|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bishop of South Carolina (Charleston area) Suspended
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
On Monday, October 15, Episcopal bishop Mark Lawrence of the Charleston area Diocese of South Carolina was in effect suspended as bishop until further notice by Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop.
Presiding Bishop's Official Letter of Suspension
Certification of Abandonment (Presentment/Indictment)
Is this the ecclesiastical replay of the 1861 Confederate canon fire in Charleston harbor against Fort Sumter that began the American Civil War? Many people see the same issues that will not die now in play on the the same stage but within the union of federated dioceses of The Episcopal Church.
It will surely be interesting to see how things develop as they happen in Charleston.
Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
The diocese's response indicates that they passed a resolution recently which withdraws the diocese automatically from the Episcopal Church if the Church takes any disciplinary action against its bishop over the subject matter of the abandonment proceedings.
In other words, as far as the diocese is concerned, they no longer see themselves as part of the Episcopal Church. They've called a Special Convention for next month where presumably they'll try to decide what their future is - ACNA, some other continuing Anglican outfit, or form their own independent body.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Isn't this the guy who had to swear that he would NOT take his Diocese out of TEC in order to receive consents from Bishops and Diocesan Standing Committees for his consecration? (After not getting the necessary consents on his first try.)
I don't have time to find all the details now, but I did find this story.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The very same.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
I'm getting ready to move to the Diocese of Central Florida, which is another similarly conservative holdout diocese. From what I've heard, the retired bishop John Howe turned back from the path taken by Albany, Pittsburgh, and now South Carolina, to the disappointment of the ruling conservative faction there.
They have a new bishop, and it will be interesting to see what he does.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
According to the diocesan website: quote:
Bishop Lawrence was notified of these actions taken by the Episcopal Church between two meetings, one held on October 3 and one to be held on October 22, which Bishop Andrew Waldo of the Upper Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence had set up with the Presiding Bishop to find a peaceful alternative to the growing issues between The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina. The meetings were to explore “creative solutions” for resolving these issues to avoid further turmoil in the Diocese and in The Episcopal Church
This makes me wonder if one hand has no idea what the other is doing. I would have thought that, at the least, they would have let these efforts continue and lead to either a resolution or a solution. I have watched how the presentment etc procedure has worked out in a number of cases (including the ludicrous move on Bp Mark Macdonald who had transferred from Alaska to be the bishop responsible for First Peoples ministry in the Canadian Church) and really wonder if it is a useful mechanism for coming to solutions--- perhaps a procedure could be devised by canonists and not Sam Waterstone on Law & Order.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
One, Lawrence is guilty as charged.
Two, ordination vows are what I keep when convenient for me but expect those who disagree with me to keep at all costs.
A plague on both their houses
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The very same.
Yes, as Zach82 says, ... sigh! ... he's the one.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
The South Carolina diocese had to elect Lawrence twice due to wide opposition, and they moved heaven and earth in Charleston to get people to believe that if confirmed as bishop he would not ever leave The Episcopal Church. He swore it on a stack of Bibles.
Well, he's cleverly arranged by his actions to get kicked out instead. It's very sordid.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, it's all justified when you are theologically correct, right?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'm always theologically correct. The Constitutions and Canons and even the BCP don't always keep up with me. When this happens, I patiently wait for the Holy Spirit to show those that disagree with me the correctness of my position provided I'm allowed to do whatever the hell I want to do. Everybody else needs to toe the line and obey their ordination vows.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I am not a trained canonist, but have a few decades of construing legislation and have been involved in the preparation of material for three court cases over the years, so while my interpretation of the resolutions and canons might be flawed, I'm not totally illiterate on these matters. It looks to me as if the South Carolina actions were such as to create structures which could theoretically be used to facilitate abandonment, but I do not know if they could be called abandonment of communion as such. Remember that the canon was intended to deal with individual situations such as that of Levi Ives of North Carolina, who crossed the Tiber. If there were a clause in the canon addressing conspiracy to abandon, I think that HQ might have had a more solid case.
