Delegates to convention in the Diocese of Rochester passed a resolution affirming that standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction are not bound by any extra-canonical restraints””including but not limited to the restraints set forth in Resolution B033 passed by the 75th General Convention””when considering consents to the ordination of any candidate to the episcopate. The resolution is intended to be submitted to the 76th General Convention in 2009.
Convention met Nov. 2-3 at the Hyatt Regency in Rochester.
The last convention address for Bishop Jack McKelvey took the form of a video presentation that celebrated many of the people, places and ministries he has encountered. Bishop McKelvey will retire next spring after eight years of service in Rochester and 16 as a bishop.
Can we declare the Dennis canon nonbinding?
1. robroy:
That also astounds me. When Polity trumps all including God, I am more than confused at what makes a thing “cononical”.
But, I am convinced that those who live by the law, die by the law.
There is real question as to the “canonicity” of the Dennis proposal. On historical grounds it appears it cannot be proved from the record to have passed two General Conventions. Unless the missing documentation has appeared de novo like the current theological bruhaha over sexuality.
That does set an interesting canonical precedent if Dioceses can unilaterally declare Diocesan resolutions non-binding. That would seem to be the canonical law very of John C. Calhoun’s nullification premise.
And since +McKelvey allowed this to pass will he be getting and inhibitiongram from the PB? Or does she save that only for convention resolutions SHE doesn’t like.
RSB
“Or does she save that only for convention resolutions SHE doesn’t like. ”
It does seem like TEC is operating somewhere between a kingdom and anarchy.
Once again this year, I’m being a bad elf and failing to properly tabulate the anti-B033 resolutions (or much of any resolutions for that matter). Just. Too. Busy.
We had posted a bit of a roundup from last year’s diocesan conventions on this matter in this thread back in Sept. (re: dio. Connecticut’s resolution, which did pass)
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6006
What is very odd is that both Michigan and Rochester already passed Anti-B033 resolutions last year. So to my knowledge (I could be very wrong) the only net gain in the anti-B033 resolution list is Connecticut which failed last year, but passed this year.
And Executive Council issued a statement on B033 recently.
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7200
Have we missed any?
Given our other commitments, it would be a help to have other eyes and ears following what’s happening re: B033 in the dioceses this fall. Is there any commenter who would be willing to track the outcome of B033-related resolutions for the rest of Dio. Convention season?
(Susan Russell: Are you already doing this for Integrity again this year? If so, can you keep us posted as you so helpfully did last year? Thanks.)
–elfgirl
If this isn’t clear evidence that the polity in the Episcopal Church is breaking down, I don’t know what is. It’s also evidence that the Episcopal Church isn’t as hierarchical as 815 wants it to be.
This is also just more evidence that the real unit of the catholic church is the bishop and diocese. Not the parish and not the province.
We pretty much passed the same thing at our LAST convention, along with (I’ve lost count) about ten other dioceses so it feels like old news to me. As to elf-girl’s question, we’re always tracking elections and resolutions toward GC … happy to try to keep you posted as we can.
[blockquote]That does set an interesting canonical precedent if Dioceses can unilaterally declare Diocesan resolutions non-binding.[/blockquote]
Archer, the diocese is not declaring one of their own resolutions to be non-binding, but one from the General Convention. This seems to fly in the face of everything revisionists are trying to say. Has the PB implored these dioceses to recede from these actions? Has she threatened them with discipline? hmmmmm…
“It’s also evidence that the Episcopal Church isn’t as hierarchical as 815 wants it to be.”
Actually Randy, I think it’s evidence that ECUSA is hierarchical WHEN it wants to be (e.g. when there are orthodox to reign in).
Compare his statement to this. In what respect has anything been “built,” unless by “build” you mean building losses.
Shouldn’t someone call the JSC to see what this means?
😉
#12, [url=http://www.threesources.com/archives/kevin-bacon.jpg]All is Well[/url] in Rochester. Plate and Pledge income is up again. It would appear that that is the important number when considering parish building.
[/snark]
I don’t know why they bothered. Anybody who thinks B033 will survive GC2009 is a turtlehead. (I am not exactly sure what that means, but our eighth grade gym teacher would call us that, and it was pretty clear that it was pejorative.) Its fate was sealed when the bishops acknowledged that it applied to homosexuals. The bishops waited sufficient amount of time to be close enough to GC 2009 that when it is repealed, it probably will have had no effect or at most the lesbian candidate of the dio of Chicago might be affected.
I was hoping that some of the more progressive among us could explain how any diocese can pick and choose the GC resolutions it wishes to uphold. How does this happen without unravelling the authority of the General Convention? Any takers?
Can’t say that I blame the bishop for retiring, given the recent history of the diocese. From 1996 through 2002 membership fell by about 22 percent. And from 2002 through 2006 membership fell about another 16 percent. Plate & Pledge increased by about 17 percent from 1996 through 2001 which was perhaps a bit over inflation. But from 2001 through 2006 Plate & Pledge has increased
about ZERO percent, not even making a dent in inflation. Statmann
#16 Nikolaus wonders
Well, of course, since the 1979 resolution against ordination of practicing homosexuals, any act of General Convention of which Integrity disapproves is purely advisory and in particular cannot bind the House of Bishops, even though the House of Bishops itself passed the act in reference.
Canons, on the other hand, are absolutely binding except on progressive bishops and clergy, who may interpret any canon in whatever way appears most useful to Integrity at the moment. Orthodox bishops and clergy must obey the canons to the letter, as they are interpreted by 815 and the Executive Council.
The General Convention has, of course, as we heard repeatedly at GC06, no authority over the Bishops, while on the other hand the House of Bishops cannot do anything without the approval of General Convention, as was continually repeated at New Orleans.
In short, there is nobody driving this bus except the Beers/Bruno/Schori troika at 815, who are making up the rules as they go along.
Is TEC’s governance structure clearer to you now?
Clear as mud. Thanks.
The irony is that B033 is non-binding! It “calls upon” bishops and standing committees to “exercise restraint”! That’s all. There’s nothing binding in it at all! Which is why it was not sufficient in meeting the Primates’ or the WR’s request for a moratorium in the first place. I don’t know why any of you are faulting Rochester for stating the obvious.