Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has recognized as the true Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh those who refused to secede Saturday with the majority of local Episcopalians into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America.
She confirmed the Rev. James Simons and two others as the “rightful Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” The Standing Committee governs in the absence of a bishop. The Rev. Simons, rector of St. Michael of the Valley, Ligonier, was the only member of the previous Standing Committee to oppose secession.
Both dioceses now call themselves “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
“The presiding bishop’s word today was certainly welcome news,” said Rich Creehan, spokesman for the U.S.-based Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Good thing TEC’s polity prevents it from directly intervening in diocesan affairs, otherwise we’d have the PB hiring and firing Standing Committees. Oh, wait! She does? Then why can’t she order dioceses to stop allowing same-sex blessings?
Why the cooperative attitude from +KJS toward Fr Simons in Pittsburgh, when the circumstances are not all that different from what they were in San Joaquin, where the wanting-to-stay remnant of the Standing Committee was much larger (yet she de-recognized them)?
What a hoot.
“The presiding bishop’s word today was certainly welcome news . . . ”
Like saying “Kendall Harmon’s word today [about the status of our diocese (sic)] was certainly welcome news . . . ” ; > )
Sad that the conservatives are complicit in violating the canons in this way. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh left the association of TEC. 815 can’t afford for that to be true, because they need a faux diocese [sic] as a shell with which to sue the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh for its property.
All of this has been blindingly made clear by lawyer and chancellor AS Haley in his devastating posts, one of which is this one:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-proper-way-is-one-not-being.html
The “true” diocese will be celebrating their first Eucharist with the tooth fairy, the a few gnomes and the headless horseman co-celebrating.
Beginning with comment #11, one can see a conversation about that complicity with 815’s needs, and accompanying violation of the canons, here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/16747
I wonder why Rev. Simons, who before I thought was a good conservative, would now so decidely join with Schori over Duncan? Does this mean that he has changed his mind about the authroity of scripture etc, etc…?
Surely the establishment of the new province can’t come soon enough to disestablish TEC and get back to the good work God has given Anglicanism (a vision lost under Rowan Williams) to do.
#2-
Father,
While I can certainly understand your frustration and dismay your continued righteous indignation rings hollow. You chose to lie with dogs and now you have fleas. You shouldn’t be surprised.
BigTex AC
Fr Dan Martins #2, I don’t know the answer to your question. Is it possible that because there was only one SC member left in Pittsburgh, they thought they could manage him, whereas with several conservatives still on board in San Joaquin, the situation might not be steered in the direction they wanted?
Dan, I believe the answer is simply that Jim disassociated himself from the action of realignment before the vote, and declined to meet with the SC once it convened under the authority of a diocesan constitution no longer acknowledging the authority of the C. & C. of the Episcopal Church. Had Jim, Michael, and Rob done the same thing, or even passed a resolution at their first meeting disassociating their continuity of ecclesiastical authority with any authority derived from the (Anglican/Southern Cone) Diocese of San Joaquin, and had they followed the TEC canons for the procedures to follow when a diocese is without a bishop, I rather expect that the PB would have had no choice but to work with them. They did none of those things, though. None disassociated from the realignment resolutions prior to the vote, and all assembled in the offices in Fresno, with Bishop Schofield in attendance, after.
Now, in my opinion, it was a terrible misstep on the PB’s part not to work with Rob and probably with Mike also–or at least to have reached out to them. They were in terra incognita, and the fact that they might have been clearer sooner doesn’t mean that she also could have tried to work more flexibly with them, cut them a little slack, etc. Probably that substantially accurate but tonally offensive letter they wrote to her soon after more or less burned any bridges that might have been standing on some back road or other.
In any case, those of us among the more conservative clergy looked at SJ, and learned deeply from it, that if we wanted to avoid an occupation, we were going to have to stake out our canonical grounds clearly, and well in advance of the convention, open lines of communication both locally, with PEP (our “Remain Episcopal”), and nationally, with the PB’s office. We’ve always been clear about who we are in those conversations, and both the PB and our PEP group here in Pittsburgh understand that we have now, post-October 4, a diocese that continues to be mostly conservative, and an emerging diocesan leadership structure that is working collaboratively to keep our reorganization post-October 4 unfolding according to our local canons and the national canons, as best they can be managed in such unusual circumstances.
