+Peter Lee has done a lot wrong in the last year, however, as Christians we need to not hold a grudge and cheer when he does something right. Good for him for judging only those actions taken and not hypothetical, theoretical, inferred in future or any other means the PB has tried.
I find it terribly worrysome that in the comments at Episopal Cafe a contributor (going by the moniker ‘Ormonde Platter’) suggests that inhibition is about what the Bishop might do. Inhibition is a very serious matter and such a step should only be taken if there is prima facie evidence that an individual has broken canon law.
The reason such a suggestion matters in my opinion, is that defending yourself against an allegation concerning what you might do is nigh on impossible. If inhibition can be brought merely on the grounds of future possible action, any priest or bishop in the Episcopal Church can rightfully be inhibited at any point. It is an astonishing interpretation of canon law and, to me, deeply concerning.
I find it terribly worrysome that in the comments at Episopal Cafe a contributor (going by the moniker ‘Ormonde Platter’) suggests that inhibition is about what the Bishop might do. * * * If inhibition can be brought merely on the grounds of future possible action, any priest or bishop in the Episcopal Church can rightfully be inhibited at any point.
Don’t you see this is TEC’s post-9/11 policy of pre-emptive inhibitions?
What a wimp! Hasn’t he learned anything from the pummeling his own diocese has taken? I guess he thinks it’s okay to put the Diocese of Pittsburgh through the same horror. Sad.
That canon was written to deal with clergy who leave to become Roman Catholic, Methodists, or Buddhists. The very idea that one might wish to be Anglican but not Episcopalian in the USA was not considered — little did the framers of that canon know that ECUSA would one day become a self-contradictory body.
The review committee simply passed on complaints made by clergy and lay people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who had previously sought relief in civil court. All the accusations appear to be related to Bishop Duncan’s actions as presiding officer of the diocesan convention. To make a bishop personally responsible for the actions of convention is simply silly and displays an ignorance of the history of the Episcopal Church which reflects on the academic competence of the complaintants.
I think a case could be made from Bishop Duncan’s participation in consecrations of bishops of foreign provinces for service in America, but that case was not made.
I am grateful for the procedural protections provided by the requirement for the consent of the senior bishops, and in this case I think Bishops Lee and Wimberly did the right thing. We pray when bishops are consecrated that they will receive grace and wisdom, and I am glad that in this case they have exercised them.
yes, the notion that inhibition is for what a person “might do” is really bordering on fascism. but then that would describe (sadly) many in ECUSA today…..
Don’t forget when four California bishops sought presentment charges against Bishop Schofield last year based on what he might do. Same thing – don’t you love the tolerance?
Fred,
I’m staying, and you are making the rest of us who are look bad.
This is not wimpish (why, because he did something different than you would? Oh, are you a bishop?).
This is the courage of conviction. I’m not makin’ the man a hero. But he’s doing it like it is supposed to be done. You’ve complained before about most of the rest of the Anglican Communion not understanding our Episcopal polity, and I have agreed. But this is an example of exactly how our Episcopal polity works! This is exactly what you’ve been supporting!
You are confused.
You might be in the wrong ship if you think everything’s just going to go your way!
For all that Peter Lee has gotten wrong these past several years, I am thankful and grateful that he decided not to endorse the Presiding Bishop’s assault on +Bob. Hopefully, this is the start of a positive change in Lee’s ways.
Phil Snyder [#13], +Duncan has openly renounced the discipline of TEC by actively encouraging his diocese to undertake the constitutional / canonical changes that they’re making.
The relevant canonical provision is IV.9.1. That provision defines one of the possible ways to abandon communio as being “… an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church ….” (Emphasis added.)
Note that abandonment encompasses renunciation of any of the three: Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship.
Note also: The rest of the paragraph makes it indisputable that “this Church” refers to TEC, not to the Anglican Communion.
It seems Bishops Wimberly and Lee are holding off to give +Duncan one last chance. That may change if DPitt finalizes its constitutional changes.
Bishops Wimberly and Lee are certainly within the “letter of the law” in their declining to support +Duncan’s inhibition at this time. However, Bishop Frade hit the nail on the head when he wrote [blockquote]The Episcopate must not tolerate such actions as these bishops have taken; they have betrayed the trust that was given them when we, their brother and sister bishops, consented to their election. The seriousness of this betrayal is not mitigated by the fact that in one of the cases the goal of turning away from The Episcopal Church has not been fully achieved. As I have learned to say in America, “You can not just be a little pregnant.”[/blockquote]
Yes, D.C., but I notice that it says nothing about Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church……of which The Episcopal Church is supposedly a part; a very small one at that.
It would be very, very helpful to know which actions specifically are thought to be grounds for inhibition. It would also be in accord with natural justuce. Otherwise the grandiose rhetoric of a man exercising a formal quasi judicial funtion might rather give the impression of a kangaroo court.
You are lucky, or unlucky, depending on your view, that all of this is occuring in the United States. In England this would come under the human rights legislation and the church would be in the civil courts quicker than you could say, “where’s my lawyer”.
I think the bishops would have excellent grounds to challenge a process which is so opaque that the very grounds on which they have been inhibited are unclear. Allegations have been made. Which are thought to present a case to be answered, as far as I can see, utterly unclear. Indeed the process seems designed not to allow the bishop to make a legal defence at all. It’s probably for the best, as there seems no way of knowing what the charges are anyway.
They wouldn’t have been charged if they weren’t guilty. I think that’s how it works in TEC, isn’t it?
D.C. — “+Duncan has openly renounced the discipline of TEC” — sez you. That’s what due process is for.
Bruno has openly renounced the discipline of TEC by allowing communion-without-baptism — sez me. My say-so doesn’t bring on the consequences, though, does it? Due process.
