Ave Imperator, Te Morituri Salutamus

This page contains links to all the posts I have put up about the current sad state of the so-called Anglican Communion. "So-called"? Yes: it is certainly no longer a "Communion", because it has very little in common, and most of its members are not talking to the rest. And it can no longer be called "Anglican", because while that term may once have taken its meaning from the doctrines and worship of the Church of England, that body's ever-dwindling membership, too, is no longer of one mind on just what its doctrines and worship should be.

The page of Anglican posts will soon contain a link to this one -- and that may be its last.

After all, I feel a bit like the Cheshire Cat -- as the meaning of "Anglican" fades away, so does any role for an "Anglican Curmudgeon." Having left the Episcopal Church (USA) on account of its adoption of blasphemous marriage rites, I no longer even have a formal tie to the wider Communion -- not that the tie was all that firm, anyway, once V. Gene Robinson received a miter and ring in 2003. Those of us who remained in ECUSA after that date, as well as any who are bravely trying to stick it out still, may fairly be described as clinging to the faintest wisps of the beauty that once was there.

There is talk of a reckoning that will be demanded at the forthcoming gathering of the Anglican Primates in Canterbury next January (n.b.: not a "Primates Meeting" as such, or one of the former, now-failed Instruments of Unity, but just a gathering that has no structure in advance). The Primates of GAFCON and the Global South will be there, along with -- at the former's insistence -- the Primate of the Anglican Church in North America. This alone should serve to distinguish what will take place from what has gone before.

But what are the possible outcomes of such a gathering? Let's be logical, and list all the possibilities (within reason):

1. In response to a passionate appeal from their orthodox brethren, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada repent of their waywardness, resubscribe to the tenets of Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and humbly apologize to their peers. Can we all agree that this possibility will never happen? -- and not just because ECUSA can act only through its General Convention, which will not be in session again until the summer of 2018. It will never happen while the current crowd of liberal revisionists are in charge of the great majority of Dioceses, and they are prepared to run through all of ECUSA's trust funds before they will be forced to make any meaningful changes. (And before that happens, their proclivity for blasphemy will pollute the Book of Common Prayer.)

2. In response to a passionate appeal from their orthodox brethren, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the ACoC speak the truth to the assembled Primates: they are not about to change, and will continue on what they maintain is their "inclusive" course. This is almost certain to take place at the meeting. The question then becomes: what will the other Primates do in response?

a. Nothing, except take another sip of tea and keep talking. Knowing what we know of the Most Rev. Eliud Wabukala, this will never happen. He and the other GAFCON Primates will demand that the Archbishop of Canterbury discipline the renegades by "disinviting them" from all future Communion-wide functions and events. (He can do this with regard to the Lambeth Conference and the Primates Meeting, both of which convene at his invitation. But he has no ability to control who comes to the meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council, which controls its own list of who are its constituent members.)

b. In response to the GAFCON Primates demand (see 2.a above), Archbishop Welby agrees that he will no longer invite either ECUSA or the ACoC representatives to either the Primates Meetings or the Lambeth Conference. The gathering will then break up; the representatives of ECUSA and the ACoC will leave, along with their supporters from ten or so other provinces. (The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot legally operate the formal mechanisms of the British charitable corporation called "the Anglican Consultative Council" -- with its corresponding role in the Anglican Communion -- without them, however, and so he will most likely stay in a formal relation with them through that body.) The rest may remain to discuss future agendas -- or they may go home, too, and postpone further action to another day.

c. In response to the GAFCON Primates demand (see 2.a above), Archbishop Welby refuses so to discipline the renegade provinces. The gathering will then definitely split up, and the majority of the provinces present will depart for home. Those remaining (the twelve or so provinces described in 2.b. above) will continue to meet, and may meet as often as they wish in the future, but without the majority of provinces ever again attending. The minority will claim control of the organs of the Anglican Communion, and so will keep that name. The majority will organize under a new structure, with a modified name. Whether they will maintain any kind of relationship with the see of Canterbury is extremely doubtful, in my opinion -- what would be the point, once he made it clear that he would not do what they asked?

d. In response to the GAFCON Primates demand (see 2.a above), Archbishop Welby waffles, in a bid for more time and to keep all the parties talking. This is ++Welby's most likely response to GAFCON's demand, in my opinion. His goal will be to work out the terms for a "two-tiered" Communion, with the one tier consisting of those not in communion with ECUSA or the ACoC, and other tier consisting of the remaining provinces. Even if he were to succeed in this goal, and keep all the Primates around long enough to achieve it, notice how similar the outcome would be to that sketched out in Scenario 2.c above: the only difference would be that the first tier would stay in some kind of "communion" with the see of Canterbury. And if Canterbury decides to stay in communion with ECUSA and ACoC, then the outcome will be like that sketched in 2.b. above.

Indeed -- notice how similar the final outcomes of all of the last three scenarios are. The UK charity that represents the "Anglican Communion" as such will remain in place, because it is a perpetual corporation, and it is under the more-or-less permanent control of the minority revisionist provinces. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the legal head of that charity, and so will remain in formal relation with it, no matter what the majority of Anglican provinces decide to do. And since that majority will decline to play any part in an organization in which the revisionist minority are also members, they will also have to organize as a new entity, regardless of what the revisionists do (short of repenting, which will never happen).

I conclude from this analysis that the Anglican Communion is almost certainly headed for a formally divided future -- one that reflects in fact the pro forma division which has been in existence ever since the Windsor Report and Dar-es-Salaam. Whether or not it remains a single but two-tiered entity, or becomes two entirely separate organizations (the old one, controlled by the minority, and a new one formed by the majority), will be up to the GAFCON / Global South Primates and how much they value an ongoing relationship with Canterbury. And that outcome will probably be determined by how well Archbishop Welby manages the first few hours of the meeting next January.

Either way, it looks like it is curtains for your Curmudgeon. Just as I am done with ECUSA, I will not have anything to do with an ongoing Anglican entity which allows ECUSA -- in all its blasphemous ugliness -- to be a member. And as I mentioned, if the minority retains the legal right to the control of the British charitable corporation, the new organization will probably not even call itself "Anglican."  I may not even bother to cover the demise, if it follows the most likely path sketched above. But stay tuned for a while longer, because the whole scenario is in God's good hands.

Life Now Has a Price Tag

It has now come to this.

The price for human fetal parts and tissue: From $30 to $100 per specimen.

The price for one of the largest-ever-seen bull elephants in Africa: $60,000.00.


All life now has its price, from the tiniest specimen to the largest.


For God, the price was infinite. He gave up his only Son to pay it -- for our sake.

But Man, driven by Satan's lusts, now cheapens it. In doing so, he mocks the unfathomable worth of Christ's sacrifice. And the caverns of Hell rock with scorn.


This is a sin-sick world.

May we yet repent of this madness.

And may God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

Blatant Bias on Display in ECUSA's South Carolina Case

Before the oral arguments yesterday in The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. Episcopal Church in the Supreme Court of South Carolina, your Curmudgeon had heard mention of the fact that one of the five justices who would be hearing the case was active in one of the parishes affiliated with the defendant Episcopal Church in South Carolina. I did not look into the question further until I watched the oral arguments live, and could see the justices as they put their questions to each of the attorneys for the litigants.

I took particular note, as I watched, of the attitude and unspoken assumptions behind the questions asked by Justice Kaye Hearn, the newest person elected to that Court. In many cases, it seemed (to this appellate attorney) that her questions were designed more to provide encouragement to ECUSA's attorneys, and to advance their arguments, than they were to probe the various issues at stake in the case.

A little research on the Internet provided the facts that Justice Hearn was a former member of the congregation and choir at St. Paul's in Conway, South Carolina -- a parish that chose to remain with Bishop Mark Lawrence and his Diocese. A group of two dozen or so from that 500-member parish decided they could not remain, and left to form what has since become St. Anne's Episcopal Church, also in Conway. The records there show that Justice Hearn's husband, George, is a member of the parish's vestry and mission committee.

All fine and dandy -- if a little too reminiscent of the case of Justice David E. Nehmias, of the Georgia Supreme Court, who wrote the majority opinion for that Court awarding Christ Church Savannah to the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia. It turned out that Justice Nehmias declined to recuse himself from the case, even though he was a prominent member of an Episcopal congregation in Atlanta. In doing so, he failed to follow the example of Presiding Justice George Carley, who recused himself from the case because he belonged to an ACNA parish in the same city.

Could the same bias be operating in the case of Justice Hearn? Consider just the following, taken from the oral argument by the attorney for the appellants (Bishop vonRosenberg's group and ECUSA), Blake Hewitt. These are excerpts from that argument in which Justice Hearn exclusively had the mike. Notice, please, how few of the verbatim quotes below are actual questions which Mr. Hewitt might be expected to have some trouble in answering, as opposed to softballs lobbed in his direction. Notice, too, how many of the quotations are not even questions, but are advocacy speeches which would have been appropriate coming from Mr. Hewitt's mouth, but scarcely proper for a sitting justice to make in a case presented for decision before an impartial court. [Note: Times shown in brackets are for the tape at this link.]

1 [1:56]: But didn't [Judge Goodstein] also disallow you from introducing evidence that would tend to show that [ECUSA] is not a congregational church?

2 [2:45]: Mr. Hewitt, in this case the national Church has called itself a "hierarchical" church. Of course, we could look at Wikipedia, but we wouldn't have to do that, we could also look at the myriad of court decisions, including one from our own 4th Circuit, the Dixon case, which is a very thoroughgoing analysis of what constitutes a hierarchical church, and it seems by any definition, this Church is hierarchical.  But does that matter -- in this case?

3 [4:49]: Your argument is that the Dennis Canon imposed an express trust on this property, and for thirty years, the Dio ---

4 [5:44]: But of course, in this case, Judge Goodstein wouldn't even let counsel for the national Church bring in what had been done as far as disciplining Bishop Lawrence -- in fact, she threatened to revoke his pro hac vice [status] if he didn't stop talking about that, isn't that correct?  

5 [6:10]: Well, [Judge Goodstein] seemed to think that [the] two principles -- hierarchical principles and neutral principles -- can't co-exist, but there's lots of cases that say they can: what's your position on this?

6 [8:35]: And, Mr. Hewitt, doesn't this [questioning the effectiveness of the Church's enactment of the Dennis Canon] call into question the teaching of Jones v. Wolf, about what is necessary for a national church to be able to create a trust -- if that burden is supposed to be 'minimal'?

7 [10:16]: And isn't it correct that this particular Diocese enacted its own version of the Dennis Canon?

8 [10:36]: And Mr. Hewitt, I want you to -- I'm not disregarding the number of cases that have reached the result you are arguing for, with regard to the Dennis Canon, and in almost all those cases, cert[iorari = review] has been denied or dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but I would like you, or I would like to hear you, about the Masterson case out of Texas, which seems to take more -- more of an All Saints view. I will note that our sister state of Georgia, in a 2011 opinion, noted that the South Carolina decision in All Saints has not been followed in a church property case by any court outside that case -- outside that State -- so we're dealing with a bit of an outlier, if you will -- but tell me about Masterson.

9 [12:58]: What about all the quit-claims that were issued here?

10 [17:45]: [Interrupting a question by Chief Justice Toal] Well, of course, Mr. Hewitt, if we're going to talk about that [Bishop Lawrence's ostensible authority to execute quitclaim deeds] -- I would like you to talk about his vows, and how the national Church assumed he would be true to those vows, especially when he wrote a letter saying "I intend to stay with the national Church" -- period. So please talk about that.

11 [19:48]: Might that [Bishop Lawrence's signing the Bishop's Statement on Polity] be one reason that in All Saints cert was not sought [by Bishop Lawrence]?

12 [21:35]: If this case -- this Diocese -- is truly congregational, and can just pick up its toys and leave whenever it wants to -- why did it then become part of another larger group? Did it, did it not -- after it purported to leave the national Church?

13 [22:01]: Sure is a lot in the record, and I thought there was some discussion that they were part of another larger group, and so my question was: if they really were congregational, why -- ... [22:22]  I thought it was Global South, a group of third world (mostly) provinces, in Africa -- I mean, I could be wrong.

14 [22:40]: Why isn't this a case -- I'm going to ask the same question of opposing counsel -- why isn't this case, boiled down to its essence, just a question of who should lead this Diocese -- who is the rightful bishop --  and hasn't the national Church answered that question by ordaining Charles vonRosenberg?

There was not one question or statement from Justice Hearn which Blake Hewitt could have had trouble dealing with -- in fact, it many instances (such as Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 14) they were just a case of passing the baton to a fellow race runner. In short, this was not a dialogue between court and counsel; it was collaboration between counsel and a co-counsel who sat on the bench.

Notice, too, how in excerpts No. 4 and 10 above, Justice Hearn tried to interject the issue of Bishop Lawrence's faithfulness to his ordination vows into the case. Religious vows are not for the civil courts to consider. That is why churches have ecclesiastical courts, and that is why the Episcopal Church (USA) brought its disciplinary charges against Bishop Lawrence. So Justice Hearn had no business whatsoever egging on ECUSA's attorney to speak about ecclesiastical matters that were not before the Court.

But what if Justice Hearn had an ulterior motive for doing so? Further research on the Internet disclosed that Kaye Hearn of Conway, South Carolina is a signatory member of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina -- and that she joined when she was still a member of St. Paul's. The Episcopal Forum, for those who may not remember, was instrumental in instigating the bringing of disciplinary charges againt the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence. Moreover, here are just some of the principles to which each member subscribes:

Who are we? 

• Episcopalians who are united in our desire to remain members in good standing in The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Communion.
  
• Episcopalians who accept that the governing authority of TEC, as given by its Constitution and Canons, is the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
  
• Episcopalians who believe that the Holy Spirit is working in the deliberations of The Episcopal Church, General Convention, TEC Executive Council and its conferences and committees

The bias in favor of the national Church that infuses these principles is not hidden; it is made plain for all to see. The second principle alone expresses an opinion on an issue that is at the heart of Bishop Lawrence's case against the national Church. To this attorney, it is simply unbelievable that a sitting Justice who had long ago subscribed to these principles in public would not recuse herself from sitting in judgment on Bishop Lawrence's case.

But we are not done yet. Let's take a look at the corresponding extracts from the oral argument of Bishop Lawrence's attorney, Alan Runyon.

15 [29:23]: I have two questions for you about that, Mr. Runyan. The first one would be the language in the All Saints opinion that talks about where a civil court is presented an issue which is really a question of religious law, but is masquerading as a property dispute. And I know you're familiar with that language, so: why isn't this that type of situation? But my second question -- and I'm sure you'll address it -- there has been a motion to argue against precedent, there's a different Court here -- of course, we take precedent very seriously -- but the majority of this Court did not sit on the All Saints case, and you would have to acknowledge, it is an outlier in this country. So, if you could address those two issues for me -- I understand why you want to argue All Saints; I would, too, if I was in your position -- but if you could answer that for me. 

Notice how Justice Hearn keeps trying to discredit the unanimous decision in All Saints, by belittling it as an "outlier" (this is the second time she used that terms -- see No. 8 above). She brazenly suggests that the three newest Justices on the Court could overrule what five Justices unanimously decided just five years ago. Only a person who resented that decision personally when it came down, and who has fought it ever since, would spend so much effort trying to discredit it in court.

16 [34:44]: [The deference approach is] the majority rule [in cases] on the Dennis Canon? ... There might be eight or nine [cases], at least... And I recognize the different nuances to each of those cases.

17 [35:10]: Are you talking about All Saints? When you say that the law is clear? Well, let's look at All Saints -- there was no analysis in All Saints of the myriad of cases that go the other way. There was no mention of that. How do we know what was really presented in All Saints?

18 [35:47]: You would say that the only way that there could have been a trust created is if the national Church got each individual parish to agree? ... But how would that be the 'minimal burden' that Jones v. Wolf says they're placing on national churches to do this very thing? [Mr. Runyan responds that the court in Jones v. Wolf did not say that.] Well, we'll talk about that. 

19 [37:00]: Well, let me ask you about that [the methods of creating a trust according to Jones v. Wolf]. Let's stop there a minute. Jones v. Wolf was decided in 1979, coincidentally the very same year that the General Convention adopted the Dennis Canon, and I believe your client had a seat -- had representatives there. The Dennis Canon was in effect here for about thirty years, till this brouhaha happened -- and in fact the Diocese adopted its own version of the Dennis Canon. But what I want to direct your attention to -- is: what about Section 33 31-180 of our Nonprofit Corporation Act, that says: "If religious doctrine governing the affairs of a religious corporation is inconsistent  with the provisions of this Chapter on the same subject, the religious doctrine controls"? Why isn't that saying -- why isn't that South Carolina General Assembly saying something like the Dennis Canon would trump any suggestion of State law?

20 [40:43]: If [the language of accession to the national Constitution] didn't mean anything, then why was one of the first things your client did was to remove that language?

21 [43:30]: Yes, Mr. Runyan -- and I would point out, echoing the Chief's concerns, that this was a non-jury trial. And yet I counted over twenty-five objections to Professor McWilliams' testimony -- in a non-jury trial. You all tried so hard to keep any of that evidence out -- and then, the order is issued, and lo and behold: there's a finding that this Church is controlled by the bottom -- that the parishes are really in charge, rather than the national Church. So -- what is it with that?

22 [47:15]: Doesn't [the claim that there is no judicatory in the national Church with authority over dioceses] just get us back to our different interpretations of what the Dennis Canon means and does?

23 [47:43]: Well -- [this court can't pick between the two bishops] because the national Church has already chosen, has it not? The national Church has chosen vonRosenberg as the bishop. Why doesn't that end it? I wanted to ask you that question, I thought I was going to ... 

24 [48:05]: Why wouldn't -- help me with why we wouldn't defer to the national Church's decision on that obviously ecclesiastical matter? You say in your brief -- in the red brief -- you say "Of course, civil courts could not decide who is the appropriate minister." Well, but it seems like you're doing exactly the same thing here -- you are saying "the court can decide who is the rightful bishop." So help me with that. ... You're [relying on] that All Saints [case] again.

25 [49:54]: But I don't see any argument -- Mr. Runyan, I don't see any argument, or hear any argument from the other side that your clients [do not] have a perfect right, an absolute right, to disassociate, to leave. The problem is: can they take property -- that arguably has been held in trust for the national Church for decades -- with them? 

26 [51:40]: Then let me ask you this question. Isn't it correct that at the time of incorporation the stated purpose of the Diocese was to follow the doctrine and polity of the Episcopal Church -- to continue to operate under the Constitution -- yes, that is the language I was looking for. Was that [language] meaningless? ... And they can change their minds?

Mr. Hewitt then came back for his rebuttal, and received the following final assist from his Episcopal co-counsel on the bench:

27 [55:00] Wait a minute. Speaking of the Diocese's relationship with the national Church, talk to us about in 1922, when there was only one diocese in South Carolina, and they wanted to divide into two. Did they do that on their own?

This was truly a disgraceful performance and display of impropriety by one of the country's highest sitting judges. If she does not recuse herself post-argument, there should be, at a minimum, an investigation as to whether Justice Hearn violated Canons 2 and 3 of the South Carolina Code of Judicial Ethics, which state in part:

CANON 2 

A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES 

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

CANON 3 

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability or age, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

 And here is the Disqualification Standard in that same Canon 3 which Justice Hearn should have applied to herself:

E. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party ...

It would be impossible, given her participation as a Forum Member and its role in bringing down Bishop Lawrence, and in having him replaced with Bishop vonRosenberg, for Justice Hearn to deny that she harbors a personal bias against Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese he heads.

We await further developments in the South Carolina case.