Renewed and Guaranteed

Automobile dealers have long sought to make used cars attractive to customers. Often this has involved branding or characterizing the product as something other than simply “used.” Used cars have been tagged as “A-1” or “Certified.” Sometimes they have even been redefined as “pre-owned,” as if new cars begin their lives in the public domain!

Last night, while listening to Rhythm Sweet and Hot, co-hosted by my friend Mike Plaskett, I heard a Ford Motor Company radio ad that ran in 1936. The ad was part of a transcription of a musical broadcast. The ad promoted Ford’s V8-powered automobiles, but it also promoted Ford used cars, characterized as “renewed and guaranteed.” Apparently, the attempt to make a used car seem like a safe and smart purchase is not at all recent.

A Web search turned up the newspaper ad below, from Michigan’s Ludington Daily News of September 16, 1936. The ad announces that “R & G Used Cars” carry a “written money-back guarantee.” That’s something one seldom gets even today.

11/12/2009 Updates

I want to update a couple of recent posts.

Canonical Problem

On October 10, 2009, I posted “What Are the Episcopal Church Canons, Anyway?” which was based on my discovery that a phrase had been left out of published versions of Canon III.9.11. I had trouble eliciting much interest in what I considered a serious problem that I hoped was not the tip of an iceberg. One attempt to interest someone I thought would want to do something about the problem got no response. When I started searching for someone else to contact, I discovered that the Secretary of the General Convention is actually responsible for the production the official version of the constitution and canons after each general convention, so I wrote to the Rev. Canon Dr. Gregory Stephen Straub.

It quickly became clear that I had found the right person. Canon Straub explained that this was not the first time an error had been found in the published constitution and canons. He said that, for the past three triennia, the actual editing of the constitution and canons has been done by the Archives of the Episcopal Church, to which he promptly dispatched e-mail. This quickly resulted in e-mail from the Archives acknowledging the error and assuring me that an investigation was being initiated. A few days later, I was informed of the results of that investigation.

I was very impressed that an investigation was possible. The Archives apparently retains intermediate work products, which provide an audit trail for determining how the text of the constitution and canons made the transition from pre- to post-convention version. Although actual keystrokes are not logged, the investigation did yield a credible theory of how the phrase “a declaration of removal” could have been deleted from the text of Canon III.9.11. In the final version, “Declaration of removal.” appears as marginalia annotating the section in question. Such marginalia is usually copied from the text to avoid introducing spelling or other errors. In this case, the text seems to have been cut, rather than copied. One might have expected the error to have been caught by subsequent copyediting, but that apparently did not happen. I am told that, since extensive changes were made to Title III by the 2006 General Convention, all those changes will be reviewed for correctness.

It is unfortunate, of course, that the people at the Archives made the mistake that they did, but I cannot but be impressed by their diligence, even if they fail to achieve god-like perfection. I am responsible for maintaining the constitution and canons of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and I fully appreciate the difficulty of such a job. I must also admit that the process I use in carrying out this task is not as meticulous as that used by the Archives of the Episcopal Church.

The Lists Revisited

In my post “The Lists,” I reproduced the lists of priests and deacons “released” by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recently, as well as Bishop Price’s cover letter explaining the lists. The Rev. Dr. Bruce Robison, rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in the Highland Park neighborhood of Pittsburgh, pointed out in a comment that two of the priests on the list had died, making any attempt to remove them from the roll of Episcopal clergy seem both silly and inappropriate.

The priests in question are the Rev. Don H. Gross and the Rev. David MacKenzie. Gross died November 13, 2008, and MacKenzie died September 3, 2009. In other words, Gross died shortly after the realignment of October 4, 2008, and MacKenzie died nearly a year later, more than a month before the Episcopal diocese’s Standing Committee made its offer to realigned clergy. I have no doubt that both priests were in the camp of Robert Duncan, not of The Episcopal Church, but the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh acted too late either to punish these priests or to assist them in transferring to another church.

The release of dead priests by the diocese, which was almost certainly inadvertent, illustrates why Canon III.9.8 should have been followed more literally. That provision, “Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry,” begins as follows:

If any Priest of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese in which such Priest is canonically resident, a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall be the duty of the Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. [Emphasis added.]

The Standing Committee’s notion that a non-response to its October 5 letter was the equivalent of a written request was crazy on the face of it, and it is crazier still when the non-respondent is a dead man. I won’t further belabor this point.

If the Standing Committee released some clergy in error, did it erroneously fail to release others? I tried to answer this question, but it was difficult to assemble the required information from available public sources. Working from a December 2007 diocesan clergy list in the 2007 convention journal (the list begins on page 17), the October 30 lists, the current Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh clergy directory, and the church’s on-line clergy database, I initially identified about 18 former Pittsburgh clergy whose status was unclear. There were also about as many “released” clergy whose past residency in the diocese I could not establish.

Checking with friends, I determined that one or more of the Pittsburgh clergy who were neither released nor are listed in the Episcopal diocesan directory is deceased. A few others seem to have transferred canonical residence to other dioceses. Because the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh has not posted a 2008 convention journal, which would be expected to list all diocesan clergy, it was hard to tell who was being construed as canonically resident in that diocese. I did, however, discover a diocesan prayer list for September 2009 to August 2010. If one assumes that the clergy to be prayed for by the Anglican diocese are to be taken as clergy of the diocese, the status of many priests and deacons can be clarified. Using this, my analysis yielded the following:

1. I found no evidence that two priests on the released list are actually in the Anglican diocese. In any case, they may well want to be out of the Episcopal diocese.
   
2. Six clergy listed as being Pittsburgh clergy in December 2007 are on the Anglican prayer list and are shown on the Web as being resident in Pittsburgh. The names of these people probably should have been added to the 135 names on the released lists.
3. Four clergy are in the same situation as the above six, except that they are not listed at all in the Episcopal clergy database on the Web. The names of these people probably should have been on the lists as well, but their status should be clarified. Some may have joined another Anglican or “Anglican” jurisdiction.
4. One priest is listed in the Episcopal Church database as being in Pittsburgh, but he is not on the Anglican prayer list. I have no idea what diocese he thinks he is in.
5. One former Pittsburgh priest shows up nowhere.
6. At least two priests are canonically in both dioceses. This is strange and, to my mind, unacceptable.
   

Make of this what you will. If the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh made mistakes in tracking clergy—they certain seem to have done so—then they surely have the excuse that the Anglican diocese has been unwilling to share records or, for that matter, to coöperate in virtually any way whatsoever. The process of relieving clergy of their vows to The Episcopal Church therefore involved a degree of guesswork. If mistakes were made, I hope they will be corrected. Certainly, it is to be hoped that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will un-release the Rev. Don Gross and the Rev. David MacKenzie.

