Updated again Friday morning
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has Episcopal Church formally warns Pittsburgh bishop over split by Ann Rodgers:
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori of the Episcopal Church has warned Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh that he has been declared out of communion with the Episcopal Church and is danger of being removed from office if he does not abandon his efforts to realign the diocese with an Anglican province outside the United States…
The Associated Press report via PennLive.com: Episcopal Church acts against Pittsburgh bishop:
An Episcopal committee says that conservative Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan has “abandoned the communion of this church” — a potential first step toward stripping him of religious authority in the denomination.
The committee blocked the national Episcopal Church from imposing the penalty of “inhibition,” which would have barred him from performing religious duties. But the Episcopal House of Bishops is expected to consider imposing the punishment near the end of this year.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who notified Duncan that he had abandoned the communion on Tuesday, told Duncan that she sought permission to inhibit him.
The Living Church has Pittsburgh Bishop Accused of Abandonment; Senior Bishops Deny Inhibition.
Religious Intelligence has Bid to depose US Bishop backfires by George Conger.
Thursday morning update
Ann Rodgers Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Removal vote nearing for Episcopal bishop
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Bid to depose Pittsburgh bishop blocked (the Associated Press report again)
Reuters Michael Conlon Episcopal church cracks down on dissidents
Friday morning update
Church Times Pat Ashworth Consent for inhibition withheld
The spin here by folks like Conger is getting pretty wild: *the* story here is that
?Duncan has been found to have abandoned communion, and has but a few months to turn around (i.e., repent) before the HofB is LIKELY to depose him. The (temporary) decision to not inhibit him, as was xSchofield, is a triviality at most.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is owned by Dick Scaife, one of the primary funders of the Institute for Religion and Democracy which is trying to tear the major denominations apart so they can impose their puritan prejudices on the US. Dick lives in Pittsburgh and has probably convinced Bob Pittsburgh that he is both Godly and protected. Read that article with a shaker of salt.
Bob is on the greased skids headed toward the one way doors, I believe. His legal status – as far as real estate and money goes – has been put under a significant shadow with the “abandonment of communion” indictment.
This is actually the Pittsburgh-Post, not the Tribune Review. Ann Rogers is a member of my former parish. That parish is under a woman priest who as pretty much said she would renounce her orders if asked to in order to help the conservative cause along. Ann is a conservative but a little more retional than many in the evo-conservative ilk.
What JCF said — my understanding is that as far as TEC canon law is concerned, “Bob Pittsburgh” can still say Mass & the former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin cannot. Both continue to have jurisdiction, but the clock is still ticking on both before their status is voted on by the House of Bishops.
I think everyone should take a clear look at the actual text of Canon IV.9, and what specific action is authorized by the text. By the actual language of the Canon ONLY an inhibited bishop is liable to deposition. Duncan was not inhibited, therefore an attempt by KJS to have the HOB vote to depose Duncan, along with any HOB vote to do so, would be a clear and egregious violation of TEC’s canons. Not that I expect TEC to have any respect for due process of law, or for its actual (as opposed to imagined) polity. But read the… Read more »
> Bob is on the greased skids headed toward the one way doors, I believe. His legal status – as far as real estate and money goes – has been put under a significant shadow with the “abandonment of communion” indictment. How the civil courts will view the fairly massive upheaval that is underway in TEC is yet to be determined. I think it likely that the people withdrawing will attempt to present it as a true denominational split. That would increase their chances of being able to take property with them. The more extensive the withdrawals, the more convincing… Read more »
Speaking of spin…
Reuters Michael Conlon “Episcopal church cracks down on dissidents”
BS. “Dissidents” are A-OK within TEC. It’s *schism* which isn’t. >:-/
James W posted: “Not that I would expect a rigged church court to convict her, but this shocking abuse of the canons needs to be aired publicly.” Sadly, I doubt that James is employing peripheral vision, and seems to believe that wearing horse blinders is the way to look at life; and that ignores the matter of the facts related to the actions related to the schismatics Schofield and Duncan and Iker. Furthermore, I would like to hear James address the “rigged” (to use his word) actions at the last Lambeth, as an aspect of balance, or fairness, in criticizing… Read more »
Actually, I think James W is correct on the reading of the canon. An attorney friend of mine thinks I am mistaken, but I read this as James W does. I don’t think, however, that officials are normally held guilty for the misapplication of laws — courts do that all the time, and it is in their jurisdiction to do so. Still I think Duncan should be inhibited first, and find Wimberly’s refusal to be based on a misunderstanding of his role. To wit: There isn’t anything about Dioceses in the Canon on Abandonment of Communion. The Canon is about… Read more »
James W wrote, “I think everyone should take a clear look at the actual text of Canon IV.9, and what specific action is authorized by the text. By the actual language of the Canon ONLY an inhibited bishop is liable to deposition. Duncan was not inhibited, therefore an attempt by KJS to have the HOB vote to depose Duncan, along with any HOB vote to do so, would be a clear and egregious violation of TEC’s canons.” I read the section differently than you do. I recognize that the Presiding Bishop could not (and did not) inhibit Bishop Duncan, for… Read more »
Marshall is correct in his interpretation – the clock is ticking on both bishops – just one may perform episcopal acts and the the other is prohibited (although may do them anyway- last week he did not though). The abandonment charge is in a different place than the criminal et al canon.