My sense is that the PB’s affections are mainly with our PEP colleagues, theologically, but that she has worked with us in an open and fair way. People were talking about Blackhawks zooming in from New York on the night of Oct. 4, but it didn’t happen, hasn’t happened yet–and I don’t believe it will happen. We’re working things out on our own, and so long as we have committed ourselves to canonical patterns and an open and participatory process, we have been supported.
I know a number friends say, “just wait.” And I’m under no illusions–I don’t think any of us are. Things could go bad. But so far, they haven’t.
Bruce Robison
“Things could go bad. But so far, they haven’t”
—Balin, son of Fundin
#9, if your intentions are to organize the remaining parishes and carry on within the Episcopal Church with what you’ve got, you deserve respect and cooperation.
What everyone is worried about, of course, is that lawsuits will be filed to get hold of the property belonging to the majority diocese and its parishes. That’s where respect would end. I hope that won’t happen. It would be far better to negotiate fair use of shared spaces and other arrangements between the two groups.
#6 Perhaps the possibility of a mitre?? 🙂
Islandbear+
Based on current statements, it appears that 19 churches will go TEC and 47 will go with Southern Cone (the 4 new parishes are not included in the 47). Using 2006 data, of the churches with Plate & Pledge of less than $150,000 there are 10 that will go TEC and 8 with Southern Cone. This seems to make sense as these small parishes are usually not risk-takers. Of the churches with $150,000 to $300,000 in Plate & Pledge there are 5 that will go TEC and 35 with Southern Cone. Quite a vote of confidence in Bishop Duncan. Of the churches with over $300,000 in Plate & Pledge 4 will go TEC and 4 with Southern Cone. Personalities and church politics may well be at work here. The TEC churches will average $200,000 in Plate & Pledge and 394 in membership. The Southern Cone churches will average $175,000 in Plate & Pledge and 266 in membership. Thus, both groups should start out as being viable. Statmann
Kudos to Statmann. (Are you German, hence the StatmanN not Statman?)
Father Bruce gives reasons that Ms Schori chose to work with the lone remaining standing committee member. Call me cynical, but I see it as being driven by the lawyers. Lamb in San Joaquin will be the principal litigant but he is under a cloud of illegitimacy.
#13, Your last statement (“both groups should start out as being viable”) is I think generally correct. But there are hidden factors in and beyond these statistics. First, there are several parishes that have indicated an intention to remain in TEC, but whose Vestries determined that they wouldn’t make a formal election until after the Convention. So I expect to see the 19 to grow to 23 or 24 over the next month or two, and a couple of them are in the middle group. At the same time, several of the congregations in both groups (TEC and SC) are likely to give birth, painfully, to subdivisions which will define themselves congregationally, but each of the divisions smaller and financially weaker than the previous unified parish.
In terms of finances, here in old Pittsburgh some of the parishes with lower p. & p. figures in both groups have significant endowment income. A parish with $120,000 pledge and plate and $4,000,000 in endowments and reserves may have a great deal more sustainability, especially in times of congregational turbulance, than a parish with $300,000 in p. & p., but without much in endowments or reserves. An endowed parish can ramp up the draw for a year or two to weather hard times, but that’s harder to do if you don’t have much of a draw to ramp up. It’s also the case that a couple of the SC parishes right now are carrying quite a bit of debt–for sure a factor that can skew the meaning of p. & p. and membership stats. A smaller parish with a $150,000 budget may be much more sustainable than a medium-large one with a $1,000,000 mortgage on a new building, especially if congregational turbulance coincides with turbulance in the economy generally . . . . My prediction is that a significant number of our congregations (more on the SC side, but that’s only because there are more there to start with) will not survive within their current ministry styles, and some will not survive at all. Parishes that now have a full time rector will decide that they will need to have a retired priest for Sundays and a non-stipendiary deacon for pastoral care. Parishes that now have a Rector, Curate, Youth Pastor, and Organist and Choirmaster will find themselves with a Rector and an Organist. It will probably take a decade for all this to shake out. Probably for the first year or two a certain heady enthusiasm will bolster both groups, so it will take some time to see what the real lie of the land is.
Bruce Robison
Herr Robroy: Danke schoen. You are sharp. I am an old statistics professor of German descent. Statmann
That’s great, Bruce #15. And, in a decade, what do you think the SC parishes will be preaching, and what do you think TEC will be preaching? And, in a decade, how many of those 23 or 24 TEC parishes will be ones you can be proud of, and how many will make Lionel Deimel proud?
