The Rev. George Werner of Sewickley, a loyalist and a former top official of the Episcopal Church, said the denominations headquarters in New York was “to be advised” by local Episcopalians.
“Many people, myself included, want to make sure that [national leaders] don’t slam a bishop in here who will tear us to shreds,” he said, an acknowledgement that many Episcopal loyalists are also conservative.
There is agreement that at least 17 parishes will not join the Southern Cone; and the Rev. Simons believes it could go as high as 28. Both sides also agree that many parishes on both sides are likely to lose some members to the other side. The Rev. Werner believes that splits in small churches could cause 20 to 30 of them to fail altogether.
Bishop Duncan did not lead the meeting, celebrate the Eucharist or preach, though mention of his name brought several long ovations.
If they think for one moment that they’re not going to be assigned a reappraising poster-child as a bishop, they’re sadly mistaken.
I remember the ‘parish counting’ that went on when San Joaquin (SP?) voted to leave. Actual count was around 8, ENS and TEc counts were three times that number.
#2, the parishes with formal vestry actions are listed here: [url=http://www.episcopalpgh.org/parishes-committed/#more-126]Remaining Episcopalian Parishes[/url].
There is one additional parish that has voted to remain and three others that have indicated that they will vote in that way, but did not want to take a vote until after the convention action was completed.
Bruce Robison
Paragraphs 26 and 27 of this account reassure me that my confidence that San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth will be seen heading in different directions in about a year from now is very well founded; and, in addition to that, the Southern Cone had better be alert that they don’t import extraneous divisions into their province as a result.
Excuse me, but does not the remnant diocese select a standing committee who will act as eccleastical authority until a bishop can be elected? Where does it say that 815 appoints a diocesan bishop?
[blockquote] Where does it say that 815 appoints a diocesan bishop? [/blockquote] Where ever the Most Unreverend Kathi wants it to.
Br. Michael,
The member(s) of the Standing Committee of the “remnant” diocese, under the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, may appoint members to fill vacancies and call the diocese to a Special Convention. Title III canons provide that when a diocese is without a bishop, the Standing Committee may invite a bishop in good standing to provide designated Episcopal Services, or a Special or regular Annual Convention may elect a Provisional Bishop. There is no provision anywhere for the “appointment” of a bishop by the Presiding Bishop. That didn’t happen in San Joaquin, in fact, and it won’t happen in Pittsburgh.
Bruce Robison
“Many people, myself included, want to make sure that [national leaders] don’t slam a bishop in here who will tear us to shreds,” he said, an acknowledgement that many Episcopal loyalists are also conservative”.
This guy has GOT to be kidding…I wonder how many will rue the day they didn’t get out with those who can already see the forest for the trees.
#2
Bruce, simply posting names on the ATA website doesn’t make it so or spoutung off numbers of parishes to the press. In light of the C&C;of the Diocese, the Standing Committee needs to receive letters from the parishs signed by their church wardens attesting to their decision to leave the Diocese of Pittsburgh and remain in TEC. This is only fair as the majority in the Convention followed the C&C;precisely in the ATA demand concerning the seating of St Francis Somerset and the demand of Fr Simons in requiring over 200 individual Letters of Transfer for St Francis to transfer members to SAF.
With respect, David, I believe you are wrong. But here’s what we’ll do. Our parish bylaws indicate that St. Andrew’s, Highland Park, Pittsburgh, is a parish of the Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America. When the Standing Committee of that diocese, constituted of duly elected and appointed clergy and laypersons in good standing in the Episcopal Church, next meets, we’ll be glad to inform them that nothing has changed in our parish bylaws and canonical status.
BruceR
RE: “When the Standing Committee of that diocese, constituted of duly elected and appointed clergy and laypersons in good standing in the Episcopal Church, next meets, we’ll be glad to inform them that nothing has changed in our parish bylaws and canonical status.”
Right — because you’ve got to keep up the facade demanded by 815 that a diocese can’t leave TEC.
What a crock.
Why not simply follow the canons, acknowledge the diocese left, but a load of parishes wish to stay in TEC, reorganize, and appeal to General Convention to be accepted as a diocese in TEC?
Oh yeh . . . . cause Schori’s lawsuits must move forward under the pretence that no diocese can leave.
Sarah,
I am personally fine with it going either way. Maybe I would say, “above my pay grade.” But since I am remaining in the Episcopal Church, I will live within the context of the interpretation of the Constitution and Canons current within the Episcopal Church. The question about which of these two diocesan institutions is the legal successor of the one diocesan institution that existed before last Saturday will inevitably be made by the Commonwealth, as that point doesn’t appear to be negotiable for either side. When the gavel fell on Saturday afternoon, one group or the other became discontinuous. “New.” Once that decision is made, we’ll of course follow the law.
