Letter from the Presiding Bishop to Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Dear Bob,
There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.
I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.
If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church — by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased — and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.
It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori
So if the national church passes a canon which says you belong, then that is the end of the matter! I have always been led to believe the church is a voluntary association. If the diocese of Pennsylvania had to assent to the constitution of the TEC to join, then it rather obviously has the power to recind that decision.
Jon R.
Maybe we could suggest a reply along these lines:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.†. . . And: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . “
CharlesB- both you and Schori mistake that this issue can be settled on political terms. It can only be settled on the basis of theological terms describing the nature of a Communion and the basis for how the participants of such a Communion relate to each other.
The misfortune here is that the one man who could make this discussion substantially more coherent, Rowan Williams, seems to not have a clue on how the AoC is supposed to lead the Communion when Bishops and Provinces have substantive disagreements such as the one between ecusa and both Duncan and the Global South in general.
It’s ironic for the leader of TEC, which has acted with disregard for the interdependent nature of the church catholic internationally, to insist on the interdependent relationship among U.S. dioceses and their submission to national authority.
Whatever does the Bishop of Pittsburgh need a visiting bishop for? This has always been incomprehensible. He doesn’t need a flying bishop, he needs to be in association with a province of dioceses which uphold the traditional Christian faith.
It’s parishes in hostile dioceses which need a flying bishop.
CarlesB, I know many Americans are uncomfortable with the implications, but the parallels with the secession of the southern states is most apt. Interstingly I did find a book a while back in which a number of lawyers suggested the South was right, they did have the constitutional right to seceed.
Jon R.
p.s. Just in case you are wondering, Western Australia held a referendum back in 1933 on wether it should seceed from the Commonwealth of Australia. The referendum was passed with a 2 to 1 majority in favour. Unfortunately to become effective under the federal constitution it would have had to be passed by a general referendum of the entire Commonwealth. Interesting, at the time at least another two state were looking at the possibility. The implication being, we might just have managed it.
[blockquote] The misfortune here is that the one man who could make this discussion substantially more coherent, Rowan Williams [/blockquote] is, himself, an incoherent leader on many levels.
Interesting, all this, as today is Nov. 1, and we should soon begin hearing about Archbishop Williams’ thoughts on the JSC “report”. Not holding my breath, though.
[blockquote] It’s ironic for the leader of TEC, which has acted with disregard for the interdependent nature of the church catholic internationally, to insist on the interdependent relationship among U.S. dioceses and their submission to national authority. [/blockquote]
Ironic. Absolutely. And this nicely displays Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s penchant for Machiavellian manipulation.
See 7. Schori herself must see the irony here, but there is precious little she can (or would) do about it. She has decided, I suspect, that it is better to be a dead lion than a dead dog, since, obviously, her threat will carry little weight.
Nevertheless, there will be consequences down the line for this doubleness – or duplicity, if tht is what it is. In a way, she is trying to play both ends against the middle so to establish herself as the Middle Master. But this will work only so long as the middle carries the necessary authority and clout to play this game. But the evidence is that TEC is losing these characteristics, in which case, the ends, if the power has been shifted there, will force the middle to collapse. I do not see how she can avoid this; she is playing a dangerous game, and she must know it now. LM
TEC is fighting for its institutional existence. Do not expect logic or consistency. I would expect these diocese to be accepted into foreign provinces sooner rather than later and the lawsuits and vituperation will increase.
I do wish that TEC was as zealous in fighting heresy as in fighting for property. But presentment for heresy went out with Pike.
Larry,
There are future Church History PhDs to written about all this. Others have noted it in the past, but I’ll suggest again that her lack of congregation leadership continues to shine through. IF she had ever actually led a congregation, she’d know in her bones you can’t threaten volunteers with much of anything, including the paid ones. All your best people are always volunteers whether you give them a paycheck or not. Push a little too hard around the edges and most will just walk away.
If her intention is to drive these dioceses out of TEC and bring about ever more expensive lawsuits, than she’s working her strategy pretty well. But as for me, I think she’s rather clueless when it comes to the dynamics of real leadership. Externally it appears she really doesn’t know what she’s doing.
