Kendall,
It seems pretty straightforward to me. I do not sense any extra curricular editorializing or inaccurate reporting. I also don’t see this article as putting facts on the ground that are not already there. It also is not tipping the hand of TEC.
[i]”The diocese has been increasingly at odds with the wider Episcopal Church.”[/i]
Like TEC has been increasingly at odds with the wider AC? Why should TEC apply double standards now? I am sure of Bishop Lawrence and the DioSC Standing Committee’s beliefs’ but perhaps it appears to TEC’s jaundiced eye as someone playing their own game.
I suspect that this is preparing the ground, should these resolutions pass, to declare DioSC in some sort of state of rebellion. It would hardly be newsworthy unless TEC is feeling a bit drafty about the resolutions.
Well, SC has picked which ditch it wants to die in. I can’t imagine that anyone is naive enough to believe that this will end well. I admire the ‘Here I stand’ attitude and I do hope for those who choose to leave when +Lawrence is deposed that they will be able to find a home that meets their needs. ++Katharine is a terrible leader and an even worse person. It is a shame that so many will pay the price. But unfortunately, ++Katharine can not be shamed. Good luck SC, you’re in my prayers.
FWIW, I think she will take a different tack. To me this is the key statement:
When Lawrence was first elected bishop in September 2006, he faced numerous questions about whether he would attempt to convince Episcopalians there to leave the church. In a November 6, 2006 letter to the wider church he wrote that he would “work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping the Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
I believe she will try to invalidate +Lawrence’s ordination based on fraud. She will claim he never intended to keep the Diocese in the Church. Look at the Tisdale letters. One of them asks for every person ordained by +Lawrence and copies of their signed vows. My guess is once she invalidates his ordination, she will invalidate anyone ordained by him and ask them to be reordained.. I hope I’m wrong, but this seems to be the obvious conclusion.
An outsider with no dog in this particular fight, I was hoping to see it as Dcn Dale. However, I was struck in how it brushes past the Presiding Bishop’s activity (Jefferts Schori told the church’s Executive Council Feb. 19 that Lawrence had attributed the delay “supposedly to my incursions in South Carolina.”) while subtly painting a picture of DioSC and Bishop Lawrence as leaning towards leaving TEC. For example, it doesn’t speak (and neither has the PB) on the reasons for the legal search in DioSC – and the part of the search that caught my attention was the interest in ordinations. On the other hand, the article does take the time to detail the history of Bishop Lawrence’s election and the fear he will take the diocese out of TEC.
As ENS is TEC’s own organ I don’t think there is reason to be surprised or fearful of this bias, but it is disheartening.
Brian is right. The DofSC is a fortress under siege. It is really the last (save perhaps for Albany) unambiguously Christian diocese left in TEO. But it can not stand indefinitely. At some point (my guess is sooner than some may think) Ms. Schori will strike at Lawrence and force South Carolina’s hand. As with the business in LA, the end is a forgone conclusion.
See my comment [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/28744/#409907 ]here[/url].
Well, should she try to impose a bishop (note, no capital) on us,
she’ll find a much more incensed Diocese than she has come across before. He/she, the sham bishop, will not get into Diocesan House without a huge display of support for +Lawrence. The liberals are in a distinct minorty here, however vocal. If there is any disappointment in + Lawrence by the “orthodox”, its because he will NOT leave. LOL
In the meantime, altho we might beat up on him a bit, he is our Bishop, and we will not stand by and let KJS have her way without a fight.
And should she somehow take power, welcome to the ancient churches, and their enormous upkeep expense. Most of the truly old ones are on Federal/State “Registers” as being historic..The cemetary at our church (est 1754) is full of soldiers from the Revolutionary War to now, wouldn’t suggest she traipse through there at night. LoL
Grandmother in SC
collecting materials for my KEEP OUT sign….
#4. Brian From T-19,
[blockquote]++Katharine is a terrible leader and an even worse person. It is a shame that so many will pay the price. But unfortunately, ++Katharine can not be shamed. Good luck SC, you’re in my prayers.[/blockquote]
Brian, have I misunderstood your postings all this time? Is this really you saying these things? I’m not saying this to be sarcastic. I really am puzzled.
Personally, I think there has been a big shifting of gears re: how to understand SC and try to undermine it. The whole “here they go trying to set up a departure plan” has been a sham, and notoriously hyper-dramatic on some folks’ part ( I speak of the darling association of TEC right now, and their diocesan locals), causing the same few kinds of people calling the PB and begging for her to
“intervene.” (Why not? She has before.)
However, these resolutions, and what happened (or didn’t happen) after the last special convention, have forced SC’s opposition to take a new tack. Brian’s analysis is pretty close, I think, but the attack will be colored more as open rebellion to TECUSA authority, as in disavowal of community, or some such (I know – the irony of such a strategy given the PB’s, and other leaders’ disdain for the Covenant).
IF this escalates, it will only escalate by the hand of the PB, or whomever is in the wings or behind the curtain. The only way for all this to end without waiting for the election of another PB in 5 years is a general uprising by the 50% of the House of Bishops who see themselves as moderates and are watching the out-of-their-control demise of their dioceses. That could take the form of a presentment against the PB and others if she’s not careful, or by a massive letter writing and phone calling campaign on their parts followed by doing exactly what SC is saying they will do – disengage from extra-diocesan activities and participation – as in a babyboomer style protest for her to finally get the point.
It’s okay – I’m okay – you don’t have to tell me I’m naive. I’m just sayin’, and if nobody is sayin’ then it doesn’t get said.
Hi Fr. Rob, and this old telephone operator (Southern Bell 1955-8)
will be among the first to sign on. I’m pretty old for demonstrations and crowds, but I’ll be among the first to volunteer, should the “call” go out.
Pray for us Fr.
Although I was very thankful when the Diocese of SC did not leave, I’m simply *ecstatic* at their not doing so now.
Who would have thought that Schori would be so unable to resist the differentiation of Lawrence/SC so speedily — and demonstrate that she’s not able to handle it and proceed to boot the diocese from TEC.
I can’t imagine a better way to unify the diocese and demonstrate to a watching Communion Schori’s goals and utter will to power.
Although it’s a tough row to hoe, I’m so thankful they chose this path to take. It’s what we’ve needed so badly — a diocese that is thoroughly committed to stay, and also differentiate from 815/Schori.
Brian, have I misunderstood your postings all this time? Is this really you saying these things? I’m not saying this to be sarcastic. I really am puzzled.
Hi Dale
Sorry, was away from the computer. My views have always argued the pragmatic. As opposed to others who claim that Constitutions and Canons can’t be used this way. Or those who claim that deposition has no effect. However, I do believe that in most cases, ++Katharine has acted unfairly. I do believe she should fight for property after a parish has left, but the rabid acquisition of property and the rapid elimination of opposition is unconscionable. Also unconscionable is the lack of action by the House of Bishops as a group. At this point, since both Houses have handed her de facto dictatorial power, the only option is deposition or waiting out her term. As for her poor leadership, I think it is apparent to any but the most sycophantic followers. As a person, I speak as someone who knows her. But even in an objective, removed sense-Good builds up; Evil tears down. ++Katharine is an evil presence who has gone on uncontained. Her destruction will have consequences both temporal and spiritual.
