Wednesday, 23 January 2008

Bishop Lee explains

Episcopal Café has this:

Lee also did not consent to Duncan inhibition

Bishop Peter Lee, the bishop of the Diocese of Virginia has released the following statement in response to questions about whether or not he agreed to consent to acting to inhibit Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who has been charged with the abandonment of the Communion of the Episcopal Church:

I along with the two other most senior active bishops in the House of Bishops were asked by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to review the evidence and give consent to moving forward with the inhibitions of the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin on the charge of abandonment of the communion of this Church. I gave my consent for the inhibition of Bishop Schofield. It is clear that by his actions and their result he has abandoned the communion of this Church. I did not give my consent for the inhibition of Bishop Duncan at this time. The Diocese of Pittsburgh, which Bishop Duncan leads, has not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church. I do not take either of these actions lightly, the giving or withholding of consent to these inhibitions. I fear that Bishop Duncan’s course may be inevitable. But I also believe that it is most prudent to take every precaution and provide every opportunity for Bishop Duncan and the leadership of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to turn back from the course they seem to desire and instead to remain in the Episcopal Church.

The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
Bishop of Virginia

See also: Bishop Frade explains and Bishop Wimberly explains.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 12:16am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Wait a minute now. Isn't +Lee one of the evil Hell bound Liberals who is persecuting the faithful remnant, trying to steal the churches their forebears bought an paid for? I'm sure his refusal to inhibit +Duncan can be turned into some kind of persecution, but, since I can't for the life of me see how, I am all of a twitter in expectation.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 12:45pm GMT

Off topic, but of interest, the bishop of Winchester is slated to be co-consecrator of Mark Lawrence, whose progress towards the episcopacy has been noted on this site, as bishop of South Carolina this coming Saturday.

http://www.dioceseofsc.org/mt/archives/000314.html/

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 2:21pm GMT

One really gets a strong impression from all three senior bishops with jurisdiction that they each took their consent discernments seriously, and that fair due process for the other three bishops under review was one uppermost factor in mind, though not thank goodness the only factor. Otherwise the whole matter would have been oversimplified.

Still. I am currently persuaded by the blog conversations across TA, FatherJakes, Preludium, and above all, Tobias Haller's blog In A Godward Direction on jintoku. The focus upon diocese and diocesan votes misses its inhibition marks.

The better inhibition question focuses, not upon a diocese but upon its bishop. Has that bishop falsely and meanly violated his - in this case we are all dealing with males who variously subscribe to conservative notions of male headship, patly tagges biblical - violated an oath to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC?

The available evidence the review committee weighed shows each man tilting obviously against the doctrine, discipline, and worship. Even in dissent we weigh matters of doctrine, discipline, and worship involving all our neighbors in TEC.

It is not about a bishop's freedom of conscience to dissent intellectually (i.e., ethically and theologically) from General Convention and their church, but rather more about a bishop using his/her dissent to mess with the fundamental Anglican breathing room built into the doctrine, discipline, and worship that the church deliberately offers to other, quite often differently-conscienced, believers.

None of the bishops bothers to observe our modern TEC equivalents to the historic Elizabethan Settlement, neither internal to TEC, nor externally around the globe. Each man feels free - even ethically and theologically driven - to trash talk everybody else. And like young children reaching slowly towards the cookie jars of high power, each man escalates to have a sort of dominion over other believer's conscience that none would brook for their own conscience. They are holy men, so each claims, because they have been persuaded by this or that conservative or evangelical or other view. Reconstructionist? Dominionist?

What spite against others of different conscience. Alas. Lord have mercy.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 3:54pm GMT

Most disappointing . . most disappointing indeed.

Everyone agrees that we're past "READY" and "AIM", all that is left is "FIRE". To inhibit Bp D would work against more violence to our Church. Instead, these two would wait for the ultimate violence to be delivered and only after the fact ask that it be stopped.

To suggest that Bp D might change his mind is absurd given all that we know about him. These Senior Bishops are having 'senior moments.'

These two Sr Bishops should be held accountable for what happens next. They clearly had the opportunity to do what they could to stop mischief and didn't.

Posted by: Brant_n_LA on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 3:59pm GMT

I'm not so sure that +Lee is really that interested in suing for property of the churches, he did seem to want to lean towards amicable settlement. From what I've seen he is doing it at the request of the presiding bishop.

Posted by: James Crocker on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 4:01pm GMT

"I'm not so sure that +Lee is really that interested in suing for property of the churches, he did seem to want to lean towards amicable settlement. From what I've seen he is doing it at the request of the presiding bishop."

