{The new TEC Diocese in South Carolina]…announced it will depose over 100 clergy loyal to the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence and the… Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. On 10 July 2013 the faction loyal to the national Episcopal Church published a list of clergy whom it said remained in good standing with the Episcopal Church for having expressed its loyalty to their leadership. Those who had not given their allegiance to the minority faction would be removed from the ordained ministry….
When Melvin Belli was removed from the rolls of the American Bar Association, he remarked that it was like being thrown out of the Book of the Month Club.
I am assuming that many, if not all, of those clergy who are being deposed have vested funds in their TEC retirement accounts. If that assumption is correct, I am wondering what might be the financial impact to TEC of likely having to maintain those accounts (even with no further contributions being made on behalf of the departing clergy). Might that burden further compromise TEC’s financial situation? After all, TEC is not exactly a “growing concern” (with the possible exception of the concerns of those legally responsible for the preservation and ultimate distribution of those retirement funds to their “owners”).
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer
The Church Pension Fund is a not-for-profit corporation chartered under the laws of the State of New York, and operates entirely separately from the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (the “National Church”). The Church Pension Fund has capital far in excess of reasonably anticipated future needs, which is why it has, over the past ten years, done such things as creating (and increasing) a very generous retirement relocation benefit for retiring clergy, a “13th paycheck” benefit for most years of the past ten, periodic rebates to congregations, and several post-CPI increases in the minimum payments to clergy and surviving spouses, and funded various “clergy wellness” programs. Regardless of how one feels about “the current unpleasantness”, there is no denying the objective financial strength of the Church Pension Fund. Social Security should be in such good shape.
Credit it to old J.P. Morgan, who founded the Fund in the boardroom of Morgan Guaranty sometime around 1915 (I forget the exact year). After Morgan gave his pitch for a denominational pension fund, an enthusiastic business magnate yelled, “I pledge $100,000.00!”, to which Morgan replied, “We’ll take the smaller pledges later.”
By the way, I would much rather belong to the Book of the Month Club than the American Bar Association. In my first flush of enthusiasm on being admitted to the Bar, I joined the ABA in November of 1987. At their annual meeting in the summer of 1988, the ABA House of Deputies (or whatever they call it), endorsed support for full and equal access to abortion as a “cornerstone” principal of the organization. I resigned from the ABA the next month (as did many other lawyers, either because they were pro-life, as am I, or because they thought that it was outside the purview of the organization’s raison d’etre to take such a stand–also not a bad position, but I never go that far). My only consolation was that my membership as a first year lawyer was free, so I never actually paid any money to the organization.
I’ve lost count at this point, but the total number of priests “deposed” by TEC must be over 600 since 2003. Another way to look at it is that over the summer, TEC deposed more priests in one diocese than TEC had deposed in its history prior to 1995, if you don’t count conversions to Catholicism. Of course, by “deposing” God’s priests, the “bishop” has abandoned the communion of the Church (the real one) and is himself deposed. TEC bishops have reduced their own position to that of minor supervisors, and TEC to a poorly run, inefficient not-for-profit, with a vindictive head office that does not tolerate adherence to the faith once delivered to the saints.
Kendall, et al,
While I find TEC’s actions in this regard utterly meaningless (as is no doubt evident in my #6), I know, from old friends it has happened to over the last few years, that this is a painful time for all of you in South Carolina who have given most of your adult lives to the service of Christ through the Episcopal Church.
Please forgive my cynicism, and know that I join the many who pray for you in this difficult time, even if I do let my blood pressure get to me once in a while.
TJ
#8–I know one priest who wasn’t deposed, and is upset about having not been deposed. He views deposition by Von Rosenberg as a badge of honor.
Please be aware, as one who has been deposed by another Bishop, we became clergy of a church for a reason, God called us to that post. We believed we would remain for our lifetime and beyond. Never in my wildest dreams as a young clergy would I have suspected I would leave the church I had grown to love. Many grieve knowing full well it was God’s will. Not unlike loosing a dear friend or family member we may believe they are in a better place sitting in the lap of Jesus but we still grieve. Pray for the clergy of South Carolina and understand their pain. It is real.