Ah, well. You chose your side with eyes wide open.
Its only common sense that 815 got to Simons and bribed him to stay the course with TEC. You can just logically bet, when 815 sets up a FAKE diocese here she will appoint Simons as the FAKE bishop there.
“Why the cooperative attitude from +KJS toward Fr. Simons in Pittsburgh, when the circumstances are not all that different from what they were in San Joaquin?” —Fr. Dan Martins [#2]
Perhaps even KJS is educable.
“You can deny reason but not pain.”
— Georg Büchner, Danton’s Death (1835)
#18, one would guess (and it’s only a guess) that in TEC not even the PB could or would appoint a priest as an interim or permanent bishop. If she does, bypassing the canonical process for electing and approving a new bishop, it could get even more interesting for her.
Perhaps Bp. Spong would be willing to serve as interim bishop of Pittsburgh. (Bwaa-ha-haaa!) I like that.
#18, the charge of bribery, without evidence, is pretty strong, don’t you think? At this point the possibility of a respectful separation in Pittsburgh still exists.
I concur with Katherine #21. BMR+ has been truthful, charitable and conciliatory to both sides in both style and substance. His writing has the tone of a peacemaker and so I guess for some it’s like “pouring hot coals on their head.” (Proverbs 25:22)
22You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. 25Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26″In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27and do not give the devil a foothold. 29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:22-32, NIV)
#15, thank you, and my prayer would be, as I know yours is, that a decade from now and a century from now and until the Trumpet sounds the Word preached in his Church would be Christ, who in his Cross and his Resurrection is our beginning and our ending. I would pray this whether of “Southern Cone” or “TEC,” South Carolina or San Joaquin, Quincy or Dallas. Or here in Pittsburgh, where some really great Christian people on both sides of this horrible fracture are seeking to be faithful to him in a tangled forest, where all ways forward that any of us see at this moment are profoundly compromised and imperfect. Doing the best we can, and trusting Him to see us through, despite our many mistakes, past, present, and future.
Bruce Robison
Dan Martins, I agree with one thing BMR said above: “Probably that substantially accurate but tonally offensive letter they wrote to her soon after more or less burned any bridges that might have been standing on some back road or other.”
They really needed to suck up more, and pretend not to notice the canonical violations of Schori.
When you play ball . . . you gotta, you know . . . grit your teeth and go along with any “irregularities” that may or may not occur, while pretending they aren’t happening.
As I say to my friend in a medical residency with authorities who have all the power and none of the integrity . . . . smile a lot, and glaze your eyes over, and tug your forelock and you’ll do fine.
There were 16 parishes in the Diocese of Pittsburgh with an ASA of 30 or less based on 2007 numbers. I think most these were going to have a difficult time surviving the next 10 years no matter what happened…
I now come out of the closet and admit: I live in the DioPitt. I was formerly an Episcopalian, but left after GCon ’06 elected the current PB. The recent action of the true Diocese in affiliating with the Southern Cone has left me with a painful personal conflict. A former Rector whose ministry to my family during a prolonged period of need has chosen to remain in TEC. If I return to the Anglican communion I will go with the Diocese which left TEC. I know too much about TEC to ever want to have anything more to do with it. My former rector and I are on opposite sides of the divide. I see it as a choice: which ranks highest? The Faith or the Church. I rank the Faith first. If the Church goes into heresy, then it is an obligation to separate from it, even if this precipitates schism. I take my stand on the grounds of conscience. However, I remain sad and joyless that a beloved priest and I are on opposite sides of the chasm.
Dumb Sheep.
PS: I didn’t know that denizens of SF could post on T19.
I’ve just reread the link to the curmudgeon provided in post #3. It seems to me that if TEC consists of member dioceses’, each of which has their own constitution and cannons, separate from TEC’s, and operate under the provisions of local C & C’s, then TEC’s only existence is as an organization constituted by the member diocese’s.
Goodbye heirarchy. Each diocese is an entity unto itself. It has an existence saparate from TEC. If TEC ceased to exist, the Diocese would still exist. The diocese is the (Anglican) Church in that place.
That being said, let’s muddy the waters a little. Did not DioPitt incorporate earlier this year? How does that affect it’s status. It’s property? Etc.?
Dumb sheep.
#12: Islandbear. Miters are available and up for grabs. So far Simons and Lewis are the two obvious candidates. My money’s on Lewis. More liberal, wealthy parish.
Dumb Sheep.