In light of Thursday’s vote to depose Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church, the proposed changes to the Title IV disciplinary canons appear even more likely to be approved when they are considered by General Convention in July 2009.
Two canonical challenges in Salt lake City failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority needed to overturn the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation under the canons:
- That the canons specify that the three senior bishops with jurisdiction must consent to the inhibition of a bishop before deposition proceedings can begin; and
- That a majority of all bishops entitled to vote is required for a deposition under the abandonment canon to pass.
Under the revised canons, inhibition occurs as soon as the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee certifies sufficient grounds to proceed with a hearing. Retired bishops, who by and large have not attended meetings of the House of Bishops in recent years, will lose their status as voting members of the House.
During a press conference sponsored by the American Anglican Council (AAC) shortly after the deposition vote on Sept. 18, the Rev. Philip Ashey, president of the AAC, observed that it was now easier to depose a bishop for abandonment than it is for a bishop to resign or for the House to approve a 10-minute recess during debate. The loosening of procedural safeguards for the accused greatly expands the Presiding Bishop’s curial powers over the church. From its inception right up through its recent submissions to the Covenant Design Group, a curial style of polity is something that most Episcopalians have strongly resisted.
The deposition of Bishop Duncan prior to his actually leaving The Episcopal Church may further future litigation interests against the current diocesan leadership in Pittsburgh, but is likely to “tear the fabric” of the Anglican Communion further. The ham-handed manner in which this deposition was advanced also may diminish the number of conservative delegates to the annual meeting in Pittsburgh who will vote to remain with The Episcopal Church on Oct. 4.
Assuming that a majority of delegates in Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy join the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in leaving The Episcopal Church later this fall, it is almost inevitable that a second province will be created in North America, perhaps even before the next primates’ meeting early next year. While the new province is unlikely to win immediate unanimous endorsement from all four of the Instruments of Communion, a review of similar recent actions reveals that when new facts are created on the ground in the Anglican Communion, they are first condemned, but their novelty soon finds more who are willing to embrace the innovation. Eventually a majority accepts it as a revelation of the Holy Spirit, and in time it becomes part of canon law.
A case in point is the use of the abandonment canon in its current form. Bishop Charles Bennison, Jr., of Pennsylvania was the first to use it, in 2002, against the Rev. David Moyer, rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont. Fr. Moyer’s deposition was not recognized by, among many others, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, nor Archbishop of Wales Rowan Williams, who had already been nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury. The latter two primates went so far as to say they would license Fr. Moyer in their own province if necessary.
Things will become even more interesting if the new North American province affirms the proposed Anglican Covenant and General Convention does not.
Interestingly, a comparison of the number of diocesan bishops who consented to the consecration of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire in 2003 and those diocesan bishops who voted against the deposition of Bishop Duncan indicates the House of Bishops is about as divided as it was five years ago. At the 75th General Convention, 59 percent of diocesan bishops consented to Bishop Robinson’s consecration, while 41 percent did not (including abstentions). On Thursday, 64 percent voted for Bishop Duncan’s deposition, while 36 percent voted no. These numbers become even closer if one takes into account the absence in Salt Lake City of the bishops of Fort Worth, Quincy, Texas and West Tennessee.
Steve Waring
Save 40% when you order The Living Church magazine in its new online edition! New subscriptions are just $24.50 for one year. Current TLC subscribers can add the online edition for just $10 through June 2009. Click here for complete details.


7 Comments
"Curial powers...". I recognize this is a "news analysis" piece, and would therefore could include both opinion and fact. However, I would appreciate Mr Waring's interpretation in referring to his belief that "curial powers" were used by the Presiding Bishop. I believe she was very clear in her letter to the bishops prior to the meeting of the House how her chancellor interpreted key provisions of the canons and that she agreed with him. She was also very clear how she would rule as the presiding officer and the the ruling could be challenged -- I don't believe there were any surprises. And the ruling was challenged and a vote taken. All was above board. I also know from reading correspondence from at least five bishops attending the meeting that they cast their votes with prayerful thought and, for some, significant pain.
I appreciate that normal human response is often to vilify the perceived opposition, as seems to be present in comments read so far. I would suggest that most any diocesan bishop who had received a complaint from members of a congregation whose rector/vicar advocated taking the parish out of the diocese would, after similar attempts at seeking a pastoral resolution would deal with the priest in similar fashion.
The high ground in this matter could have been taken by Robert Duncan some time ago -- if he truly believed he could not in conscience continue to live into his ordination vows as this church understands them, he could renounce his orders. Others have done it with great dignity, much respect, and continuing affection.
I see no evidence of the expansion of "curial powers" in the actions of the House of Bishops. They followed existing canons in their actions. They followed proper parliamentary procedures per Roberts' Rules of Order and the Rules of Order of the House.