#16. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]As a person, I speak as someone who knows her. But even in an objective, removed sense-Good builds up; Evil tears down. ++Katharine is an evil presence who has gone on uncontained.[/blockquote] “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Do you think the failure here is primarily the house of Bishops? Do you see any parallels in the WWAC?
[blockquote]When Lawrence was first elected bishop in September 2006, he faced numerous questions about whether he would attempt to convince Episcopalians there to leave the church. In a November 6, 2006 letter to the wider church he wrote that he would “work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping the Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”[/blockquote]
The great irony in all of this is that Bp Lawrence is a man of his word and has, indeed, been doing all he can to keep SC in TEC. From what I know of SC, he is probably the main (nearly only?) force doing so. So [i]when[/i] (and certainly not [i]if[/i]) TEC deposes his orders and removes his TEC authority, the cork will be out of the bottle and all the contents will spill out.
Not for nothing did the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression begin in South Carolina. Those lovely soft-spoken folks can only be pushed just so far and they [i]will[/i] come out fighting with everything they’ve got, and then — look out. Secession in some form will happen.
TEC’s behavior is insuring the loss of SC.
But there are a lot of indicators that pushing all the remaining orthodox out of TEC has been the inside strategy all along.
Do you think the failure here is primarily the house of Bishops? Do you see any parallels in the WWAC?
I don’t have the reference handy, but at the time of the reorganization at 815 there was an ENS article about the Executive Council. Bonnie Anderson tried to ask questions critical of the reorg and the PB silenced her. She acquiesced.
The HOB has similarly acquiesced if not in words, certainly by its actions. As regards the WWAC, I don’t think that lawsuits and depositions are the primary concern. They seem to view these matters as internal.
#17 LumenChristie,
[blockquote]But there are a lot of indicators that pushing all the remaining orthodox out of TEC has been the inside strategy all along.[/blockquote] So, all of the lawsuits and depositions are in reality a way to get the orthodox to leave? What did you have in mind?
What will it take for the diocesan bishops, the only ones who truly have authority, to stand up to the blatant misuse of power by the current presiding bishop? She has no authority to hire lawyers to investigate a diocese, no authority to dictate what should be done with property within a diocese, yet has been allowed to do so by the spineless bunch that call themselves bishops.
If bishop Lee of Virginia had had any backbone, he would had stood up to the evil empress and saved Virginia a lot of money and heartache.
#18. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]I don’t have the reference handy, but at the time of the reorganization at 815 there was an ENS article about the Executive Council.[/blockquote] I’m understanding from this that you are saying that this was a power grab. Isn’t this similar to the role assumed by the “Standing Committee” in the WWAC? It seems to me that what you have not stated but would agree with is that KJS has engaged in an abuse of power and misuse of her authority.
#20 WestJ:
And he would not now be the dean of Grace Cathedral.
My understanding is that Lee was selected as being a centrist, who would not make waves, after a several acrimonious failures by both parties in the Diocese ov Virginia to elect a bishop.
I am reminded of Laodecia.
I was in his presence shortly after he had his mild stroke, about the time the new sheriff strode into the diocese. It did not seem to me that there was any fire left in his belly. He must have been easy to roll.
The Tisdale requests, timing, and ‘every person ordained’ issue is likely tied to SC’s stipulations regarding doctrine, discipline, worship. I doubt it has anything to do with +Lawrence’s consecration as such. But it is also clear that, in her present state of mind, almost anything will be seen as ‘insubordinate’ (what a silly notion for a PB to entertain, given the limits of the office). I was present at +ML’s consecration and all will recall that SC wisely reminded the PB of the non-necessity of her presence as chief consecrator. Instead +East Carolina was in that role as the local Province head. The Chancellor for the PB was there to register the affair and it was clear that not having the PB present was a real infuriating issue for her co-workers. She sent along a peculiar gift and statement. SC graciously allowed that to be publicly announced…if I recall, +East Carolina read out the statement. Also, SC included non-TEC episcopal consecrators, like +Winchester. It was a grand event. But doubtless being reminded of the limitations of her office is not something the present incumbent can accept. I would be stunned if she did not seek to remove +ML by any method possible. It also strikes me as a completely foolish move on her part and likely to train wreck. What would one do with a deposition that simply had no effect? BTW, AS Haley has been keeping track of the Supreme Court timing issues. Did the PB ever join All Saints Waccamaw in the request for a cert.?
Does not +Lawrence risk being deposed (or whatever the term is) like +Duncan and +Schoefield were? And then ECUSA sends in their own person (maybe Chane, he’s retiring) to claim authority, then what? Are not the parishes in a situation where they can’t leave very easily? I see the benefit of staying to your word, and remaining with ECUSA, but at some point that is not worth it if they’re going to toss you out – and that seems, sadly, very likely….
RE: “I see the benefit of staying to your word, and remaining with ECUSA, but at some point that is not worth it if they’re going to toss you out – and that seems, sadly, very likely….”
Are you kidding? It is so so so totally worth it — it is hugely important to clearly differentiate, clearly remain in TEC — and if the PB “tosses them out” — all the better.
That is so much more valuable to me than leaving.
I just never would have guessed the PB would be so dumb. I thought she had better advisors.
Hard to imagine SC courts siding with a NY entity claiming to own property. And it would require them getting involved, if the Diocese refuses to accept the PB’s crazy recourse to odd renunication canons not written for this purpose. Just guessing, but I suspect the proper procedure (deposition, requiring HOB vote and approval beforehand of Sr Bishops) might go afoul for the PB. But that has not stopped her before from using the renunciation of orders route. This seems like a fool’s errand to my mind. The SCSC has sided with neutral principles, and the PB would likely have to go to court to get the Diocese removed in favor of one she invents. This is one very lopsided away game.
26. seitz,
There is a zeal on the part of the PB that is undeterred by canons, reality and the theological virtues. This has become a kind of scorched earth policy.
Dear Dcn: I agree. But this is no bad thing if she is forced to run into a brick wall, or moves precipitously. The psalmist never tires of reminding us that scheming and rapacious plotting clouds the brain. I’d hate to be trying to remove +ML if it required me (1) going around the HOB, and (2) seeking to dislodge a sitting Bishop in SC in civil court. It has always been our view that the worst thing for Schori is a bishop who does not leave and carefully guards the diocese by good legal counsel. The TEC polity system is porous, and really has not given the authority to a metropolitan that this Presiding Bishop is asserting. No one doubts that she is seeking to move anyway, but this can come to grief and if it does/when it does, it will be a long way to fall. Hierarchy claims don’t work if you have to concede, ‘well, we got 8 out of 10.’ You’ve got to win them all. To repeat: SC is not a friendly place for her, and she may have to find that out the hard way. TX is another unfriendly place, as we are likely soon to see in Judge Chupp’s court.
28. seitz,
[blockquote]The psalmist never tires of reminding us that scheming and rapacious plotting clouds the brain.[/blockquote] This helps me understand why the thinking and statements of revisionists is so muddled. Each successive move she makes gives her less degrees of freedom for her next move.