Why do some perceived canonical offenses bring an automatic finding of guilty, while others are ignored? TEC and certain diocesans have developed a habit of interpreting statements and actions as de facto “renunciations” for expediency, and it brings shame to the Church.
The intended use of this canon is for bishops who have left TEC for another body not in communion with it. Duncan hasn’t done that yet, so its use is inappropriate until he does. Wimberley and Lee were correct, then, to agree to the action on Schofield but not Duncan, yet, although the Schofield consent is an implicit admission that the international communion is broken.
Speaking cynically, Lee has been the target of much criticism and derision after having been forced by Schori to abandon negotiations with the CANA parishes and go to court instead. It could be he’s decided he’s not going to be strung up again. Good for him.
Connecticutian [#20] writes: ‘D.C.—“+Duncan has openly renounced the discipline of TECâ€â€”sez you. That’s what due process is for.‘
Sez the Title IV review committee; sez all three of the senior bishops — go read +Lee’s and +Wimberly’s statements — even though those two decided to give +Duncan one last chance to repent. Per the canon, that is the due process.
Due process, by the way, doesn’t mean everyone must pretend that +Duncan is in fact innocent until the process is complete. It means simply that he can’t be inhibited unless and until certain procedural steps are taken to confirm that such action is warranted.
As the late Chief Justice Rehnquist once explained, “innocent until proven guilty” is a misnomer. Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald on national television. We weren’t required to pretend he was innocent until the jury declared him guilty. The real meaning of innocent until proven guilty is that society doesn’t countenance taking Action X — sending someone to prison, for example — until that happens.
D.C. – then try +Duncan under the canons and allow a full trial with prosecuting and defending attorneys. Don’t short circut the process by allowing a few people to take the assertions of a small number of people (with an ax to grind against +Duncan) at face value. If +Duncan is guilty of canonical violations, lets have a full presentment and trial.
Susan (#17)–You quote Bishop Frade regarding Bishop Duncan: “…they have betrayed the trust that was given them when we, their brother and sister bishops, consented to their election.” Do you have the nerve to compare Bishop Bruno’s flagrant violation of the Canons in giving Communion to Hindu clergy. You say Bishop Duncan has betrayed a trust, but I don’t think you will come back on this one. And, of course, Bishop Lee will never be asked to evaluate Bishop Bruno to inhibit him.
Re; #3:
Episcopal Cafe is Naughton and Chane’s usual suspects blogging their way to liberal nirvana. If the founders of the National Cathedral and the Diocese of Washington could see what has become of that diocese I am sure that Chane’s cathedral would be an outhouse in Gerorgetown rather than the hard-won & lovingly conceived complex on Mt. St. Alban’s.
Also, don’t give Peter Lee too much credit for a conversion experience. He’s still a lawyer, and when the time comes he will roast all comers over this issue like he is doing with his own flock. Right now he’s choking on the Virginia Attorney General, but later he’ll have breath to go after + Duncan.
I didn’t suggest that Bp. Duncan was “innocent.” Phil Snyder got my point, and so did D.C. really – we don’t hang them until after the trial. Bring on the trial, then we’ll see if those few people did actually interpret that one canon correctly, and whether Bp Duncan’s actions fall under it.
We may easily agree that +Bob did this or said that, but we may still disagree whether those deeds constitute an “open renunciation.”
That’s all *before* we even get to the question of right or wrong. In the wake of MLKJr’s holiday, we might consider whether civil disobedience (the breaking of the letter of the law) is actually a public good (keeping of the moral law.)
In Connecticut, Bp Smith was found by the Title IV committee to have violated canon, but the committee decided he acted with good intentions so they didn’t pursue it (he was not exactly “cleared” as it was widely reported.) There was a determination that some violations can be overlooked.
With +Bruno and others, we have the equivalent of Jack Ruby caught on tape. Yet nobody is even calling for an arrest. This is TEC “justice”?
I just read Susan Russell’s mind on the matter and I can’t believe it. I’m with #25. It’s amazing how the inhibitions seek out to destroy a bishop when THE MAJORITY OF THE DIOCESAN CONVENTIONS – THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PEW are pushing and endorsing a withdrawal from TEC. If you inhibit Duncan then you should take each diocesan delegate to trial as well. There ARE provisions in the canons to do so. When are you going to insist on that? And, the smirking smiles behind the inhibitions will not touch Bruno for his weird inter-religion service. That will glare to anybody with eyes and more’s the reason that people will not believe that this is all about justice.
Connecticutian [#27] and Phil Snyder [#24], there may be some confusion here. We’ve got two kinds of due process in this matter, because there are two different actions that can be taken.
• Action A is a temporary inhibition. Its due process is a certification by the Title IV review committee and the consent of the three senior bishops. The first of these happened, the second hasn’t (yet).
• Action B is a permanent deposition. Its due process (if memory serves) is a majority vote of all bishops with jurisdiction, or something like that.
Phil Snyder says: “Don’t short circu[i]t the process by allowing a few people to take the assertions of a small number of people (with an ax to grind against +Duncan) at face value.” The process has been happening as the canons prescribe, with no short-circuiting at all that I can see.[/i]
D.C. – but in the IV.9 process, there is no trial – just a vote of the HoB. Under the other processes, there is a trial with a Church attorney and a defense attorney. If there is a formal presentment, then +Duncan gets the same rights as any other deacon, priest, or bishop would receive in that he is allowed to present his defense and to respond to the charges in person. Under the “abandonment of communion” charge, there is no defense or trial – only a vote. This is what outrages me and others and should outrage you as well.
Instead of use IV.5 and have a fair hearing where +Duncan is allowed to respond to the charges and show why his actions are not in violation of the Constitution or Canons. That is what IV.5 is for. IV.9 is for a bishop who has left TECUSA for a church not in communion with TECUSA (such as Rome or Constantinople or one of the Protestant churches). IV.9 was never intended to be used against a sitting bishop who still maintains his membership in the House.
