Members of the House of Bishops have voted not to meet before the Lambeth Conference in July, the canon to the Presiding Bishop announced April 16.
Earlier this month, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori moved forward with preparations for a vote to depose Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh at a special House of Bishops’ meeting before the Lambeth Conference. E-mail messages were sent April 8 to all members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote.
Does the reporter have their facts skewed or was the PB really planning to depose before inhibiting? Just curious.
Awww, too much bad karma and failed mojo from the March HOB debacles to risk meeting with egg still on the faces? Or just the too-soon-to-be-forgotten bad PR from inability to count or follow canons? But perhaps the best decision the HOB has made in quite some time whatever the reason.
the roman: My information is that the intention was to try to depose +Duncan sooner so that he might be uninvited to Lambeth, or at least his bona fides would be compromised.
The advantage in using the abandonment of communion canon is that there is no inhibition (suspension) period necessary. This, of course, is because the canon was originally intended to clear the rolls of a cleric who had moved to another ecclesial body not in communion with Canterbury, but who had neglected to communicate this to ECUSA.
-AC
Yes, there is enough egg on the faces of 815, et al to make an omelette for everyone in Manhattan. What’s the big deal about a meeting that everyone can’t attend? Or that’s inconvenient?Apparently – under the rules – (technically speaking) three bishops can meet over coffee at Starbucks and decide the fate of the other 280+. A majority in attendance, you know.
#1: Bp Cox was not inhibited. Two of three of the senior bishops did not give consent to inhibition of Bp Duncan. Despite this, Ms Schori wanted to call a meeting in May to depose without inhibition. (There is not enough time to inhibit now before a May meeting.)
The next email to the HOB will no doubt come from Tony Soprano.
Intercessor
The PB would love to be rid of Bishop Duncan, perhaps before Lambeth, but certainly before he replicates San Joaquin. She has often claimed that the Post 2003 Fallout had only affected about 70 parishes or about 1 percent of TEC. But just by reading T19 and a few other blogs, I can name 136 that have been affected from a minor degree for a few to the complete loss of many. This has involved many thousands of baptized members and many millions of dollars in Plate & Pledge. Surely, the PB knows this, as she has better data sources than I do. Having now experienced the debacle of the defrocking of Bishop Schofield (and Cox) and the possible loss of about 40 churches in San Jooquin, she most certainly would desire to prevent, or at least impede, a repeat in Pittsburgh, as well as Fort Worth and Quincy. The potential loss of churches in these four dioceses could reach 180 and again thousands of members and millions of Plate & Pledge dollars. It will be a bumpy ride. Statmann
If she wins, it will only be a Pyrrhic one. ‘We had to destroy the Church in order to save it.’
Other than in gay and revisionist enclaves, Schori has zero credibility and zero respect throughout the Anglican world. She is certainly one of the least qualified person (in any important sense) to lead a church, and easily the least pastoral. She makes Rowan Williams deeply uncomfortable.
Thank you AC and robroy for the information. But does this abandonment of communion canon follow a criteria or is interpretation subjective? I guess I mean what constitutes “abandonment” and does “communion” refer to the whole Anglican Communion or just the polity of TEC?
The terminology used – “E-mail messages were sent April 8 to all members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote.” is interesting. How many email messages were sent out? This would seem to undermine the “ruling” by DBB that the recent depositions were proper. It seems that TEC has a way of speaking out of both side of the mouth so to speak, or making the facts fit the circumstances. Just seems a little odd to me to do things one way on one occasion and another way on other occcasions.
the roman: My first inclination was to respond ‘your guess is as good as mine,’ which is too glib, and just expresses my utter exasperation with the House of Bishops.
I was told that one bishop said at the last HOB mtg., ‘We are the interpreters of the canons. They say what we say they say.”
Now, regarding your question concerning “abandonment” and “communion.” I have a sense that the PB hadn’t considered all the permutations. A bishop who retires, resigns, and becomes a lay RC has obviously abandoned the communion. But a bishop who retires, resigns, and had his orders transferred to another province in the Anglican Communion seems reasonably to remain a valid, functioning bishop, who with the consent of the local bishop, should be able perform episcopal acts in ECUSA. But these distinctions (and there are many others) have gone past the PB because she wanted to get rid of the offending clergy as soon as possible.
To put a sharper point on your last question, I would like to know the answer to this: Does the HOB intend to laicize a bishop deposed by the abandonment canon, or just rescind the right to function in ECUSA?
Maybe their understanding of Holy Orders is so worldly that they have unwittingly confirmed the RC position that AC orders are invalid (1896).
KJS becomes more comprehensible once you understand one of her main counselors: Stacy Fred Sauls. All of these draconian measures – fictitious depositions, unfettured lawsuits, harrassing clergy while spouses are hospitalized – were first pioneered in the diocese of Lexington. Put a beam on SFS and one will identify the source of much of TECs current illness. And with sufficient prayer and fasting, one may also learn how to counter it.
Thank you AnglicanCasuist. Your question regarding the HOB’s intentions seems to raise the specter of deposition by degrees.
#9. Criteria? Who needs stinkin’ criteria?
#10. E-mail messages? I thought only snail mail messages were valid in The General Convention Church.
Maybe a majority of the Biships are tiring of the war. A well orchestrated letter to editor campaign would help – TEC does something appalling weekly. Is our side totally unprepared for the type of battle necessary to win? TEC is overreaching – now is the time to hit hard
AnglicanCasuist and the roman, the whole question of what it means to “abandon the communion of this Church”, and to be subject to the canons for doing so, has been the subject of a very thorough historical and analytical series of posts [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com]here,[/url] which Kendall has referenced in earlier posts. There is no way to summarize briefly, but I think AC’s instinct is close to the mark.
TEC is modled after the Federal Government. However, it only has two branches. There is no judicial branch and therefore no one to decide the legality of disputes. Their is no check on the power of the other two branches. Therefore the canons can mean anything the bishops say.