Picking up on the nautical language of the post below, one who identifies him or herself as Anglican disputes the claims of the Anglican Curmudgeon. The full exchange between Anglican and A.S. Haley to this point is reproduced below. To date, Anglican has not disputed Haley's latest response. If you'd like to avoid legalese, you can pass on this exchange. ed.
Anglican said...
+Duncan and co. continually point to the C&C as not prohibiting a diocese from leaving TEC. However, the C&C does provide a mechanism whereby dioceses outside the US may leave. These dioceses are all termed Missionary Dioceses - the only definition of which in the C&C is:
"Missionary Dioceses...shall constitute jurisdictions for which this Church as a whole assumes a special responsibility."
In all other respects, however, these dioceses are formed, structured and function just as any other domestic diocese:
- They are admitted into union with General Convention via acknowledging the TEC C&C
- They have a Diocesan Convention and Standing Committee
- They are governed by Diocesan Constitution and Canons
- They elect a bishop by Diocesan Convention
- They elect Deputies to General Convention
- They elect Deputies to Provincial Synod
- They adopt an annual budget and program, and provide for its administration
Structurally, Missionary Dioceses are identical to a domestic diocese. The only difference is that they exist outside of the US, but they are, to all intents and purposes, 'dioceses' of TEC.
If a Missionary Diocese wishes to leave the Episcopal Church for another neighbouring (nb) province, it must:
- pass such a motion at its Diocesan Convention and then forward that request to the General Convention
- undergo a 3 year trial period between conventions
- the next Convention may either grant or deny the request, or extend the trial period
From this we could conclude a number of things:
- that it is an unwritten assumption in the C&C that only non-domestic dioceses may leave TEC, therefore only they are provided with a mechanism to do so. If TEC had contemplated the possibility of a domestic diocese leaving they would have provided a mechanism. Provision is provided for domestic dioceses to revert to Area Mission status, or be subsumed into or unite with a neighbouring diocese, but not leave. The explicit granting of such provision to non-domestic dioceses, while only providing for Area Mission/uniting for domestic ones shows that the C&C does not make it possible. It is unwritten but explicitly assumed.
- However, if we generously grant the possibility that a domestic diocese may leave TEC, then why should their process for leaving be any different from that of a Missionary Diocese? What is different about them that does not require a similar process? Why did the dioceses that are now part of the provinces of Mexico, Central America and the Philippines require permission from General Convention to leave, but those dioceses who now claim to be part of the Southern Cone did not?
It appears clear that the lack of provision in the C&C for a domestic diocese to leave is not affirming that any such diocese may leave at any time without approval by GC. It is a sign that it was not envisaged that a diocese could do so, and so no mechanism was provided. If, however, we grant that a domestic diocese may leave, then it is clear that such a leaving process could not be along lines different from non-domestic dioceses who are formed, structured, and governed identically to domestic ones.
Secular courts have shown a propensity to defer to the authority of TEC in interpreting its own Constitution. Such will be the case here too.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:04:00 PM PST
A. S. Haley said...
Anglican, thank you for that detailed comment. However, I think that you and I must be dealing with different versions of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
You state (as though the Canons so provide) that:
"If a Missionary Diocese wishes to leave the Episcopal Church for another neighbouring (nb) province, it must:
- pass such a motion at its Diocesan Convention and then forward that request to the General Convention
- undergo a 3 year trial period between conventions
- the next Convention may either grant or deny the request, or extend the trial period."
Here, however, is what the 2006 version of Canon I.9.2(b) says:
"By mutual agreement between the Synods of two adjoining Provinces, a Diocese or Area Mission may transfer itself from one of such Provinces to the other, such transfer to be considered complete upon approval thereof by the General Convention. Following such approval, Canon I.9.1 shall be appropriately amended."
That is in the case where the neighboring province in question is still a province of the Episcopal Church. And for cases where the neighboring province is a foreign one, Canon I.11.3(b) provides:
"In the event a Missionary Diocese beyond the territory of the United States of America is incapable of functioning as a jurisdiction in union with the Episcopal Church, and the Bishop, or if there be none the Ecclesiastical Authority, of such Diocese, after consultation with appropriate diocesan authorities and the Presiding Bishop agree that continuation in union with this Church is no longer feasible, the Presiding Bishop is authorized, after consultation with the appropriate authorities in the Anglican Communion, to take such action as needed for such Diocese to become a constituent part of another Province or Regional Council in communion with this Church."
In either instance, I find no "three-year trial period" such as you mention. Indeed, in the latter case, the consent of General Convention is not even required; the Presiding Bishop handles the details. In any event, though, missionary dioceses are treated differently under the Constitution from regular dioceses---as you quote Article VI, they are "jurisdictions for which this Church as a whole assumes a special responsibility." Such is not the case with regular dioceses, which are fully autonomous under the C&C 's, as Canon I.9.8 indirectly makes clear. Speaking of Provincial Synods, that Canon states that they have the power:
"to deal with all matters within the Province; Provided, however, that no Provincial Synod shall have power to regulate or control the internal policy or affairs of any constituent Diocese; and Provided, further, that all actions and proceedings of the Synod shall be subject to and in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Canons for the government of this Church . . ."
So while the Constitution expressly provides that the national Constitution and Canons are superior to provincial actions and proceedings, there is no comparable provision with regard to diocesan actions and proceedings; and the provinces are expressly forbidden from regulating or controlling the internal affairs of any Diocese (while General Convention has never pretended it had any such power).