Of course you know by now that Susan Russell only does “Drive-Byâ€s on this site. That is, she will post a quippy one-liner (or even one-worder) and then, without even slowing down, go on to the next topic for another quippy one-liner. Folks will ask questions or point out logical fallacies about her post and await a response, only to be met with the sound crickets chirping.
At the risk of veering dangerously off-topic, this leads me to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that, while I disagree with 97% of his posts, D.C. will indeed follow-up his posts and engage in dialogue here.
Now, back to the topic. If the accusation is that Bishop Duncan is allowing those in his Diocese to potentially violate canons, and by doing so he himself has abandoned the communion by not disciplining them, then consider this example : Every week, the priests at many churches in the Los Angeles Diocese (most notably those at All Saints, Pasadena) blatantly violate Title I, Canon 17, Section 7, which states “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Churchâ€. Question for D.C. or Susan Russell (or anyone else) – do you believe that Bishop Bruno should bring these priests up on charges for violating this canon, and that by not doing so he is guilty of abandoning the communion of this church by not upholding the discipline aspect that D.C. brought up earlier? If not, is there some secret list of canons which are okay to violate, and where might one get such a copy?
Rest easy Cennydd,
The prophets of “justice” are not after truth. They don’t recognize that the PEOPLE of the dioceses are voting to leave. They won’t chase you down as the true responsible party. They want leaders who oppose the secularist agenda. Their take is that the people are dumb sheep, unable to make up their own minds, and incapable of rational thought, blindly led by a loud voice: in fact what they hope for at next General Convention. The truth is that they want THEIR loud voices heard, and those of traditionalists silenced. It’s never been so plain.
Duncan was also Lee’s assistant when both were in North Carolina and were reportedly friends – probably Lee was not interested in inhibiting (kneecapping) his old friend until Duncan is actually out of TEC, at which point it would hardly matter anyway.
Also, inquiring minds should look into the identity of Duncan’s predecessor, and why Lee did everything in his power to fire him.
Kevin S. [#35] writes: “Question for D.C. or Susan Russell (or anyone else) – do you believe that Bishop Bruno should bring these priests up on charges for violating this canon [prohibiting communion for the unbaptized] and that by not doing so he is guilty of abandoning the communion of this church by not upholding the discipline aspect that D.C. brought up earlier?”
All things considered: No. I’m not happy about open defiance of a canon. But is this defiance such a bad thing that it warrants taking action against the priests in question? Bishop Bruno has apparently decided it’s not. For the time being, I’m willing to leave the matter to his discretion. Any executive has to make choices about how best to use his limited time and resources. I don’t think this particular issue is serious enough that we should second-guess the choices +Bruno has made.
I do think the communion-without-baptism (CWOB) canon should be changed. It’s based on an out-of-context misreading of 1 Cor. 11. And I like the way Ross put it in this forum last year: under traditional hospitality codes going back as far as Genesis, “it is an ironclad rule that the stranger must be welcomed and offered the best of what you have… and if the Body and Blood of Christ [assuming arguendo that’s what it is] is not the best we have, what is?” My own view is that those who oppose CWOB should consider an ontological possibility: that any reception of consecrated bread and wine by the unbaptized simply wouldn’t be Holy Communion.
It is always amusing to hear Susan Russell, who performs unauthorized public rites without the permission of her bishop, speak of church discipline just as it is always amusing to hear the Jefferts Schori appeal to the discipline of the ancient church by which she is no priest, much less a bishop.
D.C – I notice that you haven’t given a good reason not to give +Duncan a fair trial under canon IV.5. Are you afraid that the rules of evidence or the right to cross-examine witnesses or to mount a defense would result in +Duncan not being deposed?
So, D.C., you’ve confirmed how the canons work. If Bishop Bruno wants to ignore a canon it’s fine, right? So how about leaving other bishops to do as they see fit at their own discretion. OOOOPS: that’s where we are now. TEC is not a Province but a club of independent bishops who battle each other with “canon” fire when the Club rules are crossed. So, what credibility does this give?
Kevin–Yes, I know Susan Russell is a “drive-by shooter” here. I wasn’t holding my breath that she would engage.
And sure-’nuff, D.C. stepped up to the plate about Bish. Bruno. But, D.C., Bruno himself must have authorized the Hindu Communions against a Canon, while Bish. Duncan’s moves toward aligning with another province are not covered by a specific Canon. Pitt may vote in an orderly way to shift its canonical obedience from TEC to Southern Cone. What about this?
Phil Snyder [#29] writes: “D.C – I notice that you haven’t given a good reason not to give +Duncan a fair trial under canon IV.5.”
Under the abandonment canon, the ‘trial’ comes at the House of Bishops meeting; inhibition is a temporary measure, presumably to preserve the status quo until the trial. It’s much like the way a preliminary injunction works in secular law.
As to the right to present a defense, cross-examine, etc.: Nothing stops a ‘defendant’ bishop from picking up the phone and calling the three senior bishops after the Title IV review committee ‘indicts’ him. (We can’t rule out that this didn’t happen in +Duncan’s case; I have no information on that point, one way or another.)
———————
OhKay [#41] writes: “D.C., [1] Bruno himself must have authorized the Hindu Communions against a Canon, while [2] Bish. Duncan’s moves toward aligning with another province are not covered by a specific Canon.”
[1] You’re assuming facts not in evidence (which is often correlated with indulging in wishful thinking — “I’d like for things to be a certain way, therefore they must be that way ….”
