Last month, the Web pages for Episcopal News Service were revamped and the URL for the main page was changed. That URL is now http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/, which, arguably, is inconveniently long. (It used to be http://episcopalchurch.org/ens/—an address which, for now, is being redirected to the new page—but http://dfms.org/ens/, which was much more convenient, also worked. That more compact URL no longer does.)
In any case, the new ENS site is more simply organized, and URLs of new stories are no longer the inscrutable strings of characters they used to be. Recent stories with old-style URLs have retained their Web addresses. Unfortunately, older stories have not. Thus, myriad links on the Web to past stories—I haven’t determined at what date “older stories” begin—are broken.
That URLs of ENS stories have changed is particularly irritating to me, as I am the principal editor of Pittsburgh Update, a blog maintained by Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh that publishes a weekly summary of news stories related to Episcopal Church integrity. New stories on Pittsburgh Update frequently refer to older stories, and those older stories often contain links to stories from ENS. Many of those links are now broken, though I try to repair them whenever I run across them.
Today, while working on the weekly Pittsburgh Update post, I needed to link to an earlier post that contained a link to an ENS story at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_119351_ENG_HTM.htm from February 2010. That address brought up the dreaded Page Not Found message. It was only through the Internet Archive that I was able to determine the title and exact date of the story. With that information, I went searching for the article in the ENS archive.
Just about all the ENS pages contain a search box, so one might think that searching for the exact story title would be the fastest way to find it. The result of that search, however, was the message “Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.” Knowing the date of an article is helpful, as the ENS site allows one to find all the posts in a given month. Unfortunately, one has to know how the article was characterized, since the monthly archives are segregated by topic. I looked under World Report, which seemed to contain all the stories from other Anglican Communion churches. This search failed, as did one under Churchwide. (As it happens, I would have had to look under News. Who knew?)
Anyway, by this time I was frustrated and decided to call the Episcopal Church Center in New York City to ask someone to tell me where my story went. I made the call, planning to ask for anyone from ENS, since I know that ENS people are not always in the New York office. I was surprised to hear not the human receptionist I had come to expect, but a dreaded automated announcement. That announcement offered me the option of dialing an extension I already knew—but I didn’t know an extension—of using a system to find the number of a particular person—but I wasn’t trying to reach a particular person, only a department—or of hearing a list of departments. There was no option for talking to an operator, and pressing 0, which often works on such automated systems, simply gave me an error message. I chose the last option, of course, but ENS wasn’t among the departments listed. I hung up in frustration.
I went back to the ENS site and found a list of contact numbers for ENS people and dialed the number of someone I actually knew but who likely wasn’t in the office today. She wasn’t. I then called the Episcopal Church Center and listened to the recitation of extension numbers. I punched in the number of the Office of the Presiding Bishop and explained that I really wanted to speak to someone from ENS. My call was promptly transferred to someone who was able to help me and who clearly shared some of my frustrations, both about the ENS site and about the telephone system. (The URL I was looking for, by the way, was http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/79425_119351_ENG_HTM.htm, an address not related to the original URL in any obvious way.)
As a computer professional, I can appreciate the difficulty of revising the ENS pages while preserving older URLs. Moreover, I can accept that it was seen as necessary to preserve the arcane classification system previously used for ENS stories for those older stories. Nonetheless, I find the present ENS archive a weekly, if not a daily trial.
What I cannot accept is the difficulty in reaching someone—anyone—at ENS. The Contact Us page on the ENS site lists the Episcopal Church Center telephone numbers for general inquiries. Of the six individuals listed, one has a telephone number in the U.K., one has a California number, and two have only e-mail addresses. If one clicks on Contact Us on the home page of the main Episcopal Church site, one is presented with an e-mail form, not a list of telephone numbers or e-mail addresses! And then, there is the telephone system.
The Episcopal Church Welcomes You. Yeah, right!
