CURIA-SER AND CURIA-SER

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

I’ve been studying the steady decline of the Episcopal Organization into high-church universalism for a long time and I thought I had them figured out. But four recent stories about the Episcopalians have got me awfully confused. Katharine Jefferts Schori:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori challenged the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council Oct. 24 to avoid “committing suicide by governance.”

Jefferts Schori said that the council and the church face a “life-or-death decision,” describing life as “a renewed and continually renewing focus on mission” and death as “an appeal to old ways and to internal focus” which devotes ever-greater resources to the institution and its internal conflicts.

“We need some structural change across the Episcopal Church,” she said. “Almost everywhere I go I hear dioceses wrestling with this; dioceses addressing what they often think of as their own governance handcuffs, the structures that are preventing them from moving more flexibly into a more open future.”

Later in her remarks, Jefferts Schori said “we need a system that is more nimble, that is more able to respond to change,” calling for “a more responsive and adaptable and less rigid set of systems.”

The Executive Council to TEO:

A member of Council stated her desire to seek clarity from the Presiding Bishop about her remarks on Sunday on church governance. She noted that the Presiding Bishop’s remarks were taken by some to diminish the role of deputies in the widest governance of the church. The Presiding Bishop explained that she was not questioning the need for the House of Deputies nor diminishing their governance role, and that she views the natural tension between the two houses as healthy and necessary. She said that her larger concern was that leaders in the church – bishops, clergy and laity – not be afraid of exploring ways to respond to changing circumstances in a nimble way, that we “choose life” and find ways to insure that our governance enables that, and does not get in the way of it.

From an analysis of the recent Title IV revisions at The Living Church:

The revisions to Title IV enacted by General Convention at Anaheim in 2009 turn the principles of the founders of the Diocese of Dallas and those of the entire Episcopal Church on their head. As neatly summarized in the excellent article on this subject written by Alan Runyan and Mark McCall, these amendments inflict a broad range of damage that should be of grave concern to Episcopalians across the entire political spectrum. They enable a bishop (and the presiding bishop) not only to serve as policeman writing the citation, but also to sit as a member of the three-person board (or grand jury) that will be appointed to replace a duly elected standing committee.

Any resemblance to due process as we understand it in this country has been eliminated from Title IV, including protection of ordained clergy against self-incrimination. Clergy must now “testify and cooperate”; they must “self-report” an offense; and they will no longer hear Miranda warnings. As rewritten, Title IV works to the advantage of those who currently hold authority within TEC. With a change in regime, however, it could easily become an instrument of control by those they oppose. Good law should serve all parties, not simply whichever group may be in power.

By 2009, a handpicked group of attorneys and bishops led a Title IV Task Force II on Disciplinary Policies and Procedures. They had learned their lessons from 2006. Resolution A185 arrived on the floor of the General Convention on July 13, and it passed virtually unchallenged. As I recall, 15 minutes of debate was allotted, which was consumed almost completely by one deputy, while long lines waited at the other microphones. A motion to extend the debate was ruled out of order. The next day the House of Bishops concurred. Reports indicated only one question was asked about Title IV in the daily news conference, and a story appeared on page 6 of the Convention Daily announcing the passage of Resolution A185.

And the other day at Naughton’s:

Until Mary Frances Schjonberg of Episcopal News Service files her story, we will be without a first hand account, but email communication with some of those present suggests that some members of the council thought that the Presiding Bishop was beginning to make the case for a style of governance that concentrated more authority in the hands of bishops and the Church Center staff at the expense of clergy and laity. Several deputies noted remarks made by bishops at the last General Convention which seemed to disparage or discount the need for the House of Deputies.

All four of these, taken together, bring up an interesting question. Is Mrs. Schori actually trying to centralize Episcopal power? Does she really want to become an Episcopal pope?

We all know what terms like ‘nimble,” “flexibility” and “governance handcuffs” mean coming from someone like Katharine Jefferts Schori. Stop tying my hands with all these rules, regulations and canons and let me run this church the way I see fit!

The question is why. Mrs. Schori has already acted the tyrant on more than one occasion without anyone raising a fuss about it. She already has the power and she knows it.

Episcopal liberals can do anything they want right now because anything resembling traditional Christianity in the Episcopal Organization is either dead or almost there. Some talk about rearguard actions, defending bridges and whatnot but most people know that that’s no longer possible or even desirable.

So I don’t get it. Why would Mrs. Schori officially want what she already has?