My personal prayer is that God will continue to bless all our ministries, and our lives, and that we in our congregations here in Pittsburgh, both “realigned” and “remaining Episcopalian,” will continue to be strong witnesses to the saving power and transforming presence of our Lord Jesus.
BruceR
RE: “The question about which of these two diocesan institutions is the legal successor of the one diocesan institution that existed before last Saturday will inevitably be made by the Commonwealth, as that point doesn’t appear to be negotiable for either side.”
I agree — but do you understand that that means that if the Commonwealth rules that yes, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh departed TEC, the new “diocese” will have been formed in an entirely lawless and non-canonical way, and in order to comply with the canons would need to go back and do it again, only this time within the canons, which is to form the structure, and apply through GC?
That’s a recipe for chaos down the road. Just sheer madness.
BMR — I want you and what you are trying to do to be successful too.
Yes, Sarah, I do in fact anticipate at least some “chaos down the road.” But I imagine that on the ecclesial side of the page the TEC authorities will continue to accept our diocesan reorganization as canonical, as I am sure the authorities of the Southern Cone will continue to accept the actions of the realigned diocese as being valid, no matter what the courts say. The questions the Commonwealth will decide will have to do with which of these two entities is responsible for the debts and assets of the preceding, unified diocese, and to which are the various subsidiary institutions related in trust. The diocesan “entities” themselves, in their ecclesial life, are of no interest, I would think, to the courts.
Thanks for your kind words too. And blessings,
BruceR
I’m afraid I do not understand the logic of #13. Why would the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh not simply be, as BMR+ intimates, the Diocese as it exists now in TEC — so far as 815 and the Remain people are concerned. In addition, there is an Anglican Diocese related to Southern Cone that does not want to be an Episcopal Diocese, but would like to keep its assets. I thought that is what people like BMR+ were seeking. So why would Commonwealth courts rule that “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” departed, and rather conclude that there is a new Anglican Diocese and that the assets need to be equitably distributed — something that BMR+ and the new Anglican entity agree upon. Those who presumably dispute this are PEP. I thought people like Werner+ and BMR+ were hoping that 815 would stay away and let the local diocese and courts sort this out. CP and ACI are not involved in this, so I am simply trying to understand the situation on the ground as BMR+ is explaining it.
There are going to need to be two separate determinations. The Commonwealth is going to need to decide who is now the entity “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” that owns the assets and is obligated for the liabilities of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that existed on Friday. (Assets and obligations of the diocese, note, and not of the parishes, except in those situations where the diocese has co-signed on parish obligations, etc.) I expect that the interests of the Episcopal Church will support that claim, but that the final determination will be in the state courts.
I’m not sure about Dean Werner’s views, but I would say that my views are that should the present “continuing in the Episcopal Church” diocese be determined to be the legal continuity of last week’s EDoP, then those in governing authority, the SC and Trustees of the diocese, should seek a reasonable solution to the question of parish assets, as our diocesan Constitution and Canons allow them to do. My hope is that the external interests of the Episcopal Church will step back through that process. On the other hand, if the courts determine that the realigned diocese is the continuity of last week’s EDoP, then I would expect that the reverse would also be the case.
BruceR
#16. It was as I suspected in general terms. Thank you, and prayers for all involved.
Hi Seitz-ACI,
RE: “Why would the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh not simply be, as BMR+ intimates, the Diocese as it exists now in TEC—so far as 815 and the Remain people are concerned.”
[i]Because the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh left TEC[/i] — and that is most likely what the courts will rule in the midst of the decisions about property. [i]Something[/i] is “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” — in fact, my understanding was that they are keeping the adjective “Episcopal” since certainly TEC does not own that word [much as it might wish to].
I understand that BMR is an honorable man and might want to — regardless of what the courts decide — make local and just decisions about property.
But — as is self-evident based on 815’s actions — that is not the case with our Dear Leaders.
So again . . . one of the linchpins of their case will be “dioceses can’t leave TEC” — even though it’s obvious that “dioceses can join TEC” because the canons speak of that. Their argument is that TEC — freely joined by entities such as dioceses — cannot be freely departed from. Like the Roach Motel: “bugs can check in, but they can’t check out.”
All of the above to say . . . claiming that one is the “Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” as the Episcopalians who are staying in TEC are claiming merely buys into the whole canard of “dioceses can’t leave.”
Why not simply say “oh look — the diocese just left, and we didn’t go with it; let’s re-organize now as a diocese and apply for entry into TEC at General Convention 2009.”
Well, I’ve already answered that question above.
Again, I’m confident that the Jim Simons and the BMR’s of this world are honorable and fair men — just as Bishop Steenson and Bishop Stanton are honorable and fair. And so Bishop Lee of Virginia purported himself to be.
