Abuses of the Abandonment Canons (I)

Once again, because of the need to deal with historical and expository details, I will divide this post into a further two parts.  This one explains how the abuses of the Abandonment Canons (Canons IV.9 and IV. 10) came about; the next post (after a short hiatus while I am away) will chronicle the instances of abuse that have so damaged the polity of The Episcopal Church in recent years.  (Since these abuses are well known to all, I hope that this post, by providing the canonical background, will allow others to draw the appropriate conclusions for themselves, without waiting for the details in the next post.) 

As the previous post on the history of the Abandonment Canons demonstrates, they evolved out of, and were used to deal with, situations where a Bishop, priest or deacon had left his position in the Episcopal Church to join (or in some cases, to organize) another denomination that was not part of the Anglican Communion, and hence was not in communion with the Episcopal Church. The first case involving a Bishop was that of the Rt. Rev. Levi S. Ives, who left his post in 1852 as the second Bishop of North Carolina to join the Catholic Church; other cases involved the Rt. Rev. George D. Cummins, who left in 1873 to organize the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Rt. Rev. Samuel A. McCoskry, who simply left in 1878 for Europe in order to avoid facing charges about his moral character.

In contrast to this kind of situation is the case where the ordained member clearly states that he is (a) remaining in The Episcopal Church, or (b) is transferring to another church within the Anglican Communion. How can he be said to have "abandoned the communion of this Church"? Certainly in the case of (a), he is still in this Church, and so has not abandoned it, let alone abandoned its communion. And even in the case of (b), it makes sense to speak of "abandonment of the communion" only if one considers The Episcopal Church not to be in communion with the other churches in the Anglican Communion.

[Aside: I am well aware that many Anglican provinces have declared themselves "out of communion", or "in broken communion", or "in impaired communion", with The Episcopal Church as a result of the actions taken at General Convention 2003. However, The Episcopal Church has made no such declaration with respect to any other Anglican province. Obviously only the declarations of The Episcopal Church can be given force and effect within The Episcopal Church itself---what another province declares may govern that province's actions towards us, but cannot govern our actions towards them.]

Because The Episcopal Church considers itself to be in communion with each of the 37 other provinces of the Anglican Communion, how can it be said to be an "abandonment of communion" for a minister in The Episcopal Church to transfer to another Anglican province? What is really going on in such cases is that there is usually a profound disagreement between the transferring minister and his diocesan bishop, so that the bishop refuses to sign the letters dimissory required by the canons for such a transfer. (In the case of a Bishop who transfers, the disagreement is with his colleagues in the House of Bishops, who must consent under the canons to his resignation from his jurisdiction for the resignation to be effective.) In other words, there is a territorial dispute going on here. The Anglican Communion has mostly been seen as having provinces that are geographically defined; if a minister in the Diocese of California transfers to the Province of Uganda, it has been the general expectation until recently that he would physically take up residence in Uganda, and not remain in California while serving in the Anglican Church of Uganda. Bishop Lamb accordingly denied letters dimissory to the Rev. David Miller because he and his church in Petaluma were physically staying put while "disassociating" from the Diocese of Northern California, whose geographical boundary takes in Petaluma. Similarly, the House of Bishops rejected the resignation of the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, and insisted on its right to depose him instead, because he and his Diocese were withdrawing from The Episcopal Church, but physically continuing to occupy the same territory as before.

One can certainly speak of an "abandonment" in a certain sense that is going on in these cases; Fr. Miller and Bishop Schofield were deliberately leaving the established hierarchy of The Episcopal Church. But they were transferring their ministries to another province of the Anglican Communion, and not (as with Bishops Ives or Cummins) leaving for another church not in communion with The Episcopal Church. How, then, can they be properly charged with "abandonment of the communion of this Church" under the canons? If "the communion of this Church" (with a small "c") is not the same communion (again with a small "c") as that of every other church in the Anglican Communion (big "C"), then what is it? And on what, then, is the Anglican Communion based?

The answer to these questions lies, at least in the eyes of those who I contend are abusing the Abandonment Canons, in the further definition of "abandonment of the communion" in Canons IV.9 (Abandonment of Communion by a Bishop) and IV.10 (Abandonment of Communion by a Priest or Deacon). (See the language quoted toward the end of the previous post. The language of Canon IV.10 is the same as for IV.9, except that clause (iii) of IV.9 is replaced by the catchall phrase "or in any other way" in Canon IV.10.) 

Canon IV.9, section 1 spells out what it means as follows:

If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church

(i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church, or

(ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in
communion with the same, or

(iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body [other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church], so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church . . .

The definition of "abandonment" thus consists of three elements, of which the second two are much more explicit than the first. (As explained in the post on the history of these Canons, the second element took care of the case of Bishop Ives, while the third was drafted as a result of the consecrations and confirmations for the Anglican Church in North America performed by the Rt. Rev. Albert Chambers.)  Because these two elements are so explicit, it should be pointed out first how they actually prevent the Canons from being applied to cases where clergy transfer to another province of the Anglican Communion. For if the second clause defines it as an act of "abandonment" to secure formal admission into any religious body not in communion with this Church, then how can it also be an act of "abandonment" to join a religious body that is in communion with this Church?  Also, a similar application of the third clause (where I have inserted brackets to help with the reading of the language) means that it cannot be an act of "abandonment" to ordain or confirm others in a religious body that is in communion with this Church, i.e., is another constituent church of the Anglican Communion.  

