The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church formally began a search for its next bishop today (October 16, 2010), as deputies to the 145th Annual Convention approved a resolution calling for an episcopal election 18-months from now.
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention Approves Call for Election of Next Bishop
Posted in Uncategorized
While the entity called the episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh has a website, it’s canonical status is questionable, to say the least. The headline quoted at the head of this post for some reason, though literally correct in that it quotes the article on the entity’s web page, seems somewhat misleading. At first I thought it was referring the the real and actual Diocese of Pittsburgh.
I don’t know whether this one has been approved, but they’re also “encouraging” parishes to resume paying the “asking” for the TEC coffers. See [url=http://www.episcopalpgh.org/2010-resolutions-revised/ ]here[/url]. Raise your hand if you saw that coming – they always get back to the money issues. I wonder how many TEC DioPGH members REALLY want their tithes to go toward suing the Anglican church two blocks away.
And, not only suing the Anglican church two blocks away, it will also be suing their friends, as well, since the people in most congregations have many friends in neighboring parishes.
Well I was present, and expressed concern about Title IV (which many of the clergy already agree will have to be modified), but frankly the “always get back to money issues” line is a cheap shot. The resolution Gillian cites was – as one of the sponsors made clear -not mandatory. And there’s been a fair amount of discussion at ACNA pre-convention meetings about the transition to the tithe and that’s a “money issue” too.
It would be nice if people finally got what the new Diocese of Pittsburgh – and yes it is a diocese; asserting anything else is just silly – is and isn’t. There are enough flaws on the ACNA side – not of doctrine, but of personality – to appreciate why some drew back from the Great Endeavor. They will do their best in the place to which they’ve been called and perhaps in the end fail, but they will be faithful in their own way.
As for the lawsuits, both sides have chosen to make decisions that have prolonged them. I rather doubt that all those on the suing side are doing it despite knowing in their hearts that they have no claim. They believe as much in the concept of the national church – however mistakenly – as ACNA does in the ascendancy of the diocese (or of the parish if you happen to be in Virginia).
I can go to the ACNA convention and feel that certain fundamentals are in order in a way that may not be true at the TEC convention, but in the ordering of hearts, minds and wills, I would say both have their fair share of saints and sinners.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Gillian #2, I would simply note that Resolution #1 did indeed pass, a mind-of-the-house statement of “encouragement.” But it is important to note that is was the “mind of the house” to continue to respect the conscience of those parishes of the diocese that choose to withhold the portion of their diocesan assessment attributed to the asking of the Episcopal Church.
And please note that no “Anglican Church two blocks away,” no Anglican Church at all, is being sued here in Pittsburgh. The only legal matter presently at issue is the Anglican Diocese’s appeal in Commonwealth Court of the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas to enforce the 2005 agreement between Calvary Church and the diocese. I and I believe most of us in the TEC diocese very much hope that other outstanding concerns between the two dioceses and the various parishes and congregations might be settled through a process of mutually respectful negotiations once the present appeal has been ruled on. The framework for those negotiations, I believe, has in fact already been set out in paragraph #2 of the 2005 Stipulation.
Understanding the partisan issues that sparkle here, of course, I would hope that all would pray that the process we’re undertaking here in Pittsburgh-TEC will build us up in holiness and lead us to the election of a godly and faithful bishop in April of 2012.
Bruce Robison
Father Bruce, from your lips to God’s ears, but I’m not holding my breath. Yes, the personal issues sparkle, and there is much hurt that will not even begin to be addressed until the legal issues are out of the courts. The minority (at least as of the time of the 2008 vote) is trying to claim the belongings and the identity of the majority. I’m sure that things would be easier if we just let y’all have all the stuff (and the name if it comes to that), but would it be right? Obviously most don’t think so.
Jeremy, I hold that the TEC Diocese is not a diocese at all, because the true Diocese, in a democratic fashion, chose to remove itself from association with TEC. The parishes that chose not to join the rest of the Diocese have not, according to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, formed a new and unique diocese. I can point you to the Anglican Curmudgeon’s blog for the legal explanation, but I believe that you are familiar with that. I don’t believe that it is a cheap shot to say that the diocese is once again coming around to money issues – that seems to be the reason that the Anglican Diocese (formally the TEC diocese) is being sued.
Gillian,
You’re using precisely the same language that the progressive majority has employed to shape the General Convention in their own image – “the will of the majority.” I voted for realignment as an ecclesiological principle; I didn’t vote for it as an institutional one. Having chosen to set two institutional claims against one another, we’ve left it to the secular courts to make a decision. We didn’t have to do that.
Are there principles that sustain notions of autonomous dioceses and the absence of constitutional prohibitions on disaffiliation. As a matter of history, I believe there are. Are they so obvious that one couldn’t construct a counter-argument? I think not, precisely because many Episcopalians, over the course of almost two hundred years, were very careful not to be clear on points like this. Did we have a “fiduciary” responsibility to invoke them and “defend” ourselves. The ACNA leadership apparently thinks we do; for myself, I’m not convinced.