I just know — sure as the sun rises tomorrow — that the outcome of all of this will be 1) lawsuits forced on the new leaders of the new “diocese” [sic] by 815’s relentless scorched earth policy, 2) further grotesque recriminations and bitternesses, most especially between the conservative Leavers and the conservative Stayers, since it’s our friends that hurt us most 3) a court ruling that yes, the entity that claimed it left TEC really really did leave TEC, 4) and thus a clear and obvious fact before all that the new “diocese” [sic] is actually, considering the Sacred Canons of TEC, not really a “diocese” at all since it never formed properly according to the clearly stated canons in the first place.
Whatever.
Guess minor trifling details like that don’t matter anymore anyway.
Keep in mind that I say all of the above as a person firmly and happily committed to staying.
#18 — “Because the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh left TEC—and that is most likely what the courts will rule in the midst of the decisions about property.”
As an outsider, this seems counter-intuitive. I’d assume the courts would say, “a majority of the diocese decided to become a new anglican entity in conjunction with Argentina; and like the idea; and decided on this basis…they don’t want to be the Episcopal Diocese.”
“Why not simply say “oh look—the diocese just left, and we didn’t go with it; let’s re-organize now as a diocese and apply for entry into TEC at General Convention 2009.â€
Why would they do that? A diocese is by definition a physical zone (Diocletian). If so, it may ‘realign’ or portions thereof, but it cannot ‘leave’ and does not intend to do so (physically, Pittsburgh is in PA and not Buenos Aires).
Whether you or I like this logic, the idea that the Commonwealth would say, “The Episcopal Diocese is a Diocese based in Buenos Aires” seems like a steep climb. Which is why I indicated that it might well say, “it is an Anglican Diocese affliliated with SC” and there is “also a diocese in TEC” with the hope that they let both go their way without 815 (non Commonwealth) interference.
I am sorry, Seitz-ACI, but I do not think you are working within the canons of The Episcopal Church in your statements. For a full review on how dioceses are constructed and recognized, and what the remnant should do — in order to follow the canons — in order to become a diocese of TEC [since their diocese left] see these links, which are completely and utterly devastating to the whole “dioceses can’t leave” meme.
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-proper-way-is-one-not-being.html
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/10/logic-wins-in-pittsburgh.html
The writer, AS Haley, is an experienced lawyer, Episcopalian, and chancellor. And furthermore, his writing is crystal clear, as are the canons of TEC regarding the formation of dioceses.
RE: “If so, it may ‘realign’ or portions thereof, but it cannot ‘leave’ . . . ”
Yes — it may indeed leave an association of dioceses called TEC and join another association. It never departs its physical space at all. A diocese requests to join an association — TEC — and it may choose to leave that association. That is what the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has done — and yes, they are keeping the name “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
RE: “Whether you or I like this logic, the idea that the Commonwealth would say, “The Episcopal Diocese is a Diocese based in Buenos Aires†seems like a steep climb.”
And that’s not what the Commonwealth will say. It will say “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has departed the association of dioceses known as TEC, and has joined the association of dioceses known as the Southern Cone.” To join such an association no more requires them to pick up and trot over to the physical geography of the Southern Cone, then I am required to pick up and trot over to live physically at my own parish, rather than my current domicile. The diocese will remain physically in Pittsburgh, and be associated with the dioceses of the Southern Cone.
RE: “I’d assume the courts would say, “a majority of the diocese decided to become a new anglican entity in conjunction with Argentina; and like the idea; and decided on this basis…they don’t want to be the Episcopal Diocese.â€
I’m afraid that simply will not happen. The courts will say “a minority of the diocese decided to leave that diocese, form a new diocese in the same geographic region, and join the association of dioceses called TEC; the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh departed the association of dioceses known as TEC, and remains the owner of the property.”
#20–thank you for your hard work in this, as in all things.
At issue from my perspective is simply the dynamic inside Pittsburgh. ACI (and CP) has worked very closely with conservative dioceses inside TEC, but Pittsburgh is sui generis and also has stayed within its own orbit.
An interesting discussion. The usual thought is that a diocese as such is a permanent canonical fixture of the church which it sustains, but that idea does not square with the diocese’s identity as an unincorporated association under State law. In our country, at least, the State comes first, and the Church must conform itself to the norms of the State in order to function and to be recognized in the courts.
Thus TEC has organized itself as an unincorporated association under the laws of the State of New York. It has a corporate form as well, the DFMS of PECUSA as spelled out in Canon I.3, and that is the permanent entity in the eyes of the law that can receive bequests and hold property in perpetuity. But TEC proper is no more than a voluntary association of other unincorporated associations in each of the various States who call themselves dioceses. To be an “association” means to have members who have come together for a common purpose. While they choose to remain together, they agree to be bound by the association’s laws and rules, usually set forth in a “Constitution” and “bylaws”—or, in TEC’s case, “canons.”