Postscript. I visited my bookmarked page containing Episcopal Church images for use in print publications, Web sites, and so forth. I thought I would use one of the images for this post. The page has moved or disappeared, however.
January 23, 2012
January 15, 2012
Pittsburgh Episcopal Candidates Announced
Candidates for the next Bishop of Pittsburgh were just announced on the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Web site. They are:
I had no advance information about the names of the candidates, so I will refrain from saying anything about the slate for now.
I was surprised to learn that the four announced candidates have already submitted written answers to questions asked by the Standing Committee. Although neither the questions nor the individual answers have been released, knowing the names of the other candidates might influence unfairly, in some way, answers submitted by any candidate nominated by petition.
There is, of course, an arcane process by which additional candidates can be nominated by petition. The procedure was devised to give voice to those who might be dissatisfied with the names put forward by the Standing Committee and Nominating Committee, without encouraging additional nominations unduly. That procedure is described in the diocese’s post.
Oddly, I think, the Standing Committee chose not to post anything like a résumé for each candidate, something that will be done when the final slate is fixed. The logic of this seems to involve the nomination-by-petition process, though what that logic might be escapes me. The lack of biographical data will likely make the four officially selected candidates seem less impressive than they actually are, which might unduly encourage petition nominees.
I pray that electors will see at least one special candidate among the four and that no electors will find some of the candidates completely unacceptable. The convention to elect the next bishop—the first diocesan to follow the deposed Robert Duncan—is less than three months away.
- The Rev. Canon Michael N. Ambler, Jr., Rector of Grace Episcopal Church, Bath, Maine
- The Rev. Dorsey W. M. McConnell, Rector of Church of the Redeemer, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
- The Rev. R. Stanley Runnels, Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Kansas City, Missouri
- The Rev. Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, Rector of St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Denver, Colorado
I had no advance information about the names of the candidates, so I will refrain from saying anything about the slate for now.
I was surprised to learn that the four announced candidates have already submitted written answers to questions asked by the Standing Committee. Although neither the questions nor the individual answers have been released, knowing the names of the other candidates might influence unfairly, in some way, answers submitted by any candidate nominated by petition.There is, of course, an arcane process by which additional candidates can be nominated by petition. The procedure was devised to give voice to those who might be dissatisfied with the names put forward by the Standing Committee and Nominating Committee, without encouraging additional nominations unduly. That procedure is described in the diocese’s post.
Oddly, I think, the Standing Committee chose not to post anything like a résumé for each candidate, something that will be done when the final slate is fixed. The logic of this seems to involve the nomination-by-petition process, though what that logic might be escapes me. The lack of biographical data will likely make the four officially selected candidates seem less impressive than they actually are, which might unduly encourage petition nominees.
I pray that electors will see at least one special candidate among the four and that no electors will find some of the candidates completely unacceptable. The convention to elect the next bishop—the first diocesan to follow the deposed Robert Duncan—is less than three months away.
January 7, 2012
A Response to the Jeremy Bonner Narrative of the Trinity Cathedral Decision
Jeremy Bonner, a former member of the Trinity Cathedral Chapter, has made clear his unhappiness over the decision by the Chapter to reaffirm its status as a cathedral exclusively for The Episcopal Church. (See my post “Trinity Cathedral Casts Its Lot with TEC.”) Bonner commented on my post here and has, apparently, expressed his views in writing to Chapter members. He wrote a number of comments on TitusOneNine.
A couple of days ago, Bonner wrote a critical post, “Barchester Redivivus: A Tale of A Cathedral, A Resolution and Human Frailty,” on his own blog, an essay that has been reproduced on VirtueOnline today. Bonner, a historian, has helpfully documented many of the events leading up to the December 15, 2011, decision of the Chapter to reaffirm the Cathedral’s charter. His analysis is, I believe, rather less reliable, a matter I intend to address below.
