Bishop Cyrus Pitman issued the ad clerum in part as a response to the departure of his predecessor, Donald Harvey, who left the Anglican Church of Canada several years ago over the issue of blessing same-sex unions and is now affiliated with the more conservative Anglican Network in Canada.
“I value people’s individual conscience, and our church has always accommodated a diversity of opinion,” Bishop Pitman writes in the letter to 37 parishes, dated Dec. 18.
“However, I would expect any clergy involved in the network and working to the establishment of a parallel jurisdiction to the Anglican Church of Canada would do the honourable thing and resign their positions, relinquishing their licences to exercise ordained ministry in this church as their leader has done.”
Bishop Pitman was unavailable for comment, but diocese executive Ven. Geoff Peddle spoke on his behalf, saying the bishop felt it was necessary to bring all 100 clergy together after some of them requested the meeting.
“Some people consider it somewhat extraordinary that the bishop would do this, however, the actions of Donald Harvey have been quite extraordinary themselves,” Archdeacon Peddle said.
[blockquote]Bishop Pitman is not concerned that some of the clergy attending today’s meeting will break away from the church, Archdeacon Peddle said.
“He has absolutely no plans whatsoever to withdraw licences from anyone,” Archdeacon Peddle said.
“Unless you know something I don’t, we’re not getting any indication that anyone plans to do anything of that nature.”[/blockquote]
…..But just in case anyone might entertain the notion of leaving…. we call for loyalty oaths so we can root out anyone who might believe more strongly in the Gospel than in loyalty to the Bishop.
Isn’t that the message here?
“However, I would expect any clergy involved in [strike] the network and working to the establishment of a parallel jurisdiction to the Anglican Church of Canada[/strike] [i]acting contrary to the received teaching of the Communion concerning blessing same sex unions and ordaining practicing homosexuals[/i] would do the honourable thing and resign their positions, relinquishing their licences to exercise ordained ministry in this church as their leader has [i]never[/i] done.
It seems that only some of the Ancient Traditions of the Church are to be enforced. Callenges to others’ authority is OK. Callenges to the authority of your bishop is not. Callenging the traditional teaching of how to live a Christian life is good. Challenging those denying the Faith and acting heretically is bad.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Anyone remember the kids’ game LIE DETECTOR? This statement sets off a huge BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
“An Anglican diocese in Newfoundland will take the rare step today of requiring all of its clergy to declare their allegiances to the church, or “do the honourable thing and resign” if they support a breakaway movement that opposes same-sex unions.”
The Bishop is the radical-progressive equivalent of what the liberals in the States would label as a McCarthyite.
(sigh)
Be careful what you believe from the media, especially in Canada.
The question is not nearly as clear as would appear on first blush, since the clergy were asked to sign a declaration that affirms the faith set forth in the Scriptures and the Catholic Creeds, and affirm allegiance to the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal (which still includes the articles of religion, and not in a “historic documents” section as the American book does). Remember, the Church in Canada has not revised the prayer book in 4 (almost 5) decades, opting instead to create a “Book of Alternative Services”, which includes most of the revisionist weirdness (and keeps it seperate from the doctrine-defining BCP).
It also qualifies the obedience to the Bishop to “legal and honest demands” (which allows disobedience where the Bishop’s commands ask the priest to act against the doctrine of the Church, or a profession of faith as set forth in scripture and the Catholic Creeds, as such a demand would be illegal).
It makes worship according to the Book of Common Prayer primary, and the BAS stuff secondary, and explicitly bans any other liturgy not [i]expressly[/i] accepted by lawful authority.
Finally, the only things that a priest agrees to obey from general, provincial, or diocesan synod are the “Canons”, and the modifier “canonical” is placed near the beginning of that clause, making contra-canonical pronouncements by any of the above non-binding on clergy in Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador.
The present Bishop was simply reaffirming that HE actually is the Bishop of this diocese, which had been a question in some minds (from what I hear, mostly sensationalist revisionist minds desiring to scare conservatives into hasty reactions) after Bp. Harvey left for the Church of the Southern Cone.
From what I see, this is NOT a progressive power grab.
Things must be good in Newfoundland. In Ontario it’s unusual to find a minister under 40 who has even read the Book of Common Prayer. Many of those ordained in the last two decades probably couldn’t even tell you what colour its cover is.
[blockquote]Things must be good in Newfoundland. In Ontario it’s unusual to find a minister under 40 who has even read the Book of Common Prayer. Many of those ordained in the last two decades probably couldn’t even tell you what colour its cover is.[/blockquote]
Well, maybe better, still not great. All clergy here are expected to use BCP part of the time (though many don’t). However, in a strange difference from what you say about Ontario, it’s usually the under 40s that are more likely to use and believe what’s contained in the BCP. I joke sometimes at the college that you can tell conservatives by their age. The younger they are, the more likely they’re conservatives (not always true, but often enough to be a good general rule).
A contract or statement made under duress does not need to be considered binding.
True, but I don’t think there’s anything in this case that would seriously constitute duress. loss of employment status based on being unwilling to adhere to a part of an obligation of that employment is simply a legal ramification (I don’t agree to the terms of employment, I’m not employed). That’s a fully legitimate pressure and thus not duress (which is illegitimate pressure to agree to a contract).