Presiding Bishop removes MacBurney's inhibition after retired bishop apologizes

(ENS) Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has removed the inhibition she placed in April on retired Episcopal Diocese of Quincy Bishop Edward MacBurney.

In a September 9 order, Jefferts Schori said that MacBurney had voluntarily submitted to discipline (Canon IV.2(9) and (10)) over a presentment which the Title IV Review Committee issued on Jan. 24, 2008.

Diocese of San Diego Bishop Jim Mathes, who originally asked for MacBurney to be disciplined because he conducted unauthorized confirmations in San Diego, told ENS September 10 that the order and discipline of the church had been “maintained and in some way enhanced by this process.”

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts

18 comments on “Presiding Bishop removes MacBurney's inhibition after retired bishop apologizes

  1. drummie says:

    I notice the statement that the retired Bishop had been held accountable to his fellow bishops. When will Queen Katie hold all the advocates of rump wrangling accountable for being non Christian?

  2. John Wilkins says:

    Glad she forgave him.

  3. MikeS says:

    Something seems amiss here.

    I thought Bp MacBurney was deposed and had attempted (or offered) to resign the HoB to avoid an “embarrassing” situation for all involved.

    Does this mean he’s back in good standing?

  4. Cennydd says:

    I wouldn’t blame Bishop MacBurney if he ignored Mrs Schori’s forgiveness. She should be begging God for HIS forgiveness for what SHE’S done! I’d say that an inhibition is a badge of honor.

  5. plinx says:

    “Rump wrangling”?! Classy. Elves, where are ye?

  6. Phil says:

    I hope Schori, the one who really needed to ask forgiveness, is proud of herself for humiliating a minister of Christ’s Gospel. Of course, this is the path such a minster should expect; by such is he glorified, but not the one doing the persecuting. For her, we can only pray.

  7. dwstroudmd+ says:

    John Chrysostom had a bit to say about this in ON THE PRIESTHOOD. Perhaps Schori should have read this, not to mention the HOB. They obviously haven’t.

  8. montanan says:

    I agree w/#5 Plinx. The comment in #1 could use a little editing, elves.

  9. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    The Episcopal Church has done the right thing on this occassion. Now what about dear Bishop Cox?

  10. withasword says:

    How can you say she has done the right thing. Blackmailing an elderly priest into tacitly accepting the apostate by threatening to cut off his health care is the right thing?

  11. flabellum says:

    Whoever expected KJS to play anything but dirty? Put a mitre on a pig and ts still a pig.

  12. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    If Bishop MacBurney is the Christian and man I believe he is he could not be blackmailed into anything, but I don’t know the details. All I know is that inhibiting him was very very wrong and removing that is a step in the right direction.

  13. Cennydd says:

    I think that by rescinding his inhibition, Schori realized that what she did was wrong and grossly unfair. But the question in my mind is “will she publicly admit that she was wrong?” No, she won’t.

  14. Jeffersonian says:

    As I recll, MacBurney wasn’t properly inhibited. Or am I in error?

  15. withasword says:

    I do not know KJS’ heart. But based on her past actions, there is no indication that she feels she has done anything wrong. Her only concern (based on past actions) is the institution of TEC. MacBurney threatened the institution and was censured. Bishops that espouse apostasy but pay homage to TEC are not a threat and therefore are not censured. These are the actions. The words don’t matter.

  16. w.w. says:

    I’ll ask again: what was the man’s offence? He was invited to guest speak to a non-Episcopal congregation. Big-hearted, er -fisted, Bishop Mathes insisted this was ecclesiastically illegal — Bp MacBurney failed to seek permission from the bishop to do so. Does this mean any Episcopal bishop or priest who is invited to guest speak at, say, the Intervarsity chapter meeting at San Diego State or at a Baptist men’s retreat at Palomar must request permission from Bishop Mathes first??? Who was in the wrong here, and was he disciplined for it?

    w.w.

  17. Tom Roberts says:

    +MacBurney is an example to encourage the others. Please recall the Mutiny of the French Army in 1917.

  18. Chris Hathaway says:

    There is no condemnation inappropriate for the jackals and jackboots of 815 and the wicked queen that dwells there. May God bring down upon them destruction and despair. I would echo the psalms and ask that their children be made orphans but with such “parents” they already are effectively.

    Anyhoo…I’m really looking forward to the day when no one I want to call “brother” has anything to do ecclesiastically with these demon spawn.

    Of course, I’m also looking forward to the Resurrection. 😉