[2] Even to attempt to align with another province, or to take preliminary steps in that direction, is ipso facto to renounce the discipline of TEC. There’s no specific canon prohibiting that, any more than there’s a specific law prohibiting robbing someone by threatening her with an 8-inch Wusthof serrated knife — the general prohibition is more than sufficient.
Okay, then D.C……..faithfulness to The Episcopal Church must be absolutely paramount, then. It must come before all else……..including faithfulness to Christ and His Church, is that right? This seems to be the sense of the House of Bishops. Nothing else is important, is it?
D.C. – under IV.9, there is no “trial.” There is only the Title IV review committee (appointed by the PB, I believe) and the vote by the House of Bishops. There is no time for the respondent to argue and no rules of evidence. This would be similar to accusing someone of treason and having the jury vote on the presentation of the Grand Jury alone. There are no witnesses and no right of cross-examination. Of course, the person accues of treason could address the jury, but he doesn’t have the right to confront his accusers.
Wouldn’t it be better to offer +Duncan the same courtesy and rights as were offered +Righter?
In your answer to #41, there [b]is[/b] a law against both robbing someone and against threatening them (with our without a deadly weapon), so your anology fails. Can you show me specific canons or articles of the Consitution that +Duncan is violating? Can you show where a diocese (after joining TECUSA) is not allowed to leave?
Bp. Bruno was scheduled to participate in the service, ergo he had authorized it. That is not an assumption. What you are saying is that it is OK for him to disregard canonical violations because he does it himself; so it must not be that important. That’s circular.
It’s much like the farce of the Righter “trial”, in which Bp Browning stacked the panel with other bishops who had done the same thing. Only one had the integrity to recuse himself. The “no core doctrine” was a clever dodge. But if the nature of the Eucharist and the unique saving nature of Christ are not “core doctrine”, then there is none, except what the powers that be say it is at the moment.
I also appreciate your willingness to participate.
Bill Matz [#46], I take your point about +Bruno’s participation. (I also agree that any outreach to the Hindus should acknowledge and condemn the brutality of some Hindu fundamentalists towards Christians.)
What I still don’t know is what exactly went on at the service in question. Suppose the Episcopalians at that service participated in a Hindu rite that could reasonably be (re)interpreted as an alternative form of worship of the One God, and that they did so in order to be able to join in a form of worship with their Hindu neighbors. I’m not sure I’d have a problem with that.
Let’s take it further: I don’t think I’d have a problem with Episcopalians, on a similar special ecumenical occasion, participating in Muslims’ prayers to Al-Lah. I understand that Al-Law is just the Arabic term for The God, like the Greek ho theos. To pray to Al-Lah is thus to pray to God. God is God; to worship him is to worship him.
——————
Bill writes: “if the nature of the Eucharist and the unique saving nature of Christ are not ‘core doctrine’, then there is none, except what the powers that be say it is at the moment.”
I would argue as follows:
1. Axiom: Reality — which we can define as encompassing God’s nature and will — is what it is. More to the point, Reality is not necessarily what doctrine says it is (the map is not the territory; the portrait is not the person).
[FOOTNOTE: Let’s not get into the argument, which will never be settled in this life, whether scriptural doctrines are infallible representations of God’s will. Some think that view is the only permissible one; others think it’s an idiotic one; neither side is ever going to convince the other.]
2. Given #1: The relevance of doctrine lies in how it predisposes people to action (a description I recently read concerning belief, attributed to one Rokeach).
3. Given # 1 and 2, let’s define core doctrine as a particular predisposition to action that will override just about any other.
4. Given # 1 through #3, it follows that for any group, ‘core’ doctrine is about group action, and thus will always be determined by “what the powers that be [in that group] say it is at the moment.”
———————–
You assert that core doctrine in Christianity includes “[A] the nature of the Eucharist and [B] the unique saving nature of Christ ….” Quite a few Christians, myself among them, would dispute both parts of that assertion.
I’ve long argued here that core Christian doctrine begins and ends with the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law. Jesus himself is reported to have said to the questioning lawyer, do this and you will live [eternally].
Sure, Paul thought otherwise. But he was a latecomer who never knew Jesus in life, and who seems to have been ferociously fervent as part of his personality, both before and after his conversion (and there’s no fervor like that of a convert). Judging from his letters and from Acts, he seems to have prevailed in the church almost purely by obsessive perseverance. And let’s not forget that he and other early Christians missed the mark big time on their core doctrine,which was that the end of the world was imminent. So it’s not like we have to accept Paul’s view about the nature of Christ as the be-all and end-all.
God reminder that violence flows from Hindus, as well as to.
There was a good summary of the service in the LA Times.
Your equating of core doctrine with the Summary of the Law and the Great Commandment is a common reappraiser position. But it seems to have some problems. First, a summary necessarily implies there is more to the whole. Second, reappraisers seem to overlook that in the Summary, the first is given primacy as the “greatest” or “great” commandment. Reappraisers focus on the second, loving the neighbor. If that is the only core doctrine, I doubt there could ever be provable renunciation.
According to Episcopal Cafe, the LA Times (reg. req’d) printed a correction, saying that Hindus were not invited to communion at the service we’ve been discussing:
FOR THE RECORD:
Hindu-Episcopal service: An article in Sunday’s California section about a joint religious service involving Hindus and Episcopalians said that all those attending the service at St. John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles were invited to Holy Communion. Although attendees walked toward the Communion table, only Christians were encouraged to partake of Communion. Out of respect for Hindu beliefs, the Hindus were invited to take a flower. Also, the article described Hindus consuming bread during Communion, but some of those worshipers were Christians wearing traditional Indian dress. —
Seems as if the PB has a mountain to climb.
+Peter Lee has done a lot wrong in the last year, however, as Christians we need to not hold a grudge and cheer when he does something right. Good for him for judging only those actions taken and not hypothetical, theoretical, inferred in future or any other means the PB has tried.