And just to follow #4, a reminder that the Clergy Pension Program of the Church Pension Fund is a defined benefit retirement program funded by employer assessments that provides a benefit calculated by a formula including years of credited service and a HAC (highest average compensation over 7 years). Clergy who no longer serve eligible Episcopal Church institutions (parishes, dioceses, church-owned schools, etc.) will receive their earned pension benefit when they reach retirement age, based on their credited service in the Episcopal Church, without regard to the reason why they may at some point have ceased to serve an eligible institution, and without regard to their subsequent status in the register of the Recorder of Ordinations of the Episcopal Church.
Bruce Robison
Rev. Robison,
Is TEC able to borrow funds from the Clergy Pension Program of the CPF, under any defined or undefined circumstances? I am not conversant with the legal niceties surrounding such retirement funds, and am therefore uncertain about their independence. As an example of the sort of vulnerability to which I alluded, the funds in a defined benefit program funded by the City of Detroit for its employees were not insulated from borrowing by the city government using those funds as collateral, so I am assuming that the fact that a pension fund is a defined benefit fund does not automatically confer legal protection on the fund against unsecured borrowing by the employer. Perhaps that makes the intent of my comment a bit clearer.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
I’m not Father Robinson, but:
No, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society has no more access to the Church Pension Fund than it does to any other legally-established pension fund–which is to say, none. The two organizations have an arm’s-length legal relationship to each other, as befits two separate and distinct legal entities. Any attempted “raiding” of CPF assets by DFMS would subject the CPF trustees to the enforcement provisions of New York laws relating to the fiduciary duties of non-for-profit corporate directors.
Kevin,
In a word, no. The General Convention elects Trustees, but the CPF is an entirely distinct entity, organized under the very strict oversight of the State of New York, and the assets and distributions of the Fund are safe from any Detroit-like situation.
Bruce Robison
No doubt, TEC will ignore the questions of whether the “Episcopal Church in South Carolina” is a duly-constituted entity (dare I say, “diocese”?) of TEC, whether (whatever it is) has a Standing Committee, and whether that SC (if there is one) and bishop have the authority and power even to depose flatulence.
Of course, that brings to mind the famous Max Reger quote that begins, “I am sitting in the smallest room of my house…”
For many clergy in SC the issue will be no longer being able to contribute to the Pension Fund. What if one does not have seven good years yet? Also, some medical benefits will be less (or absent) given the curtailment of payments into the fund. What would be ideal would be if the CPF allowed further payments, but that does not appear to be on the horizon.
Chris,
Yes, it is indeed the case that there are a number of additional benefits, beyond the retirement pension benefit itself, available to those who retire from active service that are not available for those who leave the service of the Episcopal Church before reaching retirement age. I do hope that those SC clergy who were eligible for 30/55 retirement or who had reached regular retirement age got their paperwork in before the Title IV Abandonment presentments were initiated. There are of course extension provisions that would allow clergy no longer serving eligible Episcopal Church institutions to make payment themselves in lieu of the assessment, but the application would need to be approved by the Episcopal Church bishop in whose jurisdiction they are canonically resident, and that obviously would be a problem in the present SC situation. Those who had not yet earned the 5 years of Credited Service required to vest in the Fund are, alas, left more or less in the cold.
What we might hope is that the parishes and other employing institutions will, with diocesan support, continue to contribute the 18% they were paying in assessment to replace to the extent possible the benefits that would have been earned in the Fund. That could include short and long term disability, life insurance, etc. The medical benefit loss might at least be partially mitigated by contributions to an HSA or additional contributions to the 403B.
In any event, the rules about eligibility, etc., have been in place with few modifications for nearly a century, and of course there has been in recent years a good deal of real life experience with the pension consequences of parishes and dioceses separating from the Episcopal Church. There are some real costs, and I’m sure the clergy of South Carolina were fully aware of them when they voted in such large numbers to confirm their Standing Committee’s actions.