Bonner’s position is succinctly expressed in one of his comments on TitusOneNine: “As a former member of the Cathedral Chapter, it is my view that while the decision reached on Thursday was probably inevitable, the process by which it was reached fell far short of what it should have been.” I agree with the first proposition, but not the second.
The Cathedral’s Special Resolution of 2008 was well-meaning. It attempted to foster, if not reconciliation, at least some measure of coöperation between what became separate dioceses in separate churches. That said, it had two major defects. Bonner recognizes one of these, though he does not see it as the primary motivation behind the Special Resolution: “Many observers viewed it as an abrogation of responsibility and the reflection of an inability to make hard choices.” Bob Duncan claimed that parishes had two years to decide which diocese they would be in. The Episcopal Diocese established no such deadline—its position, after all, was that no parish (as opposed to congregation) had the right to leave—but it chose to give time for the dust to settle before attempting seriously to assert its claims on parish property. It was never clear why Trinity Cathedral had a special right to straddle the ecclesiastical fence or why, for that matter, it thought it had the right and duty to mediate between what were clearly irreconcilable factions.
More significantly, the Special Resolution was, from the beginning, in violation of the Cathedral’s 1928 charter. The Special Resolution itself acknowledges that the charter declares that Trinity is “for the public worship of Almighty God according to the faith, doctrine and discipline of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and of such other religious and charitable works as may properly be connected with such cathedral church.” Serving as cathedral for an entirely different denomination stretches “such other religious and charitable works as may properly be connected with such cathedral church” beyond reason. Moreover, the charter requires that members of the Chapter be members of The Episcopal Church, but the Special Resolution declared
What was not asserted—what was not needed to be asserted—at the December 15 Chapter meeting was that the Chapter improperly included persons who were not members of The Episcopal Church and who were, therefore, not entitled to vote (and were never entitled to vote). It is to the credit of the Episcopal diocese that it implicitly accepted the terms of the Special Resolution and bided its time until it became obvious that the arrangements established by the Special Resolution were untenable.
Bonner noted that the Special Resolution included this provision:
Bonner complains in his essay that the resolution reaffirming the Cathedral charter was sprung on the Chapter and should not have been able to be carried by a simple majority. He quotes secretary Bette Salmon as objecting that the resolution was not on the agenda and member Wicks Stephens as complaining that its introduction was “underhanded.” (Complaints of secret strategizing from the people who brought us the Chapman letter always seems disingenuous, of course.) I do not personally know what passes for normal procedure on the Cathedral Chapter, but, of course, Special Resolution notwithstanding, the likes of Wicks Stephens did not technically even have a right to vote. Interestingly, although the vote has been reported as 11–7, Bonner notes that Bishop Price was present and voting, and his vote should have been counted, making the vote 12–7.
Bonner notes
Some people may have reasoned that a two-thirds vote would have been necessary to dispose of the Special Resolution, but they had no basis for that expectation.
Bonner ends his essay with this hyperbolic statement: “The tragedy here is not that the Anglican Church in America lost a cathedral, but that the cathedral family lost its very raison d’être.” Au contraire, the cathedral family is returning to its very raison d’être.
A couple of days ago, Bonner wrote a critical post, “Barchester Redivivus: A Tale of A Cathedral, A Resolution and Human Frailty,” on his own blog, an essay that has been reproduced on VirtueOnline today. Bonner, a historian, has helpfully documented many of the events leading up to the December 15, 2011, decision of the Chapter to reaffirm the Cathedral’s charter. His analysis is, I believe, rather less reliable, a matter I intend to address below.
Bonner’s position is succinctly expressed in one of his comments on TitusOneNine: “As a former member of the Cathedral Chapter, it is my view that while the decision reached on Thursday was probably inevitable, the process by which it was reached fell far short of what it should have been.” I agree with the first proposition, but not the second.
The Cathedral’s Special Resolution of 2008 was well-meaning. It attempted to foster, if not reconciliation, at least some measure of coöperation between what became separate dioceses in separate churches. That said, it had two major defects. Bonner recognizes one of these, though he does not see it as the primary motivation behind the Special Resolution: “Many observers viewed it as an abrogation of responsibility and the reflection of an inability to make hard choices.” Bob Duncan claimed that parishes had two years to decide which diocese they would be in. The Episcopal Diocese established no such deadline—its position, after all, was that no parish (as opposed to congregation) had the right to leave—but it chose to give time for the dust to settle before attempting seriously to assert its claims on parish property. It was never clear why Trinity Cathedral had a special right to straddle the ecclesiastical fence or why, for that matter, it thought it had the right and duty to mediate between what were clearly irreconcilable factions.
More significantly, the Special Resolution was, from the beginning, in violation of the Cathedral’s 1928 charter. The Special Resolution itself acknowledges that the charter declares that Trinity is “for the public worship of Almighty God according to the faith, doctrine and discipline of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and of such other religious and charitable works as may properly be connected with such cathedral church.” Serving as cathedral for an entirely different denomination stretches “such other religious and charitable works as may properly be connected with such cathedral church” beyond reason. Moreover, the charter requires that members of the Chapter be members of The Episcopal Church, but the Special Resolution declared
Membership on Chapter shall also include a maximum of four lay and four clergy members—specifically, up to two lay and two clergy representing parishes within a Diocese of Pittsburgh within The Episcopal Church, and up to two lay and two clergy representing parishes within a realigned Diocese of Pittsburgh, to be selected according to the provisions established by their respective authorities.Perhaps what is most remarkable about this and other provisions is that a parish is telling a diocese—two dioceses, actually—how it must act, turning the usual diocese–parish relationship upside down!
What was not asserted—what was not needed to be asserted—at the December 15 Chapter meeting was that the Chapter improperly included persons who were not members of The Episcopal Church and who were, therefore, not entitled to vote (and were never entitled to vote). It is to the credit of the Episcopal diocese that it implicitly accepted the terms of the Special Resolution and bided its time until it became obvious that the arrangements established by the Special Resolution were untenable.
Bonner noted that the Special Resolution included this provision:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that—if circumstances necessitate the application of the principles and provisions of this Special Resolution—the By-Laws governing the parish and Chapter of Trinity Cathedral shall be amended to incorporate these principles and provisions, and that subsequent amendment of those By-Laws to alter substantively these principles and provisions shall require concurrence by a two-thirds majority of all lay members of Chapter elected by Trinity parish, as well as by a two-thirds majority of those parish members present at a special meeting of the parish congregation, duly convened according to the By-Laws.The bylaws were never amended and probably could not have been, as doing so would have required approval by the Episcopal diocese.
Bonner complains in his essay that the resolution reaffirming the Cathedral charter was sprung on the Chapter and should not have been able to be carried by a simple majority. He quotes secretary Bette Salmon as objecting that the resolution was not on the agenda and member Wicks Stephens as complaining that its introduction was “underhanded.” (Complaints of secret strategizing from the people who brought us the Chapman letter always seems disingenuous, of course.) I do not personally know what passes for normal procedure on the Cathedral Chapter, but, of course, Special Resolution notwithstanding, the likes of Wicks Stephens did not technically even have a right to vote. Interestingly, although the vote has been reported as 11–7, Bonner notes that Bishop Price was present and voting, and his vote should have been counted, making the vote 12–7.
