An effort to inhibit the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, has not been supported by The Episcopal Church’s senior bishops.
The news, along with a copy of the allegations made by the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop against Bishop Duncan and the Title IV Review Committee’s decision to certify that, in their opinion, Bishop Duncan “had abandoned the communion of this church,” came in a letter from The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori late in the day on January 15.
Bishop Duncan offered a brief response to the news, saying, “Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church. I have not abandoned the Communion of this Church. I will continue to serve and minister as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
Please go here for further linked documents related to this announcement.
Well, at least there is still some sense among the three senior bishops.
What does the Archbishop of Canterbury have to say about the inhibition attempt?
What will we hear from orthodox leaders who have counseled us to remain in ECUSA and work within the system?
The good and godly Bp Iker must be feeling left out…or maybe not. Perhaps, KJS attempted but chose not to publicize a failed attempt or perhaps KJS simply figured Bp Wimberly wouldn’t play along.
It is interesting that the review committee acted against +Duncan before acting against +Schofield. The chronology is as follows:
Dec. 13, 2007 Committee votes on Duncan
Dec. 17, 2007 Certificate sent to Schori by Henderson
Jan. 9, 2008 Committee votes on Schofield; certificate sent the same day
Jan. 11, 2008 Three senior bishops advise: yes on Schofield; no on Duncan
Not that I know a whole lot about these machinations, but it does seem like an undercover attempt to strike first, stealth inhibiting. The point being, when it came to litigate property, the argument could be made that Bp Duncan did not have juristiction as he was inhibited?
If so, it all fell apart when at least one of the senior bishops did not cooperate, and at that point, since official process was being followed, there was no option but to publically inform Bp Duncan of the failed coup?
Just wondering……..
The Review Committee must have considered ++Iker’s case by now, as well. We’ll probably see a similar letter from ++Schori regarding him in the next week or so. The lines of the campaign are clear; the only question is whether Schori’s mad dash to intimidate will be checked by the three senior minds in the HoB. And even then, she can still try an end run around them to the full HoB later.
According to the Canons, the consent of the Senior Bishops was needed only to inhibit. They cannot veto a deposition. The matter will still go before the House of Bishops after the required 60 days for Bp. Duncan to recant. Then, if a majority of the House gives consent, he will be deposed.
No Jake, one cannot be deposed before one is inhibited.
Where is David Booth Beers, who receives gobs of our money for orchestrating this garbage-like chess game? Is he not accountable to the entire body of believers within this so-called church whose money he gladly takes -answerable only to this former marine biologist-bishop-priestess-for-a-decade: bishopette over 50 Nevada churches for a fortnight – who refused even her own mother a proper Anglican funeral because it conflicted with the rebel daughter’s beliefs – she placed in her position via the mechinations of various scurrying pharisaic gnomes at some allegedly ‘democratic’ General Convention ? The Chinese have the Tong. The Italians have the Mafia. What do Episcopalians have ? I think Henry VIII had a thought.
Is it time for the good people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to ‘shun’ Mr. DeForest and his ilk?
FOR EVERONE’S EYES !!!
Rev. Leslie P. Fairchild is right in stating that the leaders of TEC have embraced a foreign, alien, and pagan religion. Their LORD is mamon and their ways support practices contrary to righteous living as plainly stated in Holy Scripture. Issues related to mamon are found throughout the documents and Fairchild’s statement is also noted in the documents as reasons why Duncan has failed TEC.
Will EC dioceses and parishes just sit back and watch orthodox Network bishops be slaughtered for their Gospel stance?
Mark these words: next up will be Windsor supporters. Fewer will be saying I’m a Windsor diocese, bishop or clergy person. Why? Because Windsor does not conform to the canon laws of TEC. Watch and see. Keep your eyes open!
Canon IV.9.2 says:
Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.
But from my reading, Canon 9 doesn’t apply without an inhibition.
However the PB says:
Pursuant to the time limits stated in Canon IV.9, the matter will not come before the House of Bishops at its next scheduled meeting in March 2008, but will come before the House at the next meeting thereafter.
Does anyone have a definitive answer on the procedure?
TEC’s leader set their own house on fire!
12 your eyes are pretty definitively agreeing with my eyes. Schori’s reference merely says that the matter will come before the HoB. That doesn’t mean that it will come to a vote on deposition. HoB can pass any number of resolutions on the matter which fall short of deposition.
You might want to ponder Schori’s motive in this, and I would say that her actions leads to an atmosphere of “threat and prophylasis”. Schori isn’t trying to reform Duncan (which is of course the reason for having such a canonical process), but rather to scare the via media in Pittsburgh.
If Jake’s thoery (#7) reflects the thinking at 815, I would supplement my chronology as follows:
Jan. 11-15, 2008 Madly scrambling to come up with a way to get rid of him anyway without the required consents.
Given the month that has passed since the review committee acted on +Duncan, if they had really thought this was what 9.2 meant they would have done it in time for the Mar. HOB meeting.
12–Brian–They could move to a trial, but only if a certain number of bishops “present” him to the PB. I don’t have time to check whether the HOB has to go along. The trial process might be able to conclude before the next Pitt convention, but I doubt it.
Wow, JuandeVeras, it seems you’re somewhat angry.
16 agreed, what 815 should do is the full presentment and trial at HoB, if they really want to canonically pursue Duncan. To use IV 9 2 Duncan has to swim the Tiber, or something equivalent.