I find it terribly worrysome that in the comments at Episopal Cafe a contributor (going by the moniker ‘Ormonde Platter’) suggests that inhibition is about what the Bishop might do. Inhibition is a very serious matter and such a step should only be taken if there is prima facie evidence that an individual has broken canon law.
The reason such a suggestion matters in my opinion, is that defending yourself against an allegation concerning what you might do is nigh on impossible. If inhibition can be brought merely on the grounds of future possible action, any priest or bishop in the Episcopal Church can rightfully be inhibited at any point. It is an astonishing interpretation of canon law and, to me, deeply concerning.
Don’t you see this is TEC’s post-9/11 policy of pre-emptive inhibitions?
What a wimp! Hasn’t he learned anything from the pummeling his own diocese has taken? I guess he thinks it’s okay to put the Diocese of Pittsburgh through the same horror. Sad.
That canon was written to deal with clergy who leave to become Roman Catholic, Methodists, or Buddhists. The very idea that one might wish to be Anglican but not Episcopalian in the USA was not considered — little did the framers of that canon know that ECUSA would one day become a self-contradictory body.
The review committee simply passed on complaints made by clergy and lay people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who had previously sought relief in civil court. All the accusations appear to be related to Bishop Duncan’s actions as presiding officer of the diocesan convention. To make a bishop personally responsible for the actions of convention is simply silly and displays an ignorance of the history of the Episcopal Church which reflects on the academic competence of the complaintants.
I think a case could be made from Bishop Duncan’s participation in consecrations of bishops of foreign provinces for service in America, but that case was not made.
I am grateful for the procedural protections provided by the requirement for the consent of the senior bishops, and in this case I think Bishops Lee and Wimberly did the right thing. We pray when bishops are consecrated that they will receive grace and wisdom, and I am glad that in this case they have exercised them.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
yes, the notion that inhibition is for what a person “might do” is really bordering on fascism. but then that would describe (sadly) many in ECUSA today…..
Don’t forget when four California bishops sought presentment charges against Bishop Schofield last year based on what he might do. Same thing – don’t you love the tolerance?
#4 & #8 — TEC is [url=http://bp1.blogger.com/_2EzEBbtDGmI/R5ZXtV_wRRI/AAAAAAAAA40/R5ZNg9pcvEo/s1600-h/stormtrooper_parade.jpg] Marching to Zion[/url]?
Fred,
I’m staying, and you are making the rest of us who are look bad.
This is not wimpish (why, because he did something different than you would? Oh, are you a bishop?).
This is the courage of conviction. I’m not makin’ the man a hero. But he’s doing it like it is supposed to be done. You’ve complained before about most of the rest of the Anglican Communion not understanding our Episcopal polity, and I have agreed. But this is an example of exactly how our Episcopal polity works! This is exactly what you’ve been supporting!
You are confused.
You might be in the wrong ship if you think everything’s just going to go your way!
Ormonde Plater is (or was) the senior deacon of the Diocese of Louisiana.
I used to think highly of him.
gdb in central Texas
Good for Bishop Lee.
If you can point to a canon that Bishop Duncan has violated, then charge him and give him a fair trial before you depose him.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Bishop Duncan turn back? Hah……in your wildest dreams, Bishop Lee!
For all that Peter Lee has gotten wrong these past several years, I am thankful and grateful that he decided not to endorse the Presiding Bishop’s assault on +Bob. Hopefully, this is the start of a positive change in Lee’s ways.
Phil Snyder [#13], +Duncan has openly renounced the discipline of TEC by actively encouraging his diocese to undertake the constitutional / canonical changes that they’re making.
The relevant canonical provision is IV.9.1. That provision defines one of the possible ways to abandon communio as being “… an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church ….” (Emphasis added.)
Note that abandonment encompasses renunciation of any of the three: Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship.
Note also: The rest of the paragraph makes it indisputable that “this Church” refers to TEC, not to the Anglican Communion.
It seems Bishops Wimberly and Lee are holding off to give +Duncan one last chance. That may change if DPitt finalizes its constitutional changes.
Bishops Wimberly and Lee are certainly within the “letter of the law” in their declining to support +Duncan’s inhibition at this time. However, Bishop Frade hit the nail on the head when he wrote [blockquote]The Episcopate must not tolerate such actions as these bishops have taken; they have betrayed the trust that was given them when we, their brother and sister bishops, consented to their election. The seriousness of this betrayal is not mitigated by the fact that in one of the cases the goal of turning away from The Episcopal Church has not been fully achieved. As I have learned to say in America, “You can not just be a little pregnant.”[/blockquote]
Yes, D.C., but I notice that it says nothing about Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church……of which The Episcopal Church is supposedly a part; a very small one at that.
It would be very, very helpful to know which actions specifically are thought to be grounds for inhibition. It would also be in accord with natural justuce. Otherwise the grandiose rhetoric of a man exercising a formal quasi judicial funtion might rather give the impression of a kangaroo court.
You are lucky, or unlucky, depending on your view, that all of this is occuring in the United States. In England this would come under the human rights legislation and the church would be in the civil courts quicker than you could say, “where’s my lawyer”.
I think the bishops would have excellent grounds to challenge a process which is so opaque that the very grounds on which they have been inhibited are unclear. Allegations have been made. Which are thought to present a case to be answered, as far as I can see, utterly unclear. Indeed the process seems designed not to allow the bishop to make a legal defence at all. It’s probably for the best, as there seems no way of knowing what the charges are anyway.
They wouldn’t have been charged if they weren’t guilty. I think that’s how it works in TEC, isn’t it?
D.C. — “+Duncan has openly renounced the discipline of TEC” — sez you. That’s what due process is for.