Peace Jeremy. I certainly don’t want to start the great debate here, and I apologize if you saw my comment as snarky.
It is all terribly sad, and too many people have been hurt, and I struggle with a terrible sense of injustice and disappointment that Christian people can behave this way towards each other. If only…ah well, count it all joy.
You sound like you have a foot in both camps, and I don’t envy you a bit. Peace brother.
I’m curious: assuming that this is still a canonically valid diocese, can it elect a new bishop? As far as I know, Bishop Duncan has not resigned. One would then have to consider his purported deposition valid and it unambiguously wasn’t (there is no need to recite here the egregious constitutional violations of that painful atrocity – and please note, the issue herein has nothing to do with Bishop Duncan’s guilt or any supposed mistreatment of him, but rather with the HoB’s egregious failure to follow its own canons, relying instead on supposed “interpretations” that amount to sophistry unworthy of a ten-year-old). Would not electing a bishop without first obtaining Bishop Duncan’s resignation (bravo if the diocese has done so) compound the unconstitutionality of this sad situation? Or am I missing something?
Daniel Muth, my understanding is that the new “diocese” [sic] was one cobbled together after the departure of the old diocese [only of course they never departed because a diocese can’t depart] and *then* the cobbled together bits proceeded along in violation of TEC’s own canons in the creation of a diocese to make a new “diocese.”
It’s a sham and a disgrace and permanently tainted. But they didn’t care. Following the canons don’t matter to people who just want what they want.
Had they actually followed the canons they could have easily constituted an entity, than properly appealed to General Convention for recognition. But oh yes . . . they needed something much much earlier than that so that they could have some sort of entity called a “diocese” to engage in the lawsuits.
Shame.
Sarah, the TEC Diocese is styling itself as the “continuing” diocese – their convention was touted as the “145th for this diocese”. They don’t consider themselves a “new” diocese at all. TEC can change the meaning of the Bible, create Canons that violate the constitution, and declare that they own properties that they never bought or supported – all by a “democratic and Spirit-led” vote, but that doesn’t hold for a diocese that votes to disassociate itself from the non-existent National Church.
I don’t know that there is a single point of view about this in our TEC diocese, but what I will say is that we worked very carefully within both our local Pittsburgh canons and the Canons of the Episcopal Church to insure that there was a continuity of ecclesiastical authority in that portion of our diocese–28 parishes of approximately 70, including around 45% of the pre-2008 diocesan ASA–that decided not to be a part of realignment. We did not want a repetition of the “reorganization” that took place in San Joaquin. On every canonical body–Standing Committee, Board of Trustees, Diocesan Council, Deputations to General Convention–there were members who had been elected prior to the realignment who remained in the Episcopal Church, and they continued to function under the authority of that election after the realignment. All “vacancies” that occured when members of canonical bodies announced that they were no longer members of the Episcopal Church were filled in accordance with the canons of the diocese. No claim has been made for ownership of properties other than those titled to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and not a single lawsuit has been intiated by the diocese. So far as I know there is only one legal matter currently in play. The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh has acted to appeal in Commonwealth Court the ruling of the Presiding Judge of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to enforce “Paragraph One” in the settlement reached in 2005 between the diocese and Calvary Church. I believe that both “sides” sincerely believe their interpretation of that order to be correct, and I wouldn’t disparage the motives of either. We’re in something of terra incognita, and there are some areas in which we simply will need to ask the courts for assistance and clarification of the law. That said, I know there is a desire, once that clarification has taken place, to be sure that there continues to be a spirit of Christian charity in our midst.
My view continues to be that both the TEC diocese and the Anglican diocese are–and are not–to be identified with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that existed prior to the first weekend of October, 2008. We are both in continuity with that body, and neither of us are. There are all kinds of issues of continuity and identity–legal, moral, social, relational–and these will all remain deeply entangled I’m sure for years to come.
It is quite evident that there are those on both sides of the divide who refuse to acknowledge and honor the integrity of those on the other side. There has been a lot of hurt, and there continues to be much anxieity–so that’s not really surprising. My prayer is that as time passes we will be able find as many win/win solutions to the problems in front of us as we can. Good will and generous hearts on both sides will be a big help in making that possible, and it is my observation that despite some hard places there is in fact much good will and there are many generous hearts on both sides.
Bruce Robison
[b]We are both in continuity with that body, and neither of us are.[/b]
The essential epitaph for pre-2008 Pittsburgh, Bruce.
RE: “we worked very carefully within both our local Pittsburgh canons and the Canons of the Episcopal Church to insure . . . ”
Well — except that you violated them. So if by “working very carefully within” you mean “we didn’t follow them” I could see how that would make sense.