No. The Diocese os Virginia is responding - let me reiterate that - responding - to the law suits filed by the neo-Africans the morning after their votes to depart.

Bp Lee and the Diocese have no need to be prodded to defend that which they hold in trust for TEC. It would be an act of fiduciary negligence not to do so.

Wasn't it a wonderful coincidence that all of the groups departing for Africa filed identical suits on the same morning? My goodness. You might almost think it had been planned that way, and that they knew how those votes would go.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 5:29pm GMT

Bishop Lee is honorable, fair, hopeful, always.

He was always honorable with Minns+...it was later that the Nigerian Anglican +Minns and the other plotters and schemers poorly used the full length of +Lee's "generosity of spirit" and are now dangling from it...we will see how well dishonesty survives...I expect the same will be true with the +Duncan except he, unlike +Minns and accomplices, may not have anyplace Anglican left to go/hide and be snide...maybe Bolivia will have an opening...just in the "nick" of time?

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 5:41pm GMT

i think that bishops lee and wimberley are cowards.

Posted by: deacon jim on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 7:06pm GMT

Boliva is the Southern Cone I do believe.

I just wonder if either Wimberely and Lee will help replace what Duncan steals. The Calvary lawsuit might save the diocesan properties and some of the endowments but the ones leaving could leave this diocese in a serious financial crisis.

Posted by: BobinSwPA on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 7:25pm GMT

Yes, it is disappointing the two of the longest serving bishops misunderstand the canon, applying it to dioceses rather than to individuals -- did not they consult with their canons to the ordinary (one of banes of canon law is bishops thinking that they can figure it out for themselves -- a big problems in the RC church since the revision & the unofficial English translation of the Roman Code).

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 9:26pm GMT

in response to deacon Jim,

I wish Don and Peter had gone ahead and inhibited Bob. however, they are acting in good faith and a spirit of charity. it's almost a given that Bob will be deposed at some point by the full house. if Bob makes a final move out of TEC, they will (if asked) inhibit him - they did with Jon-David. let's not call them cowards. you couldn't pay me enough to take Peter's job, for sure.

PS, Peter = Peter Lee. if I say Pete, I mean Peter "First Black Pope" Akinola.

Posted by: Weiwen on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 9:40pm GMT

I find myself agreeing with former insider Dan Martins assessment of these events – it seems horses need to bolt before any action will be taken:
“Let’s start with the obvious, and then, perhaps, move on to the subtle. The canonical process that has been put into play amounts to closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. A little more than a month ago, the Diocese of San Joaquin took an action which a rather decisive majority of the clergy and laity assembled in convention believe relieves them, and their Bishop, of any accountability to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. I am as certain as one could be without being an eyewitness that Bishop Schofield has, with some degree of glee, flouted the sentence of inhibition, and that he appeared yesterday morning to preach the Word and preside at the Eucharist at one of the congregations of the diocese according to a schedule that was published several months ago”

His series of posts on the events at San Joaquin are worth careful attention the remarks above are found here:
http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2008/01/when-does-crisis-simply-become-normal.html
The blog:
http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 10:09pm GMT

If the Episcopal leadership of TEC - presiding bishop, the 3 senior bishops, the house of bishops, etc. believes that dioceses and bishops cannot 'take their diocese out of the Episcopal Church' then there is no reason to worry about whether the diocesan convention has made any particular vote. Rather, having taken the vote and having the bishop support the vote is very good evidence of abandonment of the discipline of the church, even though that vote is null and void. Note that the canon calls for 'defrocking' if clergy depart from the doctrine OR the discipline OR the worship of the church. By crossing that line, they make their removal a slam dunk in the eyes of the world (or at least the rational world), and they will lose their court cases to boot.

Posted by: Robert Leduc on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 11:00pm GMT

"I'm not so sure that +Lee is really that interested in suing for property of the churches, he did seem to want to lean towards amicable settlement. From what I've seen he is doing it at the request of the presiding bishop."

My point was that he is seen as being one of the heathen host that has taken over TEC and is systematically destroying Christianity. The Right keeps trying to convince us of this dire threat to God's truth after all. There is no such conspiracy of course, but fear is such a great motivator. There is a small minority trying to do the same thing in this diocese, paint the bishop out to be oppressing his clergy, etc. It's a load of nonsense, thankfully, I doubt the vast majority of the diocese is so willing to sacrifice good sense and decency on the altar of selfrighteousness and fear mongering.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 25 January 2008 at 11:45am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.