But being a voluntary association means that members are also free to leave. There is no such thing as an “involuntary association”—-that would be a contradiction in terms. (The Civil War was not fought over whether the U.S. would be an “involuntary association,” but a permanent Union of sovereign governments, who each make their local law, and do not depend on it for their existence. It is the sovereign, secular governments of the States who charter and give legal recognition (meaning access to the courts) under their laws to lesser and subordinate entities (meaning “creatures of the law”) like corporations and unincorporated associations.
So Sarah is right: to the extent PEP and the others wanting to remain in TEC pretend that nothing has changed, they ignore at their peril that a majority of those who used to be in association with them voted to change the governing instruments of the association. It is as though you were a shareholder of Chrysler and ignored the fact that Chrysler voted to merge with Daimler-Benz, and continued to think you could go on meeting as Chrysler, with the same officers and shareholders. You can’t—there is only the new Daimler-Benz in the eyes of the law, and Chrysler is no more. Those who wanted to “remain Chrysler” could come together and decide to organize a new entity with that name, but they would have to get the permission of the State first—just as any new “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” will have to get the consent of General Convention to be accepted as a Diocese in the Church.
The reason TEC rushed to form a “Diocese” in San Joaquin, and ran roughshod over the canons in doing so, was that they needed a “bishop” of the “diocese” in order to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit to recover the former diocesan property. I hope that cooler heads like BSR+ and Dr. Simons and George Warner+ will be strong enough to prevent a repetition of that fiasco in Pittsburgh. It will be years and years before the California courts finally straighten out just who is the real diocese and bishop of San Joaquin.
Bruce M. Robison+, my apologies for mistyping your initials in the previous comment.
#23: I’m not an attorney, and so I follow the arguments from either side of the table with interest but without real expertise. Some things make more sense to me than others, but I recognize that the patterns of legal reasoning are not always self-evident. “My ways are not your ways,” etc. I simply note that I have sat in meetings with excellent lawyers on both sides of this questions, and all seem to believe that their (contradictory) views will carry the day. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. But I would just caution all that more is unknown than known at this point, and the litigator’s certainty is no guarantee.
Bruce Robison
#24–thanks for this apt caution. You are all in our prayers. I frankly can see the issue breaking in any number of ways, and precisely because of the porous character of the canons when it comes to national church and local diocese. But of course this point has been made quite eloquently on the ACI web site by Mark McCall. It is good to see institutional figures like Werner+ (former president of HOD if memory serves) cautioning against a repeat of San Joaquin, from within Pittsburgh itself. I could not agree more that how this plays out cannot be predicted because of the complex character of the parties involved (PEP, realignment conservatives, staying conservatives, 815).
“I frankly can
see the issue breaking in any number of ways, and precisely because of the
porous character of the canons when it comes to national church and local
diocese. But of course this point has been made quite eloquently on the ACI
web site by Mark McCall”.
As I have a lot of respect for ACI and am a constituent of an ACI diocese(for lack of a better term) with whose policies on these scores I do not yet disagree, I will try to respond to this in polite PhD terms, even though my current degree is still in the scrappy trenches of one below the “big kahuna”… 🙂
So many of these problems stem from those who want to see canons as porous even though they are not porous by any means. Mark McCall and the Anglican Curmudgeon, who are, to my knowledge, trained in law, have already illustrated this fact.
Speaking of porous, years ago Bp. Duncan(and I heard this from his very lips, and have no reason not to believe him) asked 815 if he and I think the Diocese of PA could negotiate some sort of “alterative oversight arrangement” where each bishop could minister to congregations who happened to disagree with their incumbent’s theological views. Both bishops were on board with the plan, and so were the congregations, but 815 responded with a flat-out “no”.
And then came the Robinson consecration which brought everything to a head.
Personally I prefer a Communion solution to this mess, and I believe the execution of the DeS Communique could have provided it. But there will never be a Communion solution to the mess unless the top dog decides it’s the time for one, whatever it would happen to look like.
And meanwhile all the kids in the picture will continue to do whatever they want; right, wrong, or indifferent. So, viva chaos, which is by no means a good thing.
‘Porous’ in respect of tight relations between diocesan and national canons — the entire point of McCall’s essay.
BMR+ — so is it the case that the standing committee in Pittsburgh will see to the ‘election’ of Bishop Duncan and so there will be only a single ‘Windsor’ and ‘Network’ (your terms) diocese after all? Obviously the PEP people will be opposed. This is very confusing.
