Today the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh formally released 135 priests and deacons who have not been active in the Episcopal Church since October of last year.
In letters being mailed today from Bishop Kenneth L. Price, Jr. to each of the affected clergy, the diocese is making good on its offer to release the individuals from their licensed ministry in the Episcopal Church in a way that does not involve disciplinary action.
“The Diocese will proceed to notify the Recorder of Ordinations to remove you from the list of clergy licensed to exercise ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church,” Bishop Price writes in his letter.
Is the canon being used (III.9.8) subject to the interpretation given to it in this letter, viz., that it does not affect ordination?
An interesting question since the purported diocese has no canonical existence and was “established” by non-canonical and non-constitutional procedures. It seems a rhetorical question at best. How can a non-canonical entity claim to be acting on a canon it never established and which its very “existence” negates?
Does this release perchance also wipe out any and all pension obligations to the clergy being “released”? Do those who have been made 5, 10, 15 or even 30 years of contributions to the retirement system now have a “balance” of $00.00 presented to them?
I don’t know the answer to this question, and am truly curious. I just can’t help but wonder what this will do to the benefits which would ordinarily have accrued to the clergy being “released” “without disciplinary action.” If anyone knows, please say so.
#3: they keep their pension but they can not add to it. Those in ACNA who continued to add to their TEC pension this past year (all the while saying they left TEC to join the Southern Cone) can no longer do so. ACNA has its own pension fund I believe
Lovely, kind, and generous. Now if Mrs Schori will only get the picture as well. It’s shaming that the PCUSA should have released three congregations in the San Joaquin Valley and Kate pursues those who departed from her death grip like one of the classic Greek furies.
Chris, #1, the only way to see through the rather opaque and unhelpful canon, is to note that should any of these clergy seek at a later time to return to TEC from the Southern Cone they would appropriately use the procedures outlined for the reception of “clergy from Churches in Communion with this Church.” Essentially an administrative “transfer in,” with no question of their ordained status–and without the issues that would accompany restoration from a Title IV depostion.
Bruce Robison
Is TEC in communion with Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de América?
How can this be? How can the wholly righteous, pure, holy and prophetic Church of the New Age be in communion with a bunch of border crossing, homophobic bishops?
It is patently a misuse of the canon, so far as I can tell. Convenience and expedience. What an expert would need to determine is whether anyone has the authority to say what +Price has said, in respect to its interpretation. I agree it is an ‘unhelpful canon’ for the present purpose, but that is all the more reason not to seek to ‘see through it.’ I also doubt it is opaque; its purpose seems clear enough: it is to be used when clergy leave the communion of this church. If communion is taken to refer only to TEC, then TEC is defining itself as something other than the Anglican Communion. If new canons need to be drawn up to deal with the ‘problem’ then that is the proper and legal way to do so. Recourse to this canon at this time is not appropriate, given its intention, so it remains unclear that +Price can say about it what he is saying. It is not a licensure canon; that would be something else.
Fr Robison: PS. I see a new story is now posted. If I were Hays I would have the same concern. This is a renunciation of orders canon. It is not a licensing canon. E.g., when I was in Scotland I was licensed as a Priest; when I left, it expired. This canon is used for something other than licensing. To say that one can return and not be re-ordained (if that is the idea) is only to see that the canon is being wrongly used at the get-go. And it is being used this way because it is easier. +Price’s interpretation may be ‘kind’ but it may be wrong as well.
I understand. But simply: there are *only* two ways in which a person who is an ordained minister of the Episcopal Church may be removed from the list of clergy in good standing in the Episcopal Church. One is that they may remove themselves, under the Title III provisions being used here in Pittsburgh. The other is that they may be removed though disciplinary action under Title IV. That’s it. In either case they are no longer ordained ministers of this Church, but in neither case would they need to be “re-ordained” if they were to seek to return.
