“I shall present to the House the matter of the certification to me by the Title IV Review Committee that Bishop Robert W Duncan has abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9,” she wrote.
However, the rules of the House of Bishops forbid modifying the agenda of a special session after the meeting has been announced, placing her plans in legal and canonical limbo. Whether the bishops will challenge her request is unclear, however, as her past legal missteps in the cases of Bishops John-David Schofield and Williams Cox provoked protests from bishops and dioceses distressed over what they perceived was her abuse of office, but no action followed.
On Aug 20 Bishop Schori wrote to the bishops stating “as discussed in our spring meeting and confirmed in our time at Lambeth, we will hold a special meeting of the House of Bishops September 17-19 in Salt Lake City, Utah.” “The main purpose of this meeting,” Bishop Schori wrote, “will be to reflect and deliberate together following the Lambeth Conference.”
In the schedule appended to the letter, two sessions are labelled “Lambeth de-brief”, two “Business meeting”, and one “Theological Education.” No mention is made of Bishop Duncan or any disciplinary action in the formal letter calling the special session.
Following the release of the Presiding Bishop’s letter, a number of bishops contacted her to ascertain whether or not rumours that Bishop Duncan would be brought up on charges before the session were true.
The bishop of Southwestern Virginia is a good entrenched pensionist. He’ll bend the rules when told and blame Bishop Duncan for the whole mess. Also, in true fashion, he won’t deal with WHY thousands are willing to leave the Church.
After reading this, any doubts that I might have harbored that Schori has morphed into an ecclesiastical tyrant who is worthy only of presentment and removal have disappeared. I suspect that unless action is taken to stop her now, there will be a lot of bishops who will regret not having removed Presiding Bishop Ivan the Terrible before she destroys the entire denomination.
We are the Borg; you will be assimilated.
uncanonical action? Irrelevant.
Scripture? Irrelevant.
Our recent Lambeth gathering? Irrelevant.
You will be assimilated.
Katharine Jefferts Schori has been exposed as a tyrant, and she needs to be formally called out for it. What procedures are there for this besides a formal presentment, which will go nowhere, since the House of Bishops will simply ignore it by saying that there are no grounds for it?
Vote with your feet, #5. DoSJ did.
No matter. The Reichstag was happy to dissolve itself after Hitler’s ascendancy. History repeats itself once again.
As I recall my parliamentary procedure, no second is required to raise a point of order. Where it would be required is in a motion to appeal from the ruling of the chair.
However, when there is a person in the chair with no pretention towards fairness, parliamentary procedure means little.
Islandbear+
Isn’t Being Inclusive interesting?
Putting theology aside for the moment, +kjs’s actions are simply bad leadership. In an organization that operates without a sense of justice and relying on a ‘conforming discipline above all’ model, only the top leader is/feels safe and secure. At some point, one of her acolytes will upset her. Will she then resort to the same model for dealing with that infraction of her discipline? Time alone will tell.
maninthewilderness,
[url=http://marrowcleaver.blogspot.com/2008/07/resistance-is-futile.html]here’s[/url] something to go with your borg reference.
First, there is the evil that she does. Objectively speaking, act by act. But even more to the point is the way she has completely undermined The Episcopal Church as a place at all concerned with integrity and Truth. Even “truth” with a small “t.” If we survive her reign of terror — and it’s a big if — it will take 100 years before anyone regards TEC as anything more than a political playground filled with liars, power-plays, and sex maniacs.
Is there a rule, canon or Scriptural passage this band of lawless barbarians hasn’t trampled in it’s zeal to purge any opposition from TEC?
Several points:
1. No doubt remains (nor should it ever have been harbored) that ++Katharine wields absolute power ceded to her by the HoB (at the +Schofield/+Cox depositions) and the HoD (at the meeting discussion the ‘reorganization’ of the Church Center).
2. The argument that she somehow ‘changed’ the agenda fails as it can be included in one of the two non-descriptive “Businees Meeting” sessions. This would certainly qualify as “Business” of the HoB and should be resolved quickly.
3. her past legal missteps in the cases of Bishops John-David Schofield and Williams Cox provoked protests from bishops and dioceses distressed over what they perceived was her abuse of office, but no action followed. ‘Nuff said.
I just had to laugh at that post, Brian. It reminded me of a story about Nikita Kruschev who, during one speech denouncing the crimes of Joe Stalin, was heckled from the audience. “You were there, you knew what was going on! Why did you stand by then, silent and not do anything, you hypocrite?”
“Who said that?!” demanded Kruschev. No one stood up.