The Lists

As has been reported, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recently “released” 135 priests and deacons who had left the diocese for the “Anglican” diocese led by Archbishop Robert Duncan. Letters reporting the status changes were sent October 30, 2009. In letters dated October 5, 2009, the diocese’s Standing Committee had offered an opportunity for deacons or priests to be “‘released from the obligations of the Ministerial office [as a Priest or Deacon in the Episcopal Church] and deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination [in the Episcopal Church],’” and the October 30 mailing completed the process at the diocesan level that was set in motion on October 5.

Oddly, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has not published the lists of “released” clergy and, in fact, declined to provide them when asked. This is odd because the lists are hardly secret. In fact, a list of removed deacons, a list of removed priests, and a cover letter from provisional bishop Kenneth L. Price, Jr., was, according to the lists themselves, sent to

• The Presiding Bishop
• The Recorder of Ordinations
• The Secretary of the House of Bishops
• The Secretary of the House of Deputies
• The Church Pension Fund
• The Church Deployment Office
• The Bishops of the Episcopal Church (or the Ecclesiastical Authority of each Diocese of the Episcopal Church in which there is no Diocesan Bishop)
• The Secretary of the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
• The Clergy of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
• The Vestries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
• The Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburgh

Presumably, the material was also sent to the 135 people on the two lists. In other words, literally hundreds of copies of the material were distributed. Moreover, it appears that the former Pittsburgh clergy already have been removed from the clergy database accessible from the Church Publishing Incorporated Web site.

Primarily because I think Pittsburgh Episcopalians deserve to know who is and is not a member of their church’s clergy, I am making available a copy of the material distributed on October 30. Knowledgeable Pittsburgh laypeople will find the list mostly unsurprising, though some names may be unexpected and the absence of others may be equally unexpected.

Bishop Price’s letter is generous and unremarkable. It does contain one piece of information I had been wanting to know: “When asked in a letter in October to notify us of their desire to remain in this diocese, none of those on these enclosed notices did so.” I suspected that this was so. Bishop Price’s letter then continues with this interesting revelation: “After the October letter went out, our Standing Committee received a letter sent on behalf of these clergy stating that if we did not hear from these clergy individually, it would be appropriate for us to adjust our records accordingly.”

You can read Bishop Price’s letter and the list here.

---

My commentaries on the handling of clergy who left the diocese can be read here and here.

Reports from the Anglican Diocese

The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, the “realigned” group led by now-archbishop Robert Duncan, held its first annual convention November 6–7, 2009. Some interesting reports on the convention are now available on the Web.

The convention was held at “St. Steven’s Church,” the Sewickley, Pa., facility led by Geoff Chapman (famous for his notorious 2003 letter) and arguably the property of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published stories on November 7 and November 8. Less helpful is the story published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on November 8. More helpful still is the report from historian Jeremy Bonner, who attends Trinity Cathedral and, like the parish, appears to have a foot in both the Episcopal and Anglican camps.

Here are some highlights of the convention gleaned from the above reports:

1. The diocese accepted a number of parishes from outside the physical limits of the historic Diocese of Pittsburgh. Parishes were accepted into the diocese from North Carolina, Ohio, and California.
2. Diocesan clergy will be in the Anglican Church in North America, but they will remain in the Southern Cone to maintain their nominal inclusion in the Anglican Communion.
3. Archbishop Duncan took a minor pay cut. With assets tied up in litigation, money is tight.
4. The diocese’s fund for legal expenses has received $300,000 “from someone not associated with the diocese,” according to Bonner. Another $200,000 in 1–2 matching funds has also been made available.
5. The dioceses is strongly committed to planting new churches.
6. The diocese supports the current Anglican covenant draft, especially with the controversial Section 4 included.
7. The diocese is strongly against abortion and perhaps only less strongly against contraception.
8. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is now being called the “rogue diocese” by leaders of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.
   

Read the cited reports, especially Bonner’s.

Help Wanted

A few days ago, I announced that Lionel Deimel’s Web Log had been given a new look, with new features. Since then, I have made a few minor changes. Today, for example, I changed the format of the timestamp on comments. (Previously, only the time was shown, which was confusing if comments on a post were left over several days.)

Because the changes to the blog affect all posts, it has not been practical to try catching every glitch that may have been introduced in the makeover. I am therefore asking readers not to overlook anything on the blog that seems amiss or inconvenient. Please report problems by e-mail (see link at right).

I also ask that you report errors in the text of posts—typographical errors, misspelled words, bad links, misused words, punctuation errors, and so forth. Not all authors appreciate having their lapses pointed out, but I am acutely embarrassed by errors on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago and Lionel Deimel’s Web Log, so I am much appreciative of being given the opportunity to correct them. I do try to read carefully everything I post, and I often ask friends to read behind me as well. Errors do get through, however.

I appreciate my readers, and no one should feel obligated to report anything. I should also warn everyone that I do try to adhere to certain conventions—I use commas liberally, for example—so we may not always agree on what is or is not an error, but I will consider all reports thoughtfully.

Well, with that shop talk out of the way, it is time to get back to business. Thanks for reading the blog.

Time for “Hooker Hymn”

I was reminded Tuesday that The Episcopal Church celebrates sixteenth-century theologian Richard Hooker on November 3. Alas, this is a feast we seldom celebrate, even though Anglicanism might have been markedly different had there never been a Richard Hooker.

The reminder came in the form of an e-mail request from a priest who wanted to use my hymn “Authorities” at that day’s chapel service at an Episcopal school. (Children attending Episcopal schools with chapel services get to celebrate more people on our church calendar than do ordinary Episcopalians.) I was delighted to give my permission.

I mention this incident mostly because it prompted me to realize that another occasion is fast approaching on which “Authorities” would be an appropriate hymn to sing, and perhaps some readers can work it into Sunday services on November 15, 2009. The collect for that day is

Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

My own church has often sung “O Christ, the Word Incarnate” (Hymn 632, in the “Holy Scripture” section of The Hymnal 1982) with Proper 28, though I find the text to be something of a muddle. As I explain on my Web page about “Authorities,” I wrote the hymn to celebrate tradition and reason, in addition to Scripture. This brings Anglican balance to the matter of authority within the Church and explains the special connection of the hymn to Richard Hooker. In this time of upheaval in the Anglican world, emphasizing that balance as often as possible is particularly important.