#23 Seitz
Re:BTW, AS Haley has been keeping track of the Supreme Court timing issues. Did the PB ever join All Saints Waccamaw in the request for a cert.?
Dr. Seitz – I remember looking for the result after the decision point for TEC which was March 8. On March 9, I learned that TEC did indeed join the (TEC) Parish of Waccamaw’s Appeal to the Supreme Court. Sorry but I cannot locate the reference at this time.
Truthfully, it seems like a rehash of everything I already know but then I am in the diocese. Yes, it seems likely that the PB will try and depose Lawrence+. That too is old news. If not explicitly stated at his consecration, the implication was there for all to hear !!
Seitz, we were also there at Lawrence’s consecration. It was indeed a grand WORLD WIDE ANGLICAN affair with many bishops from other countries and other denominations. The PB was not there and yes, Province IV Bishop was there as chief consecrator. I do remember some simple little gift from the PB. Fortunately, the polite crowd did not even chuckle at that point. A clergy friend of ours who has seen several consecrations said he had NEVER seen such care taken in signing and explaining the various documents, etc at a consecration. Once the diocese’s election was invalidated for ” non- canonical required form ” of some of the consents, the standing committee went to great length to make sure everything was done absolutely correctly. So good luck trying to invalidate his consecration.
The ENS article hints that the Presiding Bishop will indeed try to remove Bishop Lawrence , the Standing Committee, and even perhaps the members of the Diocesan Council. With due respect to Brian above, I do not think that it will be because Bishop Lawrence committed “fraud” in his promises not to take the Diocese out of TEC. That sort of charge would require some sort of trial, which would never do.
The key text in the ENS article is the third from the last, where it states that the Diocese is “increasingly at odds with the national church”, and that the Diocese has begun “withdrawing” from national church bodies. The Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor might use those actions to conclude that the South Carolina Bishop, the Standing Committee, and the Council have all already abandoned TEC. Conveniently, no trial would be required. This is the same pattern TEC has already used with Bishops Duncan, Iker, and Schofield. The only difference is that those three Dioceses withdrew from TEC by formal resolutions; with South Carolina TEC would have to maintain that the actions of that Diocese constitute de facto withdrawal.
As legal propositions, TEC’s assertions are ludicrous. But TEC has no forum in which the rules can be interpreted and enforced. The HOB? Don’t make me laugh. Verily, the notion that there is any substantive rule of law within TEC, with procedural due process, is increasingly untenable. Within TEC, the law is whatever the Presiding Bishop says it is at the moment. Full stop.
In reference to your question about my previous post — (# 19 re: # 17)
I don’t see these people as merely stupid. The degree to which they need and require total control is breath-taking, and hard to fathom if you haven’t really seen them up-close-and-personal.
(Professor Seitz should understand after having been at Yale for the purges.)
I went to The General Seminary and lived in the dioceses of Newark and Atlanta (as well as South Carolina). Plots by such folks as Queen Lutibelle and others have been laid long and deep. Make no mistake — it is winner take all, with the emphasis on ALL.
Those whose mere existence is a witness against the sin and lies must be eradicated.
No imagination or exaggeration here — I’ve heard it first-hand.
I’m understanding from this that you are saying that this was a power grab. Isn’t this similar to the role assumed by the “Standing Committee†in the WWAC? It seems to me that what you have not stated but would agree with is that KJS has engaged in an abuse of power and misuse of her authority.
Well (and this is where my argument becomes confusing to some) I don’t necessarily think so. This is how I see it:
1. PB abuses de jure authority under the Constitution and Canons
2. No one objects OR objections are made and overruled
3. The PB’s actions are de facto put into law and she now has the authority denied her in the C&Cs;.
As you see above in Dr. Seitz+’s comment, he believes that such a de facto assumption of authority simply can not exist. However, it does and there is ample evidence from those who are no longer members of the WWAC (++Duncan, +Schofield, +Iker, et al).
So simple answer: Is he abusing authority? Initially. Is it an ongoing abuse? No. It is a succesful coup/power grab.
RE: “3. The PB’s actions are de facto put into law and she now has the authority denied her in the C&Cs;.”
I distinguish between “authority” and “power.” Stalin had power — but funnily enough, he repeatedly violated the faux constitution and certainly the ethos of Russia. He was a brutal, crass lawbreaker — but he had the power.
The function of the resistance to such lawbreaking dictators is — no matter how powerful the lawbreaker is — to repeatedly point out that they are violating the Constitution, violating the law, have no *moral* authority, and are wrong and doing evil.
Sometimes people get thrown into labor camps when they say such things. But that is the function of those set on the path of resisting evil. They must constantly say the truth, even if they are punished for it.
Such resistance to evil through truth telling and acts-without-power is a noble tradition, and Christians in particular are well suited for carrying out such purposes since 1) comfort in present day living is not our primary goal in the light of eternity and the brevity of life and 2) the Truth shall set us free.
‘de facto put into law’ is an oxymoron, unless I miss something. Law is law. It is not ‘de facto’. ‘De facto’ is what we are going to find out when the dust settles on this tawdry affair. That is very likely going to play out in genuinely (not ‘de facto’) legal contexts (courts, etc). I would not want to be trying this if I were the PB. It is a long way to fall. Sarah’s distinction between authority and power is likewise apposite. The PB wants to use power to establish ‘de facto’ realities. She has a long way to go on this one, and it is unlikely that a legal decision (in the courts of SC) will come down in her favor. Though she may spend a lot of money to find out.
“Law is law” is tautological. Law, as law — as a regulation of behavior — means what it is interpreted to mean by the authority that has the power to enforce it as law.
For instance, the law might say that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But if the relevant authority interprets that to mean that there must be a complete separation of “church” and “state,” and that the state must never be seen to endorse or express any particular religion… well, that is what the law means as law.
In the case of TEC, the problem is that we have no independent judiciary; which means that the only body with the authority to interpret the laws (i.e., constitution and canons) is General Convention. This is even the case with canons governing the powers of GC itself. Is this a structural problem and a huge potential conflict of interest? Yes. It is, however, the structure we happen to have.
Which means, if I understand Brian’s argument, that any interpretation of the canons that GC agrees to — even tacitly — becomes, ipso facto, the authoritative interpretation of the canons as law, because there is no other authority with the power to interpret and enforce the canons.
If the secular courts get involved, then of course that may very well change the equation. The question put before the court would of course have to be carefully scoped to be one that properly falls under its jurisdiction (as is the case with the various property disputes) but assuming that bar were met, interesting things might happen.
RE: “Law, as law—as a regulation of behavior—means what it is interpreted to mean by the authority that has the power to enforce it as law.”
No — meaning does not reside in the interpretation of the listening audience or discourse community that is currently wielding the power to enforce whatever “meaning” that discourse community comes up with. Might does not, in fact, make right, nor does it even make Truth.