My understanding is that Bishop Duncan has been appointed “Commissary Bishop” of the Southern Cone Diocese of Pittsburgh by Archbishop Venables, and that Bishop Duncan will be elected Diocesan Bishop of the Southern Cone Diocese of Pittsburgh in early November at a diocesan convention. The Episcopal Church Diocese of Pittsburgh will have an organizing Special Convention under its canons, and in accordance with the C. & C. of the Episcopal Church, sometime before the end of 2008. Either that Special Convention will elect a Provisional Bishop, or the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Pittsburgh will appoint an Assisting Bishop for Episcopal Services. Then a year or two or three down the line, depending, the Episcopal Church Diocese of Pittsburgh will elect a Diocesan Bishop. What I said has nothing to do with the Southern Cone Diocese of Pittsburgh. But I do think that the Episcopal Church Diocese of Pittsburgh will be a diverse but trending conservative diocese. Not with the inside/outside framework of the Network, but probably more with a spirit that might resemble a “Windsor” or “Communion Partners” kind of orientation. But we’re working on trying to find a spirit of consensus that will avoid the polarizing internal culture that we’ve just come through.
Bruce Robison
RE: “. . . and that Bishop Duncan will be elected Diocesan Bishop of the Southern Cone Diocese of Pittsburgh in early November at a diocesan convention. The Episcopal Church Diocese of Pittsburgh will have an organizing Special Convention under its canons, and in accordance with the C. & C. of the Episcopal Church, sometime before the end of 2008.”
Well . . . other than the fact that those parishes remaining within the Episcopal Church have not appealed to General Convention to be recognized as a diocese within the TEC association of dioceses and so it will not at all be “in accordance with the C. & C. of the Episcopal Church” . . . and other than the fact that there is no diocese called “Southern Cone Diocese of Pittsburgh” and that the diocese that has left TEC and joined the association of Southern Cone dioceses is named “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” . . . and other than the fact that Bishop Duncan will be elected the bishop of “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” . . . the above statement is entirely correct.
Right, Sarah. What will happen is that the PB will fairly soon simply recognize on behalf of The Episcopal Church that the reorganizing “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, also known as The Episcopal Church” continues to exist as it has since it was formed by General Convention when the division of the Diocese of Pennsylvania was approved in 1867, in the ecclesiastical authority of a Standing Committee composed of clergy and lay members elected and appointed canonically after the deposition of the bishop of the diocese and the departure from The Episcopal Church of other members of the Standing Committee. On the other hand, the clergy license distributed this past weekend and mailed this week from Suite 900 of the Oliver Bldg. identifies a diocese called The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. One of these two entities will be determined by the Commonwealth to be the continuity of the previous Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and when that determination is made we’ll all shake hands and get on with our ministries.
Bruce Robison
RE: “the PB will fairly soon simply recognize on behalf of The Episcopal Church . . . ”
Thus continuing her lawless, non-canonical actions, yes.
About as valid and silly as the President of the US deciding to “recognize” a new “state” of the Union.
RE: ” . . . and when that determination is made we’ll all shake hands and get on with our ministries.”
I’m sure that’s correct — so why one would not simply choose to follow the canons regarding new diocesan organization in the first place, one cannot imagine . . . other than, of course, that [i]it’s terribly convenient.[/i]
Good morning, Sarah. Perhaps you and I are carrying on a one-to-one on this thread at this point! The point about who “should simply choose to follow the canons” seems a little bit of a stretch. There is, I know, a fairly ornate argument presented by some realigners that from a particular angle it may just be possible to glimpse a hypothetical path forward–though it’s never been tried before. However, there are plenty of canonical provisions–both in our diocesan canons and in the national canons–for a situation in which a diocese needs to be reorganized when (1) it suddenly finds itself without a bishop and/or (2) members of the Standing Committee or other elected governing officers vacate their positions. These kinds of things happen all the time, though obviously not in quite the way they have happened here. All the PB will need to do is to acknowledge that those canons are being followed by the continuing Episcopal Church diocese. In the end, the “canonical” argument of the realigners will be affirmed by the realigned diocese and by its supporting Province, the “canonical” argument of the reorganizers will be affirmed by the reorganized diocese and TEC. In terms of their internal realities, both are correct, and if we were talking about purely ecclesial institutions, that would be the end of the story. However, since Saturday afternoon a whole boatload of practical questions inevitably have risen up related to corporate identity and assets. *Neither* side has shown a willingness at this point to defer to the other’s opinion of how these questions should be answered, and so that will be left to the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas–whose judges are well-experienced in determining the ownership of contested assets. Again, we’ll see what the judge says, and then go from there.
Bruce Robison
#32–I am confused. Are you saying there is no longer a standing committee in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (as it has been known) given that a vote was taken and a majority (clergy and lay) chose to realign? Isn’t that the problem that developed in SJ, when the standing committee was simply dismissed? What one calls the new entity cannot be easily resolved, because that is where the issue is joined.
