1. The process against Bishop Duncan has been flawed from the start.
The Presiding Bishop’s letter of September 12, 2008, to the bishops states that she made a submission to the Title IV Review Committee in November 2007 “suggesting” that Bp. Duncan had abandoned the communion of this Church. She states that the “thrust” of her submission was not that he had already left TEC, but that by claiming that the diocese had a right to do so and should exercise that right he had made an open renunciation of the discipline of TEC. She then states that the Review Committee “evidently” agreed with her analysis because it sent her a certification of abandonment.
The reason for the Presiding bishop’s uncertainty about what the Review Committee concluded is that the Committee did not specify the basis for its certification, which is plainly contrary to the requirement of Canon IV.9 that the certification contain “a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment.” The certification simply referred to voluminous evidence of news clippings and other materials dating back to 2003.
Taking a different approach, a memorandum from the Task Force on Property Disputes, dated September 5, 2008, claims that “Bishop Duncan has conclusively completed his own separation from TEC” and that “there is no doubt that Bishop Duncan has left The Episcopal Church.” (Emphasis supplied.) This submission relies on materials obtained in August 2008 in the civil lawsuit brought against Bp. Duncan, raising the question whether the purpose of that lawsuit was not to use the civil courts to assist in the deposition attempt. In six pages of highlighted documents from the lawsuit, the Task Force memorandum manages only to establish the unsurprising conclusion that Bishop Duncan proposed that the diocese amend its canons to permit re-alignment and supports passage of the canon amendments. And that conclusion is not made any more surprising by attaching the adverb “actively” to every bullet point. Note the inconsistency between the Task Force’s claim that Bp. Duncan “has conclusively completed his
own separation” and the Presiding Bishop’s complaint that “Bishop Duncan has unfortunately announced that he will not attend this meeting of the House.” And not even the Presiding Bishop knows where the Review Committee stands on this issue, but she assumes they “evidently” agree with her.
It is one thing for the Presiding Bishop to speculate as to what the basis of the Review Committee’s certification was, but another thing for the respondent to have to guess….
“Mark McCall: Do Bishops Deserve Due Process?”
Only Liberal ones….
It seems to me that Mark lays out a strong review. I especially note his observation that TEC is not immune from the secular courts.
This whole thing is/will be a great history lesson – I hope that we know how to teach it.
Don
This is probably “do process”…as in, we will “do” your deposition because we want to “do” it!
#2 – a friend of mine, a former prosecutor, used to joke that “due process” meant “do process ’em.”
wm.
[blockquote] `No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first–verdict afterwards.’
-Lewis Carroll, Ch. 12, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland[/blockquote]
This is helpful analysis, at least legally. But are there any bishops out there (particularly those from the dioceses which officially objected to the legitimacy of Bishop Schofield’s “deposition”) with the gumption to act on these irregularities? (How about South Carolina or Northern Indiana?) Why hasn’t anyone brought formal charges against the PB? It is sad to have to watch the HOB descend further and further into chaos.
#4: A habit of silence (or of minimization of outrage) has developed, and I would be shocked to hear any real resistance to what has become TEC’s law unto itself. When so much injustice has been practiced, how does any organization repudiate itself by stopping the addictive habit of evil?
Sometimes I think a good deal of the arguments on this blog are missing the central point, though I do agree that due process is being trampled. The PB has accused +Duncan of intending to lead the Pittsburgh Diocese out of TEC. That is her main argument. I have attended several meetings in my parish where +Duncan has criticized some of the actions of the past and present PB plus other things that have developed during this decade. As an Anglican Church bishop, he has a duty to protect the faith. That is actually his most important duty. The way I see it, criticizing the PB is the moral equivalent of criticizing Pol Pot for the killing fields in Cambodia. Both movements were directed at killing a culture, idea or religion. So is the Pittsburgh Diocese going to leave TEC. I think it will vote to do so. Is it doing so because +Duncan told them to do it? I don’t remember anytime he spoke to my parish, or to me personally, that he was telling us to do so. I think this is a grass route movement and the natural outcome of the clergy and laity being well informed. Being well informed seems to be the crime.
What makes Pittsburgh different from most other TEC diocese is that we actually do have godly leadership. We don’t have our heads buried in the sand. We don’t just have the trust of our bishop because he is a bishop, but we have trust in him for who he really is. He is an honest and faithful man. That is his crime. He answers to the Almighty instead of to the world. This only builds respect from the majority of his flock.
So what happens if he is deposed? His letter says that the Standing Committee is in charge. But didn’t the PB replace the SC in SJ? If she attempts to do this, who is going to challenge her?
The courts!
Bishop Duncan is PROTECTING the Faith, while Schori and Company are DESTROYING it. Does anyone care to try to deny that fact?
Let’s hear it, folks! Present your case.
Case? Case? Is that a new concept like justice or fairness or equality or any other buzzwords?!
Such is the fate of those righteous who defy the wicked. From Adam to Elijah to Jeremiah to Micaiah to Zechariah the son of Jehoida, to James to Stephen to Peter & Paul.
“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”
“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. ”
I wonder if Bishop Bob has some leaps left in him? Surely he is being persecuted and cast out for the Son of Mans sake.
And don’t forget also:
your enemies will be those from within your own family.
Well, suppose this woman does depose him. What then? What difference does it make to him or to anyone else? Will it alter what he does in the future? Will it increase our respect for Schori et al? How does deposing him harm him? Won’t it actually do him some real good because he has taken the moral high ground and has refused to concede it? What’s all the to do about – I mean, excepting for the moment Schori sheer mean spiritedness. Larry
May God be inclined to send a hand who’s finger might write on the wall during their meeting. If so a mass change of underwear would become the order of the day for those who didn’t drop dead of heart failure. Could it perhaps even give RW a major shock.
Only in your fondest dreams!