#37–the entire point is that for a +ML removal to have any effect at all–given that the standing committee, etc would not recognise it–the PB would have to go to court to get him out, and all the vast majority of churches which support him, handed over to ‘the national church.’ That is called ‘law.’ Anything else–like removals, depositions, etc–mean practically nothing in the actual scale of what the PB is presumably seeking, viz., the diocese itself. So no: ‘law is law’ is not tautology precisely because in this instance the ‘authority’ is a SC court, and not the internal machinations of the PB.
#38 Sarah — you will note that I did not assert that the interpretation of the authority with the power to enforce the law has anything to do with “Right” or “Truth.” It has everything to do with law, however.
The law is also a text, of course, and as a text it is subject to all of the usual sorts of hermeneutical approaches. Not to mention, inevitably, the usual variety of interpretations. However, unless one is a judge rendering a decision on the matter in a court of law, one’s personal interpretation of the law as a text means exactly squat in application to the question, “Will I go to jail for doing this?” That is the difference between law-as-text and law-as-law.
One is always free to have, and to argue, one’s own opinions about what is Right and True. But when it comes to what is legal, personal opinion is irrelevant compared to a court’s opinion.
Or, to put it another way, might does not make right. But might does make, and enforce, the rules. Of course one hopes that the rules reflect rightness, but law is about rules, not right. That’s all I’m saying.
#39 seitz: Your point is essentially what I said in my final paragraph.
[Comment deleted by Elf – we expect that by now readers will have understood the distinction between in law and in fact so commenters are requested to return to the thread topic – Thanks]
#40–My only point was that your language ‘if the secular courts get involved’ is a necessity, not an ‘if.’ Otherwise any deposition/removal would stall as an actual effort to move to seize the diocese (property, churches, etc — see Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft Worth). For that, courts (law) would have to be involved and the PB would need to win. Otherwise, what would a removal actually mean, since it would just be ignored and could not be enforced?
Otherwise any deposition/removal would stall as an actual effort to move to seize the diocese (property, churches, etc—see Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft Worth). For that, courts (law) would have to be involved and the PB would need to win. Otherwise, what would a removal actually mean, since it would just be ignored and could not be enforced?
It is a mistake to believe that ++Katharine’s only motive is property. She wants everyone to follow the party line and not make waves. Her agenda is that all participate and be happy about it. So a removal would take whoever leaves, as well as +Lawrence, out of the Anglican Communion. This is simply undesired by SC, but is still a part of ++Katharine’s agenda
So, how does the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in the Pawley’s Island case weigh upon the apparent desire of TEC to seize control of the SC diocesan property by replacing it’s leadership? The Denis Canon has been repudiated in South Carolina, at least as far as Parishes that existed before 1979 go. Would that not apply to the Diocesan property also?
The supreme court of the US doesn’t appear to be interested in this bucket of worms. I like to think that if they finally do wade in that Neutral Principles will prevail.
It would appear that TEC’s invasion of SC might turn out to be a “little stone bridge” too far.
#43. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]It is a mistake to believe that ++Katharine’s only motive is property. She wants everyone to follow the party line and not make waves. Her agenda is that all participate and be happy about it.[/blockquote] I agree with you that her motive is not just property. Based on your previous comments about her, The following may be the most important question I have asked you. What is the party line that she wants people to follow?
“So a removal would take whoever leaves, as well as +Lawrence, out of the Anglican Communion” — that’s all well and good. But to ‘remove’ +Lawrence, she will require the courts. This is just repeating things.
If the Diocese simply ignores the ‘deposing/removal’, how is the PB going to create a new diocese with any credibility unless she dislodges +ML and the churches from his oversight? Here is where property possession is not some detachable matter. You can describe her ‘real’ motives in any way you wish — ‘everybody toeing the line, being happy etc’ — but to remove +ML in any meaningful way *requires* her to attend to the property. Just as in Ft W, SJ, etc. It’s like the PB saying that +Scriven has renounced his orders. Saying that and having him continue as a Bishop only shows that the rest of the Communion can’t even be bothered to dispute the matter! It just assumes TEC is dysfunctional and its declarations meaningless. Indeed, it pretty much already judges TEC in this way.
RE: “But might does make, and enforce, the rules. Of course one hopes that the rules reflect rightness, but law is about rules, not right.”
Might does make and enforce whatever it pleases, Ross. But when might swings into action and purports to “enforce the rules” but in reality does no such thing but rather enforces its own pleasure under the guise of the rules, that’s not “right” or “law” or anything else but will to power.
Of course, Stalin used the constitution and pretended it was about “law” and “right” and “the rules.” But we all know it wasn’t.
All you’ve done is repeated “might makes.”
We know that. “Might makes.” But “might” does not mean that “the rules” were enforced at all.
Back to Schori: the law, in fact, does not mean “what it is interpreted to mean by the authority that has the power to enforce it as law” when the authority that has the power to enforce canons does not use the canons at all [other than the way Stalin used the Constitution.]
Canons actually say things that one can actually read and understand. Just because Schori has the means and the might to say “I have followed the canons in deposing Lawrence” doesn’t mean in any way that the canons have been followed at all.
What is the party line that she wants people to follow?
Well, this is only my opinion from observation. What she believes she wants is not for reasserters to believe in the ordination of partnered LGBT people. She does not care if a Diocese is opposed to their ordination. don’t even think she cares whether individuals are ordained or not.. To her, the key is participation. Not participation at services, but participation in General Convention. She wants everyone to come together for the counsels of the Church. They should all have their say. When the vote is taken, that is the teaching of the Church and the losing side needs to graciously accept their defeat and continue participating. Withdrawal from the whole is seen as leading the individual parish/Diocese astray.
I also want to reiterate one point that I made above. She does not care about people. People are expendable to her and hold no value. It is the continuation of the whole at the expense of the dissident.
#48. Brian from T19,
Thanks for helping me understand her thinking. I understand now why she is so upset about schismatics. I need more time to think about what you have written but it is insightful.
formerly Dcn. Dale
I wonder if anyone truly believes that something like a diversity project on SSBs will really be tolerated. ‘Justice’ is like Luther’s second use of the Law. It must go all the way down. Today’s ‘let SC or Dallas have its own views’ is tomorrow’s ‘we must correct injustice.’ Besides, this is politics of a New World imagination, and not theological truth.
I have seen no evidence that the PB (much less those who put her in office, like +LA) believes in a diversity project. Its like the hijab in the UK: its pits lockian liberals (the hijab is bad because of universal laws; justice) against rousseau liberals (let the hijab culture ‘speak its voice’). These two positions — both liberal in the classic sense — are opposites in fact and one must win out. TEC power bloc has lockian liberals, not pragmatists, much less rousseau liberals. It is not paranoia or dyspepsia to acknowledge that SSBs is a ‘justice issue’ and so all will in time have to conform.
I should have concluded. The diocese of SC ‘gets it’ and so is properly holding the line. The alternative will not be happy accommodation. Diversity. It will be justice.
Kendall,
It seems pretty straightforward to me. I do not sense any extra curricular editorializing or inaccurate reporting. I also don’t see this article as putting facts on the ground that are not already there. It also is not tipping the hand of TEC.
