UPDATE: ENS has a story online here.
September 21, 2007
To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
This is a very difficult letter to write as your bishop and colleague in the ordained ministry, and I hope that you will receive it in the prayerful spirit in which it is offered. A pastoral letter to the people of the diocese will follow in a few days. At the House of Bishops meeting about to be convened in New Orleans, my intention is to ask them for permission to begin the process to resign as diocesan bishop. The bishops must give their consent, and then I will step down by the end of the year.
The reason for this decision is that my conscience is deeply troubled about where the Episcopal Church is heading, and this has become a crisis for me because of my ordination vow to uphold its doctrine, discipline, and worship. An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves. It concerns me that this has affected my ability to lead this diocese with a clear and hopeful vision for its mission. I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.
I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.
I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the pastoral support I have received from the Presiding Bishop and her office during this time. She has offered to visit, and I have invited her to be with us at the clergy conference the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 26, and perhaps also for that evening, for mutual conversation and the opportunity to know each other better in this time reserved for the clergy. I hope that you all can be present.
This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to make because of the bonds I share with you and the people of this diocese. It has indeed been a privilege to serve alongside you these past seven years. With deep feelings I write, with regret for how this may complicate your own ministry, with profound gratitude for your prayers and support, and with much love for you. I pledge to you my prayers and friendship in these days to come.
Your brother in Christ,
+Jeffrey Steenson
Along with Herzog and Pope that makes three Episcopal bishops crossing the Tiber this year (well re-crossing for those two). Does anybody know of any other possibles before the end of the year?
I think Professor Tighe intimated that Iker might be a possibility a while back. What chance Duncan?
All I can say speaking for myself is that this is very sad news indeed.
Between the decisions of +s Howe and Stanton to serve in a DEPO capacity, the continued vacancy of the bishop’s chair in South Carolina and this announcement, the face of the ACN is changing rapidly.
I pray Bishop Steenson finds safe harbor from the storm and can then continue to serve our Lord without the distractions. In a week or two there may be many more of us setting foot on this path.
As I said in the other thread, truly, there is little if any time left for the orthodox Anglicans in America. Those who have been saying patience, wait for the Lambeth 2008 or the covenant or whatever are plainly in the wrong.
And what group can provide for the orthodox in this short amount of time? Common Cause.
As Daniel (#3) writes, the Camp Allen bishops are vanishing.
It seems we will need a lot of orthodox bishops to lead the orthodox laity. Where will they come from…?
Common Cause. And I think they have a meeting coming up real soon!
#3 Apparently Bishop Stanton never agreed to be one of the 8 episcopal visitors….
God bless Bishop Steenson. In my opinion he tried to walk the middle to placate the most only to be seen as a traitor by both sides. How sad for all now since he truly is a Godly man and could have been a solid steward.
#5 According to the interview +Stanton gave to Sarah Hey (ref: http://tinyurl.com/2wa42c) he said that “he was always willing to consider the option and listen to the plan”. If he is merely considering rather than having made a decision I stand corrected.
Ouch—and ouch again! Once for Bp. Steenson’s resignation. Once for losing him to Rome.
_ _ _ _ _ _
BTW, Bp. Steenson’s interview with Sarah Hey stands out as the most edifying thing I have seen or heard during this meeting of the House of Bishops. ECUSA’s dissimulations (predictable as they were) have left me so exasperated that I’ve stopped commenting at times rather than say more than I should. Bp. Steenson’s loving serenity answered this turmoil perfectly.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Who’s to know if prompt international Anglican discipline of ECUSA (e.g., in 2003-05) would have let Anglican Christianity retain people like Bp. Steenson.
But Abp. Williams—with his chronic dithering, his repeated thwarting of primatial discipline, and his raft of unfulfilled reassurances to faithful orthodox leaders—should recognize his own role in bringing matters to this point.
Departures like this impoverish us. With every month and every meeting in which Canterbury delays and derails international discipline of ECUSA, we lose more of our catholicity. I doubt we will get it back.
“In my opinion he tried to walk the middle to placate the most only to be seen as a traitor by both sides”
Since when did the orthodox view Bp. Steenson as a traitor?