The Curmudgeon made it all quite clear as to what game the faux diocese played — I’ll excerpt a bit of one of his scores of posts on the charade that the leaders of the faux Pittsburgh diocese have engaged in:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-proper-way-is-one-not-being.html
[blockquote]Once again, it is not a matter of whom you will recognize, but of by whom you will be recognized. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, no matter what you say or believe, will continue in existence as an unincorporated association under Pennsylvania law—it has violated neither its Constitution nor its canons in approving the changes it adopted today. You dissented from those changes, but that does not mean that you are suddenly, by the act of dissenting, catapulted into a separate existence of your own under Pennsylvania law. You have to organize, just as the original Diocese of Pittsburgh did long ago, to form a new entity before you will have any status under Pennsylvania law whatsoever.
[blockquote]3. Soon after October 4, the remaining members of the Standing Committee will determine whether any of the other members of the current Standing Committee are remaining in the Episcopal Church. Those who are not will cease to be recognized as members of the Standing Committee. The remaining members of the Standing Committee will appoint two additional individuals to serve as members of the Standing Committee.[/blockquote]
Sophistry, sheer sophistry. After the changes in the diocesan Constitution and Canons, the Diocese can no longer function as a diocese of The Episcopal Church. The Standing Committee is a creature of that Diocese. The Diocese having voted to leave, so of necessity has its Standing Committee. As persons who dissented from the vote to leave, you no longer have a Standing Committee, so your determination of “whom to recognize” is a complete fantasy, without any reality in the eyes of the law. Appointing “replacement” members of a non-existent Standing Committee is akin to appointing, on September 12, 2001, “replacement” elevator operators for the World Trade Center.
[blockquote]4. The Standing Committee will determine which members of the Diocesan Council and the Board of Trustees are remaining in the Episcopal Church. The Standing Committee will likely appoint a certain number of new members of Council and Trustees.[/blockquote]
See comment on the previous paragraph—you are appointing officials to bodies that no longer exist, as far as you are concerned, after the vote.
[blockquote]5. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is expected to recognize the reorganized Standing Committee as the ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.[/blockquote]
Oh, no doubt she will—I can see her letter coming from a mile away. Unfortunately, however, there is no diocese of Pittsburgh for her to recognize. There is only a geographical hole which you and she should start doing your utmost to fill in, as quickly as possible. Proclaiming that there is a diocese, and an “ecclesiastical authority”, is an exercise in wishful thinking. Have you ever heard of the Emperor with No Clothes?
[blockquote]6. The Standing Committee will appoint a Secretary of Convention, Chancellor, Treasurer, and such other officers as may be necessary.[/blockquote]
More wishful thinking. Until you have a proper organizing Convention, any such appointments will be meaningless.
[blockquote]7. The Standing Committee will call a special Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, most likely to take place before the end of 2008.[/blockquote]
Pray do call a special Convention. Just be sure you do it on at least thirty days’ notice (don’t follow the 17-day example of San Joaquin), and please be sure there is a quorum of both laity and clergy present. You will have to figure out how you manage not to count the 121 clergy who voted to leave in establishing your quorum; I refuse to help you, since you are the ones who invoked Canon IV.9 against Bishop Duncan.
[blockquote]8. The special Convention will elect additional members of the Standing Committee, Diocesan Council, Board of Trustees and such other offices that may be vacant due to “realignment.†The Convention will adopt a revised budget for the Diocese, and take such other actions that may be necessary.[/blockquote]
Oh, no doubt your “special Convention” will purport to do all those things. Just be sure, as I say, that you have a legal quorum of both orders with which to transact business. Otherwise, you will simply be piling irregularity upon irregularity, until we have, as I have previously described it, “a Murder of Crows.”[/blockquote]
[i]No, there was a perfectly legally canonical way to form an actual, real Episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh, and that was to form a missional entity and appeal for admission to TEC at GC 2006.
And there is only one reason why traditional Episcopal leaders in Pittsburgh who wished to remain in TEC lost their integrity and chose to do it the 815 way — and that was so that they could have a faux entity that could engage in the lawsuits for other people’s property.[/i]
What a sham and a disgrace.
Mind you — that doesn’t mean that certain people in the faux diocese are not traditional Christians. Doesn’t mean there aren’t some great people in the faux diocese. Doesn’t mean that the people in the faux diocese won’t do some great things. It just means that the leadership of the faux diocese have engaged in disgraceful behavior — and we all see it.
All of it has been chronicled for posterity — so that we can never forget what has been done — in grinding and meticulous detail:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/litigation-diocese-of-pittsburgh.html
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/01/pirates-of-pittsburgh.html
Someday perhaps those leaders who are believers will repent of their actions.
