Thinking Anglicans

Pittsburgh: latest developments

Since the last report here, the Standing Committee of the diocese issued this statement:

Standing Committee Statement on Threatened Deposition

Editor’s Note: The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has released the following statement regarding the threatened deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan at the September 2008 meeting of The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops. Their statement has been faxed and mailed to the office of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is saddened to learn the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor will continue to press for the deposition of our Diocesan Bishop, Robert W. Duncan, Jr. for the Abandonment of Communion at the September 2008 House of Bishops Meeting. Although we recognize the authority of the Episcopal Church to discipline and remove its ministers for violations of its canons, we believe Canon IV.9, Sec.1 has been misapplied and Canon IV.9, Sec.2 has been misinterpreted in this instance.

Should our Diocesan Bishop be validly deposed pursuant to the requirements set forth in the canons, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is prepared to exercise its role as the Ecclesiastical Authority of this diocese.

Unanimously affirmed by the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, May 27, 2008.

And this weekend, a meeting was held at St Andrew’s Church Highland Park, which has been reported on in some detail by Lionel Deimel. Read the report at Resigned to Realignment.

On Sunday, June 1, 2008, St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, in the Highland Park neighborhood of Pittsburgh, held a forum and panel discussion on Bishop Robert Duncan’s plan for “realignment.” Duncan, who has been determined to have already abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church and is awaiting a vote by the church’s House of Bishops on his deposition, is attempting to change the constitution of the diocese and to transfer the entire diocese from The Episcopal Church to another Anglican Communion province, most likely South America’s province of the Southern Cone. The only bishop ever to have tried this ploy, John-David Schofield, late of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, was deposed shortly after doing so. It is unclear whether Episcopal bishops will, this time around, shut the barn door before the horse gets out…

25
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
25 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
Ford ElmsBobErika BakerL RobertsPat O'Neill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
BabyBlue
Guest

That is incorrect in this story. Bishop Duncan was charged by the three senior bishops, who have the authority to make these decisions, voted to not send the charges forward to the House of Bishops. The three senior bishops include Bishop Peter James Lee and he voted no.

It appears that Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers are going ahead anyway to depose Bishop Duncan, ignoring their own canons.

Where are the liberals – the real liberals? Where are they?

bb

Rev. Kurt
Guest
Rev. Kurt

As I understand it, BB, the three Senior Bishops voted “No” to inhibit his ministry while it goes to the House of Bishops, they did not vote NO to the charges.

JCF
Guest
JCF

The “real liberals”—the democratic-majority of TEC, faithful Anglicans all—are not falling for your SPIN, bb. ++KJS and the HofB ARE following the canons: it is
?Duncan, following the path to perdition of xJDS, who has bent the canons to the breaking point {Snap!}

Lord have mercy!

[And God bless the California Supreme Court! Let the nuptial celebrations commence, Alleluia! :-D]

Jake
Guest

bb, That’s the most absurd reading of the canon in question I’ve heard yet. The Title IV Review Committee certified the charges. That was the court. Bp. Duncan was found guilty. The senior bishops were only responsible for the inhibition, which, in secular terms, is the equivalent of a restraining order. If a criminal is charged with a crime, a restraining order may be necessary to protect the innocent while he awaits trial. The lack of such a restraining order does not nullify the charges. Bp. Duncan has been found guilty of abandoning TEC. If the HoB gives consent in… Read more »

bls
Guest

Perhaps in the same place as the real conservatives are?

Edward of Baltimore
Guest
Edward of Baltimore

BabyBlue, are you suggesting if the three senior bishops decline the presiding bishop’s request to them for deposition that the rest of the house of bishops has no say in the matter? What then if two of the three are the ones being considered for deposition? Seems unlikely they would vote for self deposition.

ettu
Guest
ettu

Bishop Duncan appears headed straight for the Church door and plans to take as much silver with him as possible. It is reasonable to try to minimize the loss and, from my careful reading of the legalities of the situation, it appears TEC is well within it’s rights and is following well-established precedent in this case.

robroy
Guest
robroy

Edward, here is the sequence of events: ——— …The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. During the period of Inhibition, the Bishop shall not perform any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of which the Bishop holds jurisdiction or in which the Bishop is then serving. Sec. 2. The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give… Read more »

John Robison
Guest
John Robison

BabyBlue seems to also think that these votes in Virginia mean anything. That they did not have the power to do what they voted is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters to ol’ BB is what seems to help the schismatic thieves steal the silver.

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

When one leaves an organisation, it is not customary to expect to take the belongings of that organisation with you.

Duncan wishes to leave TEC, thus he should not expect to taker possessions belonging to TEC with him.

Simple.

Edward of Baltimore
Guest
Edward of Baltimore

Thank you, robroy. I was saying deposition when I should have said inhibition.

As to the canon you quote, what does “Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the PB to present the matter to the HofB…” mean to you? Sounds to me that a bishop can be deposed by the HofB without having been inhibited by the three seniors.

Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

Robroy:

I don’t see anything that specifically says inhibition MUST precede deposition.

Of course, this may all be moot anyway, since Schofield claims to have left the jurisdiction of TEC and therefore cannot be deposed by a body of which he is no longer a part.