I am touched by this letter and respect his conscience. I wish Bishop Steenson would stay, but having made his decision to step down, I think that this is an admirable way to proceed. I also appreciate his expression of gratitude to the Presiding Bishop for her pastoral support and I am glad he has invited her to attend the meeting with his clergy. As difficult has such leavings are, what a model he is being to the Church in the manner of his parting!
A gracious letter, a fine example of leadership and integrity that I wish some of the bishops who share his convictions would follow.
I’m impressed with the tone of this letter – truly acting very pastoral and considerate.
#9. “Since when did the orthodox view Bp. Steenson as a traitor? ”
Forgive my hyperbole to make a point. From the limited contact I had with a few within the DoRG, it was as polarized as any other. “If you’re not with me you’re against me” was certainly a feeling on both sides. Could St. Clements’ vote to leave be interpreted as the orthodox telling Bishop Steenson what a great job he was doing? Look for Bishop Steenson’s replacement to come from Via Media (only mildly sarcastic.) Still a sad day for the DoRG.
It is a sad day when clergy from any faith community feel they must leave. I repsect them for their honesty, to the Church and to themselves, for taking this difficult step.
I wonder why more Episcopal clergy don’t look into the Polish National Catholic Church, independent of Rome, but with the same Faith; organized more like the Episcopal Church than the Roman Church.
scott122 (#14): You wonder why more Episcopal clergy don’t look at the Polish National Catholic Church instead of Rome. One of the reasons is actually mentioned in your wondering:
It (the Polish National Catholic Church) is “…organized more like the Episcopal Church than the Roman Church”.
As the Episcopal Church must surely have taught us by now, when matters of truth are at stake, polity (how a church is “organized”) will win or lose the day. TEC polity has shown us its various failure points.
Good for +Steenson. It is good to see a bishop in his position with integrity. While other ortho-bishops hold conventions to try to steal their dioceses, +Steenson takes the high road. Ot’s refreshing to see that there are those who aren’t interested in money and power.
+Steenson did not look to the PNCC because he is/was an Anglo-Papalist. For some time he has been saying to those who know him “the answer is B16” and now he has acted upon it.
[blockquote]An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves.[/blockquote]
My view is that Anglicanism fundamentally rejects the principle of episcopal leadership. Bp Steenson clearly believes in leading by example.
I too am saddened for the diocese of RG. I wonder if Steenson would have stayed if TEC was not in fact a fictitous form of Anglicanism or is it rather because he believes Anglicanism itself is deficient in its apostolicity and catholicity?
We welcome Bishop Steenson to “Tiberville”. May he find his heart’s desire here with us Romans. Roman Catholicism, especially in the US and in Europe, continually faces the abuses of heterodoxy, but Holy Mother Church remains steadfast against the evils of abortion, artificial contraception, and same-sex unions. We are nourished weekly with the Perfect Meal, the Body and Blood of Our King. We invite more of you into her loving arms, which truly are a safe harbor.
You are all in my prayers tonight as you face the pain of fracture of your worldwide body.
[blockquote]+Steenson did not look to the PNCC because he is/was an Anglo-Papalist. For some time he has been saying to those who know him “the answer is B16†and now he has acted upon it. [/blockquote]
We lost an excellent deacon to Rome recently, one that I held high hope in replacing our rector once he took a well-deserved retirement. Anglicanism, as practiced by this ABoC, is no place for the orthodox.
I really respect the gentle honesty of Bp. Steenson. I trust that many will be following his example – whether to Rome or to other Christian bodies. I fear that the lampstand is being removed from the Episcopal Church – what remains to be decided is what the Anglican Communion will do about it. It is foolhardy to assume that to deny orthodox Americans a safe official Anglican province will ensure that they stay a part of the Episcopal Church – or even the unofficial Anglican Communion in the USA.
With this, and also reading of Richrd Kew’s return to England, does it not seem like the elves are leaving the shores of Middle Earth for the West? (not you, web elves) Perhaps they know that there is no ring of power to be cast into Mount Doom. The Dark Lord, or Dark Lady?, will not be overthrown this time.