Bruno has openly renounced the discipline of TEC by allowing communion-without-baptism — sez me. My say-so doesn’t bring on the consequences, though, does it? Due process.
Why do some perceived canonical offenses bring an automatic finding of guilty, while others are ignored? TEC and certain diocesans have developed a habit of interpreting statements and actions as de facto “renunciations” for expediency, and it brings shame to the Church.
The intended use of this canon is for bishops who have left TEC for another body not in communion with it. Duncan hasn’t done that yet, so its use is inappropriate until he does. Wimberley and Lee were correct, then, to agree to the action on Schofield but not Duncan, yet, although the Schofield consent is an implicit admission that the international communion is broken.
Speaking cynically, Lee has been the target of much criticism and derision after having been forced by Schori to abandon negotiations with the CANA parishes and go to court instead. It could be he’s decided he’s not going to be strung up again. Good for him.
Tom (#7) are you saying the PB and those bring presentsments don’t understand our polity?
Connecticutian [#20] writes: ‘D.C.—“+Duncan has openly renounced the discipline of TECâ€â€”sez you. That’s what due process is for.‘
Sez the Title IV review committee; sez all three of the senior bishops — go read +Lee’s and +Wimberly’s statements — even though those two decided to give +Duncan one last chance to repent. Per the canon, that is the due process.
Due process, by the way, doesn’t mean everyone must pretend that +Duncan is in fact innocent until the process is complete. It means simply that he can’t be inhibited unless and until certain procedural steps are taken to confirm that such action is warranted.
As the late Chief Justice Rehnquist once explained, “innocent until proven guilty” is a misnomer. Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald on national television. We weren’t required to pretend he was innocent until the jury declared him guilty. The real meaning of innocent until proven guilty is that society doesn’t countenance taking Action X — sending someone to prison, for example — until that happens.
D.C. – then try +Duncan under the canons and allow a full trial with prosecuting and defending attorneys. Don’t short circut the process by allowing a few people to take the assertions of a small number of people (with an ax to grind against +Duncan) at face value. If +Duncan is guilty of canonical violations, lets have a full presentment and trial.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Susan (#17)–You quote Bishop Frade regarding Bishop Duncan: “…they have betrayed the trust that was given them when we, their brother and sister bishops, consented to their election.” Do you have the nerve to compare Bishop Bruno’s flagrant violation of the Canons in giving Communion to Hindu clergy. You say Bishop Duncan has betrayed a trust, but I don’t think you will come back on this one. And, of course, Bishop Lee will never be asked to evaluate Bishop Bruno to inhibit him.
Re; #3:
Episcopal Cafe is Naughton and Chane’s usual suspects blogging their way to liberal nirvana. If the founders of the National Cathedral and the Diocese of Washington could see what has become of that diocese I am sure that Chane’s cathedral would be an outhouse in Gerorgetown rather than the hard-won & lovingly conceived complex on Mt. St. Alban’s.
Also, don’t give Peter Lee too much credit for a conversion experience. He’s still a lawyer, and when the time comes he will roast all comers over this issue like he is doing with his own flock. Right now he’s choking on the Virginia Attorney General, but later he’ll have breath to go after + Duncan.
I didn’t suggest that Bp. Duncan was “innocent.” Phil Snyder got my point, and so did D.C. really – we don’t hang them until after the trial. Bring on the trial, then we’ll see if those few people did actually interpret that one canon correctly, and whether Bp Duncan’s actions fall under it.
We may easily agree that +Bob did this or said that, but we may still disagree whether those deeds constitute an “open renunciation.”
That’s all *before* we even get to the question of right or wrong. In the wake of MLKJr’s holiday, we might consider whether civil disobedience (the breaking of the letter of the law) is actually a public good (keeping of the moral law.)
In Connecticut, Bp Smith was found by the Title IV committee to have violated canon, but the committee decided he acted with good intentions so they didn’t pursue it (he was not exactly “cleared” as it was widely reported.) There was a determination that some violations can be overlooked.
With +Bruno and others, we have the equivalent of Jack Ruby caught on tape. Yet nobody is even calling for an arrest. This is TEC “justice”?
I just read Susan Russell’s mind on the matter and I can’t believe it. I’m with #25. It’s amazing how the inhibitions seek out to destroy a bishop when THE MAJORITY OF THE DIOCESAN CONVENTIONS – THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PEW are pushing and endorsing a withdrawal from TEC. If you inhibit Duncan then you should take each diocesan delegate to trial as well. There ARE provisions in the canons to do so. When are you going to insist on that? And, the smirking smiles behind the inhibitions will not touch Bruno for his weird inter-religion service. That will glare to anybody with eyes and more’s the reason that people will not believe that this is all about justice.
Connecticutian [#27] and Phil Snyder [#24], there may be some confusion here. We’ve got two kinds of due process in this matter, because there are two different actions that can be taken.
• Action A is a temporary inhibition. Its due process is a certification by the Title IV review committee and the consent of the three senior bishops. The first of these happened, the second hasn’t (yet).
• Action B is a permanent deposition. Its due process (if memory serves) is a majority vote of all bishops with jurisdiction, or something like that.
Phil Snyder says: “Don’t short circu[i]t the process by allowing a few people to take the assertions of a small number of people (with an ax to grind against +Duncan) at face value.” The process has been happening as the canons prescribe, with no short-circuiting at all that I can see.[/i]
D.C. – but in the IV.9 process, there is no trial – just a vote of the HoB. Under the other processes, there is a trial with a Church attorney and a defense attorney. If there is a formal presentment, then +Duncan gets the same rights as any other deacon, priest, or bishop would receive in that he is allowed to present his defense and to respond to the charges in person. Under the “abandonment of communion” charge, there is no defense or trial – only a vote. This is what outrages me and others and should outrage you as well.