A number of the more progressive folks here in Pittsburgh were strongly in favor of bringing Title IV Abandonment charges against these clergy. That was essentially the only alternative. I understand the point about Scotland, but simply to say that that’s not how it works in TEC. In the TEC canons, if you are ordained in TEC, you can later on move to Scotland, get licensed there, and finally get elected Primus–but all the while, you are still and forever a priest of TEC.
I believe it would be helpful for there to be a canon in Title III allowing for the removal of a priest from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church by way of letters dimissory to another Church in Communion with this Church. But at present such a canon does not exist.
Bruce Robison
The point of course is that if the ‘two ways’ available are missing the mark and in so doing setting precedents (TEC is its own ‘communion’) then using the canon wrongly will produce a bad outcome.
Your Scotland example puzzles me. If I became a rostered clergyman in the SEC, then I would relinquish my *diocesan* affiliation in TEC and go in peace. I would become part of the SEC. But I could return and exercise ministry in the US by permission of the Diocesan. These are the courtesies that exist when one is in a Communion and not a national denomination.
The problem of using the wrong canon is not ‘what’s available?’ It produces a different understanding of TEC and the Communion. I should think that was not worth the price. And I’m not sure that these are the only choices; rather, they are the choices of expedience. There remains the question whether +Price’s interpretation of the canon is consistent with its intention.
Chris, I believe your assumption about what would happen if you “became a rostered clergyman in the SEC” is incorrect. You would not by doing so “relinquish” your status in TEC. The Recorder of Ordinations would continue to list you as a priest with standing in TEC, and the Pension Fund would carry you simply as an “inactive.”
Bruce Robison
Dr. Seitz: what would you have done to remove the names of the ACNA clergy from the list of clergy of TEC? They clearly do not want to be in TEC. I believe that most of them did not inform 815 that they left TEC.
How very strange – so do such folks maintain their canonical residence in TEC dioceses? If so, it might seem that TEC priests in foreign Provinces are themselves liable to disciplinary action within TEC because they have vowed obedience to a foreign bishop and in England loyalty to a foreign Sovereign.
In other words – what principle underlies why are some transfers dealt with as renunciations and some not? Why is the fact the some folks may remain in good standing whilst actually vowing obedience to a foreign bishop in say England any less problematic than that folks remain in good standing but vow obedience to a bishop of another province of the Communion.
Elsewhere in the Communion it’s a trivially simple matter. Evidence is provided of ordination, a letter from the Bishop and that’s it. You’ re removed for say the COE’s lists and added to TEC’s.
If TEC doesn’t have this (or an analogue of it) then the right action was (mind bendingly obviously) to change the Canons at General Convention not apply a Canon clearly unfit for the purpose to which it is being put.
10. Bruce Robison wrote:
[blockquote]I believe it would be helpful for there to be a canon in Title III allowing for the removal of a priest from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church by way of letters dimissory to another Church in Communion with this Church. But at present such a canon does not exist.[/blockquote]
And why not? This canon has been used pretty much in this punitive way for over a decade as a means of deposing clergy without the bother of an ecclesiastical trial. And it is applied unequally. For example, Bishop MacDonald “abandoned the communion of this Church” for that of the Anglican Church of Canada. He was not summarily deposed for “abandonment” and, for that matter, is still permitted to perform episcopal acts in TEC.
General Convention could have addressed this issue in 2000 and did not. It could have addressed the issue in 2003 and did not. It could have addressed the issue in 2006 and did not. It could have addressed this issue in 2009 and did not.
Why?
One might also ask why, in 2006, when it was becoming apparent that some whole dioceses might depart for safety in other provinces of the Communion, or again in 2009 when the possibility was accomplished in the case of four dioceses, were not canonical provision put in place for reorganizing the TEC remnants instead of the uncanonical procedures arbitrarily adopted by the Presiding Bishop?