As it is, I am still not clear why they did not hold the October 22 meeting which could have resulted in a clarification of Bp Lawrence's position. Does the PB have no discretion about timelines on this?? Did I miss something in the text of the canon, or is there a protocol with timelines around? It looks untidy to me.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, Lawrence is guilty as charged.
Two, ordination vows are what I keep when convenient for me but expect those who disagree with me to keep at all costs.
A plague on both their houses
Yes, it seems to me as though there is plenty of bad faith on both sides to go around.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This makes me wonder if one hand has no idea what the other is doing.
IANACL either, but I wouldn't be surprised if the timing had something to do with TEC discovering that in fact it hadn't known what the other was doing.
The most telling item in my mind is Count 3:
quote:
13. On about November 16, 2011, in an apparent effort to impair the trust interest of The Episcopal Church and of the Diocese of South Carolina in church property located in that Diocese, Bishop Lawrence directed his Chancellor, Wade H. Logan, III, to issue quitclaim deeds to every parish of the Diocese of South Carolina disclaiming any interest in the real estate held by or for the benefit of each parish.
14. Bishop Lawrence personally executed a number of such quitclaim deeds.
The quitclaim deed basically is the Diocese legally withdrawing any claim to the property of each parish. In TEC, all such property legally belongs to the diocese as a representative of TEC. If this were allowed to stand, it would mean that, even if TEC reclaimed control of the diocese, it still wouldn't have any claim to the individual churches, which would be free to join another organization and take their buildings, etc. with them.
If TEC discovered that the Bishop was planning any other actions at law in his official capacity as Bishop that would make it easier for the diocese and/or individual parishes to withdraw, or otherwise "impair the trust" that TEC has in the diocese and parishes, it would certainly make sense from a legal standpoint to remove him from such capacity as quickly as possible. Similarly, there may be some of his prior actions that need to be remedied at law by the diocese which he was unwilling to do.
So whether TEC should have waited for the results of the next meeting to see if a "creative solution" could be found depends on the legal ramifications of the actions he had taken, what actions he might have taken in the meantime, and what legal steps will be required to recover from the situation. We don't know the details of this.
I'm sure that it will keep m'learned friends busy for quite some time and cause hard feelings all around. It might be uncharitable to suggest that that was the intent of the actions in the first place, but I don't see any other realistic explanation.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It looks to me as if the South Carolina actions were such as to create structures which could theoretically be used to facilitate abandonment, but I do not know if they could be called abandonment of communion as such.
Furthermore these actions were not entirely made public at the time of the convention, but rather the board (never heard of a diocese having a board of trustees before) established the reaction clauses to disengage altogether from the national church in secret and the bishop announced that "secret measures had been taken to protect the diocese".
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It looks to me as if the South Carolina actions were such as to create structures which could theoretically be used to facilitate abandonment, but I do not know if they could be called abandonment of communion as such.
Furthermore these actions were not entirely made public at the time of the convention, but rather the board (never heard of a diocese having a board of trustees before) established the reaction clauses to disengage altogether from the national church in secret and the bishop announced that "secret measures had been taken to protect the diocese".
I had noted this in my reading, which was why I said: quote:
If there were a clause in the canon addressing conspiracy to abandon, I think that HQ might have had a more solid case.
Given that it was but a few days to the 22d, when the next meeting was to be held, HQ's action is puzzling, and I think requires explanation. While another shipmate's observation that there seems to be bad faith all round might be the answer, the question mark remains.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm always theologically correct. The Constitutions and Canons and even the BCP don't always keep up with me. When this happens, I patiently wait for the Holy Spirit to show those that disagree with me the correctness of my position provided I'm allowed to do whatever the hell I want to do. Everybody else needs to toe the line and obey their ordination vows.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I'm getting ready to move to the Diocese of Central Florida, which is another similarly conservative holdout diocese. From what I've heard, the retired bishop John Howe turned back from the path taken by Albany, Pittsburgh, and now South Carolina, to the disappointment of the ruling conservative faction there.
They have a new bishop, and it will be interesting to see what he does.
