Saturday, 15 March 2008

yet more American reports

ENS reports San Joaquin Episcopalians greet bishop recommended for provisional role.

The new website for the San Joaquin diocese contains information about the Special Meeting of the Convention of the diocese.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a report by Steve Levin Clock is ticking for fate of Bishop Duncan:

The leader of the Episcopal Church will poll bishops nationally next month in an effort to move the possible deposition of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. ahead to May.

While Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s reasons have not been made public, the impact of accelerating the deposition could be far reaching not only for Bishop Duncan but the entire worldwide Anglican Communion…

…According to an e-mail sent this week from David Booth Beers, the chancellor to the presiding bishop, to about two dozen Pittsburgh Episcopalians representing a spectrum of the diocese, he wrote that the Rev. Jefferts Schori would “poll the House of Bishops in April to see when the House would next like to meet to discuss, among other things, the certification respecting Bishop Duncan. It is not accurate to say that she is seeking approval to proceed; rather, she seeks the mind of the House as to when to proceed.”

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 11:06pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA

If Bishop Duncan goes, he will take many good, conservative Episcopalians with him.
Why not review the certification of the gay NH bishop?

Posted by: Frank Driscoll on Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 2:46pm GMT

Let's pray for Bp Duncan to have a change of heart instead of beating up on Bp Robinson.

Posted by: Davis d'Ambly on Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 6:43pm GMT

Because *the bishop* of New Hampshire (not "gay NH bishop") hasn't abandoned the communion of TEC, Frank?

To be "taken" by Duncan (pun intended!) is, regrettably, to cease to be Episcopalian.

Lord have mercy!

Posted by: JCF on Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 7:02pm GMT

Bishop Robinson has violated no canon, has called no one apostate, and has not advocated violence against anyone.

Sure, let's get rid of the righteous gay guy and keep those who have actually done the things outlined above.

Makes perfect sense.


Posted by: Deacon Charlie Perrin on Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 7:34pm GMT

"If Bishop Duncan goes, he will take many good, conservative Episcopalians with him. Why not review the certification of the gay NH bishop?" - asks Frank Driscoll

I'm surprised that you don't know that answer, Mr. Driscoll.

Bishop Robinson has not tried to betray his vows at consecration, and actively engage in a schismatic movement, as has Bishop Duncan.

Nobody is deposed for their God-given sexuality, or for their being low church or high church, or for their having conservative beliefs or liberal beliefs in the meaning of Scripture.

But, they are deposed, or should be, for deliberate schismatic activity, or for sexual profligacy (heterosexual or homosexual), or for theft, or for breach of fiduciary responsibilities.

Is it possible that you believe the sole standard for the Church Universal should be sexuality? Well, you must have read a different Sermon on the Mount than I did.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 9:30pm GMT

The canon in question defines abandonment of communion as "open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline or worship of the Episcopal church". Note the 'or'. It is clearly the case that attempting to 'take a diocese out of the Episcopal church' (if such a thing even exists) is to contravene the discipline of the Episcopal church, regardless of one's feelings about doctrine. Indeed, if Bishop Duncan feels the Episcopal church has established false doctrine, he has no other option than to resign his position.

Posted by: Robert Leduc on Monday, 17 March 2008 at 2:42am GMT

Out of the legions of gay bishops (including scores of popes and patriarchs) down through the centuries, the only thing that sets +Robinson apart is his honesty. The only thing that has changed is now the Church must now do openly what it has done on the sly for 2000 years.

Posted by: counterlight on Monday, 17 March 2008 at 3:10am GMT

And, more to the point, the activities for which Duncan could be disciplined go back way before Gene Robinson appeared on the scene. He's been calling TEC everything under the sun, moon, stars and earth since about an hour after his consecration. As long as it was all talk there was nothing the Presiding Bishop could do; however, he's moved into action with the first vote for a change to his diocesan constitution at the last convention. The current view seems to be that actions bring re-action: Duncan has been living in a bubble if he doesn't believe there are consequences for himself in the actions he's been promoting for a very long time.

Posted by: kieran crichton on Monday, 17 March 2008 at 4:06am GMT

The Lead/Daily Episcopalian has referenced a letter by Bishop Duncan's attorney addressed to the Chancellor, David Beers, Esq., who advises the PB, challenging the findings of the Review Committee that would have allowed the PB to inhibit +Duncan if three senior bishops had concurred with the Committee's findings.

The same article also links the supporting evidence made available to the Review Committee by Mr. Beers and senior clergy canonically resident in the Dio. of Pittsburgh, documenting +Duncan's role in scheming to take his diocese out of TEC.

However, +Bob Duncan still maintains his innocence, taking his stance on "the faith once delivered," which ignores the fact that the charges against him are not directed against his stance on "the faith once delivered" but against his plotting and scheming to create an alternative Anglican province to TEC, thus violating the Constitution and Canons of the Church that gave him his miter, which--at his consecration--he vowed to uphold.

Posted by: John Henry on Monday, 17 March 2008 at 11:01pm GMT

I fear I do strongly agree with many posters. Duncan's ire has long been heated, since way long before anybody had ever heard of Bishop Robinson, nationally or internationally. Duncan seems very angry that more people do not take him seriously as at least a prophet if not an especially retro modern apostle. He seems angry that anybody dares to follow Jesus of Nazareth outside of his narrow and conformed penalisms. He doesn't much like the prayer book revisions, if I remember the past correctly. He probably is not all that happy about having a woman gifted enough to be Presiding Bishop. He certainly isn't happy that any queer citizen would continue to have just about the same access to resources and opportunities that he or she might have, if only he or she were straight. He seems to really be in secret love with closets of the old Anglican underground life pattern. He seems so angry with modernity that he would burn the planet down just to express his sense of being holier than all the vile sinners he claims to love so puritannically.

Sadly, Duncan's self-serving brand of Anglican conservatisms still preaches the same old underground Anglican life. Two errors stand out like cold sores on the Anglican cow: (A) Duncan's self-regarding conservatism does NOT cover a multitude of sins, pecadillos, and character defects, plus (B) Robinson's being a queer fellow who trusts God and the rest of us enough to be honestly loving in public and private is NOT innately and definitively enough these days to make him the target and outcast which Duncan's sort of Anglican conservatisms so hugely needs him to be.

Else what? After Duncan does whatever Duncan is planning and hoping and able to really do - we will all still be here, together in shared global life on a planet endangered by our own high flown penchants for foolishness, including fiddling away on ear-splitting, screechy puritannical Anglican tunes about sex while mass extinction of species, global warming, ODC's, and a host of real threats rolls right on, in our unheeding direction.

Posted by: drdanfee on Monday, 17 March 2008 at 11:17pm GMT

"Out of the legions of gay bishops (including scores of popes and patriarchs) down through the centuries, the only thing that sets +Robinson apart is his honesty."

Ah, but you see, there is no greater sin than his. Reviling? Slander? Lying? Jailing the innocent? None of these really matter. They are merely the stuff of politics and deal as much with who, in the end, gets his way. We can even change our minds as to the sinfulness of things as long as the establishment stands to benefit. The only truly defiling sin, what appears to be sin against the holy Spirit, is daring to put your naughty bits too close to other similarly shaped naughty bits. That can never be declared not sinful, presumably because the establishment has defined itself as heterosexual, thus need never feel its behaviour curtailed in any way by a prohibition of something it pretends not to take part in. Indeed, staunch defence of the unchanging sinfulness of this one thing, while being free to change one's mind about any other issue if the politics of the day should make it expedient to do so, is the best shield against being found out one'sself. Thus, heterrosexual misbehaviour is at worst unpleasant, and in some cases no longer sinful to any degree.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 6:08pm 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.