I paired my text with “Munich,” the usual tune for “O Christ, the Word Incarnate,” but I have recommended “Ellacombe” and “Llangloffan” as alternatives. The schoolchildren, I was told, would sing the hymn to “Morning Light,” the usual tune for “Stand Up, Stand Up, for Jesus,” a hymn with which they were already familiar.

---

If you want to use “Authorities,” please write me for permission. (See e-mail link at right.) Unless you’re planning to use the hymn on a network television special, I cannot imagine my not granting royalty-free permission. I do like to track use of the hymn, however.

Alleged Shooter

Not surprisingly, NPR has devoted a good deal of air time on Morning Edition to the mass killing that took place at Fort Hood yesterday. At one point, a correspondent called Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan “the shooter.” He quickly corrected himself, referring instead to the “alleged shooter,” saying something about Hasan’s not having been convicted of anything.

This sort of defensive journalism is really rather silly. To call Hasan a “shooter” is not a statement about his guilt or innocence before the law. That, indeed, is a matter to be determined, and it is proper to insist that, as a legal matter, Hasan is innocent until proven guilty. In particular, it would have been incorrect to call Hasan a “murderer,” as that term does imply a legal judgment, though perhaps not in all contexts.

That Hasan was a shooter is widely attested by many eyewitnesses, and, although eyewitnesses are not always factual in what they report, the likelihood that Hasan shot no one at Fort Hood on November 5 seems vanishingly small.

The silliness of this journalistic caution becomes obvious when we compare the case of Hasan to other reporting where there are many witnesses and certain basic facts seem not to be in question. Reporters don’t talk about the “alleged” victim of a traffic accident or the “alleged” speaker at a political rally. Instead, ordinary events that take place in public are taken to be what they seem to be unless there is strong reason to suspect otherwise.

It is conceivable that Maj. Hasan was not a shooter yesterday, but, not being an experienced conspiracy theorist, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which this would have been the case. Media lawyers need to lengthen reporters’ leashes a bit.

Gone But Not Forgotten

An Episcopal News Service story yesterday explained that 135 priests and deacons have been “released” from The Episcopal Church. The story follows the announcement to that effect on the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s Web site, “Diocese Completes Non-Disciplinary Release of Clergy.” As I wrote in earlier posts (“Is Pittsburgh Treating ‘Realigned’ Clergy Properly?” and “Once More on Departed Pittsburgh Clergy”), I believe that it is improper to “release” these clergy under the provisions of Title III; they should have been subjected to the disciplinary canons of Title IV, certainly many of them, in any case.

The objectives I have heard advanced as being behind the handling of clergy by the Pittsburgh diocese have included the following:

1. To be pastoral, rather than punitive (and, as an added bonus, to get some good publicity for the diocese).
   
2. To get the unpleasant business of dealing with “realigned” clergy behind the diocese as simply and as quickly as possible.
3. To make it easier to receive the sometime Pittsburgh clergy back into the diocese at a later time and under changed circumstances.

I won’t repeat my canonical arguments here, but I do want to address the above objectives, particularly the third one.

As for being pastoral, one can surely find scriptural warrant for treating one’s adversaries with compassion. No doubt, many people who have read in the local newspapers how Pittsburgh has dealt with its departed clergy have found the diocese’s actions laudable. Those of us who have followed the ongoing traditionalist insurgency against The Episcopal Church, however, cannot help but worry that the Pittsburgh approach, canonical or not, sends the wrong message. We believe it both prudent and moral to temper mercy with justice. Why do we even have disciplinary canons if we are so reluctant to use them?

For the affected clergy, at least in the short run, it matters little how The Episcopal Church removes them from the clergy roster and the list of those eligible to contribute to the Church Pension Fund. Their ability to find employment in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh or the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone or the Anglican Church in North America depends not a whit on whether they are released from The Episcopal Church with or without prejudice. Either way, our church has relinquished all authority over them, and recent events have led us to expect that its determination of fitness for ministry is not respected by other members of the Anglican Communion.

Do the released clergy care? Probably not. Ann Rodgers, in her story in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, describes the release as “an unwanted gift.” She quotes Canon Mary Hays as complaining about the use of the canons. Rodgers did not point out that the only canonical alternatives available were disciplinary. (There is a discussion going on at TitusOneNine tied to the diocesan press release regarding whether Pittsburgh is misusing the canons. It is, of course, but with good intentions. As I have said, the canons need to be amended.) Unlike Rodgers, I have not spoken to any of the clergy who have left, but I suspect that the Rev. Dan Crawford’s contemptuous comment on the Post-Gazette story at TitusOneNine is representative of the attitude of most of the former Diocese of Pittsburgh clergy:

I can’t begin to tell one and all how grateful I am that I have been “released”, but then I hadn’t been aware I had been held captive. Having retired from the Corporation several months ago, need I inform the Registrar of Recognized Ordinations that I have also been “released”? The gracious [sic] of an act done on my behalf without my consent is beyond words and even comprehension.

Well, no good deed goes unpunished.

As for getting the deed done and over with, it has to be admitted that charging the priests and deacons with abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church would have entailed some more work, and drawing up presentments—surely overkill under the circumstances—would have required a lot more work. Administratively, there was something to be said for the abandonment route, however. It would have required an extra round of letters, of course, as clergy would first be inhibited and could not be deposed for six months. Given that the painfully small diocesan staff was already overwhelmed with work related to the recent convention, however, I would have thought that stretching out the work would have been an attractive alternative. Moreover, the situation in Pittsburgh (and the Communion) can hardly be said to be stable. In six months, some clergy might actually have found it in their interest to repent and return to the diocese.

That the procedures employed by the diocese make it easier for realigned clergy to return must be considered, at best, problematic. Imagine, improbably, what would happen if all the clergy and all the congregations that left the diocese decided, for some reason, that they wanted to come back. (This might be for pragmatic considerations. Surely many of the realigners could not be expected to have a change of heart absent something as momentous as the Pentecost experience of Acts.) Suppose, further, that the diocese actually took them back. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, which has been transformed from a nasty, contentious jurisdiction in which a majority exercised unchecked power with a take-no-prisoners attitude to one in which people of divergent views are working to get along and seek reconciliation rather than victory—see my post “Doing Things Differently in Pittsburgh”—would be in danger of falling back into its old dysfunctional ways.

Do not misunderstand me. I prayed that as many congregations as possible would choose to stay with The Episcopal Church. But, although Bishop Price won’t say it—he may not believe it—I will: there are some congregations (and certainly many, many clergy) that our diocese is better off without.