Maryland Brian
Schori is playing the only politics she knows, academia: Nasty, petty, personalised, over-blown, illogical, inconsistent, [i]ad hoc, ad hominem, ex post facto … ad nauseum.[/i]
Here are some relevant cites:
[blockquote]ARTICLE V
Sec. 1 “…After consent of the General Convention, when a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the Secretary of the General Convention and approved by the Executive Council of this Church, such new Diocese shall thereupon be in union with the General Convention.â€
CANON 10
Sec. 4. Whenever a new Diocese shall have organized in Primary Convention in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and Canons in such case made and provided, and in the manner prescribed in the previous Sections of this Canon, and shall have chosen a name and acceded to the Constitution of the General Convention in accordance with Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution, and shall have laid before the Executive Council certified copies of the Constitution adopted at its Primary Convention, and the proceedings preparatory to the formation of the proposed new Diocese, such new Diocese shall thereupon be admitted into union with the General Convention.[/blockquote]
So, accession is required for [b]admission[/b] – does anyone know if there is any canonical requirement that a diocese must [b]keep[/b] the accession clause, and not leave GC and TEC? It seems that TEC can make only an indirect trust argument (property held to beneift DFMS/815) via the Dennis Clause… of course, that would seem to counter past behavior vis a vis bishops, dioceses, and property…
“A number of the primates have perhaps inaccurate ideas about the context of this church. They hear from the voices quite loudly that this church is going to hell in a handbasket. The folks who are unhappy represent a small percentage of the whole, but they are quite loud.”
A quote of Madame Schori.
Well, I’m sure all this is “heady stuff”, for something labelled an “abstract reality” by the ABC himself.
The go-ahead was clearly given at New Orleans, and then given a stamp of approval by the ACC Standing Commitee.
THE ABC tried to “take it back” a bit in his letter to +Howe, but only succeeded in stirring this particular pot.
Gloria in SC
I don’t know ‘sense of the parishoners’ of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, but I do have a feeling for the ‘sense’ of the parishoners of my diocese (which is part of the ACN).
Most parishoners in our diocese, who are active in their Anglican beliefs, just want to attend church and to get on with the diocese’s commitment to the Great Commision and to its healing ministry. There is a minority element within the diocese that would want to start a political free-for-all in ortder to advance the revisionist-progressive agenda, but they probably constitute no more than 20% of the diocese and are concentrated in its big-city and university-town parishes.
However, if Schori or any part of ECUSA’s revisionist-progressive leadership were to ‘get in our faces,’ then I am fairly sure that most of the active parishoners in our diocese would unite in indignation and rightful anger toward the revisionists-progressives.
The effects of heavy-handed tactics by Shori and company toward our diocese would probably cause an unhealable separation between our diocese and ECUSA.
Dear Katie,
Nuts!
Sincerely,
…
Katherine (#4).
You are absolutely correct.
When I read this, the story of Exodus came to mind where God hardened Pharoh’s heart. ISTM that our PB’s heart is hardened.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I think it’s likely that by time KJS and her cohort get around to presentment charges, +Duncan and the DioPitt will no longer be part of her organization.
Fort Sumter, 2007.
I am amazed to hear the PB use the term “hierarchical” to refer positively to relationships within the Church. I thought hierarchy was dead, perhaps even evil, and certainly not a way to understand the organization of the Episcopal Church in the modern age. At least that’s what I was taught in my Episcopal seminary, and have heard from the progressive leadership of TEC.
I was thrown by the headline. This is not even a letter to ‘Network Dioceses’ by implication, so far as I can tell. It is a letter to +Duncan (so SF).
I’d be helped by some kind of informal agreement about what to label things. Presumably ‘Common Cause’ is clear enough. ‘Network’ could apply to SC, Albany, CFL, Dallas, even Rio Grande. No letters were written to them so far as one can tell here.
Is this letter even legitimate? Can’t anyone send private letters anymore?