Part of the problem is believing that this is some ‘national church’ issue. Let dioceses issues letters of transfer. The point is: this is not happening because the national church wants to remove them, and they have no legitimate means at their disposal, so they are using a canon/title that is meant to be for something else. The result will be a de facto changing of our communion identity, in order to get a job done. I don’t think there is much doubt about this. (And of course I am leaving to the side whether the canon is actually capable of +Price’s interpretation). #13 One does not ‘inform TEC.’ This is a diocesan affair. But the continuing Episcopal Diocese in Pittsburgh is following procedures already adopted for other purposes, initiated when this canon was put to this eccentric use. Fr Robison. The issue here is why a canon is being inappropriately used. When I was in the UK I was ‘licensed’ in the SEC because I was still resident in CFL. If I decided to be a SEC clergyman, I would be inactive for pension purposes. I would be a SEC clergyman. I was not saying I would cease to a priest with standing in TEC, but precisely the opposite. The question is: why is this not the case with clergy in your diocese? Why is this not a licensing/diocesan matter, and instead a national church Title 3 matter?
There is also the problem of using the wrong canon and not following its own procedures. Can one use this canon absent a written renunciation? Once one gives up on the rule of law, it is a jungle and there the only issue is power. That’s why appeal to ‘we have no options’ is dangerous. #15 and #16 are correct. There are options, but they are not ones that ‘get the result’ wanted.
Let me correct one thing I wrote:
[blockquote]This canon has been used pretty much in this punitive way for over a decade as a means of deposing clergy without the bother of an ecclesiastical trial.[/blockquote]
I was thinking that Charles Bennison’s deposition of David Moyer occurred earlier than it did. Bennison inhibited and then deposed Moyer for “abandoment of communion.” At the time Moyer had not left for some other province. His “sin” was not allowing Bennison to spread heresy in Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, where Moyer was rector. While probably a good case might have been made that Moyer had violated his ordination vows and the discipline of TEC, what he had not done was abandon the communion of TEC. Bennison inhibited. Moyer denied (as the canon provides), Bennison (sole prosecutor, judge and jury in such a case) rejected the denial and deposed Moyer in 2002.
But the fact remains that General Convention could have provided to sort of canon that Bruce envisions in 2003, 2006 and 2009 and did not. In the meantime, literally hundreds of priests have been deposed in this manner.
Chris, just to be clear. My own personal preference would have been to take no action–to leave our 135 brothers and sisters in ministry on the roster of the Episcopal Church and simply to list them on the diocesan rota as inactive clergy engaged in ministry under the license of a bishop of a Church in Communion with this Church.
The lawyers tell us that this would have opened the door to potential legal liability should any of these folks ever in the future be sued for acts of ministerial misconduct, and I think that concern was what moved the majority of our Standing Committee to decide that some action of removal was necessary.
My sense is that the more progressive faction of folks in our diocese would have chosen the Title IV Abandonment canon. The majority, though, sought to find a way to acknowledge the separation of these clergy from the ministry of the Episcopal Church and the oversight of our diocesan authority in a way that would avoid any sense of disciplinary action.
In terms of your question about “can one use this canon absent a written renunciation,” I guess the answer is that should any of these clergy wish to appeal the action, that would be a great basis for an appeal. If I were one of the clergy affected, and if I desired not to be so removed from the roster of clergy with standing in the TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh, I’d register the appeal with the Provincial Court. However, without the appeal, I guess the action would stand.
Bruce Robison
Fr Robison. I think we can be quite confident that the liability issue could have been dealt with. People sign waivers all the time. Lawyers know how to do this. It is simply not consistent, however, with the way in which TEC wants these things handled. What a very sad situation it is when a canon will be knowingly wrongly used, and where the redress is an appeal on that basis.
On the matter of the effect of the renunciation and any distinction in this regard between deposition and renunciation it is instructive to compare the sentences pronounced on the member of the clergy under these two canons. In the cases of the clergy purportedly removed yesterday in Pittsburgh, the bishop has not provided copies of the actual sentences pronounced. But we have previous examples in the cases of the two Pittsburgh bishops that were removed by the Presiding Bishop.