This is a very emotional time for those of us in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, especially among us at St. Clement’s-El Paso who made up those “effective diocesan leaders” (a quote from Bp. Steenson’s Letter to the Diocese 9/07) who have now been lost to the Diocese and have departed TEC under an agreement negotiated with the Bishop and Standing Committee, which has received significant Internet attention.
Those who are not, or have not recently been, involved intimately with the life and work of the Diocese since the retirement of Bishop Terrence Kelshaw and the election of Bishop Jeffrey Steenson should refrain from the kind of speculation that “Roman” mentions in #13 (above)…let me clear the air.
The Diocese has not been “polarized” for the 10 years I have served elected position. The conservative/orthodox block of votes at Convocation has represented over 2/3 of any vote, and both Standing Committee and Diocesan Council have super majorities of conservatives.
St. Clement’s prepared and waited for a word from the Lord regarding our direction in the Anglican Communion.
Our Bishop, our friend and counselor Jeffrey Steenson, told us this was the time, and our prayers and discernment validated that call. The tear is never deeper, nor more painful, than when it is in tender flesh…and we felt that tear deeply in the tender flesh of this congregation and this Diocese when we voted 460-41 last Sunday to approve an agreement negotiated between us and the Diocese to leave with our property. We could not have succeeded in this without Bishop Steenson’s care and compassion. I am awed by his humility and dedication to Christ, and pray for his health and strength in the months to come!
I wish Bishop Steenson the best as he makes his move to the Roman Church. His letter and the manner in which he is comporting himself are very classy. Indeed one can hope they will serve as a an inspiration and guide to others. As someone who has done some swimming (albeit in a different direction) in the recent past, I know first hand the emotional drain of switching churches. I pray he finds the peace that he seeks.
I guess the part about going to Rome is in different communications – I saw nothing in this letter that indicates anything like it.
If we apply #11’s and #16’s standards, any reappraising bishops with integrity would have resigned a long time ago. They have openly and with impunity violated their ordination vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC. The lack of sonsistency continues to be a hallmark of reappraisers.
“Could St. Clements’ vote to leave be interpreted as the orthodox telling Bishop Steenson what a great job he was doing?” —The Roman
Such a departure doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Bp. Steenson. Look at the orthodox congregations that have amicably left the Diocese of Dallas—not because of Bp. Stanton but because they concluded that they could no longer in good conscience remain in ECUSA.
scott122 wrote: “I wonder why more Episcopal clergy don’t look into the Polish National Catholic Church, independent of Rome, but with the same Faith; organized more like the Episcopal Church than the Roman Church.”
Simplest answer from this simple sinner? The pope.
I suspect he would say that he was “giving up the ghost” on the idea of being Catholic without the papacy. I don’t think many if any of the folks that have made the move to Rome do so because it is the “next best option” – a way to “do their thing” with the minor concession of the papacy.
I am going to catch hell for this, but to be blunt: I think this is the ambition of some promoting or playing with the fledgling “Western Rite Orthodox” movement. Time will tell where it is going. For the time being, I am not sold that it is appreciably growing or sustainable. I would be happy to be proven wrong, and I am not interested in getting into a big debate in this setting (have already been down that road on my blog – kinda).
Curiously, has anyone heard much about the numbers of the PNCC these days? I am not advocating the relatavism of membership – that something can be understood true by adherents alone. (Let’s please not go to the website and start quoting “300,000” that number is as useless as some members of the OCA claiming to have 1M+ members!) At the end of the day, I don’t believe there are more than 25K members. I really don’t even believe there are that many… but I can be generous.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics and ecclesial statistics. The latter most category is the most fun to abuse, play with manipulate, and strangle. I will admit as much.
But leaving TEC to join the “NCC” (they dropped the “P”, I understand) a group of some 25K (maybe) that has become (from what I understand) largely the domain of married ex-Romans and divorcees… Well he could live out his days as a chaplain (just as likely) to a small community of disaffected RCs (one such group meets in the basement of a local Lutheran Church here)… Outside of the “Pierogie Belt”, the vitality of any given community in the NCC seems to correspond to the interest of ex-(roman) Catholics in supporting a mission. I would believe and suspect, a lot of those would-be members have made a comfortable home in TEC.