Bonner notes
No reason was given at the time for why the vote should not be two-thirds (in accordance with the Special Resolution) rather than a simple majority, although as reported above the TEC position is that Special Resolution carried no binding legal authority.It is not clear, even if one grants authority to the Special Resolution, that a two-thirds vote was necessary. The first reference to a two-thirds vote in the Special Resolution is this one:
Unless otherwise specified, decisions before Chapter shall require concurrence by a majority of those Chapter members present, provided that a quorum exists as established by applicable By-Laws. Decisions to dispose of Cathedral property shall also require concurrence by a two-thirds majority of all lay members of Chapter elected by Trinity parish.But no Cathedral property was being disposed of. The next reference is this one:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the people and Chapter of Trinity Cathedral declare that—in the event that disagreements between these two Bishops substantially threaten the well-being and integrity of the Cathedral—they reserve the right to cease being a cathedral and to revert to being a parish consistent with the provisions of the original land indenture of September 24, 1787, except that such an action shall require concurrence by a two-thirds majority of all lay members of Chapter elected by Trinity parish, as well as by a two-thirds majority of those parish members present at each of two consecutive special meetings of the parish congregation, duly convened according to the By-Laws and separated by no fewer than 90 days and no more than 180 days.But the Cathedral was not reverting to the September 24, 1787, land indenture; it remained a cathedral. Finally, there is this provision, which was noted earlier:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that—if circumstances necessitate the application of the principles and provisions of this Special Resolution—the By-Laws governing the parish and Chapter of Trinity Cathedral shall be amended to incorporate these principles and provisions, and that subsequent amendment of those By-Laws to alter substantively these principles and provisions shall require concurrence by a two-thirds majority of all lay members of Chapter elected by Trinity parish, as well as by a two-thirds majority of those parish members present at a special meeting of the parish congregation, duly convened according to the By-Laws.This provision is irrelevant, as the bylaws were never amended, so one cannot speak of “subsequent amendment[s].”
Some people may have reasoned that a two-thirds vote would have been necessary to dispose of the Special Resolution, but they had no basis for that expectation.
Bonner ends his essay with this hyperbolic statement: “The tragedy here is not that the Anglican Church in America lost a cathedral, but that the cathedral family lost its very raison d’être.” Au contraire, the cathedral family is returning to its very raison d’être.
January 5, 2012
Two More Properties Returned to Episcopal Diocese
The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh has announced that two properties whose deeds are held by the Board of Trustees of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh have been returned to the Episcopal dioceses. A press release from the Episcopal diocese is expected shortly.
The congregations of St. Martin’s, Monroeville, and Good Samaritan, Liberty Boro, left their buildings and turned over the keys at the beginning of this month. According to the notice from the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, both congregations have found temporary venues for continued worship.
The physical plant of St. Martin’s is substantial and includes a large parking area. It was at St. Martin’s that the vote was taken that split the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2008, and it has been a popular location for diocesan-wide meetings for the Anglican diocese. St. Martin’s is less than a mile and a half from the offices of the Episcopal diocese.
St. Martin’s has been a declining parish for many years, tenaciously clinging to its charismatic origins. It is not well-known to Pittsburghers, though its neon sign asserting that “Jesus Is Alive” is something of a landmark along the Penn-Lincoln Parkway (I-376) from which it is easily visible.
Update, 1/11/2012: The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has finally posted a story about the returned properties, which you can read here.
 |
| St. Martin’s in better times |
The physical plant of St. Martin’s is substantial and includes a large parking area. It was at St. Martin’s that the vote was taken that split the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 2008, and it has been a popular location for diocesan-wide meetings for the Anglican diocese. St. Martin’s is less than a mile and a half from the offices of the Episcopal diocese.
St. Martin’s has been a declining parish for many years, tenaciously clinging to its charismatic origins. It is not well-known to Pittsburghers, though its neon sign asserting that “Jesus Is Alive” is something of a landmark along the Penn-Lincoln Parkway (I-376) from which it is easily visible.
Update, 1/11/2012: The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has finally posted a story about the returned properties, which you can read here.
January 2, 2012
Rick Santorum for President
It seems that former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum is likely to be one of the top three candidates in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. Santorum was a two-term senator from the Keystone State who was defeated in his bid for re-election in 2006.
I had been amused by Santorum’s dogged but seemingly fruitless pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination and am now alarmed at his recent surge in the polls.