Given these facts and these provisions, I cannot agree either with your analogy or your conclusion.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:46:00 PM PST
Anglican said...
Mr Haley
I'm afraid you are mistaken.
Canon I.11.3(f) states:
"At the request of the Convention of a Missionary Diocese, supported by the presentation of relevant facts and a reasonable plan, the General Convention may by joint Resolution (1) permit the Diocese seeking autonomy to unite with another Province, or Regional Council having metropolitical authority, of the Anglican Communion,..."
The process for this is outlined in Resolution A-235 of GC 1991, which requires:
- a request to GC
- a 3 year trial period
- the approval of GC (or rejection or extended trial period)
The process can be followed in GC resolutions for e.g. dioceses that now form Central America.
The only definition of a Missionary Diocese in the C&C is:
"jurisdictions for which this Church as a whole assumes a special responsibility."
A special responsibility. It is not, as you infer, that the Church as a whole has no responsibility for other dioceses, otherwise it would simply have read:
"jurisdictions for which this Church as a whole assumes a responsibility."
It therefore indicates that the Church as a whole assumes responsibility for domestic dioceses, but it has a special responsibility for Missionary Dioceses. The manner of that responsibility is never spelled out, but it does not involve any less autonomy than a regular diocese. Missionary Dioceses are fully-functioning dioceses:
- They are admitted into union with General Convention via acknowledging the TEC C&C
- They have a Diocesan Convention and Standing Committee
- They are governed by Diocesan Constitution and Canons
- They elect a bishop by Diocesan Convention
- They elect Deputies to General Convention
- They elect Deputies to Provincial Synod
- They adopt an annual budget and program, and provide for its administration
As regards their 'autonomy', Article XI of the C&C states
"Whenever the term "Diocese" is used without qualification in this Constitution, it shall be understood to refer both to Dioceses and to Missionary Dioceses..."
Therefore, your assertion (based on the authority of internal provinces) that Canon I.9.8 does not include Missionary Dioceses is mistaken. It does. And yet they still do require the permission of GC to leave.
It is clear that the C&C explicitly assumes that domestic dioceses may not leave TEC, by the fact that it has to explicitly include a method whereby a non-domestic diocese may leave.
And even if a domestic diocese could leave, then the process for doing so should be no less than that for a Missionary Diocese.
Both sides are arguing from silence, but the stronger argument is that of TEC. There is no mention in the Constitution of how a State may leave the US once in union - that does not mean that they can.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:30:00 AM PST
Anglican said...
I forgot also to add that in Resolutions A141 and A142 of GC 2003, the Convention passed the following in regard to admitting Puerto Rico and Venezuela as dioceses:
"Resolved, That the Convention reaffirm the principle that dioceses of this church that are not located within the United States may seek autonomy according to the procedures set forth in Resolution [A]235a of the 1991 General Convention or may join other provinces of the Anglican Communion".
It is quite clear from this that only non-domestic dioceses are explicitly granted the right to leave TEC for another Province. If all dioceses had that right there would be no need for a reaffirmation of this principle. No such principle is reaffirmed when any new domestic diocese is admitted following a division of dioceses.
The norm is clear. Dioceses may not leave for another province except those located outside of the US, for which explicit sanction and method is given by GC.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:13:00 AM PST
A. S. Haley said...
Anglican, thank you for that detailed response. Your argument from silence remains an argument from silence, and when parties depend on enforcing a silent (i.e., unwritten) agreement, they have to back it up with custom and practice in the past. And that is where your argument breaks down, because you can cite past practice only with respect to foreign Missionary Dioceses, while I can cite the practice with respect to Southern Domestic Dioceses, as I did in this post.
Furthermore, you cite past resolutions of General Convention as though they somehow took precedence over the current Canons---they do not; they are simply expressions of the mind of that particular Convention. Thus with regard to foreign missionary dioceses, no future General Convention would be bound by the terms of Resolution A-235 of GC 1991, and could follow an entirely different procedure in interpreting Canon I.11.3 (f) if it chose.
And notice, please, that in inviting foreign dioceses either to seek autonomy or to join any other Anglican province, the 2003 Resolutions recognize that in the case of the latter choice, no conditions whatsoever restrict their decision to do so.
Thus were I in a court case involving the issue, I would cite the latter part of the 2003 Resolutions you mention as recognizing the general principle that autonomous dioceses are free to leave ECUSA and join any other province of the Anglican Communion whenever they wish to do so, with no restraints of any kind upon that decision.
Note also, please, that the first option mentioned by the 2003 resolutions, namely to "seek autonomy according to the procedures set forth in Resolution [A235] of the General Convention of 1991" is a reference only to foreign missionary dioceses, and not to foreign autonomous ones, because Resolution 1991-A235 itself applies only to the former---it begins by stating that it is enacted "under the authority of Title I, Canon 11, section 3(f)".
I conclude with your preferred syllogism:
A. Foreign autonomous Dioceses are generally fully equivalent under the ECUSA C&C 's to domestic autonomous Dioceses---a principle expressly recognized in resolutions 2003-A141 and 2003A-142, admitting Puerto Rico and Venezuela, respectively, to ECUSA.
B. In connection with those two resolutions admitting the same to ECUSA, GC 2003 recognized that foreign autonomous dioceses are free at any time to join another Anglican province, without condition.
C. Therefore, domestic autonomous dioceses must have the same freedom to leave ECUSA without condition.
No comments:
Post a Comment