But if he had a vision of living out his days (may they be many more still) in an environment that is sustainable (growing in many places) and not out to re-invent the wheel, Rome is his surest bet.
“Curiously, has anyone heard much about the numbers of the PNCC these days?”
They claim anywhere from 160,000 to “a quarter of a million” members, but in terms of actual regular attendance, etc., I think it would be closer to 50,000.
“that has become (from what I understand) largely the domain of married ex-Romans and divorcees …”
This is not wholly untrue, but it is not really true, either. Most active PNCC lay people are “natives.” As to the clergy, a large proportion of it are indeed ex-RC priests, often from Poland, who left the RC priesthood to marry. The PNCC has been quite deficient as regards “quality control” of such clergy. In 1999 they elected two men as bishops, both of whom were ex-RC priests from Poland, one of whom joined the PNCC in 1968 and the other in 1981. At the time that they were rec’d into the PNCC they both gave out that they had married “young widows” in Poland, but it came out at the time of their elections that they had both married divorcees, and in one case it appeared “Father” had played a role in the break-up of his wife’s marriage, and in the other that they had never been “legally married.” Nevertheless, the consecrations went ahead, and they became bishops.
Rome treats the PNCC as it does the Eastern Churches, and allows PNCC members who are deprived of the ministrations of their own clergy to avail themselves of the sacramental ministrations of RC clergy. However, the two churches are not “in communion” and the clergy cannot “concelebrate” together. Rome makes it clear, moreover, that such PNCC clergy as were originally RC priests, cannot under any circumstances frequent the sacraments in the RC Church, as they are excommunicated as a result of leaving the RC Church. This, naturally, occasions some strong resentment among the persons so stigmatized, and they (as well as Freemasonic PNCC members, who form a powerful anti-Roman force in the PNCC) form a constituency strongly opposed to any “cozying up” with Rome.
In the 1970s and early 80s a number of ex-ECUSA clergy and laity who left over WO (to which the PNCC is firmly and commendably opposed, even as regards the diaconate) tried to form an “Anglican rite” in the PNCC, but the attempt soon foundered due to the suspicions of the PNCC leadership concerning the reliability (and episcopal ambitions) of some of the ex-ECUSA clergy that had joined them, and due to the desire of some PNCC leaders that these ex-Episcopalians give up the Prayer Book and adopt the PNCC Missal. Most of these ex-ECUSA clergy and laity eventually left for Continuing Anglican bodies, and only one current parish in the PNCC, St. Francis in Denver, Colorado (with its mission in Boulder, CO) is composed primarily of former Episcopalians — and even that parish split some 15+ years ago, with its priest and perhaps a majority of its members forming a Western-Rite Antiochian Orthodox parish.
I respect and admire the good bishop’s integrity. But I am, however, very saddened by the fact that he is inviting to his diocese, at this very time, the very person who is directly involved in and responsible for the misdirection of the Episcopal church.
If this were simply about Steenson, as a person (Episcopalian), I would not have much of a problem with his decision to leave the diocese and the church. BUT, this is a bishop who has vowed to protect the sheep under his care. I wish he had given more consideration to the implications of this invitation to the enemy of the Gospel, even as he prepares to leave. Is he leaving the chickens to the fox?
I wish Bp Steenson, as the good shepherd he has been, had used the opportunity and the fact of his impending departure to wrestle as many sheep as he could out of the jaws and claws of the tiger – tigress, more appropriately.
Inviting Schori to come in and raise her banner as she mocks the defeated and dejected DRG faithful is too painful for me to think of at this time.
If I were Bp Steenson, my main concern at this time would be to take as much DRG people and property out of TEc as possible -he needs to disarm the enemy as much as possible.
Folks, we know what we are dealing with here. We are in a very serious situation. Every tactful and strategic step has very important and significant ramifications.