Bruce Robison
I know a priest who left TEC for an overseas jurisdiction at a time when he was very close to qualifying for 30/55. Interestingly, he said that the people that he worked with at the Church Pension Fund were very aggressive in trying to find ways that he could qualify for the “full” pension, although they were fully aware of his vocational intentions. He was quite appreciative of their efforts, but he acknowledged that the time was just not there to get over the line.
This story also illustrates some of the “real costs” that Father Robison talks about in the proceeding post.
The point I was making was not to do with not retiring in the plan, but with years accumulated, the seven-year factor, etc. Finding other pensions to enroll in is always an option, for anyone even in the CPF, but that cannot resolve the fact that CPF will not permit contributions. And I agree with #16, they are themselves extremely courteous and helpful. If a TEC Bishop signs the ‘extension of ministry’ form for someone canonically resident in his/her diocese, and it is approved, then this can also involve work in other Anglican jurisdictions. But in the case of SC, there is no TEC Bishop to sign.
Vesting for retirement pension benefits is five years, not seven.
[url=https://www.cpg.org/activeclergy/retirement/pensions/benefits]Pension Overview[/url]
I’m not sure why a program developed to provide benefits for the clergy of the Episcopal Church should be extended in an ongoing way to serve clergy not of the Episcopal Church.
I’m glad that the staff of the Fund is committed to working constructively with clergy formerly serving in the Episcopal Church to maximize already-earned benefits, and I hope the newly-organized ecclesial bodies will be able to develop a good program or good programs to support retirees and their surviving spouses.
Bruce Robison
Link failed.
https://www.cpg.org/active-clergy/retirement/pensions/benefits/
Vesting is five years. Best seven years is, well, seven years.
“I’m not sure why a program developed to provide benefits for the clergy of the Episcopal Church should be extended in an ongoing way to serve clergy not of the Episcopal Church.”
Because as a pension and health plan concerned with these specifically personal (non-ecclesial) matters, they would judge the present situation political and not one they wish to get involved with, and so wish to move forward with all charity?
RE: “I’m not sure why a program developed to provide benefits for the clergy of the Episcopal Church should be extended in an ongoing way to serve clergy not of the Episcopal Church.”
I agree. My understanding from several is that clergy in some dioceses got their bishops to sign “extension of ministry” forms back from 2000 onward, while they went to work planting AMiA parishes in the same diocese, and I always considered that exceptionally . . . hypocritical and underhanded.
Well, sure. If you only have 5 years of CS, your HAC is going to be reduced. But I’m not sure if I’ve seen any DB pension program that had lower vesting calculations.
NNECA (National Network of Episcopal Clergy Asociations) when I was on the Board used to lobby to move the HAC simply to “highest 5,” but in those years we didn’t make progress, and I’m not sure where the Benefits Committee of the Trustees would be on that today.
In any event, the Trustees of the Fund are elected by the General Convention, and the laws of the state of New York would I think prohibit the Pension Fund from extending service beyond the rules of its incorporation. So you’d need to rewrite the Charter, I guess. And why would clergy or congregations not represented by a deputation at General Convention want to be in a Pension system over which they had no input as per governance?
Bruce Robison
#21–which is relevant for the Diocese of SC as well.
#22–I was not questioning the vesting schedule. I was asking why for clergy in the Diocese of SC the CPF would simply conclude their job was not to take sides in a very questionable series of developments. Who is a ‘provisional bishop’? By what authority does he renounce people’s orders? None of this is canonically or constitutionally clear. (The analogy with AMiA is irrelevant, as per #21).
The reason [i]why[/i] I guess is that to participate in the Fund you have to be an ordained cleric in the Episcopal Church and either be serving in an institution (parish, etc.) subject to the canonical authority of the Episcopal Church or be an ordained cleric of the Episcopal Church serving in an extension of ministry outside of the Episcopal Church with the permission of the bishop of the Episcopal Church jurisdiction in which you are canonically resident.
My understanding is that under the provisions of III.13.1 a body recognized by the Episcopal Church as a Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, after consultation with the Presiding Bishop, was placed under the jurisdiction of a Provisional Bishop.