#21 — I understand your complaint, there is a whole lot of subjective reading about this letter going on. Those involved in the Virginia law suits are on Stand Firm saying this as a letter written with the sole purpose of affecting that case, I think personally find that very far fetched, related yes but I think the upcoming DioPitt 143rd convention may have something to do with this letter. I think Kendall+’s headline editorial is accurate, this letter is to the Network moderator in his other capacity, but does serve as a shot across the bow, so if SC, Albany, CFL, Dallas, DRG ponder doing the same thing, this letter would be applicable, else why publish this letter at the bottom of an article on ENS entitled, “Presiding Bishop reaches out to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses.” In context of how this letter is being made public, I think Kendall+ is quite accurate with his editorial of the headline.
Wow, +Pike wasn’t mentioned until #9. Y’all are slipping.
PadreWayne,
+Pike is relavent because Pittsburg’s impending actions are the logical conclusion of the leftist/new age takeover of PECUSA which has been 40 years in the making. Had ya’ll been content with merely changing the politics of TEC and not its theology – you would not be seeing the acts of desparation which you are witnessing. Most of the Political Right (like me) within PECUSA already has left for friendlier churches or the grave – what you are witnessing now are those who just cannot stomache the “New Thing’s” theology. I think this will only excelerate after TEC’s 2009 convention which should be quite a show.
This is the same woman who, when asked to exercise discipline within TEC as the “primate” falls back on the “I don’t have the power” argument! She is beyond irrationality. But, of course, the Chancellor is writing her script.
When I read the full ENS piece this passage lept to mind:
[blockquote] When King Hezekiah heard this, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and went into the temple of the LORD. He sent Eliakim the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and the leading priests, all wearing sackcloth, to the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz. They told him, “This is what Hezekiah says: This day is a day of distress and rebuke and disgrace, as when children come to the point of birth and there is no strength to deliver them. It may be that the LORD your God will hear the words of the field commander, whom his master, the king of Assyria, has sent to ridicule the living God, and that he will rebuke him for the words the LORD your God has heard. Therefore pray for the remnant that still survives.” When King Hezekiah’s officials came to Isaiah, 6 Isaiah said to them, “Tell your master, ‘This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard– those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Listen! I am going to put a spirit in him so that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.'” Isaiah 37:1-7 [/blockquote]
Later the Apostles’ prayer in reponse to the beginning of persecution came to mind:
[blockquote] “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. –Acts 4:29-33 [/blockquote]
May God continue to bless and protect Bishop Duncan and other leaders who keep their baptismal vows “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers.”
My, my, my, said the spider to the fly…
[blockquote]I challenge each one of us to consider who it is we would most like to be rid of,” she said. “That person, my friends, is the image of Christ in our midst. There will be no outcasts in this church, whether because of sexual orientation or theological perspective. God has given us to each other, to love and to learn from each other. May God bless each and every part of this body.”[/blockquote]
KAR–it is simply not clear to me whether ‘Network’ has any clear reference any longer. +Pittsburgh is involved in a Common Cause endeavour that former ‘Network’ Bishops are not involved in. In the light of that, to speak of a warning to ‘Network Dioceses’ is question-begging. Indeed, +CFL was the object of a fair amount of scorn precisely because to some it was clear he was acting quite differently vis-a-vis TEC than Common Cause. You may well be right that a letter to +Duncan has a knock-on effect, but I should think chiefly to those dioceses which are pursuing something akin to +Duncan and Pittsburgh. I say this without prejudice toward Common Cause, but only for the sake of clarity.
PS–this is nothing to do with criticising T19 or my friend Kendall Harmon. It is simply a larger matter of clarity. Common Cause is now a movement that has its own integrity, or is seeking that. It is far less clear what ‘Network’ means in the light of that.
Indeed, and the fact that +CFL is more likely to get a gushing love letter from Mrs. Schori (or send one; he’s said as much in words) than a letter like this explains why.
30 & 31 Maybe in two years you will be truly correct. Right now everything is a little murky, so yes +Howe and +Duncan are in the Network until on or the other remove themselves (all but SC voted for the resolutions for Common Cause this summer). Logically there could be a point in the future where some ACN diocese pull out, but that has not happen yet. I’m sure in the 815 offices there is guilt by associations so a warning merited to all, even if not necessary.
At this point even those you pointed towards (except SC) voted to join Common Cause. Maybe this will all be very different in six months, but technically that where these lines are drawn.
