heard so far is about a resolution on climate change. We will probably need to wait until the next Synod to find out what the bishops really talked about and there is a resolution tabled for the next Synod.
But back to this thread. There are parallel jurisdictions of provinces all over the place in the Anglican Communion. That is the point of a Communion – mutual acceptance of orders, sacraments and doctrine. No other province including the Southern Cone carries on as TEC does.
But there is something much more serious going on here which Wildfire has pointed out. it looks as if this ‘generous offer’ is a continuation of Mrs Schori’s scorched earth policy, but covered in a veneer of deception from her new PR consultants. What it seems to come down to is:
If you do not reply in two weeks, we will characterize your silence as a renunciation in writing of the ordained ministry. Aren’t we generous?
Duck! Incoming generosity.
Pageantmaster: you forgot to add that the priests in the Pittsburgh Diocese of ACNA may not continue to put money into the TEC pension fund either.
It would be interesting to see how many ACNA priests still are putting money into the TEC pension since they have not yet been deposed. Anyone want to ‘fess up?
After this I will bow out, I promise.
Pageantmaster,
You’re right. I should have specified “competing” parallel jurisdictions.
As to your main point, [i]something[/i] was going to happen in the near future. The alternative would have been deposition, with its implication of deprivation of orders, as has been applied everywhere else. I would point out that nothing on the the TEC diocesan website calls this offer generous. “Pastoral” and “softer option” are the only words I see. And since the PB must have approved the strategy elsewhere, I can’t believe that this has been done at her instigation; she’s made it very clear where she stands.
Jeremy and Bruce, the issue is not as simple as you suggested – the problems have been clearly stated by others above, and since there is no indication that the PB “approved the strategy elsewhere” (and certainly not in Pittsburgh), I believe the letter is a gesture – nothing more, and a rather ineffectual one at that. It might have reassured me more had her signature been above the signatures of the Standing Committee.
Sorry to rain on the happy parade, but we have seen how Mrs. Schori and her minions have behaved in similar situations.
Simply to frame this a little, note above #42 that clergy do not pay assessments to the Pension Fund. Institutions of the Episcopal Church pay assessments on behalf of clergy of the Episcopal Church. To this point all the clergy of the Southern Cone diocese with the exception of Archbishop Duncan remain in good standing in the Episcopal Church, and any parish, seminary, or other approved institution of the Episcopal Church may pay assessments based on the formulas of the fund. I do not know how many clergy in the Southern Cone diocese continue to serve parishes that self-identify as TEC parishes when filling out the monthly assessment form. That is a matter of integrity, I imagine, and I assume that whoever fills out the form in these parishes does so appropriately.
The question “why does the TEC diocese need to do anything?” is in part answered with the word that if a clergy person is identified as in good standing in the TEC diocese and then is subject to an allegation of misconduct, the TEC diocese would likely be liable to civil damages. Just functionally, if a cleric is ministering in Pittsburgh and says that he or she is a priest of “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh,” and if that cleric is subject to legal action, I would imagine the attorney for the person bringing the action would say that the Episcopal Diocese of TEC, having not removed that person from its list of active, in good standing clergy, would have some level of liability. And there just aren’t that many ways in the canons of the Episcopal Church to indicate that a cleric is not under the authority and supervision of the canonical authorities of the Episcopal Church.
The difference between the Title III action of renunciation and the Title IV action is that the Title III action doesn’t or shouldn’t present an issue of concern in itself for the canonical authorities in other provinces of the Anglican Communion, as it specifies no disciplinary context. That also means that should in the future a former Episcopal priest, now serving as a priest canonically resident in the Southern Cone, could re-enter the Episcopal Church in all ways, either to function under license or to become canonically resident again, specified in Title III for clergy of churches in communion with this Church. If the abandonment provisions had been used, the process of “restoration” would have required the Title IV procedures, which are more difficult.
Except for a handful of clergy who function “within” the Southern Cone diocese while attempting to obtain canonical residence in Albany or South Carolina, I know none of my friends here who have wished to continue to be identified as clergy of the Episcopal Church. Since they are for understandable reasons unwilling to communicate this to the TEC diocese, and since all non-disciplinary forms of removal seem to require some constructive action on the part of the clergy desiring to leave, there is simply something of a puzzle.
I know that the intention of the Standing Committee of the TEC diocese was to avoid use of the Title IV procedures and to express continued friendship and respect to our colleagues who now have determined to minister in another jurisdiction. III.ix.8 is imperfect, but perhaps a tad less imperfect than other options.
Bruce Robison
I accept the statement of BMR+ as to the good intentions of those making this offer. However, I would make the following three points:
1. What the TEC “Standing Committee†(and I’m not just being pejorative with the scare quotes—I will come back to this in #3 below) intends to do is blatantly unlawful. Use of III.9.8 requires a renunciation [b]in writing[/b] by the priest involved. Silence, as Pageantmaster notes above, is not a written renunciation. The canon unquestionably requires something like “I hereby renounce the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church†or at a minimum “I consent to the release being offered under Canon III.9.8.†Anything else is simply canonical lawlessness.