My view would be that when the 7 realigning members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church began on Saturday afternoon, to act constructively as the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Province of the Southern Cone, by calling Bishop Duncan, a bishop deposed from ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, and by setting the date for a convention of that diocese, they ceased to be members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church. According to the Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, any remaining Standing Committee members then are empowered to appoint members to fill vacancies in any elected offices and to provide for the continuity of canonical governance. That the 7 now-former members of the Standing Committee left the Episcopal Church for the Province of the Southern Cone is actually irrelevant to the process. The same canonical process to reorganize the governing structures would have been followed if they had been run over by a bus.
Bruce Robison
I should amplify simply to note, as I didn’t above, that there was in fact a remaining Standing Committee member who did not realign, did not participate in the constructive actions of the “new” Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Southern Cone, and did retain consistent identity as a member, at that point then the sole remaining member, of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church.
It just is important to say, and say again, that the fervid anxieties of those who before Saturday were whispering about the Presiding Bishop arriving in Pittsburgh with a fleet of blackhawks to install Bishop Spong as bishop-dictator were just way out of line. We have organized carefully, and the PB and her staff have been supportive but respectful of our process. To this point they have “imposed” nothing and have threatened to “impose” nothing. The additional members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, filling the vacancies left by those who have left the Episcopal Church, will be chosen partly by appointment, according to the current canons, but mostly by election at a reorganizing convention at the end of the year. Whether we have an assisting bishop appointed by our SC or a Provisional Bishop elected by our convention, that person will be someone we select–though with the support of Bishop Matthews and with the consent of the PB.
My pretty-informed guess is that our leadership and culture here in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church will continue to reflect a general continuity of orthodox and conservative strength–though with a richer mix of perspectives and a broader participation from the wider spectrum than has been true in recent years. So far the “Across the Aisle” conversations have been occasions of reconciliation and better understanding, and for that I am thankful.
Bruce Robison
RE: “Are you saying there is no longer a standing committee in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (as it has been known) given that a vote was taken and a majority (clergy and lay) chose to realign?”
Not sure where you got that. Of course there is still a standing committee in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. After all, only one of the members of that Standing Committee chose to leave that diocese and remain with TEC.
RE: ” . . . they ceased to be members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church.”
No — simply the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh ceased to be associated with the association of dioceses of TEC. And there is no other diocese of which they can serve as Standing Committee members.
RE: “According to the Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, any remaining Standing Committee members then are empowered to appoint members to fill vacancies in any elected offices and to provide for the continuity of canonical governance.”
If such a diocese existed — but there is no Episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh associated with TEC. It is now associated with the dioceses of the Southern Cone.
RE: “The same canonical process to reorganize the governing structures would have been followed if they had been run over by a bus.”
Well, no . . . .because had they merely been run over by a bus, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh would still be associated with the dioceses of TEC and the departure from TEC of that diocese would not have occurred. But it is not.
RE: “there was in fact a remaining Standing Committee member . . . . [who] did retain consistent identity as a member, at that point then the sole remaining member, of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church.”
Well no, the former Standing Committee member left the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and is no longer a Standing Committee member of any diocese at all — although certainly there is a faux diocese [sic] of which he is purporting to be a Standing Committee member.
RE: “The point about who “should simply choose to follow the canons†seems a little bit of a stretch.”
Not a stretch at all — although clearly it is now a “stretch” for the remaining conservatives to even envision a monstrosity such as following the canons.
RE: “There is, I know, a fairly ornate argument presented by some realigners that from a particular angle it may just be possible to glimpse a hypothetical path forward–though it’s never been tried before.”
Not aware of any such theory, whether ornate or simple — unless the notion of following the canons is now an “ornate” theory.
How TEC-like, if so — one must smile at how quickly that sort of rhetoric develops.
RE: “However, there are plenty of canonical provisions–both in our diocesan canons and in the national canons–for a situation in which a diocese needs to be reorganized . . . ”
The diocese does not need to be reorganized — it is doing just fine where it is. It’s the hole left in the region of Pittsburgh that is having the problems.
RE: “All the PB will need to do is to acknowledge that those canons are being followed by the continuing Episcopal Church diocese.”
But a pity — the remaining parishes and clergy are not following the canons, nor is there a continuing Episcopal Church diocese existent.
RE: “. . . . so that will be left to the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas–whose judges are well-experienced in determining the ownership of contested assets.”
Thank God for the justice and the honesty of the secular courts, when it is so lacking within TEC!
God is good to allow Episcopalians to live in such a great country.
#37 What seems confusing is the consistency of your views. A Rob Eaton, or a John Simons had, by your account, either to decide to join another province, or be left without a diocesan home: “there is no other diocese of which they can serve as Standing Committee members.” The argument for diocesan independence/integrity vis-a-vis ‘the national church’ cannot address whether creating a new ‘dependence’ in a foreign alignment is a salutary outcome, at any number of levels. It would appear that many conservatives did not feel this was the way to fight the battle, and you apparently believe that is something like ‘tough luck.’ They should have voted to realign and sought to create a new polity: severing a diocese from its historical association and ‘linking’ it in a new association, The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in the Southern Cone.