First, in the case of case of Bishop Duncan, who was removed under the abandonment canon of Title IV, the sentence reads:
[blockquote][Bishop Duncan] shall be deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God’s word and sacraments conferred at ordination in this Church and further declare that all ecclesiastical and secular offices held by Bishop Duncan shall be terminated and vacated….[/blockquote]
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Duncan.Robert.9.19.08.pdf
In the case of Bishop Scriven, who was removed under the renunciation canon of Title III, the operative language of the sentence follows that for deposition closely, but is even broader:
[blockquote][Bishop Scriven] is, therefore, removed from the Ordained Ministry of this Church and 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 on him in Ordinations.[/blockquote]
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Scriven.Henry.Notice_of_Renunciation.pdf
Finally, although we do not have the sentences pronounced yesterday, the applicable canon tracks the language used in the case of Bishop Scriven:
[blockquote]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. [III.9.8.][/blockquote]
Note that the sentence on renunciation purports to “deprive†the clergy member of the right to exercise all authority “conferred in Ordination†and is actually broader than that for abandonment since it lacks the qualification “in this church†when referring to ordination. There is nothing in the canon or in the sentence that suggests the clergy member is being deprived only of the right exercise that authority in TEC. The canon could easily have read “deprived of the right to exercise in this Church the gifts”, etc., if the intention were merely to revoke a license. Indeed, in a letter to Bishop Scriven, the Presiding Bishop referred to Bishop Duncan after he was deprived of his authority in virtually identical language simply as “Robert Duncan†notwithstanding his having been received as a bishop by the Province of the Southern Cone.
Finally, I find it singularly unpersuasive to argue that the renunciation canon is appropriate despite glaring canonical prohibitions on its use in these cases merely because there is no other canon that works. Renunciation is something done by the “renunciator,†not by the “renunciatee.†The canon plainly requires renunciation in writing by the clergy. That has not happened. This is mere canonical lawlessness masquerading as generosity. If there is no canon that works, that tells a law-abiding body that what it is trying to do is improper. It is not a suitable response to that fact to say that there is nothing else available.
The Declarations arrived in the mail today. Entitled “Notice of Declaration of Removal,” the message from Bishop Price says [i]in accordance with Title III, Canon 9, Section 8, and acting with the advice and consent of the clerical members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, I removed: . . . .[/i] Then, after the list, [i]. . . as licensed, ordained priests of the Episcopal Church. This action was taken for causes which to not affect the moral character of the persons removed as licensed, ordained priests of the Episcopal Church.[/i]
Bruce Robison
Let me quote from the cover letter as well, from Bishop Price:
[i]It is with a sense of loss that I inform you of my release of the priests and deacons, listed on the enclosed Notices of Removal, as licensed, ordained ministers in The Episcopal Church. This release is neither punitive nor a judgment of character, rather an acceptance of the reality of their decision to sever themselves from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and therefore from the Episcopal Church. I now declare that they are no longer under my authority as the Provisional Bishop of this diocese . . . .
These clergy have not registered for the past two meetings of our Diocesan Convention, nor have they filed an annual ministerial report with us nor requested a license from us as non-parochial clergy. When asked in a letter in October to notify us of their desire to remain in this diocese, none of those on these enclosed notices did so. After the October letter went out, our Standing Committee received a letter sent on behalf of these clergy [/i] [from the SC of the Realigned Diocese] [i] stating that if we did not hear from these clergy individually, it would be appropriate for us to adjust our records accordingly.
By taking this action, I am respecting the integrity of the decisions of the individuals listed on the encosed documents to register their orders in another Church, and therefore as amatter of ecclesiastical and canonical responsibility, I have formally released them from their vows and responsibilities as priests or deacons in the Episcopal Church . . . .