KAR–this is simply a place where we disagree (from my work inside CA meetings). I think your term ‘murky’ is not bad, however. Obviously if there is a push for Common Cause to be recognised as a separate province–which appears to be their understanding–this is not a strategy that is shared beyond a few (erstwhile) ‘Network’ Bishops. But you are indeed right that things are in flux. I suspect that there is also some tension between ‘Network’ at an episcopal level, and ‘Network’ as originally dreamed up, involving parishes, etc. I have said this in the past. What is inaccurate about just calling Common Cause by its name?
“Dear Bob†seems flip to me.
And she wrote, “I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation.â€
Answer, “Dear Madam Presiding Bishop,†“On our part and your part in the PECUSA, praying for reconciliation must be followed by a genuine effort on both our parts to return the National Church you head to the truth found in Holy Scripture. We cannot continue walking with those who have departed from the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and 2000 years of teaching by the Apostles’ successors. Forsake this new religion in the PECUSA and return to the teachings of your long line of predecessors, and we will gladly remain and walk with you.â€
libraryjim — far from “outcasting” anyone it seems to me that +KJS is focused on gathering in even those who seem as determined to walk apart as +Bob Duncan. Brava!
#36,
Who (in actuality) walked away first?
Yes, Susan+, it seems that +KJS (or is it ++KJS or +++KJS?) is focused on gathering in +Duncan et al, much as a lion is focused on gathering in a tasty-looking gazelle. Godspeed to +Duncan!
RE: ” . . . is focused on gathering in . . . ”
I agree.
Shelob’s efforts at “gathering in” spring to mind. ; > )
Susan, you and your friends have workd hard for this day. Enjoy.
And Susan, at least have the honesty that you want unity only on your terms. Willing to rescind SSB’s and have VGR resign? I thought not. So please spare us.
Wow! The PB has stepped up to the plate and hit one out of the park! This is a very strong warning, indeed! And not a second too late. For those seeking clarity, this is pretty darn clear. I applaud her transparentcy and her willingness to take disciplinary action if necessary. This is exactly what we needed to hear at this time. Kudos to ++Katharine!!
Br. Michael [#41] writes: “And Susan [Russell], at least have the honesty that you want unity only on your terms. Willing to rescind SSB’s and have VGR resign? I thought not. So please spare us.”
Br. Michael, we’ve been through this before, ad nauseam: it’s your position that demands “unity only on your terms,” because you insist that every parish and diocese must conform to your view (viz., that the scriptural prohibitions are the end of the discussion). So you need to please spare us.
Actually, D. C., when your side admits that an unrepentant sinner should not be a bishop, then and only then can you blather on about who needs to spare whom. When Robbie, the unrepentant sinner aforesaid, got his pointy hat, he was an Anglican bishop regardless of what the rest of the Anglican world thought about it. He was stuffed down the throats of the rest of the Anglican Communion. So the only Anglicans demanding that the rest of the Communion conform to its view is the left. Deal with it.
D.C. #43, it is the end of the discussion. Scripture trumps you and me because the Word speaks. You aren’t the word; neither am I the word. Jesus is the Word.
41, 43 and 44. Gentlemen, face it. Both sides want unity on their own terms. We would all be more honest with ourselves if we would just admit that.
#’s 43 & 46: Yes, but what are those terms?
Enda nails it. One list of terms is arbitrary and emotional. The other list of terms is centered in the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.
Once you guys admit THAT, THEN maybe we’ll get somewhere. Or, maybe then you’ll realize you should be off doing your own thing and leaving the Church of God alone.
DC, we have been through this before. By your own admission you are not Christian in any creedal sense. You believe in virtually nothing the Church officialy teaches.
Because I see Christianity (including TEC) forming into two very different religions – I do not think unity is desireable on either sides terms A house divided cannot stand – and the divide is not bridgeable by even people of good faith. The TEC establishment seems more concerned about money and power and is therefore willing to use peoples’ rightful emotional atachment to the physical church plants to hold on to them. It is very unbecoming and unchristian. The Lutherans allow for transfers of parishes within the various Lutheran denominations – seems way more Christian.