Apropos of Rick Santorum, I was struck by a column from Jack Kelly in Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Kelly, who expressed dissatisfaction with all the Republican hopefuls, declared Santorum least objectionable of the lot. He noted, “The knock on Rick is that he got drubbed when he ran for re-election in 2006. That's not a small thing, but it seems trivial when compared to the flaws of the others.”
Not a small thing indeed! Iowan Republicans (and people in the rest of the country) should know that Santorum’s defeat was not a fluke; Pennsylvanians were disgusted with his reactionary positions and outrageous campaign tactics; the 2006 election was nowhere near close. I suspect that neither would be a Santorum–Obama race.
So, Iowa Republicans, cast your vote for Rick Santorum. Better still, vote for Ron Paul. The Democrats will thank you for it.
 |
| Photo by Gage Skidmore |
Apropos of Rick Santorum, I was struck by a column from Jack Kelly in Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Kelly, who expressed dissatisfaction with all the Republican hopefuls, declared Santorum least objectionable of the lot. He noted, “The knock on Rick is that he got drubbed when he ran for re-election in 2006. That's not a small thing, but it seems trivial when compared to the flaws of the others.”
Not a small thing indeed! Iowan Republicans (and people in the rest of the country) should know that Santorum’s defeat was not a fluke; Pennsylvanians were disgusted with his reactionary positions and outrageous campaign tactics; the 2006 election was nowhere near close. I suspect that neither would be a Santorum–Obama race.
So, Iowa Republicans, cast your vote for Rick Santorum. Better still, vote for Ron Paul. The Democrats will thank you for it.
Running the Government Like a Business
With the Iowa caucuses taking place tomorrow, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore that the political season is upon us.
One of the candidate claims we hear almost daily is that so-and-so will run the government as a business. Presumably, this is an attractive prospect for Republicans who believe, contrary to all evidence, that business is virtuous and government is evil.
There is every reason to believe that most candidates, Republican or Democratic, will, if elected, run the government like a business, that is, showing contempt for the customers while enriching themselves and their cronies.
One of the candidate claims we hear almost daily is that so-and-so will run the government as a business. Presumably, this is an attractive prospect for Republicans who believe, contrary to all evidence, that business is virtuous and government is evil.
There is every reason to believe that most candidates, Republican or Democratic, will, if elected, run the government like a business, that is, showing contempt for the customers while enriching themselves and their cronies.
December 19, 2011
Dioceses React to Trinity Cathedral Decision
Both the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh have now posted responses to the vote last week by the Chapter of Trinity Cathedral to return the parish to being exclusively an Episcopal cathedral. (See “Trinity Cathedral Casts Its Lot with TEC.”)
The Chapter vote was taken Thursday night, December 15, 2011. The Episcopal diocese posted the story “Trinity Cathedral Reaffirms Tie to Episcopal Church” on Saturday. The story includes this explanation suggesting why it is now appropriate to end the unorthodox arrangement of being a cathedral in two different (and, in many ways, antagonistic) churches:
My reading of the Special Resolution does support the claim that two-thirds of the Chapter and two-thirds of the congregation were needed to retract the provisions of the Special Resolution. In any case, the Cathedral’s charter, which was never changed, requires that all members of the Chapter be members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Many—perhaps all—the provisions of the Special Resolution were improper from day one. Moreover, since only members of The Episcopal Church could properly vote, it is reasonable to expect that any valid vote on returning exclusively to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh would have been unanimous.
In reality, Trinity had not “served as a point of unity for the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.” Each diocese held events at Trinity, but the events were more or less exclusively attended by parishioners from whatever was the sponsoring diocese. Episcopalians and “Anglicans” came together at Chapter meetings and in regular worship services. The two-church arrangement was more a source of conflict than reconciliation and did not seem to have the potential to become otherwise.