“Now you know why,” he said.
Tom Roberts, I voted with my feet……and my wallet, and so did the rest of my diocese!
The House of Bishops is nothing more than a rubber stamp for KJS. The problem is though, they won’t admit it!
#15 I thought you would get the allusion, given your past posts.
I would commend #15 to the rest of your consideration, not for its righteousness (as God will discern that) but rather for its practical judgement on ecusa. When organizations rely on parliamentary trickery for legitimacy, and do no have the power to tax and station military forces to control the populace, then those organizations lose membership or citizens. Once +Duncan is deposed, then ecusa will be dead, asides from post mortem twitching, not because Duncan is its soul, but rather because it has been revealed as lacking any soul whatsoever.
I love this little ditty from the article:
[blockquote]Bishop Schori also stated she would reject readings of church law that did not conform to her own, adding that “any ambiguity in the canon†should be resolved in her favour.[/blockquote]
If this is accurate, this is most disturbing. The rule of law does not favor the hierarch simply because they say so. That’s a very dangerous precedent if the Church allows that kind of thinking.
#18 This church will assuredly countenance Dr Schori, while the Church keeps its distance, for the reasson that infinite separation from unfaithfulness is better than gawking at a rigamarole at close distance. In fact, the HoB has turned into a freak show audience, waiting to see what the ring master comes up with next.
It’s amusing in a dark way that all these Process Theology fans are now trampling on the process to achieve their desired result.
No. 20…I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on that.
[blockquote]Bishop Schori also stated she would reject readings of church law that did not conform to her own, adding that “any ambiguity in the canon†should be resolved in her favour.[/blockquote]
I am not at all a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, our legal system — and British common law in general — in keeping with the idea that we are a free people, has a bias in favor of the accused, and the policy that all ambiguities be settled in favor of the defendant. If ambiguities are settled in favor of the prosecution tyranny has gained enormous power. Eventually no one will be free – laws or canons will be purposefully vague in order to be more useful to those in positions of power. Those not in power, or approved by them, will be ground into a power, and those approved by those in power will be mere slaves and sycophants.
“Those not in power, or approved by them, will be ground into a power,” should read “ground into a powder.”
#21 Archer, I may have bitten off more than I can chew with that offhand comment. 🙂 I do have theology resources at home, not with me, an I freely confess I am no theologian. Relying, then, on the possibly not accurate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology]Wikipedia[/url], process theology invokes the ideas of panentheism, that God can change in response to interaction with humans, and that Jesus fully responded to the will of God thus becoming the Word of God but was not God incarnate. These, I think, are representative of the theological statements we have seen in the writings and sermons of the Presiding Bishop. Not only do they think God can change, but their ecclesiology relies absolutely on process. How many times we have been told that the will of God is congruent, in the USA, with the will of the General Convention! Polity has been their battle cry. And here they are, shredding polity and canon in order to get rid of a troublesome bishop. The contrast is startling.
#24: Yes, the shredding of the very canonical law/parlimentary procedure which it is their avowed intent to preserve, reveals what is going on behind the assurances of propriety: If the ends are holy, any means to them is likewise holy and acceptable. The ” end ” is to remove +Duncan and place his diocese in the same position as +Schofield’s diocese. The little detail that SJ had actually conducted the final departure vote, while Pittsburgh has not yet done so…well…that’s one of those details which are covered by the holy end of deposition. Every case will require that the PB and her chancellor use canon law and parlimentary procedure to obtain their desired end.
If you are relying on TEC to leave your diocese alone as the nat’l. denomination continues its present course, you may want to ask your bishop and diocesan rep’s. to GC why they continue to support this manifestly corrupt institution! Or, does it matter to you?
The PB was in Gerogia this past weekend. She assured everyone that all is well. The Diocese of Georgia is healthy because it is diverse enough to inlcude both Integrity and the 1928 BCP. She did not mention Exodus. Georgia is not diverse enough to include Bp. Duncan and many in the pew.
#25 Stuart Smith, was your question directed to me, or was it rhetorical? I’ve been out for some years.
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/ has the recent statement from Mark McCall re: the PB’s remarks and Pittsburgh. It has been available today but has not been circulated.
What I find appalling is the lack of Christian charity in the PB’s actions. I think our Lord would not be too pleased with her straining at gnats and swallowing of camels!
The Presiding Bishop is not only behaving in a lawless manner here, she is also behaving in a ruthless and merciless manner. These are not the qualities of a Chirstian leader.
#27: Yes, I was being rhetorical.
God bless you.