I return again to my theme. Who interprets our ecclesiastical law? It is extraordinary to be told that the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor assures us that the Canons were observed in the matter of the deposition of two bishops this week. In secular society the equivalent would be for the prosecution to assure the court that all was being done in accordance with the law. I leave aside the undoubtedly canonical business of getting, or not getting, the three longest serving bishops to approve of a bill of attainder or of a committee meeting in private signing off on the alleged guilt of the accused.
That there is an overwhelming desire on the part of our bishops to shoot as many admirals as possible on their quarterdecks “for the encouragement of others” is respectably British but questionably Christian. I am often told nowadays that our doctrine and much of our tradition is the fruit of victory. “Winners write history.” Well it would seem obvious that we are in the hands of “winners” now and the history they are writing -may I become modern and wax anecdotal? – is that we make examples of at least one very old man whose wife is in the grips of a terminal disease, look as if we are after another elderly bishop, all in an attempt to “discipline” a bishop who has attempted to run off with the family silver, and perhaps warn two or more others not to do the same or else?
The “or else” is that without any form of trial or judicial hearing a group of persons will vote to declare that such persons have been deposed from the Sacred Ministry, our canonic version of a Bill of Attainder. The wretched bishops are obviously guilty and so “Off with their heads. ” Ah! we say but that means “our” sacred ministry rather than that of the Church Catholic. Yet we are not prepared to say “from the ministry ofthis jurisdiction”. It’s OK to imply it, or merely suggest that we don’t mean that which the language states.
On the desirability of “threads without venom, sidetracking, and personal attacks”, perhaps it begins with the selection of subject matter for discussion. When the subject matter selected takes an extreme position and is derogatory to persons addressed in it, it follows that the responders will also react with high emotion and disregard for orderly and logical discourse. Look to the source.
RE: “. . . perhaps it begins with the selection of subject matter for discussion.”
Right, Kendall. If you would just not post the writings of folks who disagree with the non-canonical attempted actions of TEC, or with any other actions of TEC, you would have a much much nicer blog.
Better yet, if you would simply post only those stories from good news sites — like ENS — your blog could be even better.
And even greater, perhaps you could just not post any thing about the Episcopal church at all. Because . . . you know . . . it all “begins with the selection of subject matter for discussion.”
; > )
A smile and a wink does not remove the venom. The issue is not about disagreement, it is about style. The entire article could have been written with journalistic bias without hyperbole, exaggeration, or venomous disrespect for the persons under discussion. But it wasn’t. If it is desired to suppress this style among responders, don’t select the works of bloggers who exhibit it. And since they want to be published, they will abandon that inflammatory style. If, on the other hand, one wishes to promote spilling acid on one side or the other for honor’s sake, keep on keeping on. That is, after all, what editors are for.
[i] This thread is not to discuss the author’s style. [/i]
I think the real take home quote is:
[blockquote]BUT I must say loudly that nothing has offended me more or sickened me -and that includes some actions of GC 2003- more than the activities of our leaders and their use of “law” during the past few months. There seems to be a ruthlessness, a bloodlessness, and a determination to proceed whatever our Canons may suggest, whether authority is clearly given or not, all because of a present crisis. The nearest parallel I can see is to be found in the post 9/11 activities of the present administration. This will come back to bite us.[/blockquote]
Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that we Episcopalians, are blessed with a plethora of lawyers in the pews. Now, they represent the entire political spectrum. But as a group, almost universally, on liberal and conservative blogs, they are unhappy with the canon law being ridden roughshod over. (They probably also contribute significantly to the denomination’s financial bottom line.) Verses such as these speak loudly to the lawyers that I know:
* Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.
* The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth should not betray justice.
* It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.
* By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.
Hi Doug–What you wouldn’t know is that The Rev’d Tony Clavier is by nature the soul of moderation and peacemaking. I won’t go into the details. One point here might be that if Tony Clavier is this wound up, something truly disturbing is going on.
“BUT I must say loudly that nothing has offended me more or sickened me -and that includes some actions of GC 2003- more than the activities of our leaders and their use of “law†during the past few months. There seems to be a ruthlessness, a bloodlessness, and a determination to proceed whatever our Canons may suggest, whether authority is clearly given or not, all because of a present crisis. The nearest parallel I can see is to be found in the post 9/11 activities of the present administration. This will come back to bite us.”
Substitute HUBRIS for “crisis” and you have the perfect statement of what is wrong with the HOB, particularly the revisionist “winners”.
RE: “A smile and a wink does not remove the venom.”
Very true — but as there was no venom to remove from my comment, which pointed out the ludicrous and rather self-serving nature of your statement, your comment is moot.
Calmly pointing out the humor of your initial comment is not “venom,” Doug . . . though your use of such a descriptor when another commenter disagrees is revealing.
Kendall selects excellent posts from a wide variety of authors and stances.
Keep up the good work, Kendall! And . . . keep on getting the news out about the latest non-canonical actions of TEC.
Doug…
I would heartily second what Fr. Workman says…and not just because we were seminary buddies. I met Fr. Clavier when he was still in Arkansas, and he really is “the soul of moderation,” at least, so I gathered from my brief conversations with him. But I think an exploration of his blog would bear that out. And I have to confess that what I’m hearing about the use of canon law these days often leaves me feeling much the same in my heart…anger, hurt, betrayal… even if I don’t express it what you’d term as extreme and derogatory ways. I guess I’m every bit as guilty.
#1: I came to the same conclusion that Father Clavier presented without needing to read his article posted on T19 at noon, for I had acted already to convey my unhappiness with the decision to declare the deposition of Bishop Cox even without the support of the canons by the Presiding Bishop to my priest today. I had come to that conclusion after watching the videos of the Presiding Bishop in South Carolina declare to the assemblage that, although, she did not know Bishop Cox, she understood it to be a canonical affair. And then I read in the long trail yesterday and overnight regarding the ENS posting of how KJS and DBB ignored the canons to depose Bishop Cox anyway.
“The entire article could have been written with journalistic bias without hyperbole, exaggeration, or venomous disrespect for the persons under discussion.â€
So I must react to this in your statement to point out that I can see nothing more venomous and hateful then what appears to be the railroading of a Godly man. There seems to be little integrity left in the leadership of TEC and it particularly disturbs me, on the eve of Holy week, that such a vote would even be called for, on this 87-year old man, let alone the manipulation of the canons to ensure his deposition.
[i] Off topic. Deleted by elf. [/i]
-Elf Lady
I have disagreed with certain of Fr Clavier’s points in the past (including the drawing of certain analogies with the mid-17th century English Church), but here he is completely spot on.
And his point about those mid-17th century bills of attainder hits the nail on the head.