It is disingenuous for Duncan to suggest that Trinity Cathedral has embraced “exclusivity, rather than inclusivity.” He has not made any of “his” parishes especially welcoming to Episcopalians! Trinity Cathedral is no more choosing exclusivity than would be a Lutheran church that did not also host Methodist services. The archbishop is simply bitter, as another property he tried to remove from The Episcopal Church has apparently slipped through his fingers.
The Chapter vote was taken Thursday night, December 15, 2011. The Episcopal diocese posted the story “Trinity Cathedral Reaffirms Tie to Episcopal Church” on Saturday. The story includes this explanation suggesting why it is now appropriate to end the unorthodox arrangement of being a cathedral in two different (and, in many ways, antagonistic) churches:
“Trinity's effort to serve two dioceses was well-intentioned in its time, which was a period of uncertainty,” said Bishop Kenneth L. Price, Jr. of the Episcopal Diocese. “With much of that uncertainly behind us, the Episcopal Diocese stands ready to help the Cathedral grow in its mission as a church open to all and serving all in the name of Jesus Christ in the heart of the city,” said the bishop.Today, December 19, a story has finally been posted on the Web site of the Anglican diocese. It is worth quoting “Trinity Cathedral Withdraws from Anglican Diocese” in full:
Governing body reverses position by nullifying special resolution
On December 15, 2011, the governing body of Trinity Cathedral voted (11-7) to withdraw from the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh and affiliate exclusively with the Episcopal Church (TEC).
The motion, introduced by Mr. Andrew Thiros, was intended to nullify a special resolution passed overwhelmingly by members of Trinity Cathedral in 2008 to serve both the Episcopal Church diocese and the Anglican diocese. The vote was conducted when three members of the Anglican diocese were absent and without prior notification to members of the governing body. The special resolution under which Trinity Cathedral had been operating required a two-thirds majority of both the Cathedral governing body and a two-thirds majority of all members of the Cathedral to be altered or overturned, neither of which was satisfied by the December 15 motion. Nonetheless, the governing body, under the leadership Bishop Ken Price (TEC), contends that the motion to affirm the charter of Trinity Cathedral effectively invalidates the special resolution.
The December 15 motion was an about-face for the governing body of Trinity Cathedral, which had previously affirmed “their intention neither to withdraw from The Episcopal Church nor to withdraw from a realigned Diocese of Pittsburgh, and affirm[ed] that they do not wish to be associated with one exclusive of the other.” It is also a reversal of the position of the Episcopal diocese which had previously been supportive of sharing the space at Trinity Cathedral.
Trinity Cathedral had served as a point of unity for the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. It was used for Anglican ordinations and services for high holy days, such as Easter and Christmas.
“We are saddened to learn that Trinity Cathedral has decided to end their relationship with us. We have invested in their best interests over many years. They have chosen to embrace exclusivity, rather than inclusivity,” said Archbishop Robert Duncan.The story from Archbishop Duncan’s diocese suggests that the vote was unfair. After all, three Chapter members from his diocese, it is claimed, were not present. Of course, if they had been present and voting, the vote would still have been 11–10 in favor of returning to the status quo ante. I have been told that “Special Resolution” appeared on the meeting agenda for Thursday night, and it would not have taken much of a leap of imagination to recognize that a motion such as the one actually passed could possibly be presented.
My reading of the Special Resolution does support the claim that two-thirds of the Chapter and two-thirds of the congregation were needed to retract the provisions of the Special Resolution. In any case, the Cathedral’s charter, which was never changed, requires that all members of the Chapter be members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Many—perhaps all—the provisions of the Special Resolution were improper from day one. Moreover, since only members of The Episcopal Church could properly vote, it is reasonable to expect that any valid vote on returning exclusively to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh would have been unanimous.
In reality, Trinity had not “served as a point of unity for the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.” Each diocese held events at Trinity, but the events were more or less exclusively attended by parishioners from whatever was the sponsoring diocese. Episcopalians and “Anglicans” came together at Chapter meetings and in regular worship services. The two-church arrangement was more a source of conflict than reconciliation and did not seem to have the potential to become otherwise.
