Thomas B. Woodward said...
I missed a citation of the letter Jack Iker wrote asserting that he no longer was under the authority of the Episcopal Church and our Presiding Bishop. Did you know of this letter but hide it from your readers so you could get a few laughs? I can't believe you haven't seen it.
When Jack Iker and his chancellor alienate property from TEC and lead the passage of illegal legislation declaring that they are independent from TEC and its Constitution and Canons; when Jack Iker publicly rebukes the doctrine and discipline of TEC (thus breaking his ordination and consecration vows by which he has any status in this church) and when he provides a process for his clergy to become affiliated with another church body (and becomes so affiliated, himself -- with all that you are saying that he has not declared that he has abandoned the Episcopal Church or given notice of that?
Do you really believe that? I find it a lot easier to trust and believe in the Easter Bunny. At least the Easter Bunny does not villify those who provided him a career, lead others to do the same, alienate its property and then argue that he is still a loyal member of that body.
Fr. Brown, knowing the facts of the matter, would not be laughing at your fantasy piece.
Friday, December 12, 2008 9:44:00 PM PST
A. S. Haley said...
Father Woodward, thank you for coming here to comment. I shall try to respond directly to your charges.
In the first place, I did not cite any such letter as you mention, because Bishop Iker did not write any such letter, and it does not exist. What you are referring to is this press release put out by the Diocese of Ft. Worth. (Notice that it is not a letter addressed to the PB, as the "renunciation" canon [III.12.7] requires.) In it, Bishop Iker nowhere renounces his orders, as the Presiding Bishop claims. What he does do, quite properly, is observe that because he has removed with his diocese to the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone, he is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of ECUSA. (Or do you claim that ECUSA has "jurisdiction" to depose a bishop who belongs to another Province?)
As for its Presiding Bishop, she has no jurisdiction over any diocesan bishop---"never has, and never will", as Bishop Iker again properly states. The Presiding Bishop of ECUSA is not a metropolitan, and cannot tell diocesan bishops what to do, because the Constitution does not grant the PB any jurisdiction over diocesan bishops. The most the PB can do is sign a certificate of deposition once a majority of all the Bishops with a vote in the House have consented to that deposition.
You obviously have not read any of the earlier posts on this site which show that the "illegality" is all on the side of the PB and of the Bishops who support her, in using the abandonment canon for a purpose for which it was never intended---and then in failing to follow its carefully specified procedures, at that. (In the Guide to This Site, you will find all such posts grouped under the heading "The Presiding Bishop Defi[l]es the Canons.")
If to leave ECUSA for another province of the Anglican Communion constitutes an "abandonment" of its Communion, or a violation of its "doctrine, discipline or worship", would you be so kind as to explain why Rule XXIV of the House of Bishops says, in plain English, that "any Bishop of this Church who removed from the jurisdiction of this Church to the jurisdiction of a Church in the Anglican Communion may be continued in relationship to this House as an honorary member"? Surely the House would not provide "honorary membership" for one whom you claim has "abandoned communion" and violated "doctrine, discipline or worship" by removing himself "to the jurisdiction of a Church in the Anglican Communion"? (But it does; it indisputably does.)
I do agree with you that Father Brown would probably not laugh at my "fantasy piece." He is probably laughing too hard already at the follies of those who in one breath cry "Abandonment of communion!" at those to whom, in the next breath, they offer honorary membership in their House.
The Episcopal Church (USA) is hopelessly confused and conflicted, and thus appears incoherent and inconsistent to outside observers. For one like you who is on the inside, the danger is that in trying to defend what is at bottom indefensible, your "defense" will come across as just as inconsistent and incoherent as they themselves do. I suggest you take stock of what is going on, and reevaluate your position.
1 comment:
Fr. Haley, first, thank you for your irenic response to what I had written earlier.
Second, Bishop Iker did make public his statement that he is not under the authority of the discipline of TEC. Re-reading his ordination and consecration vows, that is clearly a renunciation of his vows and as such, prima facie evidence that he has abandonded his standing in this church as an ordained and consecrated person.
Regarding "honorary membership" in the HoB. As you may know that has not been afforded John David Schofield and will not be to Jack Iker. It is not that they have taken another post outside TEC (they would have been accorded much the same thing as clergy who transfer from one diocese to another -- Letters Dimissory. Had I indicated that I no longer felt accountable to the authority of my bishop in California, he would not have issued Letters Dimissory -- in fact, he would have moved immediately to inhibit me.
When these two bishops took themselves out of the Doctrine and Discipline of TEC, they have no business here.
I know Bob Duncan, Jack Iker and John David Schofield. Bob and I were in campus ministry at the same time and he followed me in Chapel Hill, NC. JDS and I were classmates at GTS. Jack Iker and I had a warm and supportive conversation in his office, at my request, before I spoke to two groups in his diocese who were deciding to stay in TEC. I wish them all well as they continue their journeys into the heart of God. I do not support their attempts to take property from the church they have repudiated and giving it to another entity.
Post a Comment