So much is straightforward.  It is the first element of the definition that has been the source of all the problems.

The reason for that last statement requires some further historical explication. Abandonment consisting of "an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of this Church" is language that has been with us ever since the first formulation of this Canon in 1853. In part, it echoed language of the Constitution of this Church, which ever since 1789 required the following vow from every ordinand (in place of the "Oath of the King's Supremacy" which had been required of all ordinands in the Church of England):

I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation: and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States.  [Original Art. 7; emphasis added.]

The phrase "doctrine, discipline and worship", although not included as such in the oath of conformity of 1789, actually predates the Constitution, and is found in the Preface to the proposed Book of Common Prayer of 1786, drafted by the Rev. Dr. William Smith. (A shortened version of the Preface still appears in the 1979 edition, with the phrase quoted at page 11: "In which it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship; or further than local circumstances require.") And beginning with the Prayer Book of 1792, the ceremony for the consecration of a Bishop required the candidate to swear this oath: "In the Name of God, Amen. I, N., chosen bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in N., do promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. So help me God, through Jesus Christ.” (BCP, 1792.) As far as the required oath of conformity for ordinands was concerned, however, the word "discipline" was omitted from its form until the Constitution was amended by the General Convention of 1901, which changed "doctrines" to the singular, added the word "discipline", and capitalized each of the three words:

I do believe the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation: and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America. [Art. VIII, Constitution of 1901.]

Except for the change in the name of the Church to "The Episcopal Church" in 1979, this oath of conformity has remained the same since 1901.  In White & Dykman's Annotated Constitution and Canons, the authors comment on the introduction of the word "Discipline" as follows:

The introduction of the word "Discipline" in 1901, making the pledge of conformity one to "the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship" of the Church extends the ordination vow to obedience to the provisions of the Constitution and Canons.  Inasmuch as a violation of the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention or of those of a diocese constitute an offense under Title IV, Canon 1, for which persons in Holy Orders may be liable to presentment and trial, it is appropriate that the engagement of conformity to the discipline of the Church, as well as to its doctrine and worship, be included in the declaration.  [White & Dykman, supra, Vol. I at p. 112; emphasis added.]

To recap this history briefly: at the time that Canon 1 of 1853 was adopted by General Convention to deal with the conversion to Catholicism of Bishop Ives, ordinands were required to conform themselves only to "the doctrines and worship" of the Church.  The abandonment of his Diocese by Bishop Ives, however---his departure for Europe with no stated return date, and his accompanying resignation from his see, without at the same time resigning from the House of Bishops---was seen by the drafters of Canon 1 not only as an abandonment of the doctrines and worship, but also of the discipline, of the Church (i.e., the canons, which since 1844 did not allow a Bishop to resign from his jurisdiction without first obtaining the consent of "a majority of those present" at a meeting of the House of Bishops---see White & Dykman, Vol. II, pp. 780-82). Accordingly, Canon 1 recited that "abandonment" consisted of an "open renunciation of the Doctrines, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same"---and thus both clauses covered the case of Bishop Ives, who had not only left his diocese, but had joined the Roman Catholic Church.   

 

The phrase "Doctrines, Discipline and Worship of this Church" was treated as a conjunctive concept in the cases of Bishops Ives, Cummins and McCoskry: that is, to leave the Episcopal Church for a church not in communion with it, or to leave it altogether, was seen at the time as an abandonment of all three elements together: the "Doctrines" of the Episcopal Church were not the same as the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, or of the Reformed Episcopal Church; nor was the "Worship".  As for the "Discipline," the departures all involved violations of the applicable Canons.

Note very carefully, however, that as stated, Canon 1 of 1853, like the 1901 oath of conformity, was worded conjunctively: that is, it required an open renunciation of the Doctrines and the Discipline and the Worship of the Church to amount to an "abandonment" under the Canon. Simply renouncing the "Discipline", or the "Worship", or the "Doctrine", or the "Doctrine and Discipline", etc., did not constitute violation of the Canon as worded, although it would constitute a violation of the vows at ordination or consecration. To see how this statement applies, let us look at some history of the ordination ceremonies in the Book of Common Prayer.   

At the time of the adoption of Canon 1 of 1853, an ordinand or a Bishop-elect was required to take vows in addition to the oath of conformity required by the Constitution.  For example, the consecration ceremony for a Bishop prescribed the following vows:

The Presiding Bishop.

ARE you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the same Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge ; and to teach or maintain nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same?

Answer. I am so persuaded, and determined, by God’s grace.

. . .

ARE you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine Contrary to God’s Word ; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same ?

Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper.

And for priests, the vows at the time were similar, with an additional vow of obedience:

The Bishop.

ARE you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ ? And are you determined out of the same Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge ; and to teach or maintain nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?

Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.

WILL you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God ; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.

WILL you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word ; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?

Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.

. . .

WILL you reverently obey your Bishop, and other chief Ministers, who, according to the Canons of the Church, may have the charge and government over you ; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonition, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments ?

Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.

The irony here is that for the entire nineteenth century, and for most of the twentieth century until 1979, consecrated Bishops and ordained priests and deacons took vows to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word," and both publicly and privately to call upon others to do the same.  A bishop, priest or deacon who was fulfilling such a vow by speaking out against heresy could scarcely be said to have "abandoned the communion of this Church".  Yet today it is commonplace for such charges to be leveled against priests and Bishops on the ground that such efforts constitute a "renunciation of the doctrine, discipline or worship of this Church", because the particular doctrine in question is espoused by the priests' Bishop, or because the relevant Standing Committee (or Title IV Review Committee) believes that the priest or Bishop's opposition to the particular doctrine is simply wrong.  How did we get to such a pass?  

One chief reason is that the 1979 edition of the Book of Common Prayer significantly changed these vows of ordination and consecration. Unfortunately for our purposes, as we shall see, the drafters of the 1979 Prayer Book thought it fit to drop the vow about "banishing and driving away all erroneous and strange doctrines" and to restate the former vows in words as follows:

Bishop Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God?

Answer I will, for the love of God.

For priests, the vows were restated as follows:

The Bishop says to the ordinand

Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?

Answer

I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.

The oath ("I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church") does not necessarily match the query ("Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them?")---unless the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of The Episcopal Church conforms in all ways to the "doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them."  That is, the two concepts ought  to be the same, in an ideal world where The Episcopal Church has been fully faithful to the doctrines, discipline and worship as taught by our Lord as and as received by the Church from the Saints, but---aye, there's the rub, isn't it?  We now have considerable disagreement over whether the two concepts are indeed the same.  And as is evident everywhere in the Church today, the perceived dichotomy between the two concepts is causing no small degree of anguish and heartbreak.

In the General Convention of 1904, the two canons were amended to define "abandonment" in the disjunctive, that is, it was defined as the open renunciation of either the "Doctrines", or the "Discipline," or the "Worship" of the Church.  (This amendment was pushed through, Messrs. White & Dykman tell us, because a minister of the Reformed Episcopal Church who was canonically resident in the Diocese of Pittsburgh had responded to a charge that he had "abandoned communion" with the defense that he had not renounced "the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church, because he still continued in the "worship" of this Church.)  And with this change as prelude, the 1979 changes to the vows threw the door to the abuse of the canons wide open.  Now it was no longer canonical to speak out publicly to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine"; instead, the duty was replaced with the duty to conform "to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church."  With the change to an offense defined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, all the Church attorney had to prove was any one of the three subelements of abandonment, whereas before the change he had to prove all three in combination: renunciation of doctrine, discipline and worship. Proof of the three elements together was simple in the cases of true abandonment.  But where the parties differed on matters of doctrine or worship, the one bringing the charges could now use any of those differences as a basis for finding "abandonment" under the canon.  Once such "abandonment" was certified, the Bishop, in the case of a priest or deacon (or, in the case of a Bishop, the Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction), could decide to "inhibit" the clergyperson so charged, and the one so inhibited could be deposed without trial if he or she failed to respond adequately to the charges.

(Even inhibition is no longer a prerequisite to a deposition for abandonment, in the view of the current Presiding Bishop.  She is proposing to have the House of Bishops take up a resolution to depose the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, even though she failed to obtain the necessary consents to inhibit him; and she has already pronounced unlawfully the deposition of the Rt. Rev. William Cox, Resigned, even though he was never inhibited as required by the plain language of the Canon.  We are quickly devolving to a Church where the canons---derived from a Greek word meaning "rule", or "measure"---are meaningless, and have become tools for misrule, and a complete lack of measure.)

The separating of the three elements of "doctrine, discipline or worship" in the 1904 and subsequent versions of the abandonment canons meant that charges of abandonment could be brought just for violations of "discipline" alone, i.e., violations of the canons, or of ordination or consecration vows.  To that extent, after the 1979 changes to the Prayer Book, Canons IV.9 and IV.10 became duplicates of Canon IV.1, the canon which properly deals with such violations.  The big difference is that Canon IV.1 provides for adversary proceedings, including a presentment and a trial, while Canons IV.9 and IV.10 do not (since true "abandonment" can scarcely be the subject of a genuine factual dispute).  Also, Canon IV.12 (Sentences) provides for a variety of disciplinary sanctions for violations of Canon IV.1, ranging from simple admonition to suspension to deposition, while the prescribed sanction under the abandonment canons is nothing less than deposition.  As we shall see in my next post, the simplified procedures of those canons have led to wholesale expulsions from the Church over matters that should properly have been handled under the disciplinary canons of Title IV.  (See also the remarks of the Anglican Communion Institute on this topic, with which I am in full agreement.) To the extent it is becoming more and more arbitrary in its abuse of Canons IV.9 and IV.10, The Episcopal Church is signaling its own "abandonment" of the foundations upon which it was built.