An 18-member Disciplinary Board for Bishops has been established as required by the revised version of the Episcopal Church’s canons on clergy discipline, which go into effect July 1.
The board consists of 10 bishops, four clergy and four lay members. Eight of the bishops were elected by the House of Bishops at the group’s March meeting; two were later appointed by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori when vacancies occurred, according to a press release from the church’s Office of Public Affairs.
First up, ladies and gentlemen…[i]Katharine Jefferts Schori . . . [b]pass!![/b][/i]
Nikolaus, you beat me to the punch! Of course she’ll get a pass……..after all, she’s the reigning monarch, isn’t she? Seriously, though, I can’t help but wonder just who the first victim will be: +Lawrence, maybe, or +Love, perhaps? She’s got them both dead square in her sights.
Bennison.
Then — in a fit of angry stupidity — Lawrence.
My favorite line of the story is “He said the then-proposed revision was rooted in the Baptismal Covenant and the need for accountability and responsibility, as well as healing and reconciliation.”
Heh — lots of “healing and reconciliation” TEC-style over the next several years.
Is there even a single person on this panel who has not openly broken communion with the Church (I mean the real one, not TEC)? One is inclined to predict that KJS will be made PB for life at the 2015 GC. And since anyone voting no can be deposed, I suspect the measure will carry by an overwhelming majority.
Actually, if the first deposition by the new Star Chamber of the Episcopal Church is indeed Bennison, that will carry a great irony, given the revelations of the last few days. Is there any sort of open hearing involved, or does the Star Chamber just prepare papers for KJS signature?
1. I suspect the lone conservative (moderate) is Dena Harrison.
2. The article does mention dioceses which are standing to the side of Title IV approval — SC, Dallas, and CFL.
3. With the Nevada developments in the air, this committee does start off with a shadowy sense of direction. As noted, going after Bennison would be rich.
4. Do they mention the papers of McCall/Runyan because they are going to seek 100% compliance from dioceses? This throws open the constitutionality issue. What a mess it will be to fight it out on those terms (a constitution whose ‘plain sense’ is determined by a hand-picked committee…which is in turn ignored…etc).
I would think that +Love is fairly safe given that he has become so marginal in New York, Also, his diocese has so many small ASA chuches. Many should close but I read that his main supporters are in the rural areas. +Lawrence is more likely given that his diocese has already “permitted” two large parishes to slip away with their property. Going after +Bennison should be a no-brainer. Statmann
Statmann….
Being a priest in one of the non-rural parishes in Albany, I would like to suggest that your information is outdated as many of the parishes in the city limits are committed to orthodoxy and are showing signs of growth.
Well, that’s good, padregan! Too bad the same isn’t true of my original Diocese of Central New York, where I was born and raised. They really went to the dogs when the liberals seized control in Utica and Syracuse in the ’60s!
Awesome! My bishop (and former rector) is on this committee! Now I can ask him what they’re going to do about Schori accepting the perv in Nevada! 🙂
Can the PB go directly after a Rector, bypassing the Diocesan Bishop? I think I recall reading this was possible. If this is possible, I think a Rector in S.C. (I have no particular one in mind) will be the first to go. If Bishop Lawrence interferes, then he will be next. If I’m wrong about going after a Rector directly, just ignore my prediction.
It looks to me like Schori can do pretty much as she pleases, and it won’t surprise me if she goes after a deacon or priest here and there. Maybe I read the revised Title IV the wrong way, but that’s the way I see it.
#6
+Lawrence is more likely given that his diocese has already ““permitted” two large parishes to slip away with their property.”
NOT SO… The Supreme Court of SC denied the “Denis Canon” and +Lawrence had no choice in one case.. So on what grounds could he go after St. Andrews? Unlike TEC, our diocese does NOT have unlimited funds and endowment to rob. Any Diocese would be deeply blessed to have +Lawrence for Bishop.
Grandmother in SC
padreegan: Happy to read that +Love has more support than I thought to be. Also, hope that your comment supports my assumption that he is fairly safe.
grandmother: I realize that the SC Suprme did not validate the Denis canon. That is why I put permitted in italics. What I meant is that +Lawrence did not challenge the decision and take it to US Supreme court. I fear that can be used against him by PB, etc. I still think he will be high on the “hit list”. TEC has a zero tolerance for churches going to ACNA with their property. Statmann
Statmann
The ‘revisionist’ parishes are a small minority in the Diocese. And to be honest, those smaller rural parishes, although small in ASA, a very strong, committed parishes that are doing quite a bit in their areas to spread the Gospel.
Sometimes I think folks want Bp. Love to be more outspoken, but to be honest, we are all focused on Albany and our parishes and our people, and most of all our Lord. I can tell you that I pay little attention to what is happening on a national level in TEC.
and just to add…I applaud Bp. Lawrence and the brave souls of South Carolina, but we just don’t have the numbers they do to put up such a valiant fight. We are better being the quiet orthodox diocese.