Of course, further, if he is no longer a part of TEC, he cannot simultaneously claim to be the corporation sole of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and cannot legally access its accounts.

JCF
Guest
JCF

“The canons simply do not allow the deposition of a bishop that hasn’t been inhibited first.”

This is patently FALSE, robroy.

“If the cabal wants to ignore the canons, that is their prerogative.”

And if the HofB agrees w/ the Presiding Bishop, does that make them ALL a “cabal”?

Lord have mercy!

BIGDAN
Guest
BIGDAN

God help the Anglican Communion! We’re stuffed!

wyclif
Guest
wyclif

MerseyMike opines: “When one leaves an organisation, it is not customary to expect to take the belongings of that organisation with you.”

Except when those belongings are paid for and deeded into trust at the origin of the parish, as that of some pre-TEC parishes in America have been, eh Mike?

It really depends on the nature of the org, you see.

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“And if the HofB agrees w/ the Presiding Bishop, does that make them ALL a “cabal”?”

But “they” already ARE a cabal, doncha know? They are the evil Hell bound liberals who believe nothing and are doing their utmost to undermine the Gospel and destroy the faith. Indeed, God is apparently so weak He will allow it to happen. At least that seems to the myth as expounded by some.

robroy
Guest
robroy

“But “they” already ARE a cabal, doncha know? They are the evil Hell bound liberals who believe nothing and are doing their utmost to undermine the Gospel and destroy the faith.” Now, Ford and I finally in agreement. “Indeed, God is apparently so weak He will allow it to happen.” It was too good to last. Like God allowed Jerusalem to fall. God was so weak that he could not prevent Jesus from being crucified. Like God allowed the Nazis to come to power. Like God allowed the northern European countries to be lost to Christianity for all intents and… Read more »

Pat O'Neill
Guest
Pat O'Neill

“MerseyMike opines: “When one leaves an organisation, it is not customary to expect to take the belongings of that organisation with you.”

Except when those belongings are paid for and deeded into trust at the origin of the parish, as that of some pre-TEC parishes in America have been, eh Mike?

It really depends on the nature of the org, you see.”

And when those parishes voluntarily became part of the diocese and part of TEC, they agreed to follow the canons of those organization, which do not permit such taking.

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

robroy, I can only assume there is as much sarcasm in your response as there was in my post!The first line you quoted is false witness and reviling, which is as much a bar to the Kingdom as homosexuality. BTW, you STILL haven’t said what you think we really deserve on this Earth for being gay. I’m assuming your statement about preventing the Crucifixion is also sarcastic. Why would God want to prevent one of the most significant acts in His redemption of His Creation? But, then, you probably see the Crucifixion as punishment. How dearly do you adhere to… Read more »

L Roberts
Guest
L Roberts

Ford, ‘homosexuality’ (sic) is not a bar to entry to the kingdom of heaven.

I don’t think you intended to imply that it IS. Did you.

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

L Roberts, Evangelicals claim that Paul’s statement means exactly that. I don’t have time to check chapter and verse. The thing is that the same verse that says this also names a number of other things that also keep one out of the Kingdom. I was merely pointing out that those who quote this, and other “clobber verses” at us don’t seem to be at all concerned that they happily, without a care, carry out acts carrying the same penalty in Scripture. It seems the “plain word” of Scripture only applies to gay people, and even the presence of a… Read more »

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Ford “Tell me why homosexuality isn’t a bar to the Kingdom. All I have to go on is my own experience of God, and the poor example of Christian behaviour evidenced by those who would keep me out. If they can’t be better than that, they don’t know the Gospel well enough to pay attention to. So, while I am not frightened by the rantings of the Right, I am not convinced by the soothings of the Left either” You keep asking for theology….did you read Tobias Haller’s sex articles? I’ve pointed you to them many many times, yet your… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“You keep asking for theology….did you read Tobias Haller’s sex articles?” No I didn’t, now I have, and thank you for being in my face about it and calling me on my lack of initiative! Wow! Good on ya, Tobias. What a refreshing change from the legalism of the right! I don’t know that I agree with all of it, and I haven’t had the time to read a lot of the debate it has sparked on the blog. What I have read has been a bit linguistically over the top, even for someone as pompous sounding as me! I’d… Read more »

Bob
Guest
Bob

This is all getting very tiresome. If ‘establishment’ Anglicans, on both sides of the pond, really believed in ‘diversity’, and ‘equality’, then they’d simply live and let live. A third province in England for those who want it, and alternative oversight for those Americans who want it, and indeed, ‘liberal’ parishes in ‘conservative’ countries/dioceses should be able to seek alternative oversight from a sympathetic bishop. It is geographical territorialism that is creating these problems. We need to sort it, and recognise that the divisions are real. In the Christian tradition there is precedent for personal prelatures and non-geographical dioceses. Let… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“Surely Liberals and conservatives must agree that the present situation does the name of Christ a grave dishonour” You know, I kind of don’t think a lot would, in their hearts, if not with their mouths. Too many are convinced that they are defending God’s truth against, for one side, the evil Godless pagans, and for the other side, the oppressive patriarchal power brokers. Each side is fighting the good fight. How can such valour be dishonourable to Christ? And I don’t think it’s merely geographical. Conservatives are right when they talk of culture. Given the far more traditional nature… Read more »