[i]”The diocese has been increasingly at odds with the wider Episcopal Church.”[/i]
Like TEC has been increasingly at odds with the wider AC? Why should TEC apply double standards now? I am sure of Bishop Lawrence and the DioSC Standing Committee’s beliefs’ but perhaps it appears to TEC’s jaundiced eye as someone playing their own game.
I suspect that this is preparing the ground, should these resolutions pass, to declare DioSC in some sort of state of rebellion. It would hardly be newsworthy unless TEC is feeling a bit drafty about the resolutions.
Well, SC has picked which ditch it wants to die in. I can’t imagine that anyone is naive enough to believe that this will end well. I admire the ‘Here I stand’ attitude and I do hope for those who choose to leave when +Lawrence is deposed that they will be able to find a home that meets their needs. ++Katharine is a terrible leader and an even worse person. It is a shame that so many will pay the price. But unfortunately, ++Katharine can not be shamed. Good luck SC, you’re in my prayers.
FWIW, I think she will take a different tack. To me this is the key statement:
When Lawrence was first elected bishop in September 2006, he faced numerous questions about whether he would attempt to convince Episcopalians there to leave the church. In a November 6, 2006 letter to the wider church he wrote that he would “work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping the Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
I believe she will try to invalidate +Lawrence’s ordination based on fraud. She will claim he never intended to keep the Diocese in the Church. Look at the Tisdale letters. One of them asks for every person ordained by +Lawrence and copies of their signed vows. My guess is once she invalidates his ordination, she will invalidate anyone ordained by him and ask them to be reordained.. I hope I’m wrong, but this seems to be the obvious conclusion.
An outsider with no dog in this particular fight, I was hoping to see it as Dcn Dale. However, I was struck in how it brushes past the Presiding Bishop’s activity (Jefferts Schori told the church’s Executive Council Feb. 19 that Lawrence had attributed the delay “supposedly to my incursions in South Carolina.”) while subtly painting a picture of DioSC and Bishop Lawrence as leaning towards leaving TEC. For example, it doesn’t speak (and neither has the PB) on the reasons for the legal search in DioSC – and the part of the search that caught my attention was the interest in ordinations. On the other hand, the article does take the time to detail the history of Bishop Lawrence’s election and the fear he will take the diocese out of TEC.
As ENS is TEC’s own organ I don’t think there is reason to be surprised or fearful of this bias, but it is disheartening.
Maybe the Diocese will pass a resolution prohibiting the ENS from publishing any articles on Diocese of SC.
Brian is right. The DofSC is a fortress under siege. It is really the last (save perhaps for Albany) unambiguously Christian diocese left in TEO. But it can not stand indefinitely. At some point (my guess is sooner than some may think) Ms. Schori will strike at Lawrence and force South Carolina’s hand. As with the business in LA, the end is a forgone conclusion.
See my comment [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/28744/#409907 ]here[/url].
Well, should she try to impose a bishop (note, no capital) on us,
she’ll find a much more incensed Diocese than she has come across before. He/she, the sham bishop, will not get into Diocesan House without a huge display of support for +Lawrence. The liberals are in a distinct minorty here, however vocal. If there is any disappointment in + Lawrence by the “orthodox”, its because he will NOT leave. LOL
In the meantime, altho we might beat up on him a bit, he is our Bishop, and we will not stand by and let KJS have her way without a fight.
And should she somehow take power, welcome to the ancient churches, and their enormous upkeep expense. Most of the truly old ones are on Federal/State “Registers” as being historic..The cemetary at our church (est 1754) is full of soldiers from the Revolutionary War to now, wouldn’t suggest she traipse through there at night. LoL
Grandmother in SC
collecting materials for my KEEP OUT sign….
#4. Brian From T-19,
[blockquote]++Katharine is a terrible leader and an even worse person. It is a shame that so many will pay the price. But unfortunately, ++Katharine can not be shamed. Good luck SC, you’re in my prayers.[/blockquote]
Brian, have I misunderstood your postings all this time? Is this really you saying these things? I’m not saying this to be sarcastic. I really am puzzled.
Dale,
No, that’s Brian. Same guy.
Personally, I think there has been a big shifting of gears re: how to understand SC and try to undermine it. The whole “here they go trying to set up a departure plan” has been a sham, and notoriously hyper-dramatic on some folks’ part ( I speak of the darling association of TEC right now, and their diocesan locals), causing the same few kinds of people calling the PB and begging for her to
“intervene.” (Why not? She has before.)
However, these resolutions, and what happened (or didn’t happen) after the last special convention, have forced SC’s opposition to take a new tack. Brian’s analysis is pretty close, I think, but the attack will be colored more as open rebellion to TECUSA authority, as in disavowal of community, or some such (I know – the irony of such a strategy given the PB’s, and other leaders’ disdain for the Covenant).
IF this escalates, it will only escalate by the hand of the PB, or whomever is in the wings or behind the curtain. The only way for all this to end without waiting for the election of another PB in 5 years is a general uprising by the 50% of the House of Bishops who see themselves as moderates and are watching the out-of-their-control demise of their dioceses. That could take the form of a presentment against the PB and others if she’s not careful, or by a massive letter writing and phone calling campaign on their parts followed by doing exactly what SC is saying they will do – disengage from extra-diocesan activities and participation – as in a babyboomer style protest for her to finally get the point.
It’s okay – I’m okay – you don’t have to tell me I’m naive. I’m just sayin’, and if nobody is sayin’ then it doesn’t get said.
Hi Fr. Rob, and this old telephone operator (Southern Bell 1955-8)
will be among the first to sign on. I’m pretty old for demonstrations and crowds, but I’ll be among the first to volunteer, should the “call” go out.
Pray for us Fr.
Grandmother in SC
Sorry about the above, it was Southwestern Bell (San Bernardino) CA
Grandmother
Although I was very thankful when the Diocese of SC did not leave, I’m simply *ecstatic* at their not doing so now.
Who would have thought that Schori would be so unable to resist the differentiation of Lawrence/SC so speedily — and demonstrate that she’s not able to handle it and proceed to boot the diocese from TEC.
I can’t imagine a better way to unify the diocese and demonstrate to a watching Communion Schori’s goals and utter will to power.
Although it’s a tough row to hoe, I’m so thankful they chose this path to take. It’s what we’ve needed so badly — a diocese that is thoroughly committed to stay, and also differentiate from 815/Schori.
Brian, have I misunderstood your postings all this time? Is this really you saying these things? I’m not saying this to be sarcastic. I really am puzzled.
Hi Dale
Sorry, was away from the computer. My views have always argued the pragmatic. As opposed to others who claim that Constitutions and Canons can’t be used this way. Or those who claim that deposition has no effect. However, I do believe that in most cases, ++Katharine has acted unfairly. I do believe she should fight for property after a parish has left, but the rabid acquisition of property and the rapid elimination of opposition is unconscionable. Also unconscionable is the lack of action by the House of Bishops as a group. At this point, since both Houses have handed her de facto dictatorial power, the only option is deposition or waiting out her term. As for her poor leadership, I think it is apparent to any but the most sycophantic followers. As a person, I speak as someone who knows her. But even in an objective, removed sense-Good builds up; Evil tears down. ++Katharine is an evil presence who has gone on uncontained. Her destruction will have consequences both temporal and spiritual.
