On December 12, the Rt. Rev. William Skilton, retired suffragan bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina released an “Open Letter to the Faithful Anglicans/Episcopalians in Lower South Carolina” in which he shared correspondence he’d received from Rt. Rev. Charles vonRosenberg, the provisional bishop of TECinSC and his response. Bp. Skilton has been directed to no longer function in any sacramental capacity in any TEC congregation in South Carolina. Bp. Skilton had sought to minister in a reconciling way with parishes in both dioceses (though functioning as a bishop in neither). This action will effectively end that dual ministry. He will, nonetheless, continue to be a welcome guest among parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina and we look forward to his continued sacramental ministry among us.
This is very sad. I am an attorney myself, and it looks so much that life in the church is these days being governed and led by attorneys and attorneys’ decisions. I read the letters to say that Bishop von Rosenberg is fearful that Bishop Skilton’s ministry will in some manner threaten the litigating position of ECSC, a fairly far-fetched fear I would hope, and a poor basis to govern a church. Whatever you sow, that also shall you reap.
Bishop vonRosenberg writes to Bishop Skilton:
[blockquote]the court … appears to be quite confused about what has happened to The Episcopal Church in these parts[/blockquote]
Referring to ‘the court’ is to refer to the Judge in his or her court.
Bishop vonRosenberg calling Judge Goodstein ‘confused’ while awaiting her judgement seems to be playing with fire.
It seems unwise, indeed, for vonRosenburg to be fanning the flames in this manner just at the point when a decision is expected from the court.
I wonder if Bishop vonRosenberg would ever say that in court.
To date, I think both Judge Goodstein and Bishop Skilton seem remarkably clear on what has happened to the Episcopal Church in these parts.
It is also helpful that Bishop vonRosenberg has laid out the TEC definition of “reconciliation” which is similar to that of the five year old child, who wants everything, and wants it right now.
vonRosenberg may have signed that letter, but it was written by a TEC attorney. Non-lawyers simply don’t write like that.
#7 sophy0075
Good point, but what is one to make of an attorney who gets a client to write that the Judge is confused – WOW – isn’t an attorney an officer of the court? What a way for an officer of the court to behave! It seems to be treating the court/Judge with contempt, if not a contempt of court.
I don’t think I would want to be in his or her shoes.
What a charming and lovely Episcopal bishop Bishop vonRosenberg is.
RE: “what is one to make of an attorney who gets a client to write that the Judge is confused . . . ”
Pageantmaster, I think it’s what certain types of attorneys do when they 1) strongly suspect they have lost and 2) are very very angry over it and 3) have much wounded pride and arrogance and ego engaged in the battle.
It’s a protective defense mechanism, so to speak, for losing.
Could it be a last ditch attempt to get the judge to write or say something that might be used in an appeal. It won’t work with this judge.
#5 tj
Yes, five year old child seems to be about the right level
#8 Sarah
Well, its probably still early to know what the outcome of the Judge’s decision will be, though you may be right about the thinking of the drafters of this letter. It would be good to continue to pray for South Carolina and for the Judge
If a very naughty TEC Attorney has called the Judge ‘confused’, I wondered if it would it be regarded as a spankable offence or just deserving of a period on the naughty step?
It is also interesting to remember the parallel between the efforts of Bishop Skilton to minister to all parties in South Carolina and those of Church of England Bishop Henry Scriven who ministered to all parties in Pittsburgh. Bishop Scriven was purportedly deposed from ministry for his efforts by the TEC Presiding Bishop, a spiteful and childish act which was ignored by the Church of England. He continued to serve as a bishop in the Diocese of Oxford and the Church Mission Society, not to mention recently preaching back at Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge.
It is also pretty easy to see where else the rage is in this case.
Of course vonRosenberg may not have realized that this would annoy Skilton sufficiently to cause him to post the correspondence (or permit its posting) at the Diocese of South Carolina website. In this internet age it is even more important to consider twice and three times before sending a spiteful letter.
What might this action mean financially for Bishop Skilton?
#6, Sophy, That letter to Bishop Skilton was not written by an attorney. No attorney I know would be caught dead writing such a ridiculously self-contradictory letter. Where does von Rosenberg get this cr@p? Really? That letter is pure TEC speak complete with self-contradictory sentences and more.
This letter reminds me of another quote from a famous author-“Full of sound and fury signifying nothing”. This “inhibition” of Bishop Skilton means absolutely nothing as he had not done the very things he is accused of doing. No doubt that is part of the reason why he is is confused as to why the letter was written to him.
#14 SC blu cat lady – Oh I would say the letter bears all the marks of having been drafted with legal input including the intimidating style so at odds with the opening and closing greetings, which seem to have just been pasted on, and the gradual build up of recitals and justifications leading towards ‘directives’ and ‘directions.’
[blockquote]No attorney I know would be caught dead writing such a ridiculously self-contradictory letter[/blockquote]
Probably not, but do you know any TEC attorneys?
#15–There may have been legal “input”, but if his lawyer wrote it, no wonder TEC is being trounced in court lately. I’m with Cat Lady. My only question is when is Bp. Skilton going to officially leave TEC? He can then be a reconciling missionary bishop and thumb his nose at von R. It seems pretty obvious what TEC/vonR/KJS thinks about him.