The insurgency within The Episcopal Church is driven by priests and bishops. There are laypeople as militant as the worst of the clergy, but many ordinary parishioners are along for the ride. They want to continue worshiping where they have for years, and, when extremist priests lead their congregations, they go along with the new leadership, they become radicalized, or they leave. I had hoped that, when we experienced “realignment” last year, more of the going-along laypeople would have suddenly thought better of it and fought for their parishes. Clergy, even clergy who are not well liked, have a strong hold on their congregations, however, and the hoped for defections were fewer than I might have expected. At least one priest even stayed with his realigning congregation rather than leave it leaderless. In one closely divided congregation that realigned, Episcopalians drifted off to other congregations awaiting the day when they would be allowed to return from exile.

No doubt, there are congregations that now or at some future time could be re-incorporated into the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh without destabilizing the recovering diocese. All things being equal, their potential for rehabilitation will decrease over time. Other congregations can never be. The same can be said of individual clergy, some of whom are guilty of much more serious infractions than simply walking away with property and parishioners. They should never be taken back under any circumstances.

What if a realigned congregation sought to rejoin the diocese and did so with its rector? What should the diocese do? Clearly, the answer depends on the circumstances. It would seem suicidal on the part of the diocese to readmit a congregation with the same priest in place that had preached against The Episcopal Church and goaded parishioners into leaving the diocese for the Southern Cone. If everyone comes back, what should be done with the priest? One can imagine a situation in which, if one accepts my suggestion that extremist priests must be separated from their congregations, the diocese could have, on one hand, leaderless parishes, and, on the other, unemployable clergy. I don’t know how to handle this situation short of creating Episcopal re-education camps for clergy.

Perhaps these musings are what have sometimes been called baroque worries. The situations about which I have serious concerns seem improbable. Who knows what will happen, however, if the Anglican Church in North America collapses, diocesan assets are handed over to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the diocese begins claiming parish property? Our new provisional bishop and other diocesan leaders should think twice before erecting the “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You” sign without any fine print.

Blog Now Supports Comments

When I began blogging in February 2002, I characterized Lionel Deimel’s Web Log by the tagline “Random quick takes by Lionel Deimel.” At the time, I viewed the blog as an extension of my eclectic Web site, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. Blogger software allowed me to compose and post essays more easily than I could build pages conforming to the style I had developed for that site. I expected that my blog would, like so many other blogs of the day, become a diary of personal anecdotes and modest observations. At the time, I wasn’t looking for literary criticism or dialogue.

As time went by, comments on Olympic performances and anecdotes about running down my car battery gave way to political commentary and observations on the political struggles within The Episcopal Church. My “quick takes” sometimes became long and elaborately formatted. My blog, like my Web site, remains a kind of farrago, and some takes are still quick. I do think of myself as an Episcopal blogger these days, though, rather than simply a blogger. (I hope no one thinks I should be ordained before I can call myself an Episcopal blogger.)

In these changed circumstances, the initial decision not to support comments on my blog seems increasingly dysfunctional. When I write something that invites discussion, that discussion can only occur through private e-mail or through comments on someone else’s blog. I have, in fact, been accused of not being interested in dialogue because visitors have not been able to leave comments. That has never been true. The evolving character of Lionel Deimel’s Web Log has finally convinced me to support comments on my blog.

This decision was more troublesome than I expected, as my blog template was not easily modified for comments. I finally decided to drop it in favor of a new template that needed fewer customizations. As a result, Lionel Deimel’s Web Log looks a bit different today than yesterday. Well, change is good.

Since I have not hitherto run a blog that supports comments, please bear with me if it takes me a while to fall into a comfortable mode of dealing with them. (The look of the blog may require a few more tweaks, too.) My main reason for not implementing comments earlier had been fear of being overwhelmed with the management of them. I still harbor that fear, but I am trying to minimize the problems that comments might create.

At least for now, here are my guidelines for comments:

1. Comments cannot be anonymous. I cannot force people to use real names, but some name is required, if only to identify multiple comments as coming from the same writer. My preference is that people leaving comments will use their real names, along with any other identification they think may be useful. I won’t insist on this.
   
2. Comments will not be pre-screened, and I don’t even promise to read all of them, though I will try to do so. I have a high tolerance for language, but gratuitous profanity or libelous statements will not knowingly be tolerated. Send me e-mail if you think a particular comment inappropriate.
3. I appreciate discussion, but I reserve the right to limit discussion that goes wildly off-topic. (We’ll have to see what this means in practice.)
4. I reserve the right to remove comments that violate the above guidelines.
   

Please do not be intimidated by the above rules; I do want to encourage discussion. If you have concerns or suggestions about my guidelines, leave a comment here or send me e-mail (see link at right).

Questions for the Anglican Diocese

This past week, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) announced simultaneously that it was going to appeal the decision of Judge Joseph James awarding diocesan property to the Episcopal Church diocese—see my October 6, 2009, post “Victory!”—and that it would henceforth be known as the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The Story on the Web The diocese of Archbishop Robert Duncan not only issued a press release October 29, 2009, but also created a new Web site on which to place it. The new site, titled “Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh,” can be found at http://pittsburghanglican.org. At the lower left of the home page of this site is a link labeled “Continue to diocesan web site,” which takes the reader to what has been (and, apparently, continues to be) the Web site of the breakaway diocese. This site, found at http://pitanglican.org, still carries the title “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican).” Both Pittsburgh dailies carried stories of the announcement from the Duncan camp. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published “Anglicans appeal ruling on property division” on October 29. An edited and shortened version of the story appeared October 30 with the title “Seceding Anglicans to appeal decision on assets.” The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published “Churches plan appeal of Allegheny County judge’s ruling to keep assets” October 30. Episcopal News Service ran a more detailed story containing useful links to related content. Titled “Group plans to appeal diocesan property ruling,” it appeared October 29. The Living Church posted an October 30 story, “Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to Leave Longtime Office,” which, despite its title, largely deals with the recent announcement regarding litigation. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh published a brief reply to the promise of an appeal October 29, which can be found here.

The determination to appeal the decision in the Calvary lawsuit is a disappointing development, but certainly not an unexpected one. The militant traditionalists leaving The Episcopal Church have shown no hesitation to fight for property in the courts. (The biblical injunction about taking disputes among Christians to the secular courts apparently only applies to the infidels remaining in The Episcopal Church.) That they have had almost no success, except in a couple of Southern states where the War of Northern Aggression is still being fought, is of no consequence. They are confident that they are on God’s side—or is it the other way around?—and are therefore incapable of entertaining a rational cost-benefit analysis regarding costly and time-consuming litigation. They are used to declaring victory at every reversal—the honest “[w]e lost” in Archbishop Duncan’s recent pastoral letter was a welcome exception, but one that has quickly been forgotten—and charging forth with renewed confidence to fight the next battle.

