…[You]should appreciate the following points:
1. There is currently a decision by South Carolina’s highest court which holds that the Dennis Canon is not self-executing (i.e., no trust was created on any parish property in South Carolina when it was enacted — if indeed it ever was — in 1979).
2. The Episcopal Church (USA) did not see fit to request a review of that decision by the United States Supreme Court. Instead, its Presiding Bishop and her chancellor have left that function to the dissident parish members who lost their claim in that case to be the true vestry of All Saints Waccamaw.
3. Notwithstanding its failure to seek review of the adverse South Carolina decision, the Episcopal Church (USA) is apparently asking the Diocese for proof that it intends to enforce the Dennis Canon against certain parishes in the event that they try to leave.
4. The unspoken threat — which has caused Bishop Lawrence to postpone his diocesan convention while he plans a response to ECUSA’s provocations — is that if Bishop Lawrence fails to sue any departing parish under the Dennis Canon, he could be charged with “abandonment” in the same manner as was Bishop Duncan.
If this is a correct representation of what is going on in South Carolina, then I have to say that it boggles the mind….
Great to have the legal analysis. Fascinating. I loved the letter by Mr. Runyon.
I do not want to set this thread off on a rabbit trail, but I would like to draw attention to one of the Curmudgeon’s comments regarding whether Mr. Tisdale was authorized to act on behalf of TEC, which goes back to the question of whether David Booth Beers is authorized to act as “Chancellor of TEC.â€
[blockquote]No members of the Church, either acting on their own, or acting collectively through their triennial assembly called “General Convention”, have ever hired David Booth Beers to represent the whole Church, or to hire others to do so. Not only that, but there is no official [i]position[/i] that has ever been created and called “Chancellor of the Episcopal Church (USA)”. Thus, by definition, there cannot lawfully be any person who is entitled to claim that he is “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church.” At best, Mr. Tisdale is acting as South Carolina counsel for the [i]Presiding Bishop’s personal chancellor[/i].[/blockquote]
There seems to me to be a common thread between this assumption of power by DBB and that of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
Recently, Bp. Mouneer Anis resigned from “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.†It is clear that Bp. Mouneer is not making up this title and its acronym (SCAC) but is reflecting the view of that group from which he resigned. This is confirmed by the (unpublished) Minutes of that group immediately before and after ACC-14 in Jamaica. Meeting on 29 April-1 May, 2009, the minutes speak of “The Joint Standing Committee of The Primates & The Anglican Consultative Councilâ€; meeting after ACC-14 on 12 May, the minutes refer to “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.â€
This change of terminology is obliquely justified in ACC Resolutaion 14.39a, which states that “the former Joint Standing Committee†is named as the “Standing Committee†under the new constitution.†Interestingly, the new [unpublished] ACC constitution does not directly name its Standing Committee as “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion,†although it does refer to the “Secretary General of the Anglican Communion,†rather than the Secretary General of the ACC.
My question, following the lines of Mr. Haley’s argument, is this: can anyone produce documentation that the Lambeth Conference or the Primates’ Meeting or even the ACC (apart from the oblique reference in 14.39 above) has ever established the position of “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion†– or for that matter, the Joint Standing Committee that preceded it – much less given its terms of reference?
For instance, we know that the ACC admits five Primates to its new Standing Committee, but by what resolution of the Primates’ Meeting was the number five chosen, and was that number chosen intentionally to give the Primates a minority voice when compared to the nine members of the ACC Standing Committee. And how was it decided that these five should represent five particular regions, quite unequal in numbers?
The relevance is this: under the “final†Covenant, the Provinces are being asked to hand over primary oversight of the Covenant to a body that has no constitutional foundation and whose composition is unclear, apart perhaps from the (as yet unpublished) Constitution of one of the Instruments of Communion.
Back to the Curmudgeon and South Carolina. I think the assumption of power in TEC and the assumption of power in the Anglican Communion are similar. This is not strange, considering it is people with the same mindset pulling the strings in the national and the Communion bureaucracies.
If I might add, Dr. Noll, this same “spirit” of assuming power not granted was also at work in Jane Dixon’s law suit of Christ Church, Accokeek in 2001. One of the foundations of her legal argument assumed that she had the full authority of Bishop Haines after his retirement. She called herself Bishop “pro temp” even though no such position exists in the Canons of the Church, not to mention that nobody voted her into it!
A very pertinent question, Stephen Noll at #2. And a good link drawn between the behaviour of liberals in different bodies.