Sarah, on nearly all matters of substance discussed on these pages I find myself generally in accord with your perspectives. When it comes to this question, in fundamental ways I am agnostic. Haley’s analysis of the Pittsburgh situation, like the analysis offered by the Episcopal diocese, is built on a foundation of assumptions that can only be asserted. Historians may write interesting footnotes. But. If the constitutional authorities of the Episcopal Church judge that the actions of the Pittsburgh-TEC diocese have been sufficient to provide continuity, and if as months stretch to years our TEC diocese continues to function institutionally within the Episcopal Church and in accordance with an accepted (if not the only accepted) view of the canonical situation, then my view is that we all just need to take a deep breath, step forward, and pray that the best actions we take will in some ways give honor to our Lord and Savior.
If you read 19th Century Roman Catholic versions of the “irretrievably broken” apostolic continuity of the 16th century Church of England, and then the Anglican response, you end up in something of the same place. Seeing all kinds of things you might wish you had done differently.
My sense is that people did the best they could with the tools they truly had at their disposal in very unusual times. I was in the midst of the situation and I know as dear friends those in both groups. Everybody was trying to build the airplane while it was in the air, whether they were determined to remain in TEC or to continue in a realigned diocese.
I am, though, concerned that use of language like “sham” and “disgrace” and talk of a “faux diocese” will ultimately press against the possibility for a resolution to outstanding issues that can go some ways to respect the life and Christian ministry of both groups. I understand the frustration and have felt it deeply myself. Nonetheless, we move on. Some on both sides, in my view, would prefer “lose/lose” resolutions to “win/win” resolutions, but I hope those folks will not carry the day.
Bruce Robison
RE: “If you read 19th Century Roman Catholic versions of the “irretrievably broken†apostolic continuity of the 16th century Church of England, and then the Anglican response, you end up in something of the same place.”
I respect what the RC stated as it was a public assertion of their theology and doctrine, and a position of integrity with it. I have no desire to nuance their position — which is wholly consistent with their mistaken notion that they are the true Church — as doing so would mean that we would all be skirting around the issue and not actually communicating clearly about things that matter.
That’s precisely the problem with postmodern ecumenical work a la Frank Griswold. He’s willing to lie about his stances and blur truth and lies in order to achieve faux “resolutions.”
RE: “I am, though, concerned that use of language like “sham†and “disgrace†and talk of a “faux diocese†will ultimately press against the possibility for a resolution to outstanding issues that can go some ways to respect the life and Christian ministry of both groups.”
I’m not certain how my recognizing the violation of the canons and the construction of a faux diocese prevents “resolution” — in fact, such recognitions actually could *lead* to honest resolution. And further, it is perfectly possible to respect the life and Christian ministry within the faux diocese just as it is possible to respect the life and Christian ministry within an Anglican diocese that is not within the Anglican Communion!
But lying to one another about the reality of what each side believes is certainly not going to lead to resolution.
The question is . . . how can one side which believes your entity to be a faux TEC diocese and the actions that led to such an artificial entity to be self-serving, corrupt, and immoral come to resolution with the other side.
And that should be pretty simple, actually.
People sin all the time. People negotiate with other sinners all the time, themselves also being sinners. I see no reason why the two sides cannot come to a resolution while both acknowledge that they believe the others’ actions to be disgraceful and immoral.
I doubt that I will be changing my opinion any time in the coming decades about such decisions, and here we are having a perfectly civil conversation and both of us, I suspect, acknowledging the other as Christian brother and sister.
Sarah,
[blockquote]and both of us, I suspect, acknowledging the other as Christian brother and sister.[/blockquote]
Indeed so, and I always especially appreciate both your straightforward clarity and your graciousness.
It’s my opinion–not held as a matter of ontological certainty, but simply in the pragmatics of the muddy occasion–that the decision of a number of my brothers and sisters to depart from the Episcopal Church could not have the canonical effect of removing the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh from the Episcopal Church. I believe that what they did had the effect of creating a new entity, which they have now named, appropriately, “the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.” It is an entity, a diocese, and they are Christian friends, who have my entire respect and affection. The reality is that in the mess we’ve just come through both sides have demonstrated the willingness, let’s say, to be “creative” in the self-serving interpretation of canons. I also find that distasteful, though I don’t find myself feeling quite as judgmental in a moral sense as you seem to. I think people on all sides have found themselves between a rock and a hard place, and in situations that the guidebooks hadn’t anticipated–and it seems to me most folks on both sides did the best they can. There is a plausible canonical narrative demonstrating continuity of the TEC diocese, and it is a narrative that has been accepted by the General Convention, as deputies elected by the pre-realignment Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh were seated as deputies of the “post-realignment” TEC diocese without the need of any further election or endorsement. Canon lawyers and historians will spend a season or a generation reflecting and debating, and my guess is that both sides of this division will be found wanting in some significant ways.
Blessings~