RE: “A Rob Eaton, or a John Simons had, by your account, either to decide to join another province, or be left without a diocesan home . . . ”
Yes. Those were the choices. However — remember, I have supported those who want to stay in TEC and I wish to stay as well.
I do think that when we talk about following the canons, we should be consistent on all sides. We’ve denounced Schori for violating the canons — then the parishes remaining in TEC should follow the canons as well.
The canons are quite clear. One forms as an association of parishes, then applies to General Convention for recognition as a diocese — a mere nine months away now — then proceeds to elect a bishop.
Seitz-ACI — the only reason . . . [i]the only reason why this is not being done is because the national church wishes to acquire the assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and to do that, they must have a faux diocese [sic] now, now, now, now — not nine months from now — that can use to lay claim to the assets.[/i]
That is it.
The is the only reason why the canons are not being followed.
RE: ” . . . . It would appear that many conservatives did not feel this was the way to fight the battle, and you apparently believe that is something like ‘tough luck.’ They should have voted to realign and sought to create a new polity: severing a diocese from its historical association and ‘linking’ it in a new association, The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in the Southern Cone.”
No — I wish that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh had not left [although I certainly understand their reasons for doing so] and I would have voted to stay in TEC had I lived in Pittsburgh.
But I believe that conservatives ought to follow the canons.
Sarah, I have this feeling that on matters beyond this particular tic you and I probably agree on most of the matters of substance that are of concern in the life of the church. But simply to acknowledge that both “sides” right now both affirm and believe that their identity and actions follow from a straightforward and “plain reading” of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. There is a critical disagreement about whether a generic organizing “diocese” is a “diocese” in the constitutional and canonical sense before its application to be received into the Episcopal Church, or whether it only “becomes” a diocese when made such by action of the General Convention. If a diocese truly “pre-exists” the action and convention, and if it’s identity is only changed relationally and not, um, ontologically, by the action of General Convention, then the arguments of the realigners about the integrity of disassociation will be found to have legal merit. If, on the other hand, an “Episcopal Diocese” comes into existence only through recognition by the General Convention, and if it only has existence “as an Episcopal diocese” within the Constitutional life defined by that Convention, then the argument of the realigners fails and the argument of the “remainers” succeeds. In fact there are very sharp institutional historians and lawyers on both sides, and I perfectly well understand why both sides are sticking to their guns. The point has never been tested before this season. Internally and relationally, each group is free to live within its own definitional interpretation. There is, no question about it, a “Southern Cone” diocese, affirming its interpretation, and an “Episcopal Church” diocese, affirming its. Blessings upon both. We get into the choppy waters, of course, as Chancellor Devlin of the Southern Cone diocese has written to the members of the Episcopal Church diocese threatening the possibility of legal action against those parishes who do not accept the interpretation that would lead to the canonical authority of the Southern Cone–and as folks wait to see what actions the Episcopal Diocese may take to gain control of diocesan assets. Once we get into that ballpark, it will be the Court of Common Pleas that will tell us what this language all means when it comes to the ownership of assets in the Commonwealth–and of course with certainty one side or the other, whichever is disadvantaged by that original judgment, will carry on to attempt reviews by the courts of appeal. But sooner or later it will be straightened out. Neither side will “accept” the argument of the other about ecclesial identity, but both will of course abide by the judgment of the judges.
Bruce Robison
#39–the consistency from you as I hear it is as follows: Pittsburgh should NOT have put this choice before the people of the diocese; they should NOT have left; you would have voted, if faced with this choice, against the plan to leave. Thanks for the clarification. The canonical issue turns on whether it is a better strategy to push back from efforts of a ‘national church’ to overreach, and so maintain one’s diocesan integrity (no funding of ‘national church’; diocesan canons protecting historical integrity, and so forth). Let that be where the battle is joined. As for conservatives following the canons, this begs the question as to strategy. You have indicated that the strategy that intended to take the Diocese out of the church was not one you would have endorsed. That was not clear before, at least to this reader.
#40 — dioceses can predate general convention as a matter of historical fact and also be sovereign, as the relationship between national canons and diocesan canons is the neuralgic point in the present polity. I would be loathe to give up possession of this fact, and would find it a better way to struggle through this season. At issue so far as I am concerned–and it appears that here Sarah is in general agreement–is whether this canonical reality can be used as a way to stay and form an association and push back against innovation, and indeed to link to the wider Communion on this very basis.
RE: “The canonical issue turns on whether it is a better strategy to push back from efforts of a ‘national church’ to overreach, and so maintain one’s diocesan integrity (no funding of ‘national church’; diocesan canons protecting historical integrity, and so forth).”