The October 29 press release raises many questions, but, not really knowing what Archbishop Robert Duncan and his attorneys are thinking, I do not have many answers for them. Here are some questions that come to mind, however, and a few thoughts I can offer concerning them:

1. Who is bankrolling an appeal? Duncan’s new Web site (see sidebar), whose purpose seems to be to intimidate Episcopalians into capitulating and reassuring Duncan’s followers that all will be well, proclaims:

The appeal announced today will be funded from several significant contributions, the first of which is in hand. An Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Defense Fund (The Staying Faithful Fund) has been established and is receiving donations. None of the ordinary gifts of our people or assessments of our congregations will be used to support the appeal.

(No information is offered concerning how one might contribute to the fund.) The money is likely coming from the same wealthy ideologues who have funded the Institute for Religion and Democracy and the American Anglican Council, people whose primary agenda may not necessarily be (for example) strengthening the Anglican Communion and its constituent churches. (See the report “Following the Money” from the Diocese of Washington, as well as the earlier report from Institute for Democracy Studies, “A Church at Risk: The Episcopal ‘Renewal Movement.’”) Although people in the pews of Duncanite churches are supposed to be reassured by the press release statement, they might well ask themselves whose agenda is being advanced here. Who is paying for an appeal, an appeal that does not seem to have much prospect of success?

2. Why announce an appeal now? No appeal has yet been filed nor will be filed until Judge James actually orders assets to be transferred to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. So why announce an appeal now? I doubt that the defendants think they are going to intimidate the leaders of the Episcopal diocese directly, though they may have been encouraged by a perceived lack of resolve in the diocese’s generous but misguided offer to release clergy from their obligation to The Episcopal Church. (See “Is Pittsburgh Treating ‘Realigned’ Clergy Properly?” and “Once More on Departed Pittsburgh Clergy.”)

The Duncan crowd may hope that their rhetoric will cause well-meaning Episcopalians to call for charitable treatment of those who have left the diocese and church. According to the new Web site, attempts by The Episcopal Church to reclaim its property would be “unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable.” We are told that “[t]here must be an equitable agreement and distribution. There is a Christian way to resolve this dispute.” We are also told that “the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh is committed to protecting and expanding the extraordinary ministries of [its] dynamic congregations and agencies,” something it will be unable to do without appropriating resources from The Episcopal Church, apparently.

It is interesting to see what is going on here. Judge James’s decision only applies to diocesan property. A separate provision of the 2005 stipulation applies to parish asserts, and the disposition of parish property will only be considered after ownership of diocesan property is established. Duncan acknowledged this in his October 7, 2009, pastoral letter:

The court’s decision has nothing to do with PARISH property, including the funds held in trust for you. The stipulation of 2005 spelled out a mediated process for parishes wishing to leave the “diocese.” Your bishop, your standing committee, your diocesan council and your board of trustees will all work with your parish leadership toward this end. We invite the leadership of the Episcopal Church Diocese into working with us for the good of all congregations, both Episcopal Church and Anglican Church congregations.

There has been essentially no sympathy among leaders of the Episcopal Church diocese for ceding diocesan assets to the realigners. There is real concern among liberal Episcopalians of the diocese, however, that negotiation regarding parish property will become a much more personal affair, and conservative diocesan leaders may be reluctant to act against realigned priests, lately counted as friends, whose theology may be more similar to their own than to that of liberal diocesan clergy. Duncan and his followers understand this and are changing the subject to parish property, where their case has greater emotional appeal. The Anglican diocese asserts that “parish programs are threatened by the court decision, especially if a precedent is set for confiscating parish assets,” but it is not so much parish outreach that is being threatened as it is real estate, trust funds, and furnishings that are at risk.

I find this argument especially galling, as one of the mission projects listed on the new Web site is Shepherd’s Heart Ministries, a worthy enterprise that aids the homeless of Pittsburgh. My own parish, despite the diocesan schism of a year ago, has continued to serve monthly meals to the homeless at Shepherd’s Heart, not wanting to punish the homeless for the sins of their former Episcopal brothers and sisters. The Anglican diocese unashamedly takes credit for the work of Shepherd’s Heart, however, without any suggestion that it is an ecumenical ministry.

3. Why change the name of the diocese now from “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)” to “Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh”? The reason for this change may be simply that the former name was confusing to friends and foes alike. Maintaining the myth that Duncan presided over the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh seemed to be a major part of that group’s legal strategy, but Judge James dismissed the ploy derisively. I suspect that the basis of an appeal will not involve the name of the diocese. The name change raises another, likely unimportant, question: What will happen to the Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation by the name of Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh registered by Duncan in 2008? (See “Which Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh?”)

4. Why is the main Web site for the Duncan diocese still titled “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)”? The new Web site is clearly not a new diocesan Web site; it comprises only six pages. The site at http://pitanglican.org has not changed its title, does not contain the latest press release, and does not mention the new site at http://pittsburghanglican.org. Are the Duncanites trying to fly under the radar? Whose?

5. When was it decided to appeal? It would be interesting to know when Duncan and his attorneys decided to appeal the Court of Common Pleas ruling. My guess is within minutes of learning of it, in spite of all the temporizing and talk of prayer and seeking God’s guidance. They have always pursued a scorched-earth policy. As long as someone is willing to pay for ongoing litigation, Duncan can forestall his day of reckoning. Perhaps God will somehow pull him out of the fire before he has to admit legal defeat.

Dallas: A Diocese to Watch

The 113th annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas held this past weekend did not make much news. Episcopal News Service covered it in a single paragraph:

Dallas: “Great Fellowship” was the theme of the 113th annual diocesan convention, held at the South Fork Conference Center in Parker, Texas. Convention did not consider any resolutions; rather some 116 clergy and 194 lay delegates studied and discussed the Anglican covenant, according to Bishop Suffragan Paul Lambert of Dallas. Delegates approved a $3,169,600 budget, representing about a $29,000 increase from last year.

As ENS reported, no resolutions were considered at the convention, though, of course, the usual elections for Standing Committee and the like were held. To say that delegates “studied and discussed the Anglican covenant,” however, does not capture the essence of the event. It would be more correct to say that the delegates were propagandized or indoctrinated about the Anglican covenant.

The centerpiece of the convention was a trio of talks aimed at promoting adoption of the covenant and justifying the right of the diocese to approve it. These talks were given on Friday, October 16, 2009, by the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Mr. Mark McCall, and the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner. The discussion was conducted in small groups at tables at which delegates from the same church were separated.

