Katie Sherrod, over at Desert's Child has just reported that Bishop Iker has been inhibited.That has not yet made the ENS wire.
Bishop Iker expected it, along with almost everyone else. He claims he doesn't care, given that he has left the building. Inhibition is oddly not about the administration of a diocese, but about sacramental ministry. He is prohibited from being bishop in its most important sense. I doubt that he will cease from celebrating the Eucharist, confirming, and ordaining, claiming as he does that he is bishop in another Province. Of course that proves he has abandoned this Church and his unwillingness to adhere to the discipline of the inhibition proves it. Well, there it is.
Here is what Katie Sherrod wrote at about 8 PM EST,
"Jack Iker has been inhibited from sacramental acts by the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. He now has 60 days to recant his abandonment of the Episcopal Church. If he does not change his mind, the House of Bishops will most likely depose him at their next meeting, which means he will no longer be a bishop of the Episcopal Church. This is what has happened with Robert Duncan, former bishop of Pittsburgh; and John David Schofield, former bishop of San Joaquin."
Pray for the people of the Diocese of Fort Worth, for those who have left, for those who remain, for Bishop Iker and for those wo will continue in his absence to be the Episcopal Church Diocese of Fort Worth.
11/21/2008
13 comments:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
God have mercy upon xJack, as he goes into his chosen exile. Christ's fold in TEC will welcome him back, God willing---in God's Time.
ReplyDeleteGod bless and protect the faithful Episcopalians of Fort Worth. This necessary step, not without its pain, will pave the way for receiving a faithful shepherd (God willing) SOON!
That the current presiding bishop will depose more bishops than the entire previous history of the denomination is not a badge of honor. Her "my way or the highway" confrontational leadership style resulted in having the worst population adjusted growth in Nevada, actually shrinking the diocese in the midst of general population boom. It didn't work in Nevada and it isn't working nationally.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of commentators at Titus from the liberal side who aren't cheering on the pogrom against the orthodox.
Perhaps, I am wasting my breath, but aren't there any readers here who are willing to question the 815's tactics?
"There are a couple of commentators at Titus from the liberal side who aren't cheering on the pogrom against the orthodox."
ReplyDeleteThe use of the word pogrom is really offensive hyperbole here. As far as I know (and you may correct me if I am mistaken) we haven't killed any of you, raped any "orthodox" women, or kidnapped your children. Please stop being such a drama queen. It's not attractive - regardless of what side of the aisle you're on.
BillyD, "drama queen" is a pretty good description of pretty much the entire content of blogs like "Friends of Jake" and a good proportion of many others on the "progressive" side of the aisle. As far as I can recall, I've never read a comment by you similarly taking anybody in that vast universe to task. You may correct me if I'm mistaken.
ReplyDeleteUm. Perhaps the truth is that more bishops than ever before have requested inhibition and/or deposition by specifically refusing to honor their vows, violating the canons and openly working to destroy TEC?
ReplyDeleteYes, it's really a shame how these bishops were just minding their own business, not bothering a soul, when that awful women suddenly appeared out of nowhere and inhibited them for no reason at all but sheer meanness.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how she can live with herself!
BillyD, "drama queen" is a pretty good description of pretty much the entire content of blogs like "Friends of Jake" and a good proportion of many others on the "progressive" side of the aisle.
ReplyDeleteI can't really say about "Friends of Jake," since I've only been there a couple of times, and not at all recently. You're right about there being drama queens on both sides of the aisle, though Or, rather, in agreeing with me that there are drama queens on both sides of the aisle, since that was the meaning of my comment.
As far as I can recall, I've never read a comment by you similarly taking anybody in that vast universe to task.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon.
You may correct me if I'm mistaken.
Consider yourself corrected. :-)
I'm still surprised that they waited until +Iker actually left TEC before they deposed him. I wonder if the protests over +Duncan's deposition was the cause of this?
ReplyDeleteRb, stop and think about what you are asking and how the process of your church functions.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the personal machination of the evil Presiding Bishopress, as often cast by reasserters. It is the legitimate canonical process of the Episcopal Church.
A proper canonically authorized group, from within his own diocese, brought charges, and presented evidence to support the charges, against Duncan more than a year ago. The charges utilized the abandonment of communion with TEC canon. The charges were presented to TEC Title IV Review Committee, which committee certified to the Presiding Bishop that Duncan had abandoned the communion of TEC. However, the 3 senior bishops with jurisdiction did not allow the PB to inhibit Duncan. Later, TEC House of Bishops upheld Duncan's abandonment and he was deposed.
It is obvious that either no one brought charges against Iker until after he and the FW Dio Convention voted to abandon TEC for the Southern Cone, or no one brought charges with sufficient evidence to convince the Title IV Review Committee that he had abandoned TEC. Regardless of which it was, charges have now been brought against him with sufficient evidence to convince the Title IV Review Committee to certify that Iker has abandoned the communion of TEC and to convince the 3 senior bishops with jurisdiction that he should be inhibited.
The reasserters keep harping that this is being done without due process of a trial. The canon for Title IV abandonment does not provide the process of a trial.
Unless someone brings charges under a different canon, such as the charges brought against Bennison, a canon that does provide the process of a trial, the PB's hands are tied to what the canons demand.
I continue to be confused by conservative objections to these depositions.
ReplyDeleteBishop Iker has announced that he has left The Episcopal Church. That body responds by deposing +Iker, saying, in effect, "We agree. You have left The Episcopal Church." And his supporters are upset? What did they expect? Did +Iker intend to leave The Episcopal Church and remain a part of it at the same time? I am sorry, but the logic escapes me here.
Paul Martin captures it perfectly. +/-Iker being inhibited is simply the recognition of something which has already occurred. Something which was completely voluntary on the (ex-) Bishop's part.
ReplyDeletePhil, robroy, why is there all this high dudgeon in "reasserter" circles ? the AAC/ACN/GAFCON crowd has made it quite clear they want to leave TEC.
I honestly don't see what's to get all het up about...
David, I haven't addressed the "high dudgeon" of the mainstream Anglicans in my comments. However, one can readily assume that a good part of it has to do with the idea - which is also expressed by many here - that ECUSA has some kind of authority to nullify the holy orders in question. Given the odd backdrop of a hierarchy stacked with a weird collection of heterodox views presuming to "depose" (from an orders standpoint) bishops in the firm mainstream of Anglican Christian belief, it should be obvious why this gives offense.
ReplyDeleteWe might go further and observe that, for the minor remnant of Anglo-Catholics left in ECUSA, the idea of Mrs. Schori, who is neither a bishop nor a priest (in their frame), removing those who are from holy orders is risible.
I grant you that, if we are to take ECUSA within its reality, and we see the actions taken as merely the removal of various regional managers who no longer desire to work for this particular entity, you have a point. And so, perhaps we're in agreement, after all.
David, I haven't addressed the "high dudgeon" of the mainstream Anglicans in my comments. However, one can readily assume that a good part of it has to do with the idea - which is also expressed by many here - that ECUSA has some kind of authority to nullify the holy orders in question. Given the odd backdrop of a hierarchy stacked with a weird collection of heterodox views presuming to "depose" (from an orders standpoint) bishops in the firm mainstream of Anglican Christian belief, it should be obvious why this gives offense.
ReplyDeleteOdd - it didn't prevent the deposed bishops from being consecrated at the hands of that hierarchy.
We might go further and observe that, for the minor remnant of Anglo-Catholics left in ECUSA, the idea of Mrs. Schori, who is neither a bishop nor a priest (in their frame), removing those who are from holy orders is risible.
You write as if the Presiding Bishop were some sort of PECUSA Pope, binding and releasing because of some power inherent in her personally. It is my understanding that, in matters of inhibition and deposition, she acts at the behest of the House of Bishops.