Instead of use IV.5 and have a fair hearing where +Duncan is allowed to respond to the charges and show why his actions are not in violation of the Constitution or Canons. That is what IV.5 is for. IV.9 is for a bishop who has left TECUSA for a church not in communion with TECUSA (such as Rome or Constantinople or one of the Protestant churches). IV.9 was never intended to be used against a sitting bishop who still maintains his membership in the House.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil Snyder, just try to tell that to Susan Russell! I dare you!
Hurrah for Bp. Lee!
If someone wants to take me to trial for voting to leave TEC for the Southern Cone, that’s okay with me……my lawyers are ready!
OhKay (#25) –
Of course you know by now that Susan Russell only does “Drive-Byâ€s on this site. That is, she will post a quippy one-liner (or even one-worder) and then, without even slowing down, go on to the next topic for another quippy one-liner. Folks will ask questions or point out logical fallacies about her post and await a response, only to be met with the sound crickets chirping.
At the risk of veering dangerously off-topic, this leads me to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that, while I disagree with 97% of his posts, D.C. will indeed follow-up his posts and engage in dialogue here.
Now, back to the topic. If the accusation is that Bishop Duncan is allowing those in his Diocese to potentially violate canons, and by doing so he himself has abandoned the communion by not disciplining them, then consider this example : Every week, the priests at many churches in the Los Angeles Diocese (most notably those at All Saints, Pasadena) blatantly violate Title I, Canon 17, Section 7, which states “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Churchâ€. Question for D.C. or Susan Russell (or anyone else) – do you believe that Bishop Bruno should bring these priests up on charges for violating this canon, and that by not doing so he is guilty of abandoning the communion of this church by not upholding the discipline aspect that D.C. brought up earlier? If not, is there some secret list of canons which are okay to violate, and where might one get such a copy?
Rest easy Cennydd,
The prophets of “justice” are not after truth. They don’t recognize that the PEOPLE of the dioceses are voting to leave. They won’t chase you down as the true responsible party. They want leaders who oppose the secularist agenda. Their take is that the people are dumb sheep, unable to make up their own minds, and incapable of rational thought, blindly led by a loud voice: in fact what they hope for at next General Convention. The truth is that they want THEIR loud voices heard, and those of traditionalists silenced. It’s never been so plain.
Duncan was also Lee’s assistant when both were in North Carolina and were reportedly friends – probably Lee was not interested in inhibiting (kneecapping) his old friend until Duncan is actually out of TEC, at which point it would hardly matter anyway.
Also, inquiring minds should look into the identity of Duncan’s predecessor, and why Lee did everything in his power to fire him.
Kevin S. [#35] writes: “Question for D.C. or Susan Russell (or anyone else) – do you believe that Bishop Bruno should bring these priests up on charges for violating this canon [prohibiting communion for the unbaptized] and that by not doing so he is guilty of abandoning the communion of this church by not upholding the discipline aspect that D.C. brought up earlier?”
All things considered: No. I’m not happy about open defiance of a canon. But is this defiance such a bad thing that it warrants taking action against the priests in question? Bishop Bruno has apparently decided it’s not. For the time being, I’m willing to leave the matter to his discretion. Any executive has to make choices about how best to use his limited time and resources. I don’t think this particular issue is serious enough that we should second-guess the choices +Bruno has made.
I do think the communion-without-baptism (CWOB) canon should be changed. It’s based on an out-of-context misreading of 1 Cor. 11. And I like the way Ross put it in this forum last year: under traditional hospitality codes going back as far as Genesis, “it is an ironclad rule that the stranger must be welcomed and offered the best of what you have… and if the Body and Blood of Christ [assuming arguendo that’s what it is] is not the best we have, what is?” My own view is that those who oppose CWOB should consider an ontological possibility: that any reception of consecrated bread and wine by the unbaptized simply wouldn’t be Holy Communion.
BTW, thanks for the kind words, Kevin.
It is always amusing to hear Susan Russell, who performs unauthorized public rites without the permission of her bishop, speak of church discipline just as it is always amusing to hear the Jefferts Schori appeal to the discipline of the ancient church by which she is no priest, much less a bishop.
D.C – I notice that you haven’t given a good reason not to give +Duncan a fair trial under canon IV.5. Are you afraid that the rules of evidence or the right to cross-examine witnesses or to mount a defense would result in +Duncan not being deposed?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
So, D.C., you’ve confirmed how the canons work. If Bishop Bruno wants to ignore a canon it’s fine, right? So how about leaving other bishops to do as they see fit at their own discretion. OOOOPS: that’s where we are now. TEC is not a Province but a club of independent bishops who battle each other with “canon” fire when the Club rules are crossed. So, what credibility does this give?
Kevin–Yes, I know Susan Russell is a “drive-by shooter” here. I wasn’t holding my breath that she would engage.
And sure-’nuff, D.C. stepped up to the plate about Bish. Bruno. But, D.C., Bruno himself must have authorized the Hindu Communions against a Canon, while Bish. Duncan’s moves toward aligning with another province are not covered by a specific Canon. Pitt may vote in an orderly way to shift its canonical obedience from TEC to Southern Cone. What about this?
Phil Snyder [#29] writes: “D.C – I notice that you haven’t given a good reason not to give +Duncan a fair trial under canon IV.5.”
Under the abandonment canon, the ‘trial’ comes at the House of Bishops meeting; inhibition is a temporary measure, presumably to preserve the status quo until the trial. It’s much like the way a preliminary injunction works in secular law.
As to the right to present a defense, cross-examine, etc.: Nothing stops a ‘defendant’ bishop from picking up the phone and calling the three senior bishops after the Title IV review committee ‘indicts’ him. (We can’t rule out that this didn’t happen in +Duncan’s case; I have no information on that point, one way or another.)
