Thinking Anglicans

Bishop of Albany found guilty of violating ordination vows

Updated Tuesday morning

See our September 2019 report:Bishop of Albany to face disciplinary hearing.

A disciplinary hearing was duly held in June 2020, and Episcopal News Service reported here: In disciplinary hearing, Albany Bishop William Love defends prohibition of same-sex marriage in his diocese.
The Church Times carried this: Zoom tribunal for US Bishop of Albany.
The full recording of that can be found here.

The hearing panel has now published its decision, available in full here (42 pages). This does not include any decision relating to disciplinary consequences. That will be the subject of a further hearing to be held within the next month. An extract:

This Panel unanimously concludes that TEC has met its burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Bishop Love has violated Canon IV.4.1(c) in that his November 10, [2018] Pastoral Directive violated the Discipline of the Church, as Resolution B012 was properly constituted and passed as an authorized revision to the BCP as expressly provided for in Constitution Article X, thus requiring that all Bishop Diocesans permit their clergy the option to utilize such rites. TEC has further met its burden of establishing that Bishop Love’s Direction also violated the Discipline of the Church in that it violated Canon I.18. The canonical legitimacy of Resolution B012 rendered Canon I.18 mandatory, requiring adherence by Bishops Diocesan in permitting their Clergy the option to perform same-sex marriage rites. TEC has also met its burden of establishing that the Direction violated the Worship of the Church in that Resolution B012 added canonically-authorized same-sex marriage rites to the Worship of the Church pursuant to the BCP.

Bishop Love has published a letter to the diocese, which you can read here.

Hat tip to Episcopal Café.  

Update: Episcopal News Service has now published its report, which contains a summary history of the case: Disciplinary panel finds Albany Bishop William Love broke church law in banning same-sex marriages.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
67 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kate
Kate
16 days ago

I don’t agree with Bishop William (and I believe he should be called that, not Bishop Love) but this illustrates very well why nobody should take ordination vows. He must now (if he retains his office) either go against his Christian conscience or knowingly break vows freely given before God. That’s a terrible position to be in. I feel truly sorry for him.

Dominic Barrington
Dominic Barrington
16 days ago
Reply to  Kate

Having moved to TEC from the C of E five years ago, I am constantly amused that while England dropped the use of last names to address or refer to bishops so long ago I have no memory of that style ever being used, in TEC it is absolutely what is expected. The use of ‘Bishop William’ (to use this instance) is loathed by almost every bishop I know over here. What intrigues me the more is that most bishops here are far more relaxed about being known simply as ‘William’ – but if you use the title ‘bishop’ they… Read more »

peterpi - Peter Gross
peterpi - Peter Gross
16 days ago

I’ve always referenced all types of professionals by their title and last name, including TEC clergy. On the other hand, when I was a singer in the choir of my local TEC cathedral,. the priests and dean insisted that I drop the formality and simply call them by their first name only, so the dean was referred to as “Peter”, whether people had known him for decades or had just walked in the door for the first time. This may be one of the numerous instances reaffirming a quote often attributed to George Bernard Shaw that England and the USA… Read more »

NJW
NJW
16 days ago

I think the American ‘form’ is merely the ‘correct’ usage of formal English. Of course, in England the formal use of English is pretty much forgotten – but if the church were to fall in with what is in most style guides, then the form for a parish priest would be plain John, the Rev’d John Smith, Mr Smith or Vicar (of Walmington on Sea). For a bishop the correct style would be plain Jack, The Rt Rev’d Jack Daw, Bishop Daw or Bishop (of Trumpton). This would be in line with the forms of address expected in other walks… Read more »

Last edited 16 days ago by NJW
Perry Butler
Perry Butler
14 days ago
Reply to  NJW

I think Rev Perry is becoming increasingly common NJW. I recently received an e mail from the Duocesan Office in such terms. When i registered my suprise at this i was told on the data base i was Revd Dr Perry Butler, how did I want to be addressed.