In case the names of the speakers do not immediately ring bells, I should point out that the speakers constitute an Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) tag team. Turner is vice president of the ACI. Stanton and McCall are members of the ACI Advisory Committee. (See the ACI “Contributing Theologians” page here.) It may be difficult to characterize precisely what the ACI stands for, but it would not be unfair to say that the ACI has virtually never had anything positive to say about The Episcopal Church or anything negative to say about its detractors. To its credit, however, it has not advocated breaking away from The Episcopal Church.

I will not attempt a full analysis of the message to which delegates to the Dallas convention were subjected. I will, however, offer links to the three talks and provide short summaries of them. I recommend reading the talks for yourself and drawing your own conclusions as to what Bishop Stanton is trying to accomplish. Apparently, he plans to call a special convention after a revised Section Four of the proposed Anglican covenant is available, at which time, he expects the Dallas convention to endorse—whatever that means—the covenant. I’m sure that this plan is not contingent on the details of the revised Section Four .

The first and longest talk was given by Bishop Stanton himself. It was titled “DIOCESE AND COVENANT: Reflection on Dallas, its History and Future.” (You can read Stanton’s talk here. The text is from a handout and contains all the typographical errors of the original.) Drawing on the history of his diocese, Stanton argued for the autonomy of dioceses, a novel notion promoted by attorney Mark McCall and the ACI. The talk mentioned the “unqualified accession” requirement imposed by the church on dioceses, though without suggesting that it has any real effect on church polity. After decoupling his diocese from The Episcopal Church, Stanton argued that the Christian message across dioceses must be coördinated, using a “conciliar”—another popular ACI buzzword—approach. This was his lead-in for advocacy of his diocese’s adopting the covenant. In one sentence, Stanton dismissed the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church and embraced the convent: “A covenant is something higher and better than a code.” There is more than a little doubletalk here.

McCall was next to speak. His talk, “TEC Polity, The Civil Law and the Anglican Covenant,” is available here on the ACI Web site. McCall began with a discussion of the nature of The Episcopal Church, which, legally speaking, he says is a voluntary organization whose members are dioceses. Because the church’s constitution contains no “supremacy clause,” dioceses and the General Convention have “concurrent jurisdiction without supremacy,” which, given that diocesan conventions meet more often than the General Convention, effectively makes dioceses more powerful than the General Convention. (McCall’s legal discussion conveniently ignored the existence of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, of which all Episcopalians are members. He has a very limited idea of how a hierarchical organization must be ordered—he, too, basically ignores the accession requirement—and he does not deal with the constitutional implications of the Episcopal Church’s being a church.)

McCall then turned to the matter of adopting the Anglican covenant, at which point, his talk became seriously weird. Neither the covenant nor the Communion generally claims a right to alter a province’s polity. Provinces will accept or reject the covenant based on their own internal rules. In the case of our own church, since McCall claims that dioceses and the General Convention share jurisdiction, the General Convention and individual dioceses may act as they choose, and the Communion will have to sort out what that means.

I cannot resist an aside here. Whereas I have always thought McCall’s view of Episcopal Church polity to be seriously flawed, there are those who actually believe (or who want us to think they believe) this stuff. The General Convention should be very careful about how it accepts (God forbid!) or rejects the Anglican covenant. If it does so by canon—surely not the most obvious way of weighing in on the matter, particularly in the case of rejection—then, because of accession, dioceses could not second-guess the General Convention’s decision.

Turner was the final speaker; his talk was titled “Crossroads Are For Meeting (Again).” (This can be found on the ACI Web site here. Curiously, Turner’s footnotes are missing from the ACI posting and some of the formatting is dropped, so you may want to look at the PDF version of the Dallas handout here.) Turner offered a break from legal arguments. His basic message seemed to be “don’t be afraid of the covenant.” He began with some history, suggesting that the Anglican Communion has long sought a coherent self-identify that the covenant seeks to supply. His ultimate conclusion in the talk was that the covenant is the last best hope for keeping the Communion together. In discussing the covenant, excepting Section Four, Turner argued that the current draft is indeed “Anglican.” He acknowledged dissenting opinions and tried to counter them. In the last section of the talk, however, Turner argued that The Episcopal Church has acted in ways that make it impossible for the church to accept the covenant with integrity. (Implicitly, I suppose, this means that dioceses should act to accept it.) Acknowledging that the final form of Section Four is unknown, Turner suggested that previous versions have preserved autonomy and relied on “the process of ‘recognition’ rather than adjudication.” (This is an interesting point, thought perhaps a distinction without a difference.) According to Turner, “The simple fact is that without a strong Section Four that creates credible procedures rather than additional hierarchies, the Anglican Communion will perish as a communion of churches.”

One can see in the Dallas convention talks the strategizing of the militant traditionalists for their next battle. The General Convention actually asked dioceses to offer their opinions on the covenant, but that body intended for a serious, unbiased evaluation to take place in each diocese. The Bishop of Dallas, however, has decided instead to manipulate his own diocesan convention to assure that the diocese comes to the “right” conclusion. Moreover, expecting (or fearing) that the General Convention will reject the covenant, Stanton plans to act preëmptively, not merely offering moral support for the covenant, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested, but claiming actual ratification by the autonomous Diocese of Dallas. This promises to sow chaos not only within The Episcopal Church, but also within the Anglican Communion itself. Of course, it may be necessary to destroy the Communion in order to save it.

Looking on the Bright Side

I woke up this morning to learn that the Vatican announced today that it will allow Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining their liturgies and clergy. Under this arrangement, married Anglican priests could become Roman Catholic priests, but they would not be eligible to become bishops. According to the Guardian, the Vatican made it decision “‘to respond to the numerous requests that have been submitted to the Holy See by groups of Anglican clerics and believers from various parts of the world who wish to enter into full and visible communion’ with Rome.”

The announcement was surely not a surprise. A number of Anglo-Catholic groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have appealed to the Vatican for such an arrangement, and the Vatican has not been unsympathetic. (One immediately thinks of the letter of support sent to the so-called Plano meeting of Episcopal Church dissidents in October 2003 by the current holder of the papal office.)

And what has been the reaction from the leader of the Anglican Communion to this latest development? The Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster (i.e., the Roman Catholic archbishop) issued a statement applauding the move by the Vatican, explaining that it “brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such groups [former Anglicans wanting to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of distinctive Anglican spiritual patrimony] who have nurtured hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church.” They continue:

The Apostolic Constitution is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition. Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured. In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.