Bob Duncan knew exactly what would result from his actions. He also had an opportunity to be present at the meeting. He chose not to attend. Bishop Jeffrey Steenson, former Ordinary of The Rio Grande, acted honorably when he could no longer be part of The Episcopal Church. Bob Duncan could have followed that example. Instead he chose to create further discord for the sole purpose of his own attempt at maintaining what he wanted to be as the status quo where aging straight white males continued to run the church and the world. We, including this middle aged white male, have moved beyond that dynamic. Some of us understand that all God's children are equal in God's sight, even for positions of authority. Too bad Bob Duncan can't comprehend the wonderful inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The problem with Mr Zimmerman's argument, as stated above, is the question of which "orders" Bishop Duncan is supposed to renounce under the circumstances.
Bishop Duncan is not seeking another denominational jurisdiction (which could offer him a new order of ministry) but to remain an Anglican priest and bishop.
The Episcopal Church, as Bishop James Adams made clear not so long ago, is not willing to allow renunciation of jurisdiction only, even when other provinces continue to recognize the apostolic orders of those making such a renunciation. We are at a point where one side believes that ordination vows are affirmations made to "the Church" and the other to "The Episcopal Church." And here in Pittsburgh we are in the eye of the storm.
Thank you Steve for thjis report. Just one minor correction-- I am the Chief Operating Officer for the AAC. The Right Rev David Anderson is the President
Many thanks!
Mr. Zimmerman seems, first, not to have read the relevant canons, and, second, not to have read the exhaustive and incisive legal analysis of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, by Mr. Mark McCall, Esq., on the question of whether the Episcopal Church is hierarchical or not. Had he done so, he would have discovered several things. First, he would have found that the Presiding Bishop's rulings, the opinions of the PB and her Chancellor notwithstanding, are uncanonical. For them not to have been uncanonical, and for them to be challenged and a vote taken, they must first of all have been ambiguous. The canons in question (principally [a] regarding the necessity of an inhibition preceding a deposition in the case of a Bishop and [b] regarding the proper calculation of the number of votes necessary for the deposition of a Bishop) can only be seen as ambiguous by persons either illiterate in English, or inured to prostituting that language with regularity. Mr. McCall's analysis only drives home that conclusion in the same manner as a nail set drives home a finishing nail. Second, he would have discovered from Mr. McCall's paper, that the Episcopal Church, i.e., the national organization, is a creature of the dioceses, not the other way around, as he, and apparently the PB, would obviously have it. An exemplar of prostituting the language can be found in Mr. Zimmerman's comment concerning a "rector/vicar (advocating) taking the parish out of the diocese," which he uses as an analogy with a diocese removing itself from General Convention. The parish, as is the case with General Convention, is a creature of the Diocese. Just as a Diocese can create a parish, it can extinguish it. Likewise, just as a diocese must first call itself into existence and may then petition to enter into union with General Convention. Thus, the diocese exists independent of General Convention. Just as I, or Mr. Zimmerman, once we exist, may petition to join an existing organization, may belong to that organization so long as we subscribe to the terms and conditions of membership, and leave that organization if and when we so choose, the diocese, once it has formed itself, may petition for union with General Convention, remain a member following acceptance by GC of the diocese's petition for as long as it continues to satisfies the terms and conditions of its union, and, should it so decide, leave that union with GC. It is an utter shame that individuals insist on asserting as fact, that which is not only unproven, but quite thoroughly disproven. It adds nothing to anyone's understanding, and confuses not a few of the less well informed.
Blessings and regards,
To all:
What I and every Priest in the church should find extremely disturbing is the abscence of a trial, hearing, or any due process that every minister is entitled to under the very same Canons that Bishop Duncan is supposed to have violated. So then it is ok for the PB to bypass canon law as it suits her own purpose? All this reminds me of another "trial" some 2,000 years ago. Who's next? Bishop Duncan's "sin" was to be true to the teachings of the church as handed down through centuries of understanding. His "fault" was to reject the "new order" which seek to redefine the faith that was once and for all delivered to the Saints and to uphold the Anglican Position on Faith and Practice. And we depose Bishops for these actions? It is clear that the goal of those in Denominational Leadership is to force out any who stand opposed to their agenda. The strength of the Episcopal Church has always been in the balance between the various streams of Anglicanism which held the center in check. With the orthodox voice being continually silenced and removed the church drifts further and further down the abyss. God help the Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Church is in a crisis that will likely end in its demise. The canons have now been twisted to persecute anyone who has an issue of conscience over the violation of Scripture in the Episcopal Church.
There is a slippery slope here in the making. First, the canons are being twisted to depose clergy who have not yet even violated a canon. Who ever heard of prosecuting someone before they break the law?
Due process is out the window. We are in martial law, imposed by the Presiding Bishop. Any clergy who speak for orthodoxy or quote Scripture are in danger of being deposed.
It is ironic that the so called "inclusiveness" that liberals espouse has no room for opposition or difference of opinion. Those who disagree with the liberal gay agenda will continue to be excluded in the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Schori will continue to persecute those who oppose her agenda. She will exclude and alienate in the name of inclusion. Does that make sense?