DC you posted:
[blockquote]37. Br. Michael (# 32), unfortunately I can’t speculate as to what it would take to convince me of any of the following, which I understand to be key elements of what the orthodox insist one must believe to be a Christian:
(1) that Adam and Eve ever existed;
(2) that Adam and Eve were perfect and “sinlessâ€;
(3) that because of Adam and Eve’s individual disobedience, God decided to punish their descendants by making them subject to pain and death;
(4) that man’s sinfulness was so great that only the death and resurrection of a God-made-man would suffice to overcome it;
(5) that Jesus of Nazareth was born without a biological human father;
(6) that Jesus was God Incarnate;
(7) that the actual Jesus, restored to life after his crucifixion, appeared to his followers singly and en masse, in the latter case with the followers seeing and hearing the same things at the same times;
(8) that Jesus will return as ruler of the world to usher in God’s reign.
I try live my life unafraid of the truth, whatever it turns out to be, and whatever consequences might result. For good or ill, I cannot for the life of me grasp how any of the above points (among others) could be true. I’ve never been able to adopt the mindset of whoever said “I believe because it is absurd.â€
Comment by D. C. — 11/8/2004 @ 7:23 pm [/blockquote]
Br. Michael [#48] writes: “By your own admission you are not Christian in any creedal sense. You believe in virtually nothing the Church officialy teaches.”
Yes, we have indeed been through this before. I “believe in” the Great Commandment and the Summary of the Law; according to the Jesus of Luke 10.25-37, that’s enough.
As to what the church “officially” teaches, the map is not the territory.
D.C., is the Jesus outside of Luke 10.25-37 make-believe?
Well, D.C., why on earth do you accept Luke 10? “The Jesus of Luke?” What about the Jesus of Jesus? He can overcome the world. If not, I’d give it up. Because what you want to follow isn’t worth it if that is all you limit Jesus to doing. Somehow I don’t think he needs your or my permission to overcome our very small world views.
Re: “Unity on our own terms” … Please read “our 2002 Message to the Church” and THEN comment on what “our position†is! Thanks!
Sorry … that link doesn’t seem to work. The URL is:
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/for-record.html
Thanks!
DC, Like I said you are not a creedal Christian. And, quite frankly, if Jesus is only what you say he is, then who cares what he said. In any event Susan Russel is not “inclusive” accept on her and Integraty’s terms. So spare the crocadile tears as we leave.
Thank you Susan for pointing to the Integrity Statement. Can i take it that it reflects current Integrity policy? It points towards Same Sex Blessings (not marriage) on a local option basis – it’s unclear but i take it to be parish by parish? Michael Hopkins once stated that integrity was seeking a rite in a book of optional services, not the BCP. Is this still Integrity policy as well? Is integrity seeking to change the Marriage Rite?
Secondly, the 2002 statement does not address the difficulties assciated with the election of +NH. What provision would Integrity think should be provided for dissidents in such a situation? +NH was only prepared to allow DEPO on the condition he could visit a parish annually and provided they recognised him as their bishop.
Regardless, it’s a change in doctrine of TEC. If we stay we accept it. This is not reconciliation it is capitulation.
obidiahslope … the reference to the 2002 statement was in response to what is described on the Walking with Integrity intro as “the critical issue of where we stand on diversity of opinion and whether or not we believe there is room in the Episcopal Church for those who disagree with us.”
The answer was:
“In a word: we do. And in a few more words — the eloquent, now historic words of our past-president Michael Hopkins — we always have.”
Br. Michael, with all due respect, a lot of us steadfastly refuse to capitulate. Here we stand, we can do no other! We’ll keep calling heresy what it is as long as we have voice… Overthrown, overridden, now that’s a different matter.
61, good. My point was that +++KJS etc. do not want reconciliation, they want capitualtion on their terms.
Susan,
I don’t doubt Integrity’s integrity on the issue of whether there is room in TEC for those who disagree with you. The difficulty is working out how to provide that room. In New Hampshire there was no room left.
Michael Hopkin’s statement also recognised that making room for everyone may not be possible. That was honest and realistic.
To take the case of the Anglican communion. This group of churches either recognises the +NH or not. There is no halfway house that I can see.