This is yet another indication that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a radical commitment to reunion with Rome. He cannot see the Vatican move for the parasitic act that it is. The only way Rome will unite with Anglicanism is by absorbing it. Perhaps Rowan Williams wants this. Perhaps the Church of England wants this. Episcopalians don’t.

Munday Logic

Episcopal News Service (ENS) recently reported that the former Bishop of Quincy, Keith Ackerman, wrote the Presiding Bishop to say that he was becoming a bishop in the Southern Cone’s Diocese of Bolivia. As a result, Katharine Jefferts Schori accepted Ackerman’s “voluntary renunciation of ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.” The ENS story explained that Jefferts Schori’s action was based on “Title III, Section 7 of the canons.” In fact, the citation should have been of Canon III.12.7 (the ENS error has now been fixed):

Sec. 7. Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry
(a) If any Bishop of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. The Presiding Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the person’s moral character, shall lay the matter before the Advisory Council to the Presiding Bishop, and with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of the Advisory Council the Presiding Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is accepted, and that the Bishop is released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordinations. The Presiding Bishop shall also declare in pronouncing and recording such action that it was for causes which do not affect the person's moral character, and shall, if desired, give a certificate to this effect to the person so removed.
(b) If a Bishop making the aforesaid declaration of the renunciation of the ordained Ministry be under Presentment for any canonical Offense, or shall have been placed on Trial for the same, the Presiding Bishop shall not consider or act upon such declaration until after the Presentment shall have been dismissed or the said Trial shall have been concluded and the Bishop judged not to have committed an Offense.
(c) In the case of such renunciation by a Bishop as provided in this Canon, a declaration of removal shall be pronounced by the Presiding Bishop in the presence of two or more Bishops, and shall be entered in the official records of the House of Bishops and of the Diocese in which the Bishop being removed is canonically resident. The Presiding Bishop shall give notice thereof in writing to the Secretary of the Convention and the Ecclesiastical Authority and the Standing Committee of the Diocese in which the Bishop was canonically resident, to all Bishops of this Church, the Ecclesiastical Authority of each Diocese of this Church, the Recorder, the Secretary of the House of Bishops, the Secretary of the General Convention, The Church Pension Fund, and the Church Deployment Board.

As has become predictable, the militant traditionalists complain bitterly when the Presiding Bishop does just about anything. Most notable regarding the case of Ackerman is the tirade by someone who should know better, the Very Rev. Robert S. Munday, Ph.D., dean and president of Nashotah House. The “very godly and humble Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Keith Keith L. Ackerman,” Munday asserts in his derisively titled post, “The Red Queen Writes Again,” which appears on his blog, “never had any intention of renouncing his ministry.” Jefferts Shori’s contention that there is no way to transfer a bishop to another Anglican province is, Munday says, “not true.” His argument for this position is simply bizarre. Munday cites Canon III.10.2. Canon III.10 is titled “Of Reception of Clergy from other Churches,” and Section 2 deals with “Clergy Ordained by Bishops of Churches in Communion with This Church.” This canon speaks of the transfer of clergy into The Episcopal Church using Letters Dimissory. Based on this canon, Munday makes the following illogical conclusion:

So if the Episcopal Church can receive clergy (and bishops are included when it says “all Members of the Clergy”) from other provinces of the Anglican Communion by means of Letters Dimmisory [sic], then it can issue those same letters when a bishop or other member of the clergy transfers to another province of the Anglican Communion.

Not only does a canon allowing the transfer of clergy into our church imply nothing about how one might transfer clergy out of the church, but there also are canons that deal explicitly with the latter operation, namely the aforementioned Canon III.12.7 and the disciplinary canons of Title IV. I do not doubt Munday’s statement that “the Episcopal Church has transferred clergy to other provinces of the Anglican Communion throughout its history.” Those transfers, however, may not have been canonical.

Munday has yet another bone to pick with the Presiding Bishop. According to him, the Presiding Bishop need not even have been involved with the transfer. Again, however, he cites a provision of Canon III.10, which, in case you have forgotten, deals exclusively with transfers into The Episcopal Church. He then goes on to talk about Canon III.12.8(i). Canon III.12.8 is titled “The Resignation or Incapacity of Bishops” and is primarily about bishops who have reached mandatory retirement age. The provision Munday cites explains how a resigned (i.e., retired) bishop may transfer to another diocese by means of Letters Dimissory. Munday concludes that this mechanism could have been used to transfer Ackerman from Quincy to Bolivia. But nothing in the context of Canon III.12.8(i) suggests that the dioceses referred to can be dioceses outside The Episcopal Church. Munday is apparently hoping the reader is not paying close attention.

As I have noted elsewhere, I believe our canons are defective in that they do not provide for a straightforward way of transferring a clergy member to another church, at least one in the Anglican Communion. (See “Once More on Departed Pittsburgh Clergy.”) In fact, I even agree that the use by the Presiding Bishop of Canon III.12.7 was probably improper. My reasoning, however, is that Ackerman was indeed “subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8.” That canon is titled “Of Renunciation of the Ministry by Members of the Clergy Amenable for Presentment for an Offense.” I am hard pressed to think Ackerman any less guilty of abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church than Bishop Robert Duncan, who now plays an archbishop in the Anglican Church in North America. (Ackerman was quite imaginative in bugging out of the Diocese of Quincy before the diocesan convention did his dirty work, however.)

Like Bishop Duncan, Bishop Ackerman should have been deposed. I leave it to others to decide whether a seminary whose dean and president (and systematic theology professor) has the reasoning ability (or ethics) of the Very Rev. Dr. Munday deserves to be educating potential Episcopal clergy.

---

N.B. Minor revisions were made to this essay after it was originally posted.

Doing Things Differently in Pittsburgh

The first time I got involved in trying to influence legislation being brought before the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s convention was in 2002. Several months before the annual convention in November, it was learned that the so-called South Carolina Resolution was to be introduced in Pittsburgh. The resolution was a warning that the diocese would not accept certain decisions by the upcoming 2003 General Convention. In particular, the resolution expressed opposition to liturgies using gender-neutral names for persons of the Trinity, “unbiblical” morality, and “coercive canons” that could require dioceses to make possible the ordination of women. Bishop Robert Duncan described the resolution as creating a “firewall” between the diocese and the General Convention.

Alarmed by the news, the Episcopal Women’s Caucus mounted an organized opposition to the resolution, and various efforts were undertaken to write an alternative resolution. Even though I was not a deputy, I offered my own alternative to those who were working on a revision, but it had no influence. What I did not understand at the time was that the clergy who had introduced the resolution were not interested in compromise or achieving broader support; they were interested in staking out a position, an attitude that would lead to the Pittsburgh “realignment” six years later.

