TEC’s Bishops who are taking these extreme actions maintain they are simply defending their diocesan territories. The problem, they say, is that when a priest withdraws from their jurisdiction to join, say, the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, he or she does not leave and go to Argentina, but stays and conducts services (say) in the Diocese of Los Angeles, just as before. Pardon my impertinence, but so what? They cannot prevent that from happening, can they, with all of their thunderbolts? How do their threats and depositions change the situation by one whit for the better? It is the souls of fellow Christians that are at stake here, not medieval concepts of territoriality. (Depositions do not prevent the breakup of diocesan territory; they most likely exacerbate it.) Given that realization, one might think that TEC’s bishops could take the Christian route, and issue letters dimissory . . . .
In all of these inhibitions and subsequent depositions, we see the results of treating the joining of other provinces of the Anglican Communion as equivalent to “abandoning the communion of the Episcopal Church.” What TEC and her bishops are saying by these actions is that the only communion that matters to TEC is a communion subject to TEC’s Constitution and Canons—the rest of the Anglican Communion can go hang, for all the comity that TEC cares to show to it. And as for the care of souls—the less said, the better.
TEC’s Bishops have now rewritten Canons IV.9 and IV.10 so that they equate “abandonment of communion” not only with joining the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church, but also with joining the Anglican Church of Uganda, or the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. This turns the canons into measures like those of the Anglican Church of Canada, which do not differentiate between joining another religious body that is in communion with the Canadian Church, and one that is not—both acts are equally subject to inhibition and deposition for “abandonment”. (Most recently, the Canadian canons were used in this way to threaten the 82-year-old evangelist Dr. J. I. Packer with inhibition.)
We should truly be cautious before proceeding down Canada’s path. What is happening in front of our eyes with all of the inhibitions and depositions is the balkanization of the Anglican Communion, in violation of the very principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral which lie at its heart. Soon, each province of the Communion will have two classes of clergy: those who are licensed to practice in that province, and those who cannot, but who are licensed elsewhere, even though they live and minister in the province in question. Once that happens, what can one say is left of the Anglican Communion? It will have become a tradition, in Hamlet’s sad words, that is “more honor’d in the breach than the observance . . .”.
The Pope: “We, who live the life of grace within the Church’s communion, are called to draw all people into this mystery of light.â€
Kendall was brilliant when he preceded this post on “Abandonment†as practiced by our Presiding Bishop and too many of her Bishops with the post by the Pope drawing people to God while +KJS and her lackeys in 815 are chasing people away.
I look at +KJS and what she is doing to my church and say, “There, but for the Grace of God am I,†because I know If I were in our dedicated orthodox Bishops’ shoes, she would charge me. The dichotomy is mind bending.
This is a well researched piece, I was very grateful for all references.
Why aren’t more people concerned about this and doing something about it?
A. S. Haley’s series on the “abandonment” canon is a magnificent contribution of scholarship and clear-headedness. Unquestionably, the only way the Episcopal Church can justify recent depositions (on grounds of “abandonment”) is to claim that it is NOT in communion with the Southern Cone and other Anglican Communion provinces. To make these charges is basically to remove itself from the Anglican Communion. I hope the world-wide Anglican community is watching with informed discernment.
Do we know if deposed priests are losing all their health insurance and other benefits? A reader of VOL reported this about two of the priests in Florida, where Bp. Howard deposed 22 recently: “the Rev. Harald ‘Whitey’ Haugan and Rev. George Hall who both retired suddenly had their health insurance benefits, given to all retired priests from the Diocese of Florida, stopped.” The people in the pews need to hear some of these stories. I’m sure that many are not aware how tragic these depositions are and how they are befalling retired priests (and bishops) who have given their lives to the faithful service of God and have deserved their church’s commendation instead of these assaults. (As A. S. Haley mentions, Fr. Haugan is an elderly retired priest who suffered shocking neglect and abuse while enduring critical illness and heart surgery–and inhibition at the same time, for NO reason that was ever revealed to him.)
OK, so we all admit that the use of the abandonment canon is inappropriate. What then? We have sundry folks calling for the expulsion of TEC from the Communion because it ignored a resolution passed by Lambeth 1998. We have sundry folks (many of them the same folks) who say that provinces and bishops are perfectly free to ignore all of the statements by all the Instruments of Communion (including all the Lambeth Conferences back to 1867 and all the Catholic councils back to 325) imposing a geographic structure on Anglicanism. Please, could somebody try to explain to me yet again how those two positions are consistent. Either TEC and the border-crossers are both being disloyal to the Communion by ignoring its consensus, or both are within their rights. Which is it?
It’s easy, Dale.
1. You see, there was this thing called the Reformation. The Church of England said it was NOT bound by every pre-Reformation council. ‘Councils may err … ‘ You can’t cherry pick which ancient canons to obey, otherwise there would be no married clergy (and certainly no female ones).
2. “Instruments of Unity” (not Communion) is a recent idea; it doesn’t go back to 1867.
3. Anglicanism has always recognized overlapping terrirtorial jurisdictions: in Europe, in Scotland (there are CofE chapels in Edinburgh), in New Zealand (the three tikanga church) and in the USA (CSI churches). You’re not advocating cuius regio, eius religio, are you?
It’s a bit late to still be playing this moral equivalence game, isn’t it? Dale, how long will ye halt between two opinions? If Tec be god, then follow her!
Not to be bound by the first 7 Councils of the undivided Church was a mistake of the Reformation. Or maybe we don’t have to really take the Nicene seriously, don’t we?
Dale, if you really see moral equivalence between heresy and border-crossing, I don’t know anything to say to you.
Or that border crossings were a necessary response to TEC’s initial heresy? Dale, actions have consequences. If TEC had adheared to 1.10 from the start and proceeded or not proceeded along with the rest of the AC this would not have happened.
The point is Dale you can’t break the water jar and then complain that the water spilled.
Getting back to the immediate topic: I found it ironic in the extreme that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori would write to every province in the Anglican Communion (including Uganda, I assume) to inform them that Bishop Cox was deposed for abandoning the communion of the church for performing episcopal acts for the province of Uganda. How could it possibly make sense to inform the other provinces of the deposition unless these provinces are part of the communion that Bishop Cox is alleged to have abandoned?