tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post4858411272072011227..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: The Bandit Bishop Strikes AgainA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-14807148503652452922009-01-26T18:33:00.000-08:002009-01-26T18:33:00.000-08:00Dear Mr. Haley,It occurs to me that the current Pr...Dear Mr. Haley,<BR/><BR/>It occurs to me that the current Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church™ has earned, or perhaps even requires, a slightly different form of address than <I>Right Reverend</I>. Given the increasingly convoluted hash her actions have made of the clear language of the canons, I would humbly propose that the <I>Right Clueless</I> might well be the appropriate appellation in this particular instance. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Now that I see it in print, it might even be appropriate to redefine the corporate name represented by TEC as <I>The Episcopal Clueless</I>, even though I am sure that some will be found remaining within the hierarchy who are, individually, not aptly described thus.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I recognize that the following lacks a certain attribute that is ordinarily found in poetic constructions, but I seem unable to restrain myself in observing:<BR/><BR/><I>Oh what a tangled web we weave,<BR/>when first we practice to reinterpret the canons</I>.<BR/><BR/>In closing, I largely agree with your third comment that "it is … disheartening" to read what those bent on a particular result at the expense of the <I>rule of law</I> write in a vain attempt to justify such outlawry—the more so because many are in positions of leadership, which are, by definition, positions of trust demanding strict adherence to procedure tempered, rather than intensified, by charity. But I think it important to note such perfidy when it occurs. It is a mark of the spirit under whose guidance the actors are acting. I would humbly suggest that the conclusion as to which spirit that is should be readily obvious to the rational observer.<BR/><BR/>Blessings and regards,<BR/>Keith Toepfer, LCDR, USN [ret]Martial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059467870069787735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-3337262837911265662009-01-26T11:59:00.000-08:002009-01-26T11:59:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley,I think it is important that we have cla...Mr. Haley,<BR/>I think it is important that we have clarity about the possibility that two Churches in the Communion might both have jurisdiction in Canada and the US. Not only would such a thing require agreement between the Churches, but it would also require something which does not seem to exist at the moment, i.e., mutual recognition of being in communion. While ECUSA's leadership has not stated that ECUSA is no longer in communion with or is in a state of impaired communion with any other Church in the Anglican Communioo, other Churches have broken communion with ECUSA. Unless that changes, I see no prospect for that kind of agreement. While I may be worng, it seems to me that the Bishops who have left ECUSA are not interested in being a Church in the Anglican Communion along side ECUSA and the ACiC, but in being the only North American Church in the Anglican Communion. If that is true, then any prospect for the kind of agreement that we have been discussing is very dim.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-27117880705790287612009-01-26T10:07:00.000-08:002009-01-26T10:07:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley,You are quite right to mention Europe as...Mr. Haley,<BR/><BR/>You are quite right to mention Europe as a region in which two Churches of the Anglican Communoin have Bishops, but you know as well as I do that there is a formal aggreement between those two Churches. No such agreement exists between ECUSA and the Southern Cone, and, as far as I know, neither Church has not suggested one.<BR/><BR/>BTW, what is the basis for your assertion that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes Bp Scholfield as a Bishop within the Anglican Communion? When asked about his status before the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop indicated that the matter was still under consideration, but that Bp Schofield was still invited.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-72730953556380667572009-01-26T09:50:00.000-08:002009-01-26T09:50:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley,I am not at all sure that you are right ...Mr. Haley,<BR/><BR/>I am not at all sure that you are right in your imputation of "never again" intent to the PB. Never is not a word that one should use in writing about judicial Sentence. Canon IV.13.1 provides for the remission of sentences imposed upon a Bishop. I would also think that any cleric who leaves ECUSA and lands safely in another Church in the Anglican Communion could, at some point, request transfer to ECUSA. Whether enough of the current controversy had passed for that to be likley, it is still an option. So, never say never.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-77914257191342124212009-01-26T08:56:00.000-08:002009-01-26T08:56:00.000-08:00I do have one thing to thank you for, Father Weir,...I do have one thing to thank you for, Father Weir, along with Fr. Mark Harris---you two have now given me, as I think about it, the answer to my question: "Why does she do this, when it is so obviously contrived, and when she hurts herself by asserting jurisdiction that she does not have?"<BR/><BR/>I see now that the answer is this: "Those clergy who helped the bishops who are undermining this Church must never be allowed to exercise their ministry here again, and I will personally see to it."<BR/><BR/>Well, there you have it. A Presiding Bishop, indeed.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-73992803015472229992009-01-26T08:40:00.000-08:002009-01-26T08:40:00.000-08:00Father Weir, tradition about not having two bishop...Father Weir, tradition about not having two bishops exercising authority in the same jurisdiction is not all that hard and fast. Examples of where that happens without strife or rancor are in Europe (with the Church of England's Diocese in Europe and ECUSA's CACE) and in <A HREF="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=Y2" REL="nofollow">Cuba</A>, where no less than three bishops exercise concurrent jurisdiction.<BR/><BR/>Father Wilson did not "transfer" all the clergy to the Southern Cone. He simply obtained licenses for them to pick up, if they so chose. Each individual decided whether or not he or she wanted to accept the license, and no one was changed "against their will"---e.g., the Rev. Dr. Simons remained in ECUSA.<BR/><BR/>Had the PB simply signed Letters Dimissory and notified the Registrar of the transfers, who could have objected? It would be up to Archbishop Venables to decide whether he accepted Letters from Bishop Duncan or from the PB. The point is that for purposes of ECUSA's records, the transfers could be certified by someone within ECUSA, thereby obviating the need to depose the clergy in question, or to claim that they had renounced their ordination vows.<BR/><BR/>You and Fr. Mark Harris may say all you want that the acceptance of their "renunciations" has effect only within ECUSA, but when ECUSA uses broader language than that, and also makes a mockery of the English language by turning a notice of transfer into a "renunciation of ordination vows," it is ECUSA whose prestige in the Anglican Communion suffers. ECUSA appears to be doing its utmost to be regarded as already having separated itself from the Anglican Communion---it won't recognize clergy whose orders are perfectly valid and recognized throughout the rest of the Communion, such as Bishop Scrivens' orders; and it keeps pretending it has deposed other clergy (e.g., Bishop Schofield) whom the Archbishop of Canterbury still recognizes as a bishop in the Communion.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-64222250027137822152009-01-26T07:16:00.000-08:002009-01-26T07:16:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley,As to the use of the "deprived of the ri...Mr. Haley,<BR/>As to the use of the "deprived of the right..." language. I grant that it sounds harsh, but we are dealing here, as my colleague Mark Harris has stated, not with the question of whether Bp. Scriven is still a Bishop, but with canonical authority. His right to function as a Bishop exists only within a particular member Church of the Anglican Communion. He surrendered that right within this Church and the PB's statement simply recognizes that, as far as she has any right to determine, he is deprived of that authority. It is not her business to determine whether or not he has had that right given to him elsewhere.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-21911445391593945962009-01-26T07:07:00.000-08:002009-01-26T07:07:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley,I am only speculating here. Had the PB d...Mr. Haley,<BR/>I am only speculating here. Had the PB done what your colleague proposed and issued letters dimissory for the clergy of the Diocese of Pittsburh who requested them, do you really think that Bp. Duncan would not have complained that she no authority to do that? Or do you think that the departing clergy would actually have requested the letters from her? Yes, it would have been more gracious of her,but graciousness has been in short supply on all sides.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-87080749501989776602009-01-26T06:46:00.000-08:002009-01-26T06:46:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley,I will let the Presiding Bishop take car...Mr. Haley,<BR/>I will let the Presiding Bishop take care of her realtionships with other Primates, although I suspect that there are some among them who doubt that she is a Bishop and/or don't see themselvesa as being in commuion with her or me, for that matter.<BR/><BR/>FYI, the Bishop of WNY transfered several clergy to a Diocese of the Southern Cone rather than follow the path that the PB has taken. I would have prefered it if she had simply issued a statement that recognized the transfers. However, even recognizing the transfers would not resolve the essential problem. It is, as I have stated on my own blog, long-standing practice for there not to be more than one Bishop in the Anglican Communion exercising authority in the same geographical area without an agreement between the Bishops respective Churches. No such agreement exists between ECUSA and the Southern Cone and the actions of Bp Duncan and others are in violation of that practice.<BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that Fr. Wilson seems to have transferred all of the clergy of the Diocese of Pittsburgh to the Southern Cone, including clergy who had no intention of leaving ECUSA. A bit high-handed? His actions do not, of course, change the status of those clergy. No one has the athority to transfer clergy against their will.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-81518122738858084622009-01-26T04:49:00.000-08:002009-01-26T04:49:00.000-08:00My old friend, David Wilson, is right about the na...My old friend, David Wilson, is right about the nature of canonical residence. I am right now a priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Tennessee, and have been for many years. However, because I work and minister in the Church of England I am licensed as a priest by the Diocese of Ely in which I live.Richard Kewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10917359509462320976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-63099048560206489042009-01-25T20:00:00.000-08:002009-01-25T20:00:00.000-08:00Thank you again for clarifying that point, Father ...Thank you again for clarifying that point, Father Wilson. That just makes the long delay between Bishop Scriven's letter, and the Presiding Bishop's response, that much more inexplicable. As a Primate in the Anglican Communion, she cannot be a stranger to the way licensure works in other provinces, and thus she must have known that she lost jurisdiction over him from the moment he picked up his license from the Southern Cone. By the time he returned to England and was licensed there, he was doubly removed from her ability to affect his status. <BR/><BR/>I fail to understand how she expects to carry off her extraprovincial assertion of jurisdiction when she comes face to face with her fellow Primates. She should be issuing a huge apology right now, and if she does not do that, the other Primates will have no excuse for ignoring the kind of person whom they are accepting into their councils.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, her futile striking out at him makes her look more like a fool than a Primate. She is unworthy of the position she occupies, and the sooner Episcopalians come to realize that, the better.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-87439329320546009522009-01-25T17:07:00.000-08:002009-01-25T17:07:00.000-08:00Mr Haley: TEC is the only Province that has this c...Mr Haley: <BR/><BR/>TEC is the only Province that has this creature called "canonical residency". In all other Provinces priests, deacons and bishops are members of the Province, i.e., Church of England and are licensed by the diocesan bishop. Bishop Henry has been licensed to function as an Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Oxford where he is now livingThe Rev Canon Dr David Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09878281384587956210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-10712761282226512802009-01-24T19:55:00.000-08:002009-01-24T19:55:00.000-08:00It is both fascinating and disheartening to read w...It is both fascinating and disheartening to read what the folks on the other side of the divide believe (or don't believe) about the effects of the PB's actions against +Wantland and +Scriven. I recommend visiting <A HREF="http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2009/01/bishops-on-move.html" REL="nofollow">the Rev. Mark Harris' blog</A> and making your way carefully through all of the comments.<BR/><BR/>Father Harris begins, as I noted in my post, with this opinion:<BR/><BR/>"'Voluntary renunciation' is about giving up standing as a bishop in TEC. The implications are clear: by not being a bishop in TEC nothing done or said by the person can be claimed as a ministry of TEC. Nada, nothing. There will be the usual wringing of hands that these two really did not renounce the ministry, that they are still bishops, that elsewhere they are recognized, etc. Right. But they did reject the exercise of episcopal office in The Episcopal Church and made it clear that they were no longer part of this church. It would appear that they voluntarily rejected, and renounced, their role as bishop in TEC. And that is what this is about. They have left, and did so having rejected TEC, and now TEC is agreeing with them. Having left they are no longer bishops of this Church."<BR/><BR/>And he adds, for Bishop Wantland: "He claims he has not resigned his orders (which, if he is speaking sacramentally, is fair enough) . . .".<BR/><BR/>So for Father Harris, the fact that the certificate purports to "deprive [the bishop in question] of his gifts and spiritual authority to Minister God's Word and Sacraments <B>conferred in Ordination</B>" simply means the authority to be a Bishop in <I>this</I> Church, <I>i.e.,</I> the Episcopal Church. (He confirms this opinion in his subsequent comment in response to commenter Jeremy.) But the meaning of "conferred in Ordination" would indicate the intent is broader than that---particularly for someone like Bishop Scriven, who was not ordained in the Episcopal Church, but in the Church of England.<BR/><BR/>Then there is a comment from Marshall, who equates "renunciation" with "resignation", and who mixes in the concept of "deposition", which is the sanction for Canon IV.9, which was not involved in this instance at all. So now things are thoroughly confused. Commenter Thomas+ feels that Bishop Wantland's response to the PB was "rude" and "totally unwarranted", but he finds nothing wrong with the PB having <I>certified</I> to the whole Church that +Wantland <I>renounced his orders</I>, when +Wantland expressly told her: "I am <B>not</B> renouncing my orders . . .". So he, too, would seem to equate "renunciation" with simple "resignation".<BR/><BR/>Next comes "WSJM", who drags in deposition for abandonment once again, and says that the person so deposed is "sacramentally" still a priest (or bishop), and may be re-licensed in a different Church without going through ordination again. But neither +Wantland nor +Scriven was "deposed for abandonment"; they were found to have <I>voluntarily renounced their vows of ordination,</I> and so were <I>released</I> from those vows, and "deprived of the gifts . . ." etc.<BR/><BR/>Then come two laypersons, who for the first time draw the distinction between being deposed and renouncing one's ordination vows. While in the former case, one might be re-licensed elsewhere, in the latter case, the vows have been relinquished, and so cannot be used as the basis for a re-licensure.<BR/><BR/>We are in so much trouble, I think, precisely because the clergy on the other side have no interest in the canonical niceties of what their Presiding Bishop is actually doing. They are content to conclude that the <I>result</I> is right, in any event, even if it might be for the wrong reason. The divide cannot get much greater than this: one side insists that the Canons mean what they (the canons) say, while the other side insists that the Canons mean whatever <I>they</I> (i.e., the PB and those who support what she is doing) say.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-88615668393920498402009-01-24T18:58:00.000-08:002009-01-24T18:58:00.000-08:00Father Wilson, thank you for supplying that inform...Father Wilson, thank you for supplying that information; I had no doubt it had been done, but I did not know any details.<BR/><BR/>Do you also happen to know whether Bishop Scriven has transferred his canonical residency back to the Church of England?A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42679754591122295192009-01-24T18:24:00.000-08:002009-01-24T18:24:00.000-08:00For the record: On October 2, 2008 I signed over 2...For the record: <BR/><BR/>On October 2, 2008 I signed over 200 certificates licensing all clergy canonically resident in the Diocese of Pittsburgh as tranferred to the Province of the Southern Cone. This included, Bps Duncan and Scriven. All clergy were instructed to pick up their licenses at the close of October 4 Convention. Bps Duncan and Scriven picked theirs up but Jim Simons was busy conducting a press conference outsidethe building and somehow missed the opportunity to pick his up. All of his fellow travellers left without taking theirs either. They were mailed the following week. <BR/><BR/>David Wilson+<BR/>President of the Standing Committee 2008The Rev Canon Dr David Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09878281384587956210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71790935846687697112009-01-24T12:45:00.000-08:002009-01-24T12:45:00.000-08:00Father Weir, yes---if she confined herself to decl...Father Weir, yes---if she confined herself to declaring that they had "renounced their status <I>in this Church</I>", perhaps more people might agree with that, but she claims to go beyond that act, and to deprive them of their "gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God's Word and Sacraments", <I>i.e.,</I> to defrock them permanently, and throughout the worldwide Communion. <I>That presumption</I> on her part makes a mess of <I>her</I> creation.<BR/><BR/>What do you think of the solution proposed by my colleague? Why couldn't she simply proceed in that fashion, and be Christian about it? Why does she have to violate the Ninth Commandment just to remove clergy from ECUSA's rolls? Has the Church come to that, where its leader has to lie openly just to be rid of people who want to leave anyway?A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-29440808689430193522009-01-24T12:06:00.000-08:002009-01-24T12:06:00.000-08:00I would disagree that the quandry that faced the P...I would disagree that the quandry that faced the Presiding Bishop was created by the actions of the House of Bishops. Rather it was, as with the similar quandries in other Dioceses, created by those Bishops who have left ECUSA for fairer climes and have left the PB with no alternative but to declare that they have renounced their status as Bishops in this Church. It is, to be sure, a messy business, but it is a mess of their creation.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.com