US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has deposed two more retired American bishops, announcing on June 12 that she had accepted the voluntary renunciation of ministry of the retired Bishop of Quincy the Rt Rev Edward MacBurney and the retired Bishop of Southern Virginia the Rt Rev David Bane.
However, the two bishops have stated they have not renounced their orders, but were being accepted into the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone under Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables.
That makes 11 for Ms Schori as opposed to the previous entire history of the denomination where there was only 5. She is now “accepting resignations” since she can do this without a trial. Trouble is that the requirements for a bishop to resign are spelled out in the C&C, too. The bishop must write a letter to the presiding bishop declaring two things:
[blockquote]Canon III 12.7: If any Bishop of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 shall declare, [b]in writing, to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom[/b], it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. The Presiding Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the person’s moral character, shall lay the matter before the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, and with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of the Advisory Council the Presiding Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is accepted, and that the Bishop is released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations.[/blockquote]
And the liberals talk about their passion for justice, and yet they hypocritically ignore these miscarriages? Hah.
I mean this in all seriousness. I am not making a snarky comment. The Presiding Bishop is a joke. An absolute unfettered, unapologetic, unabashed joke.
Her chancellor says it is ok. He basis his opinion on pluriform law.
One can only wish she was a joke, #2. She and her ilk are, however, simply lawless tyrants who have made their “church” a punchline.
I really do not understand the alternative: do the Bishops of the new ACNA really want to be Bishops in TEC? I think not. They should have resigned from TEC themselves. That seems to be the proper way to go.
They are RETIRED! What purpose does this serve?
Never mind, don’t answer that. 🙄
Eugene, for the bishops and others who have left TEC it probably does not matter at all. For those still in TEC such as yourself, watching the PB and the power structure ignore the Constitution and Canons at will, acting in an arbitrary manner and contrary to church law, it probably matters a great deal or should.
This is clean-up. They don’t want to be in TEC, so I’m not sure what the vitriol on the blog is all about. They got what they wanted.
So they are now connected to TEC through the ABC, that’s all.
Chances are they are still picking up their pension checks. It’s a low cost move on their part.
The term “deposition” in these cases means exactly nothing. It’s just clearing the books.
John,
It is surprising to me that you don’t find any problem with the Presiding Bishop lying – not telling the truth and knowingly not telling the truth. These bishops did not renounce their orders. They transferred to a different province within the Anglican Communion. There needs to be a way that a Bishop (or a Priest or Deacon) can transfer to another church without the language “and that the Bishop … is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations.” Perhaps we could amend that to say that the Bishop “is deprived that right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations within the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.” That way the PB is not claiming to speak for the entire church of God.
This whole problem of deposing clergy who cannot tolerate the changes in TEC and feel called to remove themselves and their flock to a safer oversight is simply spiteful. Why not transfer letters dimissory? That way, if the priest or deacon (or bishop, but I’m not sure how a bishop would be transferred) ever decides to return to TEC the door is open.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
IF this is just a matter of cleaning up the records (JW#8), the task is understandable–and maybe even desirable. TEC wants to know how many clergy, congregations, pensions, income, etc it has to work with: when I first arrived at my parish, I likewise did a review of membership roles and called for an outside audit of our finances (btw, both were in good order).
But, and that’s a huge BUT, the PB is not following the C&C, and her actions have at least the appearance of not only removing such clergy from TEC’s rosters, but also from that of the Communion. It’s this last portion that is particularly troublesome. The PB and her chancellor seem to have redefined the Communion as that pertaining to The Episcopal Communion, and with it, have redefined the Church’s teaching on ordination. It appears we are no longer to be ordained in the one holy catholic apostolic Church, but rather simply the Episcopal Communion–and that bishops are now functionaries of TEC rather than servants for the whole Church.
In my books, TEC would be a whole lot smarter and wiser, to take the time to add an appropriate canon for removing clergy from active duty in TEC without language that implies that said clergy are no longer clergy. Or, TEC could avoid the whole question by simply writing letters dimissory to other provinces or dioceses with which we are still in communion.
This last option does however recognize the validity of the on-going ministry of these bishops. The PB however opposes that very ministry.
So in fact, at the end, it is not about cleaning up the rosters and accounts, but it is about attempting to defrock clergy or at least trying to embarrass them. Ironically, that’s why the canons that are in place are there–to protect Bishops and other clergy from being defrocked unfairly and without justice.
If the PB wants to clean the records, she needs to do it in a worthy and just manner. If the PB wants to defrock the bishops, then she needs to follow the canons as written. To date, she has abused the canons and not acted in a just manner.