Spiro
Spiro,
I posted the following on Stand Firm yesterday. I think that it is a cogent and likely answer to your question about why he invited KJS:
“… but why the invitation to KJS? Why, dear God did he do that?â€
Because, like it or not, she is the embodiment of what the Episcopal Church has become. If I were in his shoes I would have done precisely the same thing—to bring home to his flock that she is their future if they remain in ECUSA; and indeed their present, since she will most likely consecrate whatever successor the diocese elects. More “subtly,†perhaps, her presence will serve as a “wake-up call†that “the fort is betrayed, even of them that should defend it†and that those Rio Grande churchfolk who want to be “orthodox Anglicans†(whatever that means, since there are various and incompatible versions of “Anglican orthodoxy”) will have to leave TEC and preserve it elsewhere.
I will add, that if he is really becoming a Roman Catholic, would you want him (who took a vow to uphold the “doctrine and discipline” of ECUSA, and while admittedly the former, doctrine, is either a joke or completely up for grabs, the latter, discipline, still has teeth, as Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin will find early in 2008 once thy complete their secession ordinances) to say, effectively, ok my dear flock, I’ve come to the conclusion that ECUSA is a lost cause, her doctrine gone, her discipline perverted, her Orders no longer Catholic, and her bishops for the most part heretics by any historical Christian standard. As a Catholic first and an Anglican second, and as one who only was an Anglican because I believed it was a plausible and attractive embodiment of that same Catholic faith as Rome and Orthodoxy also embrace, and who is at heart a “papalist” in my ecclesiology, I’m off to Rome, and I think that those who are Catholic Anglicans like me ought to go to Rome or Orthodoxy, while those of you who are orthodox Evangelicals ought to realize that the handwriting is on the wall and you have no future in ECUSA either, so you had best look to your options and prepare to bail out. This might be both true and “prophetic,” but as someone who undertook serious responsibilities seriously, and who loved the “romance” (some might say “dream” or “mirage”) of Anglican Catholicism, and who came to both Anglicanism and ECUSA as an adult from Wheaton college evangelicalism, he was, if I can put in my penny FWIW, undertaking his difficult decision with exquisite courtesy and tact.
I note that Bp Steenson says in his letter:
[blockquote]I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.[/blockquote]
I wonder if the manner of his departure is in any way to be explained by this. In particular, maybe the invitation to the Presiding Bishop to attend the clergy conference is to be excused on the ground that it is “merely carrying out orders”.
Dr. Tighe,
I agree with you, for the most part.
However, I think the invitation to Schori seems to be more like an act or expression of graciousness, than anything else.
Furthermore, I don’t think any serious Episcopalian, in this day and age, needs to have the presence (in your face) of Schori in a meeting to understand/appreciate where we are and what they are up against. To some, this lady’s views, theology, and everything else say it all.
Spiro,
You may be right, but the unserious Episcopalians have needs too. One of which is to be awakened to what is happening in their church, since it seems that many of them just are not paying any attention.
Hmm – my attempt to post something has either disappeared or been edited out.
I hope I have not offended.
[i] Your post is listed at #29. [/i]
RE #37 – I had a subsequent post to that one… That was what I was looking for. After submitting the follow up, it seems to have vanished…
RE #30: WT you have done a good deal of your homework! I am still a little uneasy with those numbers, but I can roll with them.
My question at this time – germaine to this discussion vis the poster who asks about why not go NCC – is who exactly is in communion with the PNCC at this time? I know they have ordained some high church Swedish Lutherans in an effort to create a Nordic Catholic Church – perhaps up to a dozen priests, with a possible bishop on the way.
After that, having cut off communion with PECUSA (when it was called such) and been booted out of the Utrecht Union…. Except for allowance for some of their faithful to receive in RCCs, is this body of 50K in communion with anyone else? I think this germaine to the question why some don’t jump on the PNCC ship or the like, as their sacramental catholicity is widely accepted and touted… but they certainly seem very isolated. Leaving TEC to join a group in fair isolation seems an odd path – on the face of it – to trying to maintain a form of catholicity.
Re: #39,
“My question at this time – germaine to this discussion vis the poster who asks about why not go NCC – is who exactly is in communion with the PNCC at this time? I know they have ordained some high church Swedish Lutherans in an effort to create a Nordic Catholic Church – perhaps up to a dozen priests, with a possible bishop on the way.”