On the other hand a looser structure may be the way forward. It will not be a true communion which implies mutual recognition of ministry. That seems to be the way we are moving, already. TEC may recognise +NH but the rest of the communion does not.
Susan #60,
I agree, it’s true that Integrity is willing to have people of conservative opinion in the church, but it seems that it opposes [em]action[/em] based on such opinions. For example, a person is permitted to believe whatever they want about WO, but is not permitted to be ordained if they have the wrong opinion, and certainly not permitted to become bishop: even a decade ago, Ackerman received consents by a narrower margin than did Robinson more recently. I’m guessing, but I expect Integrity was in favor of the 2000 GC item makiong WO mandatory. Would it oppose making HO mandatory?
Further afield, a pastor in UMC was disciplined by their bishop for refusing to give communion to a person because they were in a homosexual relationship. Would Integrity oppose such actions by bishops in TEC?
The claim that conservatives are welcome will be seen by conservatives the same way that you may see claims by conservatives that you are welcome in their churches. It’s “you’re free to believe what you want, but in this space, you have to follow our rules.”
John
[i] The elves request that the comments concern the post and not be directed toward an individual commenter. [/i]
Dear Elves, after seeing your post I dumped one I was working on about +KJS and Integrity. Thanks!!!!!
Thanks Elves … apologies for having dragged the thread elsewhere but there IS that temptation to speak for oneself so that others may judge what you’ve actually said, not what somebody else said you meant. That said, I stand by my comment on the ORIGINAL post … which was to applaud the Presiding Bishop’s efforts to keep the door open even for those who seem to be half-way out it as they walk apart from the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Duncan and his ilk have a right to leave TEC. But neither the Bishop nor his followers have the right or ability to will the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh out of existence.
Even if a congregation “leaves” TEC what is actually happening is that individuals leave their parish and start a new (“Orthodox Anglican” AMiA, Church of Rawanda, etc.) church. Even if a bunch of congregations decide to leave simultaneously, the diocese doesn’t go anywhere. Bishop Duncan will become former TEC Bishop Duncan and his followers would become former Episcopalians. Duncan may immediately gain recognition by some other church and call himself Bishop again (or never stop calling himself Bishop), and the congregations that left TEC may immediately organize themselves into something that looks similar to their former Episcopal Diocese, but there is no reason the Episcopal Diocese would cease to exist.
If and when Bishop Duncan and his people leave TEC the rules of TEC won’t apply. But in the meantime why is it so offensive that Bishop Schori remind Bishop Duncan that TEC has canons and a constitution? Since Bishop Duncan is publically rejecting the authority and legitimacy of TEC, how can he also be upholding its canons?
Two popular T19-style responses:
1. Those canons don’t apply now that TEC has strayed so far from [my] orthdoxy!
2. Pike! (Darn it, somebody already used Pike!) Spong!
As I inquired before – I have found nothing in the constitution and canons of TEC that prohibit a diocese from changing its constitution to remove the accession clause and withdrawing from GC. If someone has found something, please post it – thanks.
The question as to whether a diocese can leave depends on what the meaning of [i]is[/i] is; oops, sorry, I meant what the meaning of [i]diocese[/i] is. If it means the set of all laity and clergy within a particular geographical area, then a diocese could be said to have left only if every one of the laity and clergy departed for some other church or denomination. If it simply means a geographical area without respect to clergy and laity, then the diocese cannot be said to have left even though it may have become empty. Pick your definition.
Because TEC prefers to count parishes rather than people, I think they will choose to use the second definition in any event, even if +Duncan takes 99% of the people with him to one of the Common Cause churches.
I do not doubt that there will be TEC wordplay for PR purposes – but what if the definition of diocese is the non-stock corporation?
Yawn.
They tried this with +Jon-David. They got nowhere, because he pointed out to them tha the did not take his diocese anythere – the Diocese, in that great polity of the ExCUSA, voted to go. Why do they think it will be any different in Pgh? All +Bob has to say is, “I neither endorse nor disagree – talk amongst yourselves!”
Really, Kathy Schori is way too smart for this nonsense – it’s a shame, what 815 has done to her.