The letter refers to Canon III.9.8 but does not cite it by title: “Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry.” That language has proven a stumbling point, in recent years, as other priests have received occasional offers for release without deposition.
The canon applies to any priest who wants to resign from the Episcopal Church’s holy orders, “acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the priest’s moral character.” The canon’s wording sometimes has left priests uncertain of whether they are being asked to renounce only their ministry within the Episcopal Church or their future ministry as priests.
Read it all. While I appreciate that the desire to be generous is motivating those taking this decision, the problem is the canon which is being used. This is not what the canon is for. The more time I have had to ponder this, the more troubled I have become. There were other ways to undertake this which do not involve misuse of the canons–KSH.
Kendall,
Our diocesan chancellor, Bob Devlin, said as much in his email to us on Tuesday afternoon. See below:
To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican):
We have been informed that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) has sent a letter to you “seeking to release those clergy who so desire under the provisions of Canon III.9.8.†The stated purpose of this action is to update TEC’s records in a way that “does not involve deposition.†While we are very much in favor of avoiding further discord among our respective organizations, we cannot recommend that you accept this option. Canon III.9.8, entitled “Renunciation of Ordained Ministryâ€, has the effect of removing you from ministerial office and depriving you of “the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination.†The letter indicates that this action is only effective with respect to TEC. The plain language of the Canon is not so clearly limited.
If this is solely a matter of record keeping, we encourage the two diocesan standing committees to come together to find a solution that involves neither deposition nor renunciation of ministry. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese is ready to propose at least one way that this might easily be accomplished.
Mr. Robert Devlin
Chancellor
Part of the problem is that the ecclesiological fantasy of the Episcopal Church is that we are the only established catholic church. Our canon law comes from Rome via Canterbury and we have not made the changes necessary to witness to the reality that the Episcopal Church is one of many American Protestant denominations. We claim to ordain not to the ministry of a voluntary association with Aberage Sunday Attendance of less than 800K but to “Christ’s holy, catholic church.”
I can see the argument that the body which ordains can decide the circumstances under which it may withdraw the authority granted by that ordination, but I think the Episcopal Church would do better to consider the ways the ELCA and other American churches deal with the status of clergy who wish to withdraw from the spiritual authority of the church of ordination.
I initially thought this was positive news but realised that I had had the wool pulled over my eyes, as have the press who have covered this. What it looks like is happening is that a canon designed to respond to a WRITTEN request is being misused to deprive the ordained ministry of priests without a written request in exactly the same way as happened with Bishops Iker and Scriven and the clergy of Quincy. The only difference is that now the persecution is covered by spin from some very cynical and dishonest PR from the Episcopal Church which has managed to hit a new low.
I was just flabberghasted. The mispresentation of this action and abuse of canons was exposed by ‘Wildfire’ here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/25720/#395603
In case it is helpful I set out Wildfire’s consolidated comments below ending with clarification given to Canon Harmon:
——-
[b]A.[/b] Wildfire says: 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 Scriven. 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]
—–
[b]B.[/b]Wildfire says: 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.
—–
[b]C[/b] Kendall Harmon says: I find wildfire’s posts potentially disturbing in their implications and hope more documentation can be provided in the public domain.
—–
[b]D[/b] Wildfire says: In response to [#47], the relevant canon is quoted … 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:
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.
This letter thus tracks the approach taken by the Presiding Bishop in her letter to Bishop Scriven:
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.â€
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 find it simply incredulible that ANYONE would think that ANYBODY representing TEC would be conciliatory and graceful toward Anglican clergy for any reason at anytime. This ruse should be disturbing to faithful clergy and laity for TEC’s actions are not of Christ.
Intercessor
[i] Edited [/i]
[i] Comment deleted by elf. Too much unnecessary sarcasm. [/i]
FWIW, let me give credit to my former bishop, +Bill Love of Albany, who kindly wrote me the Letter Dimissory I asked him for in June, and transferred me without hesitation to the oversight of +John Guernsey in the ACNA. Of course, he did this, knowing full well that such recognition of the validity of the ACNA as a legitimate Anglican body infuriates the PB and many of his colleagues in the HoB. But then, +Bill Love is a man of integrity and sterling character.
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
David Handy+
Wildfire and others have made the important points already but let me mention one other thing about the adjusted excerpt from the canonical pronouncement language included in the Standing Committee’s letter. The language “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]â€. The bracketed insert “in the Episcopal Church” is in the wrong place to be consistent with the benign intent portrayed, or at least unambiguously so. It should go after “exercise.” (Not that the deprivation language should be used at all, as prior comments show.)
I absolutely appreciate the frustration felt on all sides by the inability of the TEC canons to deal with this situation. If you will accept good intentions, in a hard spot, than please accept the gesture of our Standing Committee in deciding to stretch over III.9 rather than to go to disciplinary depositions for abandonment.
#6, David, the simple fact is that while Bishop Love may have filled out and signed and mailed your Letters Dimissory to ACNA, the Recorder of Ordinations of the Episcopal Church will not honor it. It doesn’t actually “send” you anywhere, because under our canons, Letters Dim may only be sent to and received by Bishops “of this Church.” I don’t think that III.9 is a great solution. But understand that the only other possibilities would be to leave the clergy on the TEC-diocese roster but not under the authority or oversight of the TEC-diocese judicatory, which is a legal nightmare, or to go to Title IV. The Title III Renunciations are a stretch. But they are a removal “in good standing,” and in fact do not preclude such persons from functioning in ordained ministries in other Churches of the Communion, or, of course, in other Anglican denominations. Only in TEC. And if at some future point, unlikely as I know it seems, any of the folks thus removed should desire to return to TEC, the process of restoration is much simpler and gracious with a Title III Renunciation than with any of the Title IV procedures.
It is of course entirely possible, and always has been, for Episcopal Church clergy to serve in other Churches of the Communion. But even as they do, under our canons they remain in good standing in TEC and continue to be subject to those canons. I do not believe any of my ACNA friends truly wish to remain clergy of the Episcopal Church.
I believe our Standing Committee’s press release was a statement intended to reflect the gentlest possible intention and a true sense of friendship and respect for those of our clergy colleagues from whom we are now separated.
Bruce Robison
#8 BMR
I suppose that when you did the same thing to Bishop Scriven a bishop in my church that was intended to reflect the gentlest possible intention and a true sense of friendship and respect.
Pull the other one I don’t believe a word of it.
Thanks, Pageantmaster. No, I think that the Presiding Bishop was out of order in her action related to Bishop Scriven. Although +Henry was seated in the HoB, he continued as a bishop of the Church of England, and his decision to return to England would have been best marked by a letter from the Presiding Bishop wishing him all God’s blessings in his new ministry as Director of SAMS-UK.
Bruce Robison
Bruce Robison
Thanks, Bruce (#8). You have chosen to place the most charitable construction on this offer, which is noble of you. But I continue to find such an interpretation so strained as not to be credible.
As for whether the Recorder of Ordinations at 815 recognizes the validity of my transfer or not (#6), I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you were correct that the national office won’t honor it. What else is new??
But frankly, that means very little to me. I only care if the Global South (the majority of the Anglican world) recognizes it and my continuing authority to function as an Anglican priest, and I think they will. 815 can go to ****, for all I care anymore.
As you know, Bruce, Gen Con 2009 had a chance to revise the canons to clear up the confusion over what church was meant, and whether someone was being defrocked from Anglican orders or not, and the HoB and HoD willfully and deliberately chose not to resolve the problem. It seems that the threat of deposition is still a useful threat in the eyes of some TEC leaders, and more of a useful form of leverage than an embarrassment or scandal to them.
David Handy+