In the past, Mary Ailes would occasionally do dramatic readings of letters from the Presiding Bishop in a “Dolores Umbridge” sort of voice on Baby Blue Online. This letter would be a perfect candidate to revive that practice.
I would imagine that the Rt Rev vonRosenberg borrowed a couple phrases from his latest legal briefings to include in his letter to make himself sound more officious. The statement implying that the court is in some way “confused” is not doubt the work of the Rt. Rev. on his own. Perhaps he was referring to the court’s reception of his own confused statements when asked about where in the constitution and canons of TEC it allowed for the appointment of a bishop in lieu of election, or the formation of replacement dioceses out of thin air without reference to General Convention.
The Right Rev. Skilton will now be put forward, within TEC circles, as “the real reason” the case was lost (God willing) in South Carolina, i.e. because his activities were confusing the case. It will be like blaming the captain of the USS Ward – which sank a Japanese midget submarine just hours before the attack – for the losses at Pearl Harbor. It has the virtue for insiders of convincing themselves they’ve done nothing wrong.
#14 Pageantmaster, TECcies are already masters of intimidation. They don’t need attorneys to write threatening or intimidating letters.
16. David Keller, Agree with your observation about TEC attorneys. If this is an example of what they write, the developments in the July trial are no surprise.
Bishop Skilton is retired. No reason for him to leave TEC. This “inhibition” of Bishop Skilton reminds me of the Shakespeare quote- full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Yep. Totally meaningless.
Cat Lady–I completely disagree. TEC is apostate and staying there is tacit approval of what they have done. Not to mention, he has been treated very shabbily by vonR and Kate.
Here’s what’s absolutely apparent from this whole sordid situation. TEC talks a nice game about reconciliation and a big tent. Yet, when a Godly bishop such as Bp. Skilton is doing just that, he’s told, “you can’t do that any longer.” TEC has no aspirations of reconciliation at all, they want assimilation and submission to their way at all costs. There’s a certain false religion out there whose very name means submission too!
I’m pleased that Bishop Skilton is still in TEC and hope he stays.
But I’ll certainly understand if he leaves.
#20 SC blu cat lady
I think it is just business, at least for these people. While there will be some who want the structure of the Episcopal Church, what has been put into place in South Carolina, including Bishop vonRosenberg as the Presiding Bishop’s appointee, has been from the TEC litigation playbook. They have a model they apply, approved and usually written by their lawyers which they have used in every diocese which has left, in order to claim there is an alternative diocese for the purposes of litigation. In that light, with minor variations, the attempt to close down Bishop Skilton is just what they did with Bishop Henry Scriven and anyone else who has served all parties. They seem to find them particularly threatening because of course they are conducting themselves as Christians, something which the Presiding Bishop and Goodwin Procter and their agents cannot tolerate.
It’s the powers of this world I am afraid, and a church office run by and for lawyers; lawyers who are micro-managing everything done and eating through the funds.
Bishop von Rosenberg could do with a lesson in manners.
Reminds me of the failure of the “shared” ministry of Trinity Cathedral in Pittsburgh between the ACNA and the TEC dioceses. Sad that TEC couldn’t abide not having it all — which they got. Now they have a magnificent building with no people, little ministry and a skeleton staff. While the ACNA church plant that sprung up after their ouster from the Cathedral is flourishing.
Good to hear David Wilson. May the Lord bless their ministry.
Having practiced law for 20 years, SCBluCatLady, I can honestly say that I have seen similar silly, inconsistent, and potentially potentially harmful to one’s side nonsense written by attorneys. I have also seen the response of judges who recognize an insult to themselves, and who take revenge accordingly. In law firms and corporate counsel offices, this sometimes happens because the partner/senior lawyer doesn’t supervise outgoing correspondence of associates, or because the partner who did the writing has such hubris he fails to see the import of his actions. Just because someone scored decently on his LSATs and muddled through law school doesn’t mean he has common sense.
Bishop von Rosenberg continues to bear fruit in a manner that lets all taste and see. Bless his heart.
As for Bp. Skilton, one wonders whether he will be invited to serve sacramentally in the true DioSC. If he does so, then one wonders whether he would be deposed. What a statement that would be!
I can’t imagine his not being deposed — that’s ultimately the whole point of an inhibition [despite lots of spin from bishops otherwise].
And Bishop Von Rosenberg wishes for more “clarity” as people in South Carolina are so “confused” about what’s happened . . . [i][chuckle][/i] . . . But actually people are quite aware of what’s happened.
The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina left TEC. The apparatchiks in charge of TEC wish to pretend as if that did not happen for the purposes of their property litigation and have created a faux diocese — outside of the consent of the General Convention which is required by the canons and constitution — to pretend as if it is the actual diocese.
I think that is [i]crystal[/i] clear to those of us in South Carolina and it becomes clearer all the time.
Thanks to Bishop Skilton — very much — for releasing these interesting communications for all to see. It adds to the [i]clarity[/i], for sure.
I expect Bishop Von Rosenberg to proceed with a deposition . . . for [i]clarity[/i], you know. And it [i]will[/i] add clarity — in spades.