#16. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]As a person, I speak as someone who knows her. But even in an objective, removed sense-Good builds up; Evil tears down. ++Katharine is an evil presence who has gone on uncontained.[/blockquote] “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Do you think the failure here is primarily the house of Bishops? Do you see any parallels in the WWAC?
[blockquote]When Lawrence was first elected bishop in September 2006, he faced numerous questions about whether he would attempt to convince Episcopalians there to leave the church. In a November 6, 2006 letter to the wider church he wrote that he would “work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as my sister and brother bishops work at keeping the Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion.”[/blockquote]
The great irony in all of this is that Bp Lawrence is a man of his word and has, indeed, been doing all he can to keep SC in TEC. From what I know of SC, he is probably the main (nearly only?) force doing so. So [i]when[/i] (and certainly not [i]if[/i]) TEC deposes his orders and removes his TEC authority, the cork will be out of the bottle and all the contents will spill out.
Not for nothing did the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression begin in South Carolina. Those lovely soft-spoken folks can only be pushed just so far and they [i]will[/i] come out fighting with everything they’ve got, and then — look out. Secession in some form will happen.
TEC’s behavior is insuring the loss of SC.
But there are a lot of indicators that pushing all the remaining orthodox out of TEC has been the inside strategy all along.
Do you think the failure here is primarily the house of Bishops? Do you see any parallels in the WWAC?
I don’t have the reference handy, but at the time of the reorganization at 815 there was an ENS article about the Executive Council. Bonnie Anderson tried to ask questions critical of the reorg and the PB silenced her. She acquiesced.
The HOB has similarly acquiesced if not in words, certainly by its actions. As regards the WWAC, I don’t think that lawsuits and depositions are the primary concern. They seem to view these matters as internal.
#17 LumenChristie,
[blockquote]But there are a lot of indicators that pushing all the remaining orthodox out of TEC has been the inside strategy all along.[/blockquote] So, all of the lawsuits and depositions are in reality a way to get the orthodox to leave? What did you have in mind?
What will it take for the diocesan bishops, the only ones who truly have authority, to stand up to the blatant misuse of power by the current presiding bishop? She has no authority to hire lawyers to investigate a diocese, no authority to dictate what should be done with property within a diocese, yet has been allowed to do so by the spineless bunch that call themselves bishops.
If bishop Lee of Virginia had had any backbone, he would had stood up to the evil empress and saved Virginia a lot of money and heartache.
#18. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]I don’t have the reference handy, but at the time of the reorganization at 815 there was an ENS article about the Executive Council.[/blockquote] I’m understanding from this that you are saying that this was a power grab. Isn’t this similar to the role assumed by the “Standing Committee” in the WWAC? It seems to me that what you have not stated but would agree with is that KJS has engaged in an abuse of power and misuse of her authority.
#20 WestJ:
And he would not now be the dean of Grace Cathedral.
My understanding is that Lee was selected as being a centrist, who would not make waves, after a several acrimonious failures by both parties in the Diocese ov Virginia to elect a bishop.
I am reminded of Laodecia.
I was in his presence shortly after he had his mild stroke, about the time the new sheriff strode into the diocese. It did not seem to me that there was any fire left in his belly. He must have been easy to roll.
The Tisdale requests, timing, and ‘every person ordained’ issue is likely tied to SC’s stipulations regarding doctrine, discipline, worship. I doubt it has anything to do with +Lawrence’s consecration as such. But it is also clear that, in her present state of mind, almost anything will be seen as ‘insubordinate’ (what a silly notion for a PB to entertain, given the limits of the office). I was present at +ML’s consecration and all will recall that SC wisely reminded the PB of the non-necessity of her presence as chief consecrator. Instead +East Carolina was in that role as the local Province head. The Chancellor for the PB was there to register the affair and it was clear that not having the PB present was a real infuriating issue for her co-workers. She sent along a peculiar gift and statement. SC graciously allowed that to be publicly announced…if I recall, +East Carolina read out the statement. Also, SC included non-TEC episcopal consecrators, like +Winchester. It was a grand event. But doubtless being reminded of the limitations of her office is not something the present incumbent can accept. I would be stunned if she did not seek to remove +ML by any method possible. It also strikes me as a completely foolish move on her part and likely to train wreck. What would one do with a deposition that simply had no effect? BTW, AS Haley has been keeping track of the Supreme Court timing issues. Did the PB ever join All Saints Waccamaw in the request for a cert.?
Does not +Lawrence risk being deposed (or whatever the term is) like +Duncan and +Schoefield were? And then ECUSA sends in their own person (maybe Chane, he’s retiring) to claim authority, then what? Are not the parishes in a situation where they can’t leave very easily? I see the benefit of staying to your word, and remaining with ECUSA, but at some point that is not worth it if they’re going to toss you out – and that seems, sadly, very likely….
subscribe
RE: “I see the benefit of staying to your word, and remaining with ECUSA, but at some point that is not worth it if they’re going to toss you out – and that seems, sadly, very likely….”
Are you kidding? It is so so so totally worth it — it is hugely important to clearly differentiate, clearly remain in TEC — and if the PB “tosses them out” — all the better.
That is so much more valuable to me than leaving.
I just never would have guessed the PB would be so dumb. I thought she had better advisors.
Hard to imagine SC courts siding with a NY entity claiming to own property. And it would require them getting involved, if the Diocese refuses to accept the PB’s crazy recourse to odd renunication canons not written for this purpose. Just guessing, but I suspect the proper procedure (deposition, requiring HOB vote and approval beforehand of Sr Bishops) might go afoul for the PB. But that has not stopped her before from using the renunciation of orders route. This seems like a fool’s errand to my mind. The SCSC has sided with neutral principles, and the PB would likely have to go to court to get the Diocese removed in favor of one she invents. This is one very lopsided away game.
26. seitz,
There is a zeal on the part of the PB that is undeterred by canons, reality and the theological virtues. This has become a kind of scorched earth policy.
Dear Dcn: I agree. But this is no bad thing if she is forced to run into a brick wall, or moves precipitously. The psalmist never tires of reminding us that scheming and rapacious plotting clouds the brain. I’d hate to be trying to remove +ML if it required me (1) going around the HOB, and (2) seeking to dislodge a sitting Bishop in SC in civil court. It has always been our view that the worst thing for Schori is a bishop who does not leave and carefully guards the diocese by good legal counsel. The TEC polity system is porous, and really has not given the authority to a metropolitan that this Presiding Bishop is asserting. No one doubts that she is seeking to move anyway, but this can come to grief and if it does/when it does, it will be a long way to fall. Hierarchy claims don’t work if you have to concede, ‘well, we got 8 out of 10.’ You’ve got to win them all. To repeat: SC is not a friendly place for her, and she may have to find that out the hard way. TX is another unfriendly place, as we are likely soon to see in Judge Chupp’s court.