It is disingenuous for Duncan to suggest that Trinity Cathedral has embraced “exclusivity, rather than inclusivity.” He has not made any of “his” parishes especially welcoming to Episcopalians! Trinity Cathedral is no more choosing exclusivity than would be a Lutheran church that did not also host Methodist services. The archbishop is simply bitter, as another property he tried to remove from The Episcopal Church has apparently slipped through his fingers.
December 16, 2011
Trinity Cathedral Casts Its Lot with TEC
 |
| Sign designating Trinity as the Episcopal and Anglican cathedral (click for larger view) |
At last night’s Chapter meeting, the question of returning to a strictly Episcopal church (and to being the cathedral for only the Episcopal diocese) was put to a vote. The question was carried, after which members of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh on the Cathedral Chapter walked out.
This afternoon, the following e-mail message was sent from the Trinity Cathedral office:
December 16, 2011
Dear Trinity Cathedral Family and Friends,
Yesterday evening the Chapter of Trinity Cathedral voted to re-affirm its Charter of Incorporation. Article II of the Charter states its purpose as “For the support and maintenance of a cathedral church for the public worship of Almighty God according to the faith, doctrine and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America” and Article V further clarifies Trinity Cathedral’s historic identity: “This corporation acknowledges religious allegiance to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and that portion of the same known as the Diocese of Pittsburgh and will be subject to and governed by the laws, rules, and regulations of the same as set forth in the constitutions and canons of said Church and said Diocese.” Chapter’s decision brings to conclusion the difficult and weighty matters with which they had been wrestling during the past six months. It also effectively ends the governance provisions of the Special Resolution which was adopted by Chapter in August, 2008 and ratified by the parish in September, 2008.
This decision was not made lightly or hastily. All the members present were given ample time to express their views before the vote was taken. Many, if not most of the comments made during the lengthy time of discussion had been previously raised in past several months of the Chapter’s work on discerning the best possible future for the Cathedral. This work began in discussions with the bishops of both the Episcopal and Anglican Dioceses of Pittsburgh and included the production of several drafts of a “White Paper” that attempted to explore all feasible options. In the end, the Chapter was not able to achieve consensus about the direction and the timing of the best path forward.
In the current Strategic Plan for Trinity Cathedral, the two central priorities are “Grow the Parish Family” and “Strengthen Our Role as Cathedral.” We believe that the clearer sense of our identity as an Episcopal Cathedral will help us to refocus our efforts and gain ground on both priorities. Our mission, “to serve the Lord Jesus Christ in the heart of this metropolitan community” remains unchanged. We will continue to be a “house of prayer for all people” and everyone is welcome in our worship and community. This vote, and the reaffirming of our Charter, does not compel anyone to leave our Cathedral, regardless of their affiliation. We would welcome opportunities to host the Pittsburgh diocese and larger body of the Anglican Church in North America should they choose to use our facilities for future events.
Our parish family should have an opportunity to discuss Chapter’s decision and its impact on our corporate future. With the Christmas season nearly upon us and many of you planning for travel and other obligations, there will be a Special Parish Meeting on Sunday, January 7, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. in the Blue Room. Until then, I ask that you would continue to keep Trinity Cathedral and its leadership in your prayers.
In Christ Jesus,
The Rev. Canon Dr. Catherine M. Brall, Provost
-- Kate Ferrick
Parish Administrator
Trinity Cathedral
328 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2508
412-232-6404
Update, 12/17/2011, 6:50 PM: A story about the vote of the Trinity Cathedral Chapter is now on the Web site of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The statement from Canon Brall is now also on the Trinity Cathedral Web site. I have seen no comment from either the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh or the Anglican Church in North America. As yet, Episcopal News Service has not reported on Thursday’s decision by the Chapter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)