Please know that I do this with respect for their ministries as priests and deacons and with regret that the challenges we have faced here in Pittsburgh have led us to this action, and I wish each individual well in their future ministry.[/i] Signed by Kenneth L. Price, Jr., Provisional Bishop of Pittsburgh
Just to be clear will every priest who now moves Province be seen as renouncing the ministry? (Oh, think of the worldwide liabilities TEC would otherwise incur). What about those currently abroad but so to say “still on the books” – they present ongoing potential liabilities – will they will be retroactively “renounced”. (Of course the ones in England have abandoned the discipline of “this church” by swearing a loyalty oath to a foreign Sovereign and so will, one presumes, swiftly be summarily deposed).
It’s a ridiculous and absurd abuse of power.
BMR+, ## 23 and 24,
It is unclear whether the letter you cite is the only declaration that has been made concerning these clergy. If it is the only such declaration, it does not comply with the canonical language of the canon, III.9.8, which it invokes. This in addition to the fact that no renunciations in writing were ever received demonstrates the misuse of this canon.
What Bp. Price’s letter does demonstrate, however, is that all that is required is an administrative notice that the clergy had been removed as “as licensed, ordained priests of the Episcopal Church.†I understand from those who know (bishops/chancellors) that transfers and necessary adjustment of records happen routinely when clergy move between provinces of the Anglican Communion, without invoking renunciation or abandonment. Bp. Price’s letter (again assuming it contains all that he has certified) is further demonstration of this. The letter you quote (minus its reference to Canon III.9.8) was all that was required. There was never a need to invoke III.9.8. It could have read instead: “pursuant to their transfer to the province of the Southern Cone, I have removed___ as licensed, ordained priests of the Episcopal Church.†There would have been no controversy had there been no attempt, following the precedents of the Presiding Bishop, to misuse a canon that was intended for another purpose.
Indeed, this canon was not used for those transferring from TEC to another province in the Anglican Communion until the Presiding Bishop began what resembles a scorched-earth approach to her opponents within TEC. Not surprisingly, in the past such matters have been handled by letter. One can see the evolution of the Presiding Bishop’s policy in the treatment of Bishop David Bena, who was transferred by letter by his diocesan bishop to the Church of Nigeria in February 2007. A month later, the Presiding Bishop wrote Bishop Bena and informed him that “by this action you are no longer a member of the House of Bishops†and that she had informed the Secretary of the House to remove him from the list of members. That was all that needed to be done. A year later, however, as her current strategy emerged, she suddenly declared in January 2008 that she had accepted Bishop Bena’s renunciation of orders.
Why did Pittsburgh ever go down the road of invoking Canon III.9.8 if in the end all it did was notify those concerned that licenses had been removed? The only possible answer is that this canon is being used to indicate that TEC does not recognize the orders of the clergy in their new canonical residence, the Southern Cone. But the same canon was used against Bp. Scriven, who is a bishop in good standing in the Church of England. To echo Dr. Seitz’s point, is TEC in a communion all its own?
If, on the other hand, Bp. Price has sent another letter to the clergy involved containing the canonical language from Canon III.9.8, the letter you are quoting is not a model of candor.
My memory is that, rather than depart to ACNA, some Pittsburgh clergy transferred to other dioceses (Albany and SC). Surely they did not receive this letter.
The situation with +Mark MacDonald also needs some evaluation. Here is a man who, while serving as Bishop of Alaska, volunteered himself for Navaholand (+Mark is himself a First Nation/Indigeneous Bishop). He was then placed in charge of the First Nation people in Canada. He has then been removed from service in Navaholand and replaced. As I understand it, he too is going to receive one of these renunciation letters. Indigenous people don’t fit tidily into a diocesan structure, given the reality of their cultural identity. So after serving as Bishop of Alaska and volunteering his service in Navaholand, and now undertaking a brutal travel routine as Bishop of Indigenous People in Canada, he will be subject to the application of this canon. As wildfire points out, we are still left with use of a canon that can’t be decorated with a letter at odds with its plain, legal sense. In the case of +MacDonald, we have a genuinely *communion* figure who is however not in the ‘communion’ of TEC. Where however does that leave TEC vis-a-vis the Anglican Communion?