High-church Norwegian ex-Lutherans, actually; the Nordic Catholic Church, a body of about a dozen clergy, 5 congregations and about 175 members — people whom I esteem highly and of whose bishop-elect I have twice been a house guest, as he has been ours once. I interviewed him here:
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-06-054-i
when he was still (barely) a Lutheran, and wrote about their general situation here:
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-06-061-r
but, nevertheless, your point still remains an acute one.
“Except for allowance for some of their faithful to receive in RCCs, is this body of 50K in communion with anyone else?”
No. In fact, they had the chance to add a small but vigorous Continuing Anglican diocese to their church, which wished to escape the chaos of Continuing Anglicanism and join them lock, stock and barrell — but they dealt with these people with such lacksadaisicality and seeming indifference (although showing them great bonhommie and hospitality) that after nearly five years the talks simply petered out. Not a very “evangelistic” way to run a church.
Ahhhhh the irony – had I thought a little harder, I would have recalled that YOU were the one who authored the articles where I came to learn about the NCC efforts to begin with!
No. In fact, they had the chance to add a small but vigorous Continuing Anglican diocese to their church, which wished to escape the chaos of Continuing Anglicanism and join them lock, stock and barrell—but they dealt with these people with such lacksadaisicality and seeming indifference (although showing them great bonhommie and hospitality) that after nearly five years the talks simply petered out. Not a very “evangelistic†way to run a church.
I have to say, there is irony to this for me… IIRC, the OCA and the PNCC engaged for years – with how much vigor I do not know – in a conversation about the PNCC essentially entering into Orthodoxy as a WR body a la the Orthodox Church of France… I understand that they would have become diocese within the OCA just the same as the ethnic non-geographic diocese… or as Eastern Catholics have eparchies seperate from Latins…
Just the same as the PNCC did not engender a solid interest in an Anglican Usage, the OCA and PNCC seemed to mutually drop serious discussion about communion. On the face of it, all three parties seem pretty compatible in some essentials of being pro-seven ecumenical councils, pro-seven sacraments, non-papal. One can’t help but wonder at first glance, why this is so difficult.
Yet the trend (unlike the TEC-ELCA, and Porvoo agreement Protestant parties) in catholic circles of these three groups has been fracture over communion.
Some would say that the Roman See is of inestimable value in monitoring and settling these sorts of disputes. More and more, I am one of them. When people raise an eyebrow to the notion that Bishop Steenson has more and more frequently been heard to say “Benedict XVI is the answer” I can’t help but wonder if this is really THAT suprising.
Re: #41,
I am aware that there was a serious discussion in the early/mid 80s between the Antiochians and the PNCC, but not one between the OCA and the PNCC.
In fact, a PNCC layman and historian, the late Dr. Laurence Orzell, sent me a series of articles that he had written about these conversations. Their general drift was, that they went well at the “getting to know you” stage and the initial theological discussions, but began to drift when the Antiochians began to ask, why are we haveing these theological discussions, when we should be discussing the “practicalities” (clerical marriage, celibate bishops and the like) of your becoming a Western-Rite Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Antioch? The PNCC parties and the PNCC leadership were not fully persuaded that this was the way that they wanted to go, but were open to it — but the “rushing” tactics of the Antiochians eventually brought the discussions to an inconclusive close.
RE: #42 – once again WT has done his homework. Finding my references to the OCA-PNCC dialogue you are very right. The Antiochans were the ones more vigorously pursuing communion. The OCA reference I found was more that of a benign discussion.
Still, as the case may be, switch out “OCA” for AOC in post #41 – the thought remains roughly the same.
Still I can understand a little better the PNCC’s retiscence to sign on to subordination under an Eastern Patriarch…
[i] Let’s return to the original post about Bishop Steenson, please. [/i]
Apologies – did not mean to vear off topic so. I grant it is speculative…
Any word on if he is seeking to serve the Catholic Church as a priest?
Re: #45,
I have heard, at third hand, that he might like to become a Patristics or Church History Professor somewhere — which, if so, would parallel the case of PECUSA Bishop Kinsman of Delaware who, after he resigned as bishop and became a Catholic in 1919, spent the remaining 25+ years of his life as Professor of Church History at the Catholic University of America.