28. seitz,
[blockquote]The psalmist never tires of reminding us that scheming and rapacious plotting clouds the brain.[/blockquote] This helps me understand why the thinking and statements of revisionists is so muddled. Each successive move she makes gives her less degrees of freedom for her next move.
#23 Seitz
Re:BTW, AS Haley has been keeping track of the Supreme Court timing issues. Did the PB ever join All Saints Waccamaw in the request for a cert.?
Dr. Seitz – I remember looking for the result after the decision point for TEC which was March 8. On March 9, I learned that TEC did indeed join the (TEC) Parish of Waccamaw’s Appeal to the Supreme Court. Sorry but I cannot locate the reference at this time.
Anyone else have the reference to confirm this?
Al Bagdonas
Truthfully, it seems like a rehash of everything I already know but then I am in the diocese. Yes, it seems likely that the PB will try and depose Lawrence+. That too is old news. If not explicitly stated at his consecration, the implication was there for all to hear !!
Seitz, we were also there at Lawrence’s consecration. It was indeed a grand WORLD WIDE ANGLICAN affair with many bishops from other countries and other denominations. The PB was not there and yes, Province IV Bishop was there as chief consecrator. I do remember some simple little gift from the PB. Fortunately, the polite crowd did not even chuckle at that point. A clergy friend of ours who has seen several consecrations said he had NEVER seen such care taken in signing and explaining the various documents, etc at a consecration. Once the diocese’s election was invalidated for ” non- canonical required form ” of some of the consents, the standing committee went to great length to make sure everything was done absolutely correctly. So good luck trying to invalidate his consecration.
The ENS article hints that the Presiding Bishop will indeed try to remove Bishop Lawrence , the Standing Committee, and even perhaps the members of the Diocesan Council. With due respect to Brian above, I do not think that it will be because Bishop Lawrence committed “fraud” in his promises not to take the Diocese out of TEC. That sort of charge would require some sort of trial, which would never do.
The key text in the ENS article is the third from the last, where it states that the Diocese is “increasingly at odds with the national church”, and that the Diocese has begun “withdrawing” from national church bodies. The Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor might use those actions to conclude that the South Carolina Bishop, the Standing Committee, and the Council have all already abandoned TEC. Conveniently, no trial would be required. This is the same pattern TEC has already used with Bishops Duncan, Iker, and Schofield. The only difference is that those three Dioceses withdrew from TEC by formal resolutions; with South Carolina TEC would have to maintain that the actions of that Diocese constitute de facto withdrawal.
As legal propositions, TEC’s assertions are ludicrous. But TEC has no forum in which the rules can be interpreted and enforced. The HOB? Don’t make me laugh. Verily, the notion that there is any substantive rule of law within TEC, with procedural due process, is increasingly untenable. Within TEC, the law is whatever the Presiding Bishop says it is at the moment. Full stop.
Deacon Dale:
In reference to your question about my previous post — (# 19 re: # 17)
I don’t see these people as merely stupid. The degree to which they need and require total control is breath-taking, and hard to fathom if you haven’t really seen them up-close-and-personal.
(Professor Seitz should understand after having been at Yale for the purges.)
I went to The General Seminary and lived in the dioceses of Newark and Atlanta (as well as South Carolina). Plots by such folks as Queen Lutibelle and others have been laid long and deep. Make no mistake — it is winner take all, with the emphasis on ALL.
Those whose mere existence is a witness against the sin and lies must be eradicated.
No imagination or exaggeration here — I’ve heard it first-hand.
I’m understanding from this that you are saying that this was a power grab. Isn’t this similar to the role assumed by the “Standing Committee†in the WWAC? It seems to me that what you have not stated but would agree with is that KJS has engaged in an abuse of power and misuse of her authority.
Well (and this is where my argument becomes confusing to some) I don’t necessarily think so. This is how I see it:
1. PB abuses de jure authority under the Constitution and Canons
2. No one objects OR objections are made and overruled
3. The PB’s actions are de facto put into law and she now has the authority denied her in the C&Cs;.
As you see above in Dr. Seitz+’s comment, he believes that such a de facto assumption of authority simply can not exist. However, it does and there is ample evidence from those who are no longer members of the WWAC (++Duncan, +Schofield, +Iker, et al).
So simple answer: Is he abusing authority? Initially. Is it an ongoing abuse? No. It is a succesful coup/power grab.
RE: “3. The PB’s actions are de facto put into law and she now has the authority denied her in the C&Cs;.”
I distinguish between “authority” and “power.” Stalin had power — but funnily enough, he repeatedly violated the faux constitution and certainly the ethos of Russia. He was a brutal, crass lawbreaker — but he had the power.
The function of the resistance to such lawbreaking dictators is — no matter how powerful the lawbreaker is — to repeatedly point out that they are violating the Constitution, violating the law, have no *moral* authority, and are wrong and doing evil.
Sometimes people get thrown into labor camps when they say such things. But that is the function of those set on the path of resisting evil. They must constantly say the truth, even if they are punished for it.
Such resistance to evil through truth telling and acts-without-power is a noble tradition, and Christians in particular are well suited for carrying out such purposes since 1) comfort in present day living is not our primary goal in the light of eternity and the brevity of life and 2) the Truth shall set us free.
‘de facto put into law’ is an oxymoron, unless I miss something. Law is law. It is not ‘de facto’. ‘De facto’ is what we are going to find out when the dust settles on this tawdry affair. That is very likely going to play out in genuinely (not ‘de facto’) legal contexts (courts, etc). I would not want to be trying this if I were the PB. It is a long way to fall. Sarah’s distinction between authority and power is likewise apposite. The PB wants to use power to establish ‘de facto’ realities. She has a long way to go on this one, and it is unlikely that a legal decision (in the courts of SC) will come down in her favor. Though she may spend a lot of money to find out.
“Law is law” is tautological. Law, as law — as a regulation of behavior — means what it is interpreted to mean by the authority that has the power to enforce it as law.
For instance, the law might say that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But if the relevant authority interprets that to mean that there must be a complete separation of “church” and “state,” and that the state must never be seen to endorse or express any particular religion… well, that is what the law means as law.
In the case of TEC, the problem is that we have no independent judiciary; which means that the only body with the authority to interpret the laws (i.e., constitution and canons) is General Convention. This is even the case with canons governing the powers of GC itself. Is this a structural problem and a huge potential conflict of interest? Yes. It is, however, the structure we happen to have.
Which means, if I understand Brian’s argument, that any interpretation of the canons that GC agrees to — even tacitly — becomes, ipso facto, the authoritative interpretation of the canons as law, because there is no other authority with the power to interpret and enforce the canons.
If the secular courts get involved, then of course that may very well change the equation. The question put before the court would of course have to be carefully scoped to be one that properly falls under its jurisdiction (as is the case with the various property disputes) but assuming that bar were met, interesting things might happen.
RE: “Law, as law—as a regulation of behavior—means what it is interpreted to mean by the authority that has the power to enforce it as law.”
No — meaning does not reside in the interpretation of the listening audience or discourse community that is currently wielding the power to enforce whatever “meaning” that discourse community comes up with. Might does not, in fact, make right, nor does it even make Truth.