The last big flap, over TEC's decision to explore provisional rites for same-sex blessings (forgive me if I haven't got the nuances right) caused some agitation in DioCFL, but the new bishop, I thought, acted well. He sent a letter around saying that faithful Episcopalians in the diocese are not all of one mind on the issue of same-sex blessings, and that we should all respect one another and one anothers' views on The Issues. It was probably the most generous statement I've heard from any of the diocesan powers-that-be since I've been there. Downright heartening.
The new bishop also pointed out, by way of reassurance to the conservatives, that, as a conservative himself, he will not be authorizing same-sex blessings in the diocese.
Given the alternatives, I can live with the new bishop's approach, but I like to be able to go to church without feeling there's a big red target painted on my chest. I have gone once or twice -- well, actually, just twice -- since General Convention, and I've been avoiding coffee hour altogether, on the advice of a friend. I just don't want to have to hear any of that stuff.
To be completely honest, I have been avoiding church in the DioCFL for years. I go mainly when I'm traveling or visiting outside the diocese. I always avoid the DioCFL sermons, because I definitely don't want to hear that stuff from the pulpit. It's very easy to be late to church, or not get there at all, when you keep an exhausting weekday schedule and have to brace yourself for unpleasantness every time you walk through the doors.
So I will probably be avoiding church for another few dozen weeks, given that the ones who like to be buzzin' will all be buzzin' again.
I understand that they have lost 20% of their membership in recent years, and I suppose I'm just one of the 20%.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
This just proves that all the fluff from the national church is just that. The powers that be have an agenda and little concern for the wellbeing of the Church.
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
This just proves that all the fluff from the national church is just that. The powers that be have an agenda and little concern for the wellbeing of the Church.
Would you care to help me out jlav12? What makes TEC's actions fluff and agenda irrespective of the well-being of the Church?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm having visions of all those TV shows where the lawyer tries to secretly ensure all his/her clients are going to go with him/her when he/she leaves the law firm, without wanting the law firm to know what's going on.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QuietMBR
Shipmate
# 8845
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
To be completely honest, I have been avoiding church in the DioCFL for years. I go mainly when I'm traveling or visiting outside the diocese. I always avoid the DioCFL sermons, because I definitely don't want to hear that stuff from the pulpit. [/QB]
Grammatica -- my parents (aka the dreaded snowbirds) had an extremely difficult time finding a parish in their area for the same reasons you mention -- especially the sermons.
Thankfully, they have found a home parish that appears to be an anomoly in DioCFL -- a place where women are not second class citizens, a place where The Issues are not issues, and, not surprisingly, a place with at least 4-5 retired clergy (from other dioceses) as members.
Funny thing is that while their parish is shockingly liberal for DioCFL, it would be considered to lean conservative here in Dio. of MD.
Dad likes the new bishop.
--------------------
"My Jesus would never be accepted in my church...the blood and dirt on His feet might stain the carpets." Todd Agnew
Posts: 298 | From: Middle Atlantic, USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QuietMBR:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
To be completely honest, I have been avoiding church in the DioCFL for years. I go mainly when I'm traveling or visiting outside the diocese. I always avoid the DioCFL sermons, because I definitely don't want to hear that stuff from the pulpit.
Grammatica -- my parents (aka the dreaded snowbirds) had an extremely difficult time finding a parish in their area for the same reasons you mention -- especially the sermons.
It's the same sort of thing in ELCA churches in that part of the country. Good people, good churches, but it's rare to find one that is not in doctrinal opposition to the ELCA over one issue or another. It's kind of sad to think that churches in the Midwest, of all places, can seem liberal by comparison.
[ 20. October 2012, 02:03: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
It's the same sort of thing in ELCA churches in that part of the country. Good people, good churches, but it's rare to find one that is not in doctrinal opposition to the ELCA over one issue or another. It's kind of sad to think that churches in the Midwest, of all places, can seem liberal by comparison.
The ELCA churches I've seen in Florida seem fairly normal. I've never heard them talk about culture war topics. Granted, it's a sample size of 2.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