I’d like to add to what # 10 said.
In a parish I once attended, there was a priest who had been ordained in the Church of England. He came to the U.S., and was transferred to ECUSA. Presumably, if he were ever to move back to England, he would transfer back. That transfer would not operate as a resignation of his holy orders.
It’s hard to understand how a request to transfer from one province of the Anglican Communion (ECUSA) to another (Southern Cone) could be construed as a request to renounce ordination.
Unless, of course, the PB takes the position of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, who determined that a word meant what he said it meant.
and of course +++ABC won’t come out and declare these persons to still be legitimate Bishops in the AC. Cowardly, just cowardly.
Well, how about Bishop Scrivin of Pittsburgh, who transferred into the diocese from the C of E, transferred back to the C of E and was then deposed.
I think I’ve said this before on this site, but as I see it there are at least three distinct things here that are being confused.
Item (1) is whatever character of priesthood is conferred upon an individual by the sacrament of ordination, assuming your theology swings that way. If it does, then you would probably agree that these orders are intended to be for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so are not purely an Anglican or Episcopal matter.
Item (2) is the privilege and responsibility of exercising the office of priest (deacon, bishop) within the structure of authority of a particular church — say, for the sake of argument, TEC. It means that, if you are a priest, you are a priest under the authority of a bishop of the Episcopal Church, who is in turn under the authority of the House of Bishops and General Convention.
Item (3) is the privilege (and responsibility) of being able to preside at the table of a particular church — again, for the sake of argument, TEC. Priests who have (2) have this automatically; but the privilege may also be extended to priests of churches in communion with TEC.
Now, when a priest or bishop departs TEC for, let us say, ACNA, then the fact that they are giving up (2) should not be in dispute. That is, after all, what they are trying to accomplish; and if TEC responds by formally withdrawing (2) then the only possible disagreement is a rather pointless “You’re fired/I quit” argument. In either case, everyone should agree that (2) is gone.
For TEC to also withdraw (3) may not be necessary — if the parting were amicable, and to a church in full communion with TEC, then (3) might well be extended as a courtesy. But under the circumstances, ACNA is not in full communion with TEC — that’s largely the point of its existence — and in any event, everyone should agree that TEC is within its rights to withhold (3) if it chooses.
Which leaves (1) as the point of contention. The language that is used in these depositions does indeed seem to suggest that TEC is purporting to withdraw the character of priesthood from the departing person. Whether this is theologically possible in the first place is an interesting question, since resolving it would require TEC to nail down exactly what it thinks happens at ordination, which in turn would risk alienating either the Anglo-Catholic or the Reformed sides of the church.
But arguing that TEC has no mechanism for removing someone from the structure of authority (2) without also asserting the removal of (1) is to assume an answer to the nature of orders that is very low-church, i.e., that the character of priesthood is nothing more nor less than holding the office of a priest within a particular church.
Reappraiser though I am, I have to say that we’d be better off, both theologically and politically, if the language of these depositions made it clear that we were removing (2), and left the question of (1) alone.
Schori’s move to depose these bishops is therefore pointless…..and is moot, anyway.
15, the major problem is the TEC claims to be a member of a wider communion and clergy between provinces within that communion are interchangable. And the mechanism is there, but TEC chose not to use it. For Priests, the diocesan simply rescinds the license to exercise priestly functions in his diocese. Charges are filed and trial is had. Instead they used a canon that, on its face, applied to a person becoming a member of a church with which TEC was not in Communion. The fact is that TEC is operating in derogation of its own law and canons.
But that is now your problem as it is Eugene’s. You now have to live in a Church that resorts to legal subtrifuge rather than principle. A Church in which its published law means nothing.
She looks like Lewis Carroll’s “Queen of Hearts” in that get-up on the RI website.
If we are cleaning up “the books” why not purge the membership roles — 2.2M seems to have been too static a number for far too long.
OK: So Bishop Bane is a Bishop in ACNA. Is ACNA in communion with TEC? yes or No?
If yes, then there may be a problem
If no, there is no problem
From what I hear AB Duncan say, I doubt very much if ACNA is in communion with TEC. In fact if they are in communion with TEC they should not have broken away from TEC.
I see no possible way a Bishop can remain a member of the HoB of TEC if his new Province is not in communion with TEC. Therefore the Bishops have to either resign from TEC or their sacradotal rights in TEC be taken from them. This is what happened.