#37–the entire point is that for a +ML removal to have any effect at all–given that the standing committee, etc would not recognise it–the PB would have to go to court to get him out, and all the vast majority of churches which support him, handed over to ‘the national church.’ That is called ‘law.’ Anything else–like removals, depositions, etc–mean practically nothing in the actual scale of what the PB is presumably seeking, viz., the diocese itself. So no: ‘law is law’ is not tautology precisely because in this instance the ‘authority’ is a SC court, and not the internal machinations of the PB.
#38 Sarah — you will note that I did not assert that the interpretation of the authority with the power to enforce the law has anything to do with “Right” or “Truth.” It has everything to do with law, however.
The law is also a text, of course, and as a text it is subject to all of the usual sorts of hermeneutical approaches. Not to mention, inevitably, the usual variety of interpretations. However, unless one is a judge rendering a decision on the matter in a court of law, one’s personal interpretation of the law as a text means exactly squat in application to the question, “Will I go to jail for doing this?” That is the difference between law-as-text and law-as-law.
One is always free to have, and to argue, one’s own opinions about what is Right and True. But when it comes to what is legal, personal opinion is irrelevant compared to a court’s opinion.
Or, to put it another way, might does not make right. But might does make, and enforce, the rules. Of course one hopes that the rules reflect rightness, but law is about rules, not right. That’s all I’m saying.
#39 seitz: Your point is essentially what I said in my final paragraph.
[Comment deleted by Elf – we expect that by now readers will have understood the distinction between in law and in fact so commenters are requested to return to the thread topic – Thanks]
#40–My only point was that your language ‘if the secular courts get involved’ is a necessity, not an ‘if.’ Otherwise any deposition/removal would stall as an actual effort to move to seize the diocese (property, churches, etc — see Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft Worth). For that, courts (law) would have to be involved and the PB would need to win. Otherwise, what would a removal actually mean, since it would just be ignored and could not be enforced?
Otherwise any deposition/removal would stall as an actual effort to move to seize the diocese (property, churches, etc—see Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft Worth). For that, courts (law) would have to be involved and the PB would need to win. Otherwise, what would a removal actually mean, since it would just be ignored and could not be enforced?
It is a mistake to believe that ++Katharine’s only motive is property. She wants everyone to follow the party line and not make waves. Her agenda is that all participate and be happy about it. So a removal would take whoever leaves, as well as +Lawrence, out of the Anglican Communion. This is simply undesired by SC, but is still a part of ++Katharine’s agenda
So, how does the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in the Pawley’s Island case weigh upon the apparent desire of TEC to seize control of the SC diocesan property by replacing it’s leadership? The Denis Canon has been repudiated in South Carolina, at least as far as Parishes that existed before 1979 go. Would that not apply to the Diocesan property also?
The supreme court of the US doesn’t appear to be interested in this bucket of worms. I like to think that if they finally do wade in that Neutral Principles will prevail.
It would appear that TEC’s invasion of SC might turn out to be a “little stone bridge” too far.
#43. Brian from T19,
[blockquote]It is a mistake to believe that ++Katharine’s only motive is property. She wants everyone to follow the party line and not make waves. Her agenda is that all participate and be happy about it.[/blockquote] I agree with you that her motive is not just property. Based on your previous comments about her, The following may be the most important question I have asked you. What is the party line that she wants people to follow?
“So a removal would take whoever leaves, as well as +Lawrence, out of the Anglican Communion” — that’s all well and good. But to ‘remove’ +Lawrence, she will require the courts. This is just repeating things.
If the Diocese simply ignores the ‘deposing/removal’, how is the PB going to create a new diocese with any credibility unless she dislodges +ML and the churches from his oversight? Here is where property possession is not some detachable matter. You can describe her ‘real’ motives in any way you wish — ‘everybody toeing the line, being happy etc’ — but to remove +ML in any meaningful way *requires* her to attend to the property. Just as in Ft W, SJ, etc. It’s like the PB saying that +Scriven has renounced his orders. Saying that and having him continue as a Bishop only shows that the rest of the Communion can’t even be bothered to dispute the matter! It just assumes TEC is dysfunctional and its declarations meaningless. Indeed, it pretty much already judges TEC in this way.
RE: “But might does make, and enforce, the rules. Of course one hopes that the rules reflect rightness, but law is about rules, not right.”
Might does make and enforce whatever it pleases, Ross. But when might swings into action and purports to “enforce the rules” but in reality does no such thing but rather enforces its own pleasure under the guise of the rules, that’s not “right” or “law” or anything else but will to power.
Of course, Stalin used the constitution and pretended it was about “law” and “right” and “the rules.” But we all know it wasn’t.
All you’ve done is repeated “might makes.”
We know that. “Might makes.” But “might” does not mean that “the rules” were enforced at all.
Back to Schori: the law, in fact, does not mean “what it is interpreted to mean by the authority that has the power to enforce it as law” when the authority that has the power to enforce canons does not use the canons at all [other than the way Stalin used the Constitution.]
Canons actually say things that one can actually read and understand. Just because Schori has the means and the might to say “I have followed the canons in deposing Lawrence” doesn’t mean in any way that the canons have been followed at all.
What is the party line that she wants people to follow?
Well, this is only my opinion from observation. What she believes she wants is not for reasserters to believe in the ordination of partnered LGBT people. She does not care if a Diocese is opposed to their ordination. don’t even think she cares whether individuals are ordained or not.. To her, the key is participation. Not participation at services, but participation in General Convention. She wants everyone to come together for the counsels of the Church. They should all have their say. When the vote is taken, that is the teaching of the Church and the losing side needs to graciously accept their defeat and continue participating. Withdrawal from the whole is seen as leading the individual parish/Diocese astray.
I also want to reiterate one point that I made above. She does not care about people. People are expendable to her and hold no value. It is the continuation of the whole at the expense of the dissident.
#48. Brian from T19,
Thanks for helping me understand her thinking. I understand now why she is so upset about schismatics. I need more time to think about what you have written but it is insightful.
formerly Dcn. Dale
I wonder if anyone truly believes that something like a diversity project on SSBs will really be tolerated. ‘Justice’ is like Luther’s second use of the Law. It must go all the way down. Today’s ‘let SC or Dallas have its own views’ is tomorrow’s ‘we must correct injustice.’ Besides, this is politics of a New World imagination, and not theological truth.
I have seen no evidence that the PB (much less those who put her in office, like +LA) believes in a diversity project. Its like the hijab in the UK: its pits lockian liberals (the hijab is bad because of universal laws; justice) against rousseau liberals (let the hijab culture ‘speak its voice’). These two positions — both liberal in the classic sense — are opposites in fact and one must win out. TEC power bloc has lockian liberals, not pragmatists, much less rousseau liberals. It is not paranoia or dyspepsia to acknowledge that SSBs is a ‘justice issue’ and so all will in time have to conform.
I should have concluded. The diocese of SC ‘gets it’ and so is properly holding the line. The alternative will not be happy accommodation. Diversity. It will be justice.
Congratulations Father Dale!
Aye – congratulations indeed Rev. Dale. Excellent news.