David Lamming
David Lamming
10 days ago
Reply to  Perry Butler

And, out of interest, what was your answer? I find it’s the media these days that repeatedly use incorrect forms of address for the clergy, including saying “the reverend said…” as if reverend were a noun; also often assuming that all parochial clergy are ‘the vicar’. One wonders what they are taught in ‘journalists’ school’.

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
16 days ago
Reply to  Kate

Absolutely! And as for marriage vows….

Tobias Stanislas Haller

I commend careful reading of the whole decision. Article X of the Constitution, and Canon I.18 (of which I was one of the two principal authors) were written with great care, as was the resolution of the 2018 Convention (B012). The Hearing Panel affirms the intent and expression of these statutory documents.

Kate
Kate
15 days ago

On the basis of this Decision, I think TEC ought to revisit B012 and/or Article X. The effect seems to be that a bishop who cannot in conscience support same sex marriage is forced to hand over responsibility for such marriages to a bishop who does support them. That is not freedom of conscience because there is no moral difference between doing an act and handing over a matter to another person in the sure expectation that they will do the act. We proclaim that Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate” but TEC has found against a bishop who tried not… Read more »

Jill Armstead
Jill Armstead
15 days ago
Reply to  Kate

The bishop is a victim, no qualifying reason necessary. Many of us Anglicans cannot accept same sex holy matrimony, many gay people cannot accept same sex holy matrimony. The imposition on churches in the USA is disgraceful.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
15 days ago
Reply to  Jill Armstead

The bishop and all other clergy in TEC took an oath to follow canon law and the decisions of General Convention. They don’t get to pick and choose which ones they like and which they don’t…no more than they get to pick and choose which laws passed by the civil authorities they will follow.

As for the laity–well, their remedy, just as it is in civil law, is to try to get the canons changed by electing people to General Convention that agree with them. After all, that’s what those of us who support same-sex marriage spent decades doing.

ACI
ACI
15 days ago
Reply to  Jill Armstead

Add to that, the oath that +Love took at the time was not one that obliged him to accept views of marriage not envisaged by “the doctrine, discipline and worship” at play in GC’s dubious B012. But the ruling is hardly a surprise, not least to him. This is a TEC in which GC resolutions said not to be BCP revisions, become just that. They can tie up the loose ends when next they meet.

Kate
Kate
15 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Anyone taking such an oath surrenders their personal conscience to the collective conscience, even into territory which was not predicted at the time. No Christian should take such an oath, still less ask an ordinand to give it. “This is a TEC in which GC resolutions said not to be BCP revisions, become just that. They can tie up the loose ends when next they meet.” I support same sex marriage but your paragraph explains the problem here in a nutshell. I suspect that the fallout from this decision will be disastrous for TEC. It is also not difficult to… Read more »

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
15 days ago
Reply to  Kate

“Anyone taking such an oath surrenders their personal conscience to the collective conscience, even into territory which was not predicted at the time. No Christian should take such an oath, still less ask an ordinand to give it.” Every member of the US armed forces takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, as does every elected official. Our Constitution is as much subject to change as the canons of the Episcopal Church (probably more so), through amendments and court rulings as to interpretation. Are you saying no Christian should be a member of the armed forces, or accept… Read more »

ACI
ACI
15 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

“Our Constitution is as much subject to change as the canons of the Episcopal Church (probably more so).”

We may disagree about many things, but this assertion is simply absurd.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
14 days ago
Reply to  ACI

GC meets every three years, so it is only on a triennial basis that the canons of TEC can be altered. The Supreme Court, which holds ultimate authority on the meaning of the words of the US Constitution meets for an eight-month term every year beginning in October…and every decision it makes has the potential to alter how that document is applied. So, yes, the US Constitution is far more changeable than the Episcopal canons (as it should be, IMO).

Kate
Kate
15 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

I am not terribly familiar with the US vows but I think that there is a distinction: they are secular vows and aren’t made before the Lord. No Christian should break a vow in normal circumstances but at least if there is a conflict with conscience because the hierarchy is clear: Christian values come first.