———————
OhKay [#41] writes: “D.C., [1] Bruno himself must have authorized the Hindu Communions against a Canon, while [2] Bish. Duncan’s moves toward aligning with another province are not covered by a specific Canon.”
[1] You’re assuming facts not in evidence (which is often correlated with indulging in wishful thinking — “I’d like for things to be a certain way, therefore they must be that way ….”
[2] Even to attempt to align with another province, or to take preliminary steps in that direction, is ipso facto to renounce the discipline of TEC. There’s no specific canon prohibiting that, any more than there’s a specific law prohibiting robbing someone by threatening her with an 8-inch Wusthof serrated knife — the general prohibition is more than sufficient.
Correction to my #42: In the first paragraph, delete “preliminary injunction” and replace with —ex parte temporary restraining order—
Okay, then D.C……..faithfulness to The Episcopal Church must be absolutely paramount, then. It must come before all else……..including faithfulness to Christ and His Church, is that right? This seems to be the sense of the House of Bishops. Nothing else is important, is it?
D.C. – under IV.9, there is no “trial.” There is only the Title IV review committee (appointed by the PB, I believe) and the vote by the House of Bishops. There is no time for the respondent to argue and no rules of evidence. This would be similar to accusing someone of treason and having the jury vote on the presentation of the Grand Jury alone. There are no witnesses and no right of cross-examination. Of course, the person accues of treason could address the jury, but he doesn’t have the right to confront his accusers.
Wouldn’t it be better to offer +Duncan the same courtesy and rights as were offered +Righter?
In your answer to #41, there [b]is[/b] a law against both robbing someone and against threatening them (with our without a deadly weapon), so your anology fails. Can you show me specific canons or articles of the Consitution that +Duncan is violating? Can you show where a diocese (after joining TECUSA) is not allowed to leave?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
D.C.,
Bp. Bruno was scheduled to participate in the service, ergo he had authorized it. That is not an assumption. What you are saying is that it is OK for him to disregard canonical violations because he does it himself; so it must not be that important. That’s circular.
It’s much like the farce of the Righter “trial”, in which Bp Browning stacked the panel with other bishops who had done the same thing. Only one had the integrity to recuse himself. The “no core doctrine” was a clever dodge. But if the nature of the Eucharist and the unique saving nature of Christ are not “core doctrine”, then there is none, except what the powers that be say it is at the moment.
I also appreciate your willingness to participate.
Bill Matz [#46], I take your point about +Bruno’s participation. (I also agree that any outreach to the Hindus should acknowledge and condemn the brutality of some Hindu fundamentalists towards Christians.)
What I still don’t know is what exactly went on at the service in question. Suppose the Episcopalians at that service participated in a Hindu rite that could reasonably be (re)interpreted as an alternative form of worship of the One God, and that they did so in order to be able to join in a form of worship with their Hindu neighbors. I’m not sure I’d have a problem with that.
Let’s take it further: I don’t think I’d have a problem with Episcopalians, on a similar special ecumenical occasion, participating in Muslims’ prayers to Al-Lah. I understand that Al-Law is just the Arabic term for The God, like the Greek ho theos. To pray to Al-Lah is thus to pray to God. God is God; to worship him is to worship him.
——————
Bill writes: “if the nature of the Eucharist and the unique saving nature of Christ are not ‘core doctrine’, then there is none, except what the powers that be say it is at the moment.”
I would argue as follows:
1. Axiom: Reality — which we can define as encompassing God’s nature and will — is what it is. More to the point, Reality is not necessarily what doctrine says it is (the map is not the territory; the portrait is not the person).
[FOOTNOTE: Let’s not get into the argument, which will never be settled in this life, whether scriptural doctrines are infallible representations of God’s will. Some think that view is the only permissible one; others think it’s an idiotic one; neither side is ever going to convince the other.]
2. Given #1: The relevance of doctrine lies in how it predisposes people to action (a description I recently read concerning belief, attributed to one Rokeach).
3. Given # 1 and 2, let’s define core doctrine as a particular predisposition to action that will override just about any other.
4. Given # 1 through #3, it follows that for any group, ‘core’ doctrine is about group action, and thus will always be determined by “what the powers that be [in that group] say it is at the moment.”
———————–
You assert that core doctrine in Christianity includes “[A] the nature of the Eucharist and [B] the unique saving nature of Christ ….” Quite a few Christians, myself among them, would dispute both parts of that assertion.
I’ve long argued here that core Christian doctrine begins and ends with the Great Commandment and Summary of the Law. Jesus himself is reported to have said to the questioning lawyer, do this and you will live [eternally].
Sure, Paul thought otherwise. But he was a latecomer who never knew Jesus in life, and who seems to have been ferociously fervent as part of his personality, both before and after his conversion (and there’s no fervor like that of a convert). Judging from his letters and from Acts, he seems to have prevailed in the church almost purely by obsessive perseverance. And let’s not forget that he and other early Christians missed the mark big time on their core doctrine,which was that the end of the world was imminent. So it’s not like we have to accept Paul’s view about the nature of Christ as the be-all and end-all.
God reminder that violence flows from Hindus, as well as to.
There was a good summary of the service in the LA Times.
Your equating of core doctrine with the Summary of the Law and the Great Commandment is a common reappraiser position. But it seems to have some problems. First, a summary necessarily implies there is more to the whole. Second, reappraisers seem to overlook that in the Summary, the first is given primacy as the “greatest” or “great” commandment. Reappraisers focus on the second, loving the neighbor. If that is the only core doctrine, I doubt there could ever be provable renunciation.
According to Episcopal Cafe, the LA Times (reg. req’d) printed a correction, saying that Hindus were not invited to communion at the service we’ve been discussing: