tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post3594096272539977830..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: What to do if you (Diocese of South Carolina) don't like Title IV (or TEC's "direction.")Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-27318462184795325342011-10-18T14:35:33.115-04:002011-10-18T14:35:33.115-04:00Thanks to Fr Harris for posting it.
There are als...Thanks to Fr Harris for posting it.<br /><br />There are also substantive responses.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-57921068502590917052011-10-18T08:31:40.383-04:002011-10-18T08:31:40.383-04:00Fr Weir
You asked about constitutionality and wer...Fr Weir<br /><br />You asked about constitutionality and were referred to a link where the argument was laid out.<br /><br />I see T19 now has a precis of that posted as a new statement from Mark McCall. <br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-17564159910430109462011-10-18T02:47:17.746-04:002011-10-18T02:47:17.746-04:00Thanks Paul.Thanks Paul.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-74211290579431791122011-10-17T22:25:55.928-04:002011-10-17T22:25:55.928-04:00Peter, please understand that the procedure I desc...Peter, please understand that the procedure I described is only for cases of alleged abandonment of TEC. There's a completely different procedure used when a bishop is accused of other canonical offenses. Also, my intention was to describe the procedure used in abandonment cases. Whether that procedure is fair in general or in the specific case of Bishop Lawrence is a question that I'm happy to leave to other bloggers, many of whom are on your own blog roll. I also didn't intend to express an opinion on the relative merits of Bishop Lawrence's case and those of Bishops Duncan and Schofield except that Bishop Lawrence may be more interested in fighting deposition than the other two were.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-28386129437573075212011-10-17T20:36:05.208-04:002011-10-17T20:36:05.208-04:00I agree Fr Weir. Let's see what happens with +...I agree Fr Weir. Let's see what happens with +ML.<br /><br />Can you help us understand how a constitutionally approved rite of SS marraige -- which SCLM is seeking; and which we may well get at GC 2012 -- is a rite that Dioceses can declare 'unavailable' with impunity?<br /><br />You have been the chief bearer of individual Rousseauian liberalism. But law isn't that soft on its edges, by definition.<br /><br />Thank you for your liberal generosity. At issue is whether you will be shut out as TEC moves forward on a cause that really brooks no exceptions.<br /><br />Don't hold off. Help reassure the church.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1695118691134326002011-10-17T19:42:20.388-04:002011-10-17T19:42:20.388-04:00One of the difficulties I am having with this thre...One of the difficulties I am having with this thread and some others is that questions about hypothetical situations are impossible to answer and, IMV, trying to answer them would be a waste of time. So I won't bother. I am content to wait and see what happens with the investigation. I don't particularly like what I hear about the diocese, but that certainly isn't grounds for deposing Bp Lawrence.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-46731473286053021182011-10-17T18:53:31.995-04:002011-10-17T18:53:31.995-04:00Rabbit--try them out! It's like Paul's exh...Rabbit--try them out! It's like Paul's exhortations. Do them and one becomes them. Don't just pick away on the edges, name-calling etc. Jump in and deal with the actual issues facing TEC. grace and peace--SamSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-71756312643697143542011-10-17T18:29:28.352-04:002011-10-17T18:29:28.352-04:00Reason and Humility. Two of the greatest virtues....Reason and Humility. Two of the greatest virtues.Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-87987808081618537792011-10-17T17:53:18.829-04:002011-10-17T17:53:18.829-04:00BTW, I would find *identical* multiple posts from ...BTW, I would find *identical* multiple posts from one person annoying. I am only now checking back in.<br /><br />There must have been a malfunction. The site rejected the W.I. several times. But obviously the messages were going through.<br /><br />Apologies for that.Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-50528075525049971462011-10-17T16:48:32.228-04:002011-10-17T16:48:32.228-04:00Why don't Rabbit and Kurt go off and play whif...Why don't Rabbit and Kurt go off and play whiffle ball if staying on topic is too difficult?<br /><br />Now we have news of the retaining of an older Counsel to replace Hicks, who had *already* been on the +ML case before the new Title IV committee kicked in.<br /><br />If there were charges already being brought by an old Title IV committee, why weren't these handed over to the Intake Officer, as is required by canon?<br /><br />CuriousSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80017061366311136612011-10-17T16:29:46.157-04:002011-10-17T16:29:46.157-04:00Sammy's stock-in-trade is "well-known fac...Sammy's stock-in-trade is "well-known facts", which are neither, and deeply partisan flights of fancy elevated to the status of certainty. <br /><br />Try this unending against-the-tide style at tolerant sites like Stand Firm, Anonymous (how come, by the way, that posts like yours waft, so boldly, from behind the curtain of total anonymity?) and see how long your shelf-life is.<br /><br />The grandmother of a friend used to say <i>"A joke's a joke, but bugger a carnival"</i>. Sums up Sam.Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-36011974265908373612011-10-17T16:03:26.215-04:002011-10-17T16:03:26.215-04:00Is a 'troll' someone who speaks to the top...Is a 'troll' someone who speaks to the topic and engages others, as against name-calling and other juvenile behaviour? Maybe the term means something different in your frame of reference, where virtually nothing of substance ever appears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-57827303279772808622011-10-17T14:44:23.952-04:002011-10-17T14:44:23.952-04:00Enough of the Sam troll, already!
Kurt Hill
Brook...Enough of the Sam troll, already!<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-35427262594256385642011-10-17T08:38:40.632-04:002011-10-17T08:38:40.632-04:00Paul Powers, Pete Carroll
I wonder if the issue i...Paul Powers, Pete Carroll<br /><br />I wonder if the issue is not whether the PB will open up some kind of phase where +ML gets to defend himself against the charges; and if she does, whether he will 'leave' or 'show up' and defend himself.<br /><br />I'm not sure that obtained in the case of Iker and Duncan. Of course in old Title IV, she was using this abandonment canon so as to get the job done. It was not designed for this, but deposing them was not going smoothly because Sr Bishops did not agree.<br /><br />The point is that we have a process in new Title IV which has phases for review. Intake Officer, Panel of Reference, etc. But this was rejected because the decision was made to consider these charges as 'abandonment' relating. So the Disc Committee goes into a different kind of modality. We have never seen abandonment handled by them so what will its phases of review look like? We don't know. <br /><br />The Diocese of SC however does not hold the view that Title IV is constitutional (and in the light of developments, we can see that they and others are right to be concerned; CFL was more cautious about accepting Title IV and Dallas votes shortly). <br /><br />So we shall have to see what happens. We have had a legal counsel step down. We have had assurances for calm, necessitated when it became clear that the normal (new) Title IV procedures were not going to be used. <br /><br />But to say that SC is different because we can't tell if they are looking outside the door misconstrues what is genuinely different.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-59381301999630097512011-10-17T08:38:09.838-04:002011-10-17T08:38:09.838-04:00Paul Powers, Pete Carroll
I wonder if the issue i...Paul Powers, Pete Carroll<br /><br />I wonder if the issue is not whether the PB will open up some kind of phase where +ML gets to defend himself against the charges; and if she does, whether he will 'leave' or 'show up' and defend himself.<br /><br />I'm not sure that obtained in the case of Iker and Duncan. Of course in old Title IV, she was using this abandonment canon so as to get the job done. It was not designed for this, but deposing them was not going smoothly because Sr Bishops did not agree.<br /><br />The point is that we have a process in new Title IV which has phases for review. Intake Officer, Panel of Reference, etc. But this was rejected because the decision was made to consider these charges as 'abandonment' relating. So the Disc Committee goes into a different kind of modality. We have never seen abandonment handled by them so what will its phases of review look like? We don't know. <br /><br />The Diocese of SC however does not hold the view that Title IV is constitutional (and in the light of developments, we can see that they and others are right to be concerned; CFL was more cautious about accepting Title IV and Dallas votes shortly). <br /><br />So we shall have to see what happens. We have had a legal counsel step down. We have had assurances for calm, necessitated when it became clear that the normal (new) Title IV procedures were not going to be used. <br /><br />But to say that SC is different because we can't tell if they are looking outside the door misconstrues what is genuinely different.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-91441908732995631192011-10-17T08:37:46.860-04:002011-10-17T08:37:46.860-04:00Paul Powers, Pete Carroll
I wonder if the issue i...Paul Powers, Pete Carroll<br /><br />I wonder if the issue is not whether the PB will open up some kind of phase where +ML gets to defend himself against the charges; and if she does, whether he will 'leave' or 'show up' and defend himself.<br /><br />I'm not sure that obtained in the case of Iker and Duncan. Of course in old Title IV, she was using this abandonment canon so as to get the job done. It was not designed for this, but deposing them was not going smoothly because Sr Bishops did not agree.<br /><br />The point is that we have a process in new Title IV which has phases for review. Intake Officer, Panel of Reference, etc. But this was rejected because the decision was made to consider these charges as 'abandonment' relating. So the Disc Committee goes into a different kind of modality. We have never seen abandonment handled by them so what will its phases of review look like? We don't know. <br /><br />The Diocese of SC however does not hold the view that Title IV is constitutional (and in the light of developments, we can see that they and others are right to be concerned; CFL was more cautious about accepting Title IV and Dallas votes shortly). <br /><br />So we shall have to see what happens. We have had a legal counsel step down. We have had assurances for calm, necessitated when it became clear that the normal (new) Title IV procedures were not going to be used. <br /><br />But to say that SC is different because we can't tell if they are looking outside the door misconstrues what is genuinely different.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-77351939928570937752011-10-17T08:37:26.988-04:002011-10-17T08:37:26.988-04:00Paul Powers, Pete Carroll
I wonder if the issue i...Paul Powers, Pete Carroll<br /><br />I wonder if the issue is not whether the PB will open up some kind of phase where +ML gets to defend himself against the charges; and if she does, whether he will 'leave' or 'show up' and defend himself.<br /><br />I'm not sure that obtained in the case of Iker and Duncan. Of course in old Title IV, she was using this abandonment canon so as to get the job done. It was not designed for this, but deposing them was not going smoothly because Sr Bishops did not agree.<br /><br />The point is that we have a process in new Title IV which has phases for review. Intake Officer, Panel of Reference, etc. But this was rejected because the decision was made to consider these charges as 'abandonment' relating. So the Disc Committee goes into a different kind of modality. We have never seen abandonment handled by them so what will its phases of review look like? We don't know. <br /><br />The Diocese of SC however does not hold the view that Title IV is constitutional (and in the light of developments, we can see that they and others are right to be concerned; CFL was more cautious about accepting Title IV and Dallas votes shortly). <br /><br />So we shall have to see what happens. We have had a legal counsel step down. We have had assurances for calm, necessitated when it became clear that the normal (new) Title IV procedures were not going to be used. <br /><br />But to say that SC is different because we can't tell if they are looking outside the door misconstrues what is genuinely different.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-73904683486885278212011-10-17T08:37:12.068-04:002011-10-17T08:37:12.068-04:00Paul Powers, Pete Carroll
I wonder if the issue i...Paul Powers, Pete Carroll<br /><br />I wonder if the issue is not whether the PB will open up some kind of phase where +ML gets to defend himself against the charges; and if she does, whether he will 'leave' or 'show up' and defend himself.<br /><br />I'm not sure that obtained in the case of Iker and Duncan. Of course in old Title IV, she was using this abandonment canon so as to get the job done. It was not designed for this, but deposing them was not going smoothly because Sr Bishops did not agree.<br /><br />The point is that we have a process in new Title IV which has phases for review. Intake Officer, Panel of Reference, etc. But this was rejected because the decision was made to consider these charges as 'abandonment' relating. So the Disc Committee goes into a different kind of modality. We have never seen abandonment handled by them so what will its phases of review look like? We don't know. <br /><br />The Diocese of SC however does not hold the view that Title IV is constitutional (and in the light of developments, we can see that they and others are right to be concerned; CFL was more cautious about accepting Title IV and Dallas votes shortly). <br /><br />So we shall have to see what happens. We have had a legal counsel step down. We have had assurances for calm, necessitated when it became clear that the normal (new) Title IV procedures were not going to be used. <br /><br />But to say that SC is different because we can't tell if they are looking outside the door misconstrues what is genuinely different.<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-86025856485790873892011-10-17T07:56:20.000-04:002011-10-17T07:56:20.000-04:00Paul Powers, you good anaswer is limited by the pe...Paul Powers, you good anaswer is limited by the perspective you bring. This is revealed when you say, 'he has opened the door and looked outside.' <br /><br />The argument in SC is not to do with looking outside. Or the bank robber in a car with a mask and a gun. Intent, kind 'of.<br /><br />SC's argument is that those 'inside' are overreaching in respect of the constitution. SC is fully inside. Others are moving TEC into a place of confusion, power-mongering, and onconstitutionality. SEC is staying the course.<br /><br />That many here want to see a different SC does not make them right. For SC the issue turns on keeping TEC in an historical polity and integrity. Let people say they are wrong, and let this be properly contested ecclessially ands civily. It is a view shared by CFL, Dallas, W-TX and many others.<br /><br />But the main lens on which to view the struggle is not 'they are thinking of leaving; maybe.' If one wants to put it in this way it ought to read. 'they want to know if they are going to be evicted' because a new TEC is emerging that departs from the constitution and the rule of law.<br /><br />And so we shall see the struggle play out. And in the end if the Diocese of SC is removed from the ecclesial books of the new TEC, then the next question will be, will it not simply continue as before?<br /><br />SamuelSamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1749607510510653472011-10-17T01:24:38.052-04:002011-10-17T01:24:38.052-04:00Thanks Paul. I understand the process to give a fo...Thanks Paul. I understand the process to give a form of "appeal."<br />Which is good.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-12540878130533920042011-10-17T00:08:56.757-04:002011-10-17T00:08:56.757-04:00Paul Powers...thanks for your observations.Paul Powers...thanks for your observations.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-5703117613507788632011-10-16T19:31:43.745-04:002011-10-16T19:31:43.745-04:00Peter Carrell, you are correct. There is no appeal...Peter Carrell, you are correct. There is no appeal from a vote of the House of Bishops to depose a bishop on the specific grounds of abandonment of the Episcopal Church. However, before it even gets to the HOB, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops has to certify to the Presiding Bishop that the bishop has abandoned the Episcopal Church, and the bishop is then given at least 60 days to recant or to make a good faith denial that s/he committed the acts complained of. <br /><br />The canons don't specify how the HOB is supposed to make its decision, but the house may have some internal rules on this matter. Most likely, the bishop would be given an opportunity argue his case before the house. However, as I recall, in the cases of Bishops Schofield and Duncan, they already had one or both feet out the door and chose not to appear (probably wouldn't have made a difference if they had). In one of these cases (I think +Duncan's, but I'm not sure), there was some question about whether the canon required a majority vote of all bishops eligible to vote in the HOB or a majority of those present and voting at the meeting of the HOB. Based on advice by the parliamentarian, the PB ruled that it required only a majority of the bishops present and voting. Since there weren't enough votes to overturn it, the ruling stood.<br /><br />Bishop Iker's case was handled a little differently. He issued a press statement that said in essence "Katharine Jeffert Schori isn't the boss of me" (albeit in more episcopal language). The Presiding Bishop took that to be a voluntary renunciation of ministry, which she accepted (with the consent of her council of advice), and from which there was no appeal.<br /><br />Bishop Lawrence's case may play out differently. He hasn't stepped outside the door (at least not yet). So far, all he has done is opened the door and looked outside. He may also have more of an interest in fighting it than +Duncan and +Schofield did, if it gets that far. At this point, though, it might be better to wait and see what the disciplinary panel does.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-39845415309132437602011-10-15T22:09:45.384-04:002011-10-15T22:09:45.384-04:00I wonder if the learned commentators on the canons...I wonder if the learned commentators on the canons and constitution of TEC could help an Anglican from Down Under get a better feel for the situation in which +Mark Lawrence seems to be placed?<br /><br />In my own reading of Anglican Curmudgeon, balanced by my reading here of those who dispute the fairness of Curmudgeon's understanding of what is at stake, I have nevertheless formed the impression that +Mark Lawrence could, in the end, be charged, tried and deposed under the relevant canon Bishop Henderson is working to without right of appeal against the decision.<br /><br />Is anyone here, otherwise not disposed to lean towards favouring +Mark, able to guide my understanding? That is, am I right in thinking that the process unfolding offers the possibility of judgement against +Mark without his having a right of appeal should the judgement lead to his deposition?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-88929155543209211092011-10-15T20:12:52.532-04:002011-10-15T20:12:52.532-04:00I liked you post, Fr. Harris.
I just don't t...I liked you post, Fr. Harris. <br /><br />I just don't think Bishop Lawrence is going to do anything that might hinder his destiny of being an official martyr of the self-proclaimed orthodox.<br /><br />However, I would be pleased if future events prove my current opinion wrong.David and Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09545394141617985139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-26623302552116559622011-10-15T16:36:40.234-04:002011-10-15T16:36:40.234-04:00That is not the view held by members of the HOB.
...That is not the view held by members of the HOB.<br /><br />The constitution is clear about what offices the PB exercises. For the PB to have new authorities given to her, is what the Constitution is for.<br /><br />SamSamnoreply@blogger.com