The resolution that was passed by the 2002 convention was different and shorter than the original resolution, but it was no less partisan. Referred to simply as Resolution One, it ushered in an era of conflict in Pittsburgh. At succeeding conventions, resolutions increasingly hostile to The Episcopal Church were introduced. Opponents of the bishop’s program, most notably Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP), tried to moderate such resolutions and developed strategies to defeat them. It achieved little success, however, and even more radical substitute resolutions were sometimes introduced on the floor of the convention. As a “courtesy,” PEP leaders were occasionally informed of these substitutions by the bishop’s surrogates, usually less than 24 hours before the convention.

Today and tomorrow, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh holds its first regular annual convention since Bishop Duncan and his followers split from The Episcopal Church to form their own “diocese.” The Episcopal diocese remains diverse in its church politics, since many conservatives chose to work with more moderate and liberal members of the diocese and to remain Episcopalian. There has been a general desire on all sides to avoid the bitter divisions of the past, but it was unclear what new patterns would develop.

Most of the resolutions to be voted on tomorrow originated with the Committee on Canons, which has three clerical and three lay members. As it happens, the committee is pretty evenly split between liberals and conservatives. Remarkably, conflict within the committee was largely confined to procedural matters, reflecting personality differences and professional experience more than theological orientation. The 10 changes proposed for the constitution and canons of the diocese undo changes made during the Duncan era and restore a healthy balance of power between parishes and bishop, among other things.

A diverse collection of additional resolutions will be offered to the convention, ranaging from thanking people who helped rebuild the diocese after the disastrous 2008 convention to urging parishes to study the proposed Anglican covenant. Although none of these resolutions offers an obvious liberal-conservative battleground, one resolution elicited strong positive and negative reactions. Resolution 4, largely sponsored by conservatives, proposed a task force to explore the possibility of merging the Pittsburgh and Northwestern Pennsylvania dioceses. Some people felt strongly that now was a good time to consider such a union; others believed as strongly that Pittsburgh needed to achieve more stability before considering such an idea. Resolution 4 might be a not-too-threatening test case of how the re-organized diocese handled conflict.

The author of Resolution 4 was the Rev. Bruce Robison, rector of St. Andrew’s, Highland Park. Bruce and I have known one another for a long time and have had many extended conversations. We seldom disagree on facts, but we often disagree on conclusions. Anyway, I am sure that Bruce received many comments, both positive and negative, on his resolution. PEP issued two briefing papers written by me on the resolution. The briefing papers pointed out a number of problems that PEP saw with it. (The briefing papers can be found here and here. The original Resolution 4 is reproduced under the heading “Supporting Information” in each paper.) Whatever the influences, by the end of the pre-convention briefing of deputies on October 4, Bruce had become convinced that his resolution, if nothing else, was premature. He asked if I would work with him on a revision, and I agreed to do so.

I had reservations, as our written positions seemed very far apart. As it turned out, we had little time to work, as Bruce was going out of town in a few days. It wasn’t long before I received an e-mail message from him proposing a revision. The revision showed movement but still, I thought, put too much emphasis on the Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania. I recast the proposal, reusing as much of Bruce’s text as possible, and adding ideas I though important. We went through—I hope I remember this correctly—two more rounds of increasingly minor changes. During this process, it became clear to one another—and perhaps to ourselves—just what we felt could not be negotiated away. I think we tried to respect what the other saw as most important.

The process proceeded quickly and resulted in a new resolution that can be read here. Bruce and I agreed to be the sole sponsors of this replacement Resolution 4. It was easy to convince the co-sponsors of the original resolution to withdraw their sponsorship, so the new resolution could replace the old without any debate on the convention floor.

I don’t know if the task force proposed in Resolution 4 will accomplish anything useful. I am hopeful that it might. It sends off a group of Pittsburgh Episcopalians to think creatively and to do so with people from neighboring dioceses. Perhaps Pittsburgh and Northwestern Pennsylvania will someday merge, but perhaps not. Perhaps other ways will be found to streamline diocesan operations and make our ministry more effective. If nothing else, I hope that we have found a different and better way to handle disagreement in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Once More on Departed Pittsburgh Clergy

I understand that some readers in Pittsburgh were none to pleased by my post on how the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh is trying to handle the problem of clergy who have departed for the Southern Cone. (See “Is Pittsburgh Treating ‘Realigned’ Clergy Properly?”) There are genuine differences of opinion within the diocese. On the other hand, I must admit that I made certain assumptions that were not actually true, and these colored what I wrote. This post is an attempt to clean up loose ends that I myself created.

Let me make it quite clear where I stand on the Standing Committee’s use of Canon III.9.8:

1. I believe that the clergy who left The Episcopal Church for the Southern Cone should be charged with abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church and, assuming that they do not return to the fold, should be deposed.
2. Given that I believe the clergy are “amenable for” presentment for abandonment (see Canon IV.8), Canon III.9.8 appears to be inapplicable.
3. Even if Canon III.9.8 could be applied, the canon cannot be invoked absent “in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese in which such Priest is canonically resident, a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom.”

What I missed in reading the canons of The Episcopal Church—I don’t recommend this for recreational reading, by the way—is that The Episcopal Church appears to have no canonically approved mechanism for transferring clergy (including bishops) out of The Episcopal Church and into any other church, whether in or out of the Anglican Communion, without at least the appearance of malice. Although Bob Devlin’s literal reading of Canon III.9.8 seems to be on target, it may not be quite what the General Convention had in mind.

What is instructive here is the treatment of Bishop Henry Scriven, who was an assisting bishop to Bob Duncan and who announced his intention to return to England before the Pittsburgh schism. (A good collection of links to material related to this incident is available on Thinking Anglicans.) Scriven was apparently surprised when the Presiding Bishop released him under Canon III.12.7, “Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry.” Canon III.12.7 is the analogue of Canon III.9.8 for bishops, rather than priests. There were widespread protests that the Presiding Bishop’s action was punitive. My impression is that such transfers have, in the past, been handled informally through correspondence. The Presiding Bishop seems to have actually looked at the canons before acting and concluded that Canon III.12.7 provided her only authority for getting Scriven out of The Episcopal Church. The irony is that she was criticized for misusing the canons while she was actually applying, rather than ignoring them. She explained that her action did not affect the “‘indelible’ mark of ordination,” a statement not unlike that made by the Pittsburgh Standing Committee.

Clearly, The Episcopal Church needs a non-prejudicial mechanism for transferring a member of the clergy to a different church. From all I can tell, our canons do not provide such a mechanism. In retrospect, perhaps the suggestion offered in the editