Comments: Pittsburgh proposes to join Southern Cone

curious. i would have thought the southern cone already had perfectly good constitution and canons. apparently not.

Posted by thomas bushnell, bsg at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 12:56am BST

All this is, of course, utter nonsense. The constitutional change that reputedly allows realignment has been deemed null and void by the church’s Executive Council. Episcopalians who think it sinful to disobey rules you have sworn to live by (i.e., Episcopalians staying in the church) will simply not recognize this nonsense and will, alas, through the courts, eventually reclaim diocesan assets. By virtue of the Calvary lawsuit, this may happen sooner, rather than later.

Posted by Lionel Deimel at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 2:04am BST

So Fort Worth are joining Southern Cone, so they don't have to ordain women priests and Pittsburgh, and the new Canadian diocese have introduced women priests to the Southern Cone.

What a price Venables is paying for his "orthodoxy."

I wonder is there any dissent in Southern Cone?

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 6:28am BST

What an original idea. Sure to turn out well...

{sarcasm/OFF}

Lord have mercy! God bless TEC, and all the faithful Episcopalians in Pittsburgh!

Posted by JCF at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 7:32am BST

You see, this is the problem with the church: BUREAUCRACY and LEGALISM

Posted by BIGDAN at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 8:10am BST

From whatever way you look at it, it has "confusion" and "litigation" written all over it.

Posted by Jim Pratt at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 1:06pm BST

But, Jim, that's the point. What's the fun in having a huge public fuss in which you paint yourself out as the oppressed true believer if you don't get to extend that "martyrdom" in court? The meek shall inherit the Earth, and presumably the Chruch buildings situated thereon, but who pays any attention to the meek?

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 1:29pm BST

I'm wondering it the senior bishop(s) who voted not to inhibit Duncan are now happy with their choice? I would've thought Peter Lee would've been a little more sypathetic to us here in Pittsburgh considering the problems he's had in his own diocese. Maybe he and some others still think Duncan plans on staying (Sarcasm)!

I think it's time for the house of bishops to take this man and his asst. out.
IMHO

Posted by Bob In PA at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 2:21pm BST

I've said it before about San Joachim, and it applies here as well: I'm not totally sure whether or not it's possible for a diocese to leave TEC (which is different from a parish leaving a diocese, which I am convinced is a no-no).

But I *do* know that it's canonically impossible for Southern Cone to take any North American dioceses *in*, based on *their own canons*:

Art. 2, CASA C&C: "The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, which shall henceforth be called The Province, is composed of the Anglican Dioceses that exist or which may be formed in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and which voluntary declare themselves as integral Diocesan members of the Province." No mention of North America. Elsewhere it also refers to Latin America repeatedly. Again, no mention of North America.

Schofield is even too old to be a diocesan bishop under Southern Cone's canons (maximum age 68, Schofield's 69), and Robert Ian Williams rightly brings up the interesting bit about women's ordination to make things even more...interesting.

Another reason why I have strong sympathy for some, even many, conservatives -- but definitely not others.

Posted by Walsingham at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 2:56pm BST

Hmm the details of Duncan and company's self-protection plan are most welcome to be revealed to all. Surely this is one way to get some modicum of pious safety when threatened by uppity women, queer folks, or all the others who are supposed to be so dangerous, so dirty, and so utterly disgusting according to realignment folklore?

Do not be surprised if future revelations demonstrate similar self-protection strategies, including more about conservative realignment appropriations of property and money once held in common with middles and lefties. Looting is, after all, biblical: a unique modern legacy of the conservative realignment Exodus - taking pharaoh's gold with you as you go because God says so?

Any promises made, any denials of your departure, any solemnities of allegiance to TEC in ordination vows - all cow flatulence?

It's not over till the last dime looted goes clink. Alas. Lord have mercy.

Posted by drdanfee at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 3:38pm BST

+Jack Leo Iker is on study leave in Rome. Is he exploring an alternative to the Southern Cone? Down the road there may be women priests in the Province of the Southern Cone, an option totally unacceptable to Jack the Lion of Ft. Worth.

Posted by John Henry at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 4:53pm BST

"The diocese also loaned Bishop Duncan the money to build that house (terms not in the public record.) In addition we understand that he AND Bishop Scriven have signed consultant contracts with the diocese for two years at full pay which will go into effect SHOULD BISHOP DUNCAN BE DEPOSED."

I guess I'd be more outraged...

...if the Pittsburgh Standing Committee hadn't just provided the grounds for their OWN removal.

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 6:59pm BST

The Lead quotes Ms. Joan Gunderson, one of the TEC-loyal leaders, describing how +Bob Pittsburgh has protected himself in the event that the HoB should depose him. Diocesan property has been diverted to provide the schismatic leader and his spiuse with a lifetime episcopal residence and a consultant's contract (for at least 12 months).

The split is not all about TEC's alleged apostacy. There is also the "greed factor" that prompts +Bob's ungodly actions.

Posted by John Henry at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 7:06pm BST

++Venables says that the change is pastoral in nature and "temporary."
Pittsburgh is moving ahead with changes that look permanent.
Who is telling the truth?

The Constitution and Canons of the Southern Cone does not grant their Presiding Bishop the powers he is assuming. Further, the Constitution has no provision for receiving dioceses from other provinces. Even, if the Southern Cone wishes to change the Constitution, the changes have to be reviewed by ACC, and approved by ALL the Southern Cone dioceses, a process that may take quite a long time or, indeed, it may never happen.

So, the Constitution and Canons are valid in so far they are not against whatever they would like to do!

Thomas+

Posted by Thomas+ at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 8:13pm BST

To quote Ms. Gunderson as per The Lead article: "Please note that Bishop Duncan has assured himself of a comfortable transition. He has built a retirement house on land owned by the diocese and he and his wife have been deeded (as of November 2007) a life interest estate (to the longest lived survivor) in that house. The diocese also loaned Bishop Duncan the money to build that house (terms not in the public record.)"

In addition, we understand that he AND Bishop Scriven have signed consultant contracts with the diocese for two years at full pay which will go into effect SHOULD BISHOP DUNCAN BE DEPOSED.

Got that? No longer bishop(s), they'll be paid bishop(s)' salaries, as "consultants"?

Posted by John Henry at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 8:53pm BST

"I'm wondering it the senior bishop(s) who voted not to inhibit Duncan are now happy with their choice?...Maybe he and some others still think Duncan plans on staying (Sarcasm)!"

Should Bp Duncan be inhibited for the actions of his diocese? Suppose he is inhibited and doesn't even show up at the convention but the diocese then goes ahead and votes to realign. Should Bp Duncan be held accountable? This is a very likely scenario. I think that if you want a near unanimous vote, go ahead and inhibit or depose Bp Duncan prior to the convention.

Posted by robroy at Friday, 6 June 2008 at 9:25pm BST

The thing I love about the Southern Cone is that they are missing a couple of canons:

1) they have no canon on marriage whatsoever;

2) their discipline canon has no definition of a disciplinary offense.

Therefore, if a priest in the Southern Cone should decide to preside at the marriage of a same-sex couple, there is nothing in the canons to prevent it.

Bring him (or her) up on charges? First question from the defence: "where is it written that the action of the accused is prohibited?" First answer from the bishop: "Nowhere".

Case closed!

Question: how can I join the Southern Cone?

Posted by Nom de Plume at Saturday, 7 June 2008 at 1:25am BST
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.