From Bishop Dorsey Henderson
President of the Title IV Disciplinary Board of the Episcopal Church
Concerning the Diocese of South Carolina:–In the matter concerning the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, information is being reviewed by the Title IV Disciplinary Board. Bishop Dorsey Henderson is President of the Title IV Disciplinary Board.
–Information was presented from communicants within the Diocese of South Carolina.
–The information was not brought forward by the Presiding Bishop’s office, or by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. Therefore, the matter is not being handled by the Presiding Bishop’s office or anyone in the employ of the Episcopal Church Center.
–All information has been presented to the Disciplinary Board under the Episcopal Church Title IV disciplinary canons (laws of the church).
–In situations as this, the “church attorney” is an attorney who is retained by the Disciplinary Board to investigate cases brought to the Disciplinary Board. The “church attorney” is not the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
–As a matter of law and a matter of respect to those involved, the Disciplinary Board operates confidentially and will continue to do so. As such, it would not be appropriate to discuss the details of the case in public.
–Bishop Henderson has been in conversation with Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina.
–The Disciplinary Board is comprised of Episcopal Church bishops, clergy and laity.
This is so much epicobabble. I thought Henderson was capable of better rationalizations and explanations than this.
Wait, so they mention the other Communion Partner bishops, too, and consider it a crime to support the Anglican Covenant? Hahahahaha, well, can +Lillibridge and +Stanton here in Texas expect to be brought up on charges next? I think TEC’s arrogance and stupidity just may be fashioning its own noose.
This is SO absurd. Why is Mrs Jefferts Schori doing this?
As usual, Doug LeBlanc has done a fine job as a journalist, reporting a highly controversial event with as much objectivity as possible, while hinting broadly at the sheer absurdity of some of the charges. For example, how in the world is it some kind of evidence against +Lawrence that he and the DSC have distanced themselves from the odiously pro-abortion (not just pro-choice) RCRC?
If the Title IV Disciplinary Board really and truly cared about protecting the confidentiality and honor of the people involved in this sordid affair, they wouldn’t have allowed such ridiculous trash to be released publicly. By allowing the most bitter opponents of +Lawrence and the most zealous advocates of TEC’s new gospel (in the Episcopal Forum) such free rein and a public platform to hurl such outrageous, vitriollic, and ludicrous charges without filtering them in any way, the Board is actually covertly taking sides.
This isn’t that unlike the moderator of a press conference allowing a reporter to ask a politician an incredibly loaded question without rebuke. You know, rather like, “[i]Is it true, congressman, that you’ve stopped beating your wife??[/i]” Worse yet, it’s really as if reporters had to submit their questions in advance, and then they were aloowed/selected to ask such offensive questions in public at the press conference.
By what possible excuse can the Disciplinary Board be keeping the original letter itself under wraps? Surely, that is a telltale sign that there is likely to be no integrity to this sordid process.
David Handy+
David in #4, it is important to be accurate in these matters. The Board didn’t release the material, the bishop and his diocese did.
–Information was presented from communicants within the Diocese of South Carolina.
Specifically, who? Are they the only ones making the charges against Bishop Lawrence?
Thanks, Kendall.
I stand corrected. I jumped to a hasty (false) conclusion. You’re right. So I hereby revise my comments.
I think it’s a brilliant move by the DSC to release all 63 pages of that notorious memo. The absurdity of some of the charges is self-evident. I hope +Lawrence and the diocesan leaders continue to make public as much of the material involved in this outrageous “disciplinary” affair as is possible. It shows that the bishop and diocese have nothing to hide, and that their accusers are often petty and just plain ridiculous.
David Handy+