#3–That would be quite in line with something I heard about La Dixon some years ago from a priest who had been in the Diocese of Washington and the victim of her ministrations in his parish. When asked by a reporter what was the significance for women of her election as suffragan bishop, she replied, “It means we have power.”
[May we ask that discussion on this thread returns to A.S Haley’s article; a separate thread has been provided for comment on Dr Noll’s comment at the link below – thankyou – Elf]
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/28251/
All Bishops operate under at least two sets of “law”. First is the common law enforced by our judicial and civil systems. Second is the Constitution and Canons of the Church. Every Bishop vows to adhere to the latter as part of his ordination. The Dennis Cannon, as the Bishop well recognized, is a part of that church “law” which the Bishop agreed to uphold, whether it is recognized in public law or not. Should he fail to have done so, or do so in the future, he is derelict in his duties and should/will be removed from office in the Episcopal Church. Or, he can renounce his vows and go elsewhere. Simple, easy, doesn’t cost the diocese any money and it would be entirely honorable.
What is being done in SC by the New York office is outrageous, and serves also as a warning to any other remaining conservative ECUSA dioceses. You will be forced to behave like Jefferts Schori and Beers, or you will be deposed.
Nice advertising for an organization which represents itself as Christian.
Can we assume that Bishops Hollingsworth and Lee received similar letters when they were in negotiations with their departing parishes? Would they be so brave as to release those documents now?
If Tisdale is the former attorney for the Diocese of South Carolina – then how can he represent the Epsicopal Church in any conflict with South Carolina. If my understanding is correct he has a conflict and South Carolina should remind him of it. For an attorney to say that South Carolina and TEC are not in conflict or will not soon be is not being intellectually honest. And South Carolina is not a subsidiary or TEC. Am I missing something?
I hope Haley responds to Mark Harris’s response to him. I was not under the impression that SC had replaced the ordination vows, only stipulated their content. Augmentation, not replacement. At any event, it would be good to have this aired. AS Haley mentioned the role of the Executive Council. Harris has responded, presumably from that perspective (though I believe he is no longer a member?), so let the exchange continue. I was a bit disappointed, by the way, at all the sloganeering about the South. This is a serious topic with facts to be clarified. I hope Preludium can tone down all the unnecessary rhetoric.
I made this comment to Harris, fwiw. I am not aware that the Diocese of SC has departed from the text of the BCP, but rather clarified what doctrine, discipline and worship mean.
“I have read your text a second time and have tried to follow your logic. (One sentence involving canon is a bit confused in its syntax, viz, it ends with “…which included obedience under the canons that we trace the presence of canonâ€). A candidate is asked to vow to be loyal to doctrine, discipline, worship. Fine. South Carolina has indicated what they believe this means. This sentence does not include the word ‘canon’ or ‘canons’ at all. The second sentence includes the word ‘canons’ (of this Church) and it does so as a subordinate clause in a question involving obedience—not to canons—but to the Bishop. One is asked if he/she is willing to be obedient to the Bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you ‘in accordance with the canons of this Church.’ The answer the candidate is asked to give also does not mention the canons as entailing obedience—as you seem to imply—anymore than the original question did. (One says he/she is ready and willing to do so, viz, be loyal to d,d,w, and obey the Bishop; solemnly declares re: Holy Scripture, and conforms to d,d,w). One does not find ‘canons’ in the ‘list of SC’ the C/C of TEC because the question and answer does not include canons in the ‘Doctrine, Discipline and Worship’ triad, in their plain sense. When the word ‘canons’ appears it does so in relation to obedience to Bishop and other ministers who may have authority over the ordinand (the implication being that other presbyters can be ‘in authority’). Bishops exercise authority and canons exist—diocesan and national. SC has not eliminated reference to the canons, but it has also not altered the plain sense of the vow and response so as to separate canons out and make them an independent matter of vowing in the manner you appear to wish to do. This is not weeding anything out, but refusing to weed something in that the Book of Common Prayer does not state in this manner.”
[b]Chips, #9:[/b] It has been many years since Tommy Tisdale was diocesan chancellor. The current chancellor, Wade Logan, succeeded Nick Ziegler, who served as chancellor for most, if not all, of +Salmon’s tenure, all of +Allison’s, and at least some of +Temple’s. I believe Tisdale served under +Temple. So that was quite a while ago — which does not, in and of itself, do away with the conflict, but it could be a consideration.