Ordination vows as part of liturgy are a specie apart.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
14 days ago
Reply to  Kate

Christian values come first.” Not in a secular democratic republic they don’t.



ACI
ACI
14 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

Of course one can amend the Constitution of TEC. The procedures for doing that are clearly set forth. They did not happen. One can also make canonical changes (next level down). That did not happen. In 2018 we had a resolution, and its author–part of this trial procedure–stated explicitly that B012 was not part of a BCP revision. If you want to make comparisons with the US Constitution they are at hand. But they were in no way undertaken in 2018. I think most people now realize that rather than doing the harder work of amending Constitution or Canons, all… Read more »

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
14 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Whether B012 was a revision of the BCP or not, it is still not within Bishop Love’s power to completely outlaw same-sex marriages in his diocese. That is the violation in question.

ACI
ACI
14 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

You are wrong. The entire case turned on arguing that B012 WAS intended as a revision of BCP. That is because if it wasn’t, then it lacks the force to compel +Love. Just read/watch the procedures. You seem not to be aware of the reason for the ruling, and why it was challenged by +Love. +Knisely had to change his own statement, as found in the 2018 record.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
14 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Is the question then whether the liturgy in question is authorized? Lots of things are used in liturgy that are not specifically “revisions” to the BCP. My own son was married (to a woman, just to be clear) with a marriage liturgy adapted from the New Zealand BCP…never officially approved by GC, but not disallowed either. GC approved a liturgy for same-sex marriages. The question is whether Bishop Love has the authority to prevent its being used in his diocese. He does not.

ACI
ACI
14 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

The case turned on whether or not B012 was a resolution headed toward BCP revision. If you study the 2018 ruling (simply see Knisely’s own words) it passed solely on the strength that it was NOT headed toward BCP revision. The alternative was proposed and it failed, so they took this out.

But if B012 is not headed toward BCP revision, it does not have the status necessary to compel +Love’s adherence.

I assumed you had followed the actual hearing and the arguments given. I commend that. Otherwise you will remain confused as to what was at stake.

Chad Wohlers
Chad Wohlers
15 days ago
Reply to  Jill Armstead

There is absolutely no imposition of gay marriage on churches in the US Episcopal Church. A rector in any Episcopal parish may refuse to perform a marriage for any reason s/he chooses, be it because the couple is same sex, or one is divorced, or one has green eyes, or whatever. The issue here is that the Bishop of Albany has refused to allow same-sex marriages in his diocese in parishes which wish to perform them. If a parish does not wish to allow gay marriages, they are entirely free to do so. I personally know talented gay clergy who… Read more »

Jim Pratt
Jim Pratt
14 days ago
Reply to  Jill Armstead

There is no requirement that the bishop officiate at same-sex marriages. The problem is that there are parishes in his diocese which wish to celebrate such marriages, and he is standing in the way by threatening their clergy with discipline for using an authorized liturgy.

ACI
ACI
16 days ago

Knisely in 2018 proposing B012: “Resolution B012 continues to authorize the two Trial Use Marriage Rites first authorized in 2015 without time limit and without seeking a revision of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.”
 
Knisely in 2020: “Resolution B012 was properly constituted and passed as an authorized revision to the BCP.”​

+Love is right to say he will attend no further hearings. This verdict was baked in.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
14 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Christopher: where is +Love saying that he won’t attend any further hearings? I haven’t read that anywhere but would be interested to do so. If, as you say, the verdict was ‘baked in’, why did the Bishop expend such energy and wealth on trying to say the opposite? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Presumably he thought, or was persuaded by his legal team that they thought there was a chance? Or are you suggesting they simply wanted to make money out of him? I’m also very confused by his case. No one is asking him to conduct same… Read more »

ACI
ACI
14 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

Read his comments. Why did he expend effort? Because it is important to show that B012, by Knisely’s own 2018 statement, was not headed toward the (necessary) BCP revision. This forced him to expose that fact. Of course people hoped that TEC would abide by its own canonical protocols and so this matter needed to be tested, But the fact that Knisely reversed himself was a likely outcome, and one that needed to be put in the public domain. That has now happened. Someone needed to be the final holdout against canonical irregularity. He is it. The few Communion Partner… Read more »

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
14 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Thanks Christopher but I’ve read his letter and can’t see him saying that. Which comments are you referring to? Where might I read them? I find the whole notion of ‘Communion Partner bishops’ ridiculous. Every Bishop is a Communion Partner Bishop. What I think you mean by the phrase is ‘Bishops who think themselves orthodox on issues of sexuality’ – which I think is rather offensive. But I’m happy to be corrected if you mean something entirely different. No one yet knows what kind of Church will remain after Covid, But what isn’t in doubt is that the questions around… Read more »

ACI
ACI
14 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

You are welcome to find it ridiculous. That is typical of your engagements with developments you disagree with/do not understand.

No, that is not what the communion partner bishops are about. Just google it. Not hard to do. I have no investment in them or their nomenclature. But it just seems courteous or even basic logic to know what you are talking about.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
13 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Come come Christopher – there is no need to be techy! I am glad to read here that you have no investment in the Communion Partner Bishops, or their nomenclature. Your little Anglican Communion Institute (which now seems defunct?) seemed very heavily invested in the whole idea of the Covenant, (also now defunct) and its support by the Communion Partner Bishops. Google gives no clue as to the meaning of ‘Communion Partner Bishops’. But it does tell us what their mission is, and it is as I described up the page. It’s all about saying that they, and not the… Read more »

ACI
ACI
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

Time moves on. The Communion Partner bishops, whose emphasis is on catholic forms of global anglican polity, will likely collapse through TEC pressure. In the race for various forms of collapse, a betting person would call it a dead heat. Who knows, perhaps you will get a position on same sex marriage that suits you just as 70-65% of present church buildings in the CofE are closed.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
13 days ago
Reply to  ACI

I’m sorry Christopher but that’s just plain wrong. The so called communion partner bishops are not about emphasising catholic polity at all. They are simply about being against any development or innovation in the realm of same sex relationships. That’s why +Love has got in this whole mess. It’s just about one issue. Small communities work in the UK rather differently to the US. Church buildings are fondly cared for by those who are not church members. No one seems to want what are often Grade 1 listed historic buildings to be abandoned. Many are used for all kinds of… Read more »

ACI
ACI
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your ‘facts.’ You are wrong.

The communion partner group follow the logic of a covenant: accountability versus nationalist polity. You don’t like that.

I think the idea that there is ‘one issue’ is your looking into the mirror of your own making. Doing that has also allowed the CofE to lose sight of the fact that the real issue is now survival.

Grace and peace.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
13 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Please do tell where we may read this constitution of the communion partner group, Christopher. I fully realise that your ACI put out joint statements with them. I’d love to see how they are constituted.
There is no ‘logic’ to a covenant. It’s just a statement to which one either signs up or not. I didn’t like the proposed Anglican Covenant, but neither did the majority of Provinces. It is no more.
There is only one issue with the communion partner group. They are simply against same sex partnerships.

ACI
ACI
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

Be well my friend. And do not fret: you will have the church you want and desire.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
12 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Thanks you dear Christopher. And thankfully it is neither the church that either you or I desire that is being sought. Have a super weekend.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
13 days ago
Reply to  ACI

But what is the thing that locks all these bishops into their covenant? What is they have promised each other? Isn’t it that they will never permit same-sex marriage in their dioceses?

ACI
ACI
14 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

I was referring to this paragraph.

“While I am very disappointed and strongly disagree with the Decision of the Hearing Panel, particularly their argument that B012 was passed as an authorized revision to the Book of Common Prayer, they have issued their judgement. Unfortunately, given the nature of this case, I have no reason to believe that appealing the Hearing Panel’s Decision would result in any different outcome.” 

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
14 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Thank you Christopher. Where does that say that he won’t attend any further hearings? He is saying that he probably won’t bother to appeal. Which prompted me to ask why he bothered in the first place – given that no one is asking him or anybody else to do anything that he doesn’t want to do.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
15 days ago

This illustrates to me how some Provinces of the Anglican Communion take their canon law very seriously, more so than us. When I was involved in POT 5 yrs ago we had a session on canon law one weekend. As it started i heard one newly ordained chap behind me say to his neighbour “What is this canon law stuff. Didnt know we had any. Isnt it Roman Catholic?”

dr.primrose
dr.primrose
15 days ago

When TEC approved women’s ordination, most bishops who opposed it graciously figured out ways that women could be approved for ordination and ordained. So willing suffragans did the ordinations or women were referred to a neighboring diocese to handle the women’s ordination process. Bishops (at least at the time of the approval of women’s ordination) were not required to ordain women against their conscience. In this case, Bishop Love is not being required to conduct same-sex weddings himself. In addition, since priests (and bishops) have fairly unfettered discretion to refuse to do any wedding, clergy are not being forced to… Read more »

dr.primrose
dr.primrose
14 days ago

The General Convention resolution versus Prayer Book revision debate harkens back 50 years ago to the issue of women’s ordination in TEC. Some people opposing women’s ordination argued that women’s ordination could not be approved without Prayer Book revision since the Ordinal on occasion used the words “man” and “men.” The response was the “man” and “men” are terms inclusive of all humanity, including women. There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth on that issue then but the issue has faded into, at best, a historical footnote. I suspect the current wailing and gnashing of teeth will have the… Read more »

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
13 days ago
Reply to  dr.primrose

Thank you for your very helpful note, dr.primrose, which gives us some historical perspective and sets the current episode in a clearer light. It would be easy to think, from some comments, that only Bishop Knisely had been involved in the determination, whereas that was clearly not the case. It is worth being reminded too that +Love did not find much support elsewhere in TEC, even amongst the so called ‘communion partner bishops’.

Tobias Stanislas Haller

Resolution B012, as adopted, was definitely about revision of the BCP. That is why there are references to Article X and the Canon governing prayer book revision, and why the rites are intended for trial use until a comprehensive prayerbook revision is complete. (There would be no point in making such reference if the rites were intended simply as supplements.) While I had retired by 2018, and so was no longer serving as a Deputy to the General Convention, I was a Deputy in 2015 and served on the legislative committee charged with all matters relating to marriage. As such,… Read more »

ACI
ACI
13 days ago

Knisely in 2018 proposing B012: “Resolution B012 continues to authorize the two Trial Use Marriage Rites first authorized in 2015 without time limit and without seeking a revision of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.”

ACI
ACI
13 days ago

Exact language:

“In 2015, Resolution A054 did not propose the trial use liturgies it authorized as a first reading for amendment of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. This resolution declines to do so as well.”

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
13 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Is it possible that what we are dealing with here is a difference between what Knisely said and what GC as a body understood the measure to mean?

ACI
ACI
13 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

No.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 days ago
Reply to  ACI

And you know this, how, exactly? Do you have some power to read the minds of all the member of GC from five years ago?

ACI
ACI
12 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

The quote I provided is not Knisely. It comes from the formal clarification of B012 *in the text itself.*

“In 2015, Resolution A054 did not propose the trial use liturgies it authorized as a first reading for amendment of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. This resolution declines to do so as well.”

No mind reading. Resolution reading.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 days ago
Reply to  ACI

And, yet, as Tobias cites below: “neither 2015 nor 2018 is put forward as a “first reading” as the first paragraph of Article X requires. Rather, these resolutions concern “trial use” as described later in the Article, in subsection (b), of a “proposed revision of the whole Book or any portion thereof.” In short, this is not about _immediate_ revision of a _part_ of the BCP, but about trial use until such time as a comprehensive revision is undertaken. In the meantime, the intent of Article X is to assure that trial use be available “throughout this church” — which… Read more »

ACI
ACI
12 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

What is dissembling about this argument is that if something is constitutionally “a proposed revision” (the Art. X term) because it is being considered for inclusion in the BCP, you don’t tell the church repeatedly that it is NOT a proposed revision. The trial rite in that case should be considered by the church at large as a potential BCP rite. And it needs to be told that this is the case.

But this is par for the course. Obscure arguments and bank-shots.

Occam’s razor, please.

Tobias Stanislas Haller
Reply to  ACI

I can see how you might misunderstand these citations, and they are a bit clumsy. Let me try to clear up the ambiguity. In passing, note that these are comments, not part of the legislation itself, which alone has force. Note as well, that both citations refer to the 2015 resolution (with which I was involved; in fact, it was I who insisted that the language concerning Article X be included, so I think I can speak authoritatively about what was intended). Knisely’s proposal indicates that no _immediate_ revision of the BCP was intended in 2015; that is, this was… Read more »

ACI
ACI
13 days ago

That is very reassuring/clarifying….

You have made the point almost perfectly.

Tobias Stanislas Haller

Moreover, Resolution 2018-B012, in resolves 3, 4, and 5, indicates how these trial rites are to considered as part of the overall Prayer Book revision process as it goes forward.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 days ago

So, despite Christopher’s recurrent assertions, B012 was always intended as part of an ongoing revision process? And was always intended to be binding on the whole church?

ACI
ACI
12 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

If Haller wishes to hold that, his (convoluted) explanation is at odds with 1) Knisely’s own statements, and 2) the explanation given in the resolution itself. Here is The Living Church from 2018: LGBT people and their allies…were unsuccessful in adding the rites to the Book of Common Prayer, which left some complaining on social media about being “second-class citizens.” Conservatives were horrified by the idea of enshrining the rites in the prayer book. Bishop Daniel Martins of Springfield has said that including same-sex marriage rites in the prayer book would cross the line from erroneous practice to heresy. The… Read more »

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 days ago
Reply to  ACI

The Living Church is hardly an objective source or observer of these events. As Tobias is the individual who made sure the language regarding Article X and the rites in question being part of any future BCP revision was included in the resolution, I believe his understanding is far superior to theirs.

ACI
ACI
12 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

Isn’t that convenient. “General” Convention equals one member’s insider interpretation — even beyond the commentary of the resolution itself.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
11 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Christopher, for one who has no investment in the Communion Partner Bishops, or their nomenclature, you are very keen to rush to their defence. I’m unclear why this is. What would be your approach to those same sex married people in church already? Exclusion or inclusion?

ACI
ACI
11 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

I am opposed to canonical manipulating and trickery. Do the job right if you want same-sex marriage. It isn’t hard. It takes more time and requires more resolve about the governing character of the BCP. Do the hard work.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
10 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Ah I see. So you are not opposed to same sex marriage, just the method of bringing it about.

ACI
ACI
10 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Godsall

My dear Mr Godsall, you seem to be more interested in me than the topic. Not sure what that’s about. I left active service in TEC five years ago. The Communion Partner Bishops should have stood together in opposition to B012 and I said so at the time. It would be far preferable to insist that TEC cut out the ‘canonical’ gamesmanship and just make clear the BCP is being revised. After all, that is now what is being claimed quand meme. Instead we just have a lot of phony assurances, and trick plays, and private Haller theories and on… Read more »

ACI
ACI
11 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

The Diocese of Albany’s Standing Committee:
“In particular, we join Bishop Love in his strong disagreement with the finding that B012 was passed as an authorized revision to the BCP. Those of us who were deputies to General Convention will attest that B012 was never presented as a Prayer Book Revision. On the contrary, there was much talk of B012 being offered, at least in part, in lieu of a Prayer Book Revision.”

They needed a private meeting with Haller.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
11 days ago
Reply to  ACI

Whether passed as an “authorized revision to the BCP” or not, the fact remains that B012, as a “trial use” was intended to be available to the entire church. As such, it is not subject to Bishop Love’s order that it not be used in his diocese.

ACI
ACI
11 days ago
Reply to  Pat O'Neill

I am confident that is your view. Blessed Sunday.

67
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x