I personally regret deeply the whole sorry chain of events in South Carolina. +Mark Lawrence is a friend and someone for whom I have both great affection and the deepest respect. And the Episcopal Church was a better and stronger place before the recent separation.
My assessment is that both sides could and should have managed the situation differently. That said, though, I don’t believe it is constitutionally possible for the Pension Fund “not to take sides.” The Pension Fund is a creature of the General Convention and exists solely to serve the Episcopal Church.
Bruce Robison
RE: “The analogy with AMiA is irrelevant, as per #21.
Not at all — both the clergy of the excellent Diocese of South Carolina and the clergy of the AMiA are no longer a part of TEC. It’s irrelevant as to whether the faux diocese has received permission to constitute itself a diocese at GC [it hasn’t of course, but canons and constitution never stop the revisionists].
What’s relevant is . . . [i]is the Diocese of South Carolina, led by Mark Lawrence, a member of The Episcopal Church.[/i] And it isn’t — because it withdrew from The Episcopal Church, very understandably.
Just for the record — I agree with BMR+ that the pension fund for clergy of The Episcopal Church should obviously not include clergy who are not in The Episcopal Church. But I don’t at all agree with his assertion that the Diocese of South Carolina “should have managed the situation differently.”
I can hardly imagine the Diocese and its leadership managing the situation [i]any better[/i] — their decision-making and actions were awesome to behold in every respect that I can think of.
I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams a better and more honorable departure and it is exactly the sort of departure that I had hoped for over the years.
I disagree with both your evaluations of EDofSC (as analogous to AMiA and ‘should have managed differently, etc’) and a) renouncing clergy orders and b) withdrawal are different issues. But you are both clear that CPG is or ought to be a full agent of TEC, and to make no exceptions for a diocese as a whole. It will be interesting to see what happens in Dallas and Quincy as both are facing legal rulings shortly.
“My understanding from several is that clergy in some dioceses got their bishops to sign “extension of ministry†forms back from 2000 onward, while they went to work planting AMiA parishes in the same diocese, and I always considered that exceptionally . . . hypocritical and underhanded” — how bizarre. Why would, as you allege, Bishops sign forms for ‘extension of ministry’ for their own parish clergy? These forms are for clergy serving outside the usual parish setting. And why would a Bishop sign a form like this so that, as you allege, they could “work planting AMiA parishes in the same diocese”? This is obviously an extremely poor analogy to SC, if it is remotely the case.
And further: a bishop signing a form does not tie anyone’s hands at CPG anyway. CPG reviews ‘extensions of ministry’ and they must approve them.
Someone should write an article for The Living Church on this topic, entitled “The Financial Ramifications of Standing Up for Jesus: How the Church Pension Fund Continues to Bind the Episcopal Church Post Gene Robinson.”
Or doesn’t bind it. I’d be curious to understand the actual internal CPF dynamics. Financial reasons for wanting the pool to remain the same certainly lean against quick decisions–especially with clergy who have been contributing all along–to buy the renunciation logic of the present PB and her staff and say goodbye to clergy who have had their orders renounced for them.
Chris, I’m just not quite sure of your point here. “The Church Pension Fund (CPF), an independent agency of the Episcopal Church incorporated by a special act of the New York State legislature in 1914, provides pension and related benefits to clergy and lay employees of the Episcopal Church.” In order to include participants who are not “clergy and lay employees of the Episcopal Church” the Fund would need to work with the State of New York to amend the charter.
Bruce Robison
My point is that there was no reason whatsoever to ‘renounce the orders’ of the clergy of SC. The entire concept is unconstitutional, as have been the procedures in so many areas of late. It is an obvious flouting of the letter and spirit of the canon, as has been pointed out repeatedly.
So “I am not sure of your point here” either.
The wisest course of action would have been to declare the situation in SC tragic, pray for some new direction in TEC, and do nothing further whatsoever. If I were a financial manager at CPG, I’d wonder what in the world if going on in TEC. JP Morgan is turning over in his grave.
Since the hand to the legal plow has been put firmly where it is by TEC, with millions upon millions spent already, including a single cool million for their ‘expert testimony’ — leaving SC aside as but one case of many — we are reaping what has been sowed.
That is my point here.
I agree that the application of the Title IV abandonment canon is not appropriate, and in general i agree with your “wisest course of action.” That’s how I believe we should behave and relate to one another, regardless of whatever actions the formal authorities may take. There is some concern among the legal beagles of the Episcopal Church about liability. If some form of clear differentiation isn’t marked out, they say, the Episcopal Church might be subject to a serious financial liability if, say, there were to be a civil action related to the misconduct of a clergy person who remained “of the Episcopal Church” but who was not subject to the canonical oversight and discipline of the Episcopal Church.
But here my point is simply that the Pension Fund doesn’t have the faculty to ignore or overrule its charter. If the Recorder of Ordinations informs the Fund that someone is no longer a deacon, priest, or bishop of the Episcopal Church, that’s the end of the story so far as eligibility for active status in the Fund is concerned. Every cleric in the Diocese of South Carolina was I’m sure fully aware of that fact.
Bruce Robison
#34 — not appropriate? How about illegal and morally objectionable, Christianly speaking? Why quote people (‘legal beagles’ you call them) unless you are sympathetic with their position? We have a full-on failure of Laity, Priests, Bishops to stand up and declare actions being taken wrong, unconstitutional, and bankrupting.
This isn’t about your speculations about Pension Fund logic or mine. That is a dodge. The Recorder of Ordinations takes his (extremely limited) remit from those who tell him what the state of affairs is. The problem is the state of affairs. You simply keep dissembling and will not take a stand to say: what has happened in SC is wrong. It is wrong there, it has cost immoral sums, it bears a horrible Christian witness to the world. And your response is to cite alleged statutes.
What about the actual Christian issue at stake? Has the determination of SC to hold to the faith of the 1979 BCP earned them the right to be ‘renounced of orders’?
Chris,
I’m not sure who you’re yelling at. I reject entirely and without any reservation any notion that the clergy of South Carolina or anywhere else who have determined that they can no longer in good conscience serve in the Episcopal Church have thereby “renounced their orders.” They are for me without question deacons, priests, and bishops serving with rich ministry in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church–and they are recognized as such by the vast majority of the Anglican family.
It continues to be my prayer that the witness of those who have departed from the Episcopal Church will be effective in the sooner-rather-than-later reformation and renewal of the ministry of the wider church. In that context I would just say that I am firmly opposed to litigation over assets and have done everything in my power here in Pittsburgh and to whatever extent I have a smidgen of influence in the wider church to encourage Episcopalians and those who have left the Episcopal Church to sit down in Christian charity and with humility with one another and find resolution to differences in a mutually agreeable way that would leave both groups in a condition to continue an effective Christian ministry.
I haven’t attempted any “dodge” here. Iin this thread I thought there was a question about whether the Church Pension Fund had the ability in the real world we live in to ignore the actions of the Registrar of Ordinations and continue to enroll as active participants clergy no longer recorded as in-good-standing in the Episcopal Church. In my years serving with NNECA I spent a lot of time working with Pension, and so I commented that–in my view sadly–my best understanding is that as a matter of law under the charter granted by the State of New York the Pension Fund simply does not have the ability to do that. If somebody wants to bring a Title IV presentment against the Registrar or against the bishop provisionally serving those clergy and congregations of South Carolina who continue to identify themselves as under the authority of the canons of the Episcopal Church, great. But in the meantime for their sake and the care of their families I hope my friends and colleagues in South Carolina have found other benefit providers.
Bruce Robison
I have it on good authority that Title IV complaints such as you intimate go straight into the waste-paper basket.
Your own words were: both sides “could and should have managed the situation differently.” That sounds like equivalence to me.
It is hopeful to hear a different description latterly provided.
How will the situation ever be any different unless there is a concerted effort to stop this juggernaut of misuse of power?