2. What the letter did was intentionally misleading. No mention was made of renunciation of ordained ministry. How can anyone claim the moral high ground when attempting to mislead? This is precisely what the Presiding Bishop did with Bishop Scriven. He was greatly surprised to find that he had renounced the ordained ministry of TEC merely by moving back to the CofE. If you don’t believe me, ask him.
3. When one finds that one cannot achieve one’s objective without acting in an obviously unlawful and misleading manner, one’s basic objective and foundational assumptions are deeply flawed. Legitimate objectives can be achieved lawfully. To return to the scare quotes in #1 above, this sorry episode, besides reflecting poorly on those involved, merely demonstrates the legal bankruptcy of their entire theory.
I find wildfire’s posts potentially disturbing in their implications and hope more documentation can be provided in the public domain.
Kendall+ (47)
Many of us, I suspect, share your concern over the implications of this. It would seem that Fr. Robison (are you a member of the SC, Fr.?) concedes that this is an application of Title III renunciation canons. That is to say, what they are actually doing is exactly what happened in Quincy a couple weeks ago. They just let the PR pros write their press release, instead of coming out and telling us what they were actually up to. I don’t recall any of the priests up in the first couple dozen comments writing in on the Quincy thread to tell us how thankful they were that the bishop had declared all those priests as “having renounced” rather than “been deposed.”
Of course, the implication of the use of Canon III in this way is that no Communion exists between ACNA and TEC (which is to say, members of ACNA are excommunicated from TEC). Which may be true. However, since ACNA is in full Communion with more of the member churches of the Anglican Communion than is TEC (having declared itself in impaired communion with the CoE by using Title III against Bishop Scriven, not to mention it’s relations with those outside the Anglo Saxon hegemony over the Communion), there is a certain irony here. Let me point out the obvious in answer to the soon to come objection to what I just said: If TEC were in full communion with the majority of the churches of the Anglican Communion, VGR would have had a Lambeth invitation.
So, while Fr. Robison (if we take him at his word in 45) and the Pittsburgh standing committee declare that all these priests and bishops are ex-communicate and have no Holy Orders, they remain in full communion with the 12-person “bishop by committee” of N. Michigan, a diocese that has officially rejected the Nicene Creed and officially adopted communion of the un-baptized.
In response to #47, the relevant canon is quoted in # 37 above and a copy of the letter to Pittsburgh clergy is available on the TEC-Pittsburgh website:
http://www.episcopalpgh.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Documents/CanonIII_9_8 letter100509.pdf
Note the url. The letter makes no mention of renunciation of the ordained ministry, but speaks of aâ€release,†carefully quoting the canon and avoiding the language of renunciation:
[blockquote]Consequently, we are seeking to release those clergy who so desire under the provisions of Canon III.9.8. …
3. If you have done none of the above and wish to be “released from the obligations of the Ministerial office [as a Priest or Deacon in the Episcopal Church] and deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination [in the Episcopal Church]†and you do not instruct us to the contrary in writing, we will notify the Recorder of Ordinations to remove you from the list of clergy licensed to exercise ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church. However, we prefer that you notify us in writing of your request for this release, or send us a copy of your “transfer†documentation for our records.
This does not affect your ordination, which you may register with whatever entity you choose. This is simply a way for us to gain clarity around the issue of who is licensed to practice ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]
This letter thus tracks the approach taken by the Presiding Bishop in her letter to Bishop Scriven:
[blockquote]I understand your request to resign as a member of the House of Bishops to mean that you will become a bishop of the Church of England, serving as assistant to the Bishop of Oxford. I will on those grounds, and with the consent of the Council of Advice, release you from your orders in this Church, “for reasons not affecting your moral character.”[/blockquote]
No mention was made of renunciation of the ordained ministry and Bishop Scriven was surprised to learn that his notification of return to the CofE was being interpreted in such a manner.
A final note: a legitimate legislative authority cannot claim legal limited options for refusing to follow the law. If the TEC loyalists are the canonical authority in Pittsburgh, they can enact a canon that provides that clergy that become canonically resident in another province of the Anglican Communion will be released and their names removed from the roster of clergy. There would be no need to pretend that a written renunciation had been received. A legitimate authority can always achieve its objective lawfully by changing the law.
I believe it was the case in Colorado that leavers to AMiA were treated charitably, as is being intimated by +BMR above as the intention here. But I also recall that the PB or ‘national church’ overrode that in time and demanded that they be recorded as having renounced their ministries. Someone will have better facts than I do. One question is (leaving aside the serious issued raised by #49 : can the standing committee of the TEC Pittsburgh diocese operate within its own integrity and make assurances, or in the nature of the case, will its integrity now be a matter for others to determine, in a hierarchy chain?
Exodus 20:16