Marshall, the only reference to “two months” (not 60 days) specifically refers to “the inhibited Bishop.” It seems to me that if the proceeding was automatic inhibition or not, the consent of the three senior bishops is not needed. No, I think the inhibition is clearly part of the process. Compare with the following canon IV.10 on priests and deacons: the Bishop need not get any consent to inhibit, and the inhibition takes place before anything else. The only difference is the “consent.” I wish it were otherwise, and think this canon needs serious revision.
I agree with Marshall Scott’s comment. Under Canon IV.9, the inhibition is merely a temporary disability placed on the “offending” bishop’s ministry that lasts from the time of recording of the certification of abandonment until the full House of Bishops meets to consider deposition. Whether or not an inhibition issues, a majority vote of the House of Bishops is required to be taken on the question of depositon–not because there is an inhibition in place–but rather because of the recording of the Review Committee’s determination that the subject bishop has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. In short, Canon… Read more »
“… for the next two months”
And beyond.
Obviously the entire Title IV section is badly in need of revision (which was supposed to occur at the last General Convention, but the WWAC’s obsession with sex derailed the work of Convention) — clearly well informed & intelligent people can read Canon IV.9 differently. FWIW, I agree with the reading of Marshall Scott, Ann, Robert & Tobias Haller’s lawyer friend rather than with Tobias or James W on the interpretation of Canon IV.9, but i do agree with Tobias that Bishop Wimberly is sadly mistaken to think that for a bishop to “abandon the Communion of this church” means… Read more »
“‘Dissidents’ are A-OK within TEC. It’s *schism* which isn’t.”
Schism is what happened when TEC consecrated a homosexual bishop in defiance of Scripture, tradition, reason, and the common conscience of the AC.
Ergo, just because apostates control the money and the lawyers, one should not deduce that these licentious women and men in any way constitute faithfulness to the church catholic.
Holy cow, Tobias, you have really stumbled onto something here. Although Marshall and others wage a valiant fight, your argument will carry the day ultimately. Let’s walk through the statute (uh, I mean canon): Step One: Review committee certifies that bishop has abandoned communion by one of three general actions. This step has been met (although the open renunciation issue is problematic to some). Step Two: Presiding Bishop “shall then inhibit the said bishop” until HOB has time to investigate and act, provided however that first PB must get consent of three senior Bishops. This step clearly has NOT been… Read more »
“Schism is what happened when TEC consecrated a homosexual bishop in defiance of Scripture, tradition, reason, and the common conscience of the AC.”
That dog won’t hunt, Joe. :-/
Schism is MADE BY SCHISMATICS, who SAY “we are in a state of broken communion” or who break their vows to TEC (inserting a pseudo-“Anglican” allegiance instead), or who won’t show up for HofB meetings/worship, or who cross diocesan/provincial boundaries *without* authorization, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
“when TEC consecrated a homosexual bishop”
THAT was just simple Catholicity: no more and no less!
God bless TEC.
“licentious women and men” TEC consecrates a gay man to the Episcopate. They do this after years of dialogue with gay people, dialogue we were all repeatedly asked to do by a once a decade meeting of the Church which we are now told is the “mind of the Communion”. They found that we are, indeed, human beings, deserving of the same respect and dignity of treatment as all other human beings. They might be mistaken in their action, but “licentious”? This is rather strong rhetoric, and seems to come from a place of hatred and fear, not Christian practice.… Read more »