Unfortunately, that is no longer of interest to the diocese [sic] wishing to be in the Episcopal Church. Were that of interest to them, they would form as an association of parishes, establish their diocesan structure, then apply to be in association with the other dioceses of TEC.
Instead they are surrendering “diocesan [sic] integrity” and helping the national church to continue to “overreach” by agreeing with 815 that a diocese cannot leave TEC.
And the only reason — the only reason — why they are doing this is [i]so that TEC may lay claim to the departing diocese’s property through its faux diocese [sic].[/i]
Per #42, while “dioceses” certainly predate General Convention, I would question whether they are dioceses “of the Episcopal Church” before they are made such, or whether, the General Convention having created a “diocese of the Episcopal Church” by its own action, the action of some other body could “unmake” that “diocese of the Episcopal Church.” Pittsburgh was made a diocese by an act of General Convention that divided the Diocese of Pennsylvania, “the Episcopal Church in seven counties of Southwestern Pennsylvania.” As General Convention has not “unmade” this diocese, from the point of view of the General Convention, it still exists. If each and every person of the congregations and governing bodies of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh had announced that they were no longer “in” the Episcopal Church, the diocese itself would have continued to exist within the jurisdictional canons of the Episcopal Church. Like one of the “ghost” dioceses in the Roman Church, perhaps, or like the National Government of China in Taiwan, which includes legislative districts on the mainland where that government has had no actual presence or power for 60 years. From the point-of-view of the Episcopal Church, the diocese continues to exist until the General Convention acts to remove it. It happens, of course, that here in Pittsburgh about a third of our congregations, including about 40% of our membership, and persons holding office at every canonical level (Standing Committee, Board of Trustees, Council) have determined that they, we, “continue” to be members of the same Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A., that we were members of prior to Saturday, October 4. Our friends in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Southern Cone tell us that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A., no longer exists, but the authorities of the Episcopal Church tell us that we’re still on thebooks, and that there’s nothing provided in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church that would give the representatives of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Southern Cone any ecclesial authority in determining our identity as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A. There is no question but that clerical and lay deputies elected at our December 13 Special Diocesan Convention (to fill any vacancies that may have occured when previously elected deputies may have removed themselves from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church) will be seated at General Convention in Anaheim, and it seems to me that the only possible canonical challenge to that would be an argument that the Constitution and Canons permit persons who are not members of the Episcopal Church to serve as Deputies.
Per your comment about “forming an association,” I would strongly support the idea that individual Anglican dioceses, in addition to Provinces, be offered the opportunity to consider and sign-on to an Anglican Covenant, and I would hope my diocese, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, would choose to do so if the Episcopal Church were to decline to sign-on as a signatory Province. However, I would accept that in terms of actual polity, the “association” that a diocese would have by signing such a Covenant would not permit that diocese to violate canonical boundaries of its life within a Province. If the Anglican Covenant required an action prohibited by the canons of a Province, for example, the individual diocese would not be free to ignore the constitutional and canonical authority of the Province and follow the directions of the Covenant. Hopefully the non-Covenant signing Province would try to find ways of finding internal accomodations, but that is a process that would be subject to internal action.
I did take a great canon law course with Massey Shepherd of blessed memory, but I can only guess what he might have thought about the current train wreck. My best guess is that he wouldn’t have thought much of either side . . . .
Bruce Robison
Bruce Robison
RE: “As General Convention has not “unmade†this diocese . . . ”
GC did not need to do so, as the diocese departed from the association with TEC and that General Convention.
RE: “but the authorities of the Episcopal Church tell us that we’re still on thebooks . . . ”
Heh.
Indeed yes, they do. They certainly do. They’ll be needing that.
God bless you Sarah. There is simply no reason to maintain the fiction that the Diocese of Pittsburgh did not leave TEC, in a by-the-book vote of the diocesan convention, other than the Gollum-like obsession with getting the property. One side is willing to negotiate outside of the courts to divide the assets. Bishop Duncan has already stated that he does not want a “winner take all” approach. The other side is already trolling for rogue vestries to sue for the property of realigning parishes- visions of CT Bishop Smith and his locksmiths come to mind. I can’t fathom the mindset that eschews negotiation and PREFERS to spend millions in the hope of a total victory.
BTW as of right now there are officially 19 of the 71 parishes committed to staying in TEC. They make up 28% of ASA by 2007 numbers. There are only three churches with ASA greater than 80 that I am uncertain which side they will choose. Actually I have a good idea but in these cases we may be looking at church splits due to serious division. There are still a good number of very small churches with ASA less than 50 that I’m not sure about. In the end the suggestion that 1/3 of the parishes will stay is probably right. The suggestion that 40% of the membership will stay may be right as well, as several of the staying churches appear to have enormously inflated memberships compared to ASA.