Ms. Jefferts Schori, Produce the Letters!

Concerning the "renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church" by the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, resigned diocesan of Quincy, the Presiding Bishop said (emphasis added):

In accordance with Title III, Canon 12, Section 7 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church, and with the advice and consent of the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, I have accepted the renunciation of the Ordained Ministry of this Church, made in writing to me in July 2009 by The Right Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, Resigned . . .

But Bishop Ackerman says (emphasis again added):

I have not renounced, and in fact, in my first handwritten letter indicated that my intention was not to be seen as either "abandonment of the Communion" or "Renunciation."

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church wrote to Bishop Ackerman as follows (emphasis added):

Thank you for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone.

But Bishop Ackerman says (emphasis added):

After two months with no communication, I sent another handwritten, unduplicated letter in early October asking about this matter.

Bishop Ackerman describes his earlier handwritten letter to the Presiding Bishop (the one sent in July 2009 which she says constituted his "renunciation") as follows (emphasis again added):

This letter was handwritten, sharing with the Presiding Bishop my current health, my new ministry with the homeless, my desire to assist another Anglican partner in ministry in Bolivia and, at their invitation, to participate informally (seat but no voice and no vote) in the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. At no time did I express dissatisfaction with the Episcopal Church, or make any statement of a desire to be separated from it.

The Presiding Bishop, without bothering to call Bishop Ackerman or ask him for any clarification, took the language I have emphasized as his "plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia". Note the difference: sitting by invitation without voice or vote in the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone is not "functioning as a Bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia." (News reports that speak of a "House of Bishops" for the Diocese of Bolivia make no sense. There is no House of Bishops for a single diocese; the Bishop of Bolivia is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone.)

The Presiding Bishop wrote to Bishop Ackerman (emphasis added):

As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province.

But Bishop Ackerman says:

At no time did I request transfer to the Southern Cone.

[UPDATE 10/20/2009: Bishop Ackerman has now clarified that he did request a transfer to Bolivia. (See the comment by Father Rob Eaton below.) However, he asked it of the wrong authority (see my response to Father Eaton); and it does not change the wrongful character of his removal from the ordained ministry.]

It is clear that either the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) or Bishop Ackerman must be lying. The one person who can clear this up is the Presiding Bishop: since Bishop Ackerman says he kept no copies of his handwritten letters, the Presiding Bishop should produce them for everyone to see exactly what they said, and exactly how they constituted a statement of renunciation. An official statement of renunciation is not the same thing as a private letter: it forms a part of Bishop Ackerman's record at ECUSA, and since it was the basis for removing him from his ministry, it should be open for anyone to inspect.

Ronald Reagan famously said: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I am not the president of anything, but as members in good standing of the Episcopal Church (USA), any of us can say to the Presiding Bishop: "Ms. Jefferts Schori, produce those letters!"

Will some bishops who do have regular access to the Presiding Bishop please join us in demanding to see the letters?

There is the stuff of a presentment here, if it should be clear from the letters that the Presiding Bishop has lied in order to remove a bishop from the Church. And not just the Presiding Bishop should be charged, but also the two subscribing witnesses, Bishop Mark Beckwith of Newark and Bishop Herbert A. Donovan, Jr., assistant to the Presiding Bishop for Anglican Communion relations, together with all of the twelve bishops on the Council of Advice who concurred in "accepting" Bishop Ackerman's "renunciation."

Make no mistake: there cannot be two versions of the truth here. Bishop Ackerman not only says he did not ask for a transfer, but made clear as well that he would not be functioning officially as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia, and did not want anything in his letter to be taken as "abandonment of communion" or as renunciation. Yet the Presiding Bishop and her Council of Advice did exactly the opposite.

Is the Church to be ruled by cabal, or by bishops who are open and accountable to their colleagues, and to the members of the Church who pay their salaries? Watch closely what happens in the coming days. If the Presiding Bishop does not produce the letters, and if no member of the House of Bishops (active or resigned) calls upon her to do so, then the fix is in.

Neva Rae Fox, 815's program officer for public affairs, says that the Presiding Bishop will probably not respond to Bishop Ackerman, or have a statement in response to his remarks. So it is up to all of us to raise the hue and cry:

"Ms. Jefferts Schori, produce the letters!"

[UPDATE 11/05/09: Apparently, Bishop Ackerman does not wish to pursue this matter any further. (See the last two comments below.) While I could never fault him for deciding to keep this matter at a personal level between him and the Presiding Bishop, I am disappointed that we have yet one more instance of where the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori is able to have her way by default. I take solace (as must he, as well) in the words of Our Lord and Saviour: " . . . turn the other cheek."]