The material on the Diocese of Pittsburgh web site is all from the Rev. Harold Lewis, Dr. Joan Gunderson, and others in that diocese about diocesan convention. I think presenting a bishop for actions of diocesan convention is a mighty weak reed. An effort to try Bishop Duncan for joining in the consecrations of bishops of other provinces might be better because that is more clearly his action rather than action of diocesan convention.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
Alice,
It seems that it isn’t the house of bishops, rather members of the Diocese of Pitt that have set thier house on fire:
[blockquoe]
I am forwarding herewith nine copies of a letter (with a detailed Addendum) concerning Bishop Robert Duncan. The letter has been executed by 21 persons who are either priests or adult communicants in good standing in the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh. The letter requests that the Review Committee review Bishop Robert Duncans actions under Title IV Canon 9 and any other applicable provisions of the Constitution and Canons of TEC. You will note that one of the Exhibits to the Addendum is the “Choose This Day†video. Since we do not have sufficient copies for
ever member of the Committee. we have included one in the packet found at Exhibit 3 1 in the first copy of the Addendum found herein. You may contact me with any questions. [/blockquote]
The Episcopal Church was set on fire in the mid-1970s. Some noticed it then others latter. When entire dioceses want out – it clearly is ablaze.
What does White and Jackson say (note: that is the annotated treatise on the canons and constitution)? (And why isn’t there a cheap paperback or online version of it?)
What we have here is a case of ‘blacksmithing the canons’ to get done what Beers and Schori want to do. We have observed from TEc’s highly creative interpretation of Holy Scripture its enthusiastic willingness to make a sow’s ear from a silk purse. Warping the canons in like fashion is small change by comparison.
“Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.”
I agree with that, but it sounds really self congratulatory. He should let others make this claim for him……
and here is George Conger’s take:
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1458
Three cheers for +Wimberly. (assumed) Hooray!
Please note what and who can be seduced. Dorsey Henderson, the head of the Title IV Review Committee, is now doing the PB’s dirty work and blood letting. Only a few months ago he was proclaiming himself to be a Windsor Bishop in a Windsor Diocese in solidarity with Bp. Salmon. I feel like throwing up.
Here’s the statement from the Title IV committee and the supporting arguments from Pittsburghers who disagree with their bishooL http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/TitleIVreport.pdf.
I think TomRightmyer (319) is correct that +Duncan’s actions in Africa make a stronger case, although it must be clear to anyone who is not deaf, dumb, and blind that he is doing everything to show that in his heart and mind if not formally he has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. For him to claim otherwise at this point is, as another blog writer put it, “bizarre.”
I think the PB is moving now because it is very clear what +Pittsburgh is up to, and it makes sense to have the machinary grinding, if slowly.
B from B–In other words, regardless of whether he has committed any violation, let’s convict him now, because we all know what he thinks. It will save time and legal expenses later on. Kind of like, let’s execute him now and have a fair trial later. Under that theory, I suspect we all better report to the nearest correctional facility. The only difference between Beers and his bishop, and a Banana Republic dictator is she doesn’t have guns. But tshe sure has henchmen!
#22 – do you mean ” White & Dykman”?
I think the beast has just lost its temper. Liberals in TEC had better stop being cheerleaders and try to engage in some critical self-analysis. I will make a guess that KJS guessed that Schofield will probably retain his Lambeth invite and made the Cavalcanti connection (i.e. who was deposed before he transferred) and so decided to try to take out Duncan before he left.
I don’t know what the word “reconciliation” means to KJS, but clearly not what it means to most other people. My guess is that this little stunt will only drive moderate primates towards the Global South and will further prod Rowan Williams to act counter to TEC’s interests.
#29, it is not a matter of what +Duncan THINKS, but what he HAS BEEN DOING the past few years; or haven’t you noticed? Is the Church’s leadership simply to shut their eyes to this? These moves by +Schofield, +Iker, and +Duncan are rightly what Anglican Centrist calls “day-light plotting” to pull off the “heist” of property rightly belonging to TEC. The PB and the Title IV Committee have been gonig by the book on this one. Can anyone truly believe that +Duncan has been faithful to the communion of the Episcopal Church while he openly works as hard as he can to create “an alternative ecclesiastical structure” in North America and invite anyone to join? Let those upset by the PB’s actions cry “persecution and threat” if they wish. This part of Anglican Land has become Wonderland, for sure.
Bob, using terms such as “plotting” suggests that you are feeling threatened by the positions and actions of these Bishops and their supporters. That’s understandable. TEC’s inner decay is the problem, not those seeking to live where they don’t have to smell the decay.
B From B–1. Going by the book is the Eikman defense again–it doesn’t wash. 2. Leadership needs to lead. KJS and Beers believe the beatings should continue until morale improves. 3. Your OPINION is that the property belongs to TEC. If it is so clear, why is the Diocese of Virginia verging on bankruptcy? 4. When VGR has his “wedding” blessed by a priest, using the BCP service, in the cathedral, a month before Lambeth, what do you think the reaction will be? Now go read the preamble to the TEC constitution. 5. As I noted before, if we start convicting peopel of crimes thay haven’t committed, because they are thinking about them, we are going to have really full jails. “Alice in Wonderland”? More like “1984”.