19, ACNA is in full communion with provinces with which TEC claims to be in full communion. Bishops in other provinces are valid, but not in the HOB. You are mixing apples and oranges. But then you don’t really care do you? Sacerdotal rights don’t depend on whether a bishop is in the TEC HOB. You know the AC does not revolve around TEC.
There was a legal way for TEC to do what it did, but it elected not to do it.
Oh, and I might add the the actions we are discussing pre-date the formation of ACNA.
I’m not going to defend the way these depositions are being done. But the “in-communion” relationship is not transitive, so just because A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C does not imply that A must be in communion with C.
Now, the logic of “a Communion,” such as the Anglican Communion, is predicated on the assumption that all its members are in communion with each other. We are living in a situation where this is not so; several provinces of the Communion are in broken or impaired communion with other provinces. But this is — presumably — not a permanent condition; one way or another that tension will be resolved, and we will once again have a Communion (or, quite likely, more than one Communion) with full internal communion relationships. (Or, an outside chance but what I think the ABC has been reduced to hoping for, we just learn to live indefinitely as a Communion-without-communion, and so what if it doesn’t make sense.)
In the meantime, I don’t think there’s any question about whether ACNA (or CANA or AMiA or any of its other component jurisdictions) are in full communion with TEC. If they were able to be in communion with TEC, then they would have no reason to be in the first place; the very purpose of their existence is to be a place for people who feel they must leave the communion of TEC. So, from the point of view of TEC, a priest leaving for ACNA (CANA, AMiA, etc.) is no different than a priest leaving for, say, a Baptist church.
Now, as I said above, I’m not going to defend the way these depositions have been done, or the language which purports to remove holy orders. But I do think that when a member of the clergy departs for ACNA (etc.) we have to acknowledge the reality that he or she is moving to a jurisdiction that is not in communion with his or her former one.
The underlying problem is well described in the headline: Religious Intelligence. Obviously in the case of TEC, there isn’t any.
22, Ross, good for you. You recognize the problem.
You say, “But the “in-communion†relationship is not transitive, so just because A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C does not imply that A must be in communion with C.”
But that’s the rub isn’t it. How can I be in “full communion with A” and NOT be in full communion with who ever A in in communion with? Is that not in fact a breach in my communion with A? The honest thing is to recognize that the AC is broken and that TEC is out of communion with much of it. Then the logic works.
#24 Br. Michael — is the Church of England in communion with the ELCA, just because both are in communion with TEC?
Actually, I think there is a problem (especially with bishops) in that there is no way to remove a bishop’s voice or vote within the House of Bishops without deposing him and saying that the authority to exercise the spiritual gifts of ordination has been recinded. This is a rather large oversight within the C&C of TEC. I don’t think any ever (until recently) thought that a bishop would want to leave TEC for another province. I don’t see that addressed within the C&C. However, I do see the following in III.12.8.h.i:
[blockquote]A resigned Bishop may, at the discretion of the Bishop of the
Diocese in which the resigned Bishop resides, and upon presentation
of Letters Dimissory from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese
in which the resigned Bishop has had canonical residence most
recently, be enrolled among the Clergy of the new Diocese, and
become subject to its Constitution and Canons including being given
a seat and vote in the Diocesan Convention, in accordance with its
canonical provisions for qualification of clergy members.[/blockquote]
The problem is that this does not release the bishop from TEC’s HoB. There simply is no canonical means to remove a bishop from the HoB and not talk about removing the authority to exercise any sprititual gift of Ordination. There is also no means to transfer a bishop to another province.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
25, arguably Yes. That was one reason I found TEC’s entering into full communion with the ELCA problematic and even voted against it. But remember when this started TEC claimed to be in communion with all the AC provinces to which priests and bishops went. ACNA was just created.
Now if you want to argue that the AC is not really a communion, but more like an association of completely independent churches or a business trade association then you may be correct. But then if this is so why complain when a bishop from another province comes into your diocese? The argument seems to shift and morph from we are in communion–we are not in communion–we are in communion depending on the result that TEC wants in a particular time and situation.
Phil, how do you address the situation of Bishop Scrivin?
I would amend Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution to include only those bishops who have not requested Letters Dimissory to another province of the Anglican Communion. I would also amend III.12.8.h.i to allow bishops to request letters dimissory to another province of the Anglican Communion.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Well that might work in future cases. Do you know what they did in the case of Bishop Scrivin? I know the PB deposed him when he returned to the UK. In the past how did ECUSA deal with clergy and bishops transferring in and out from other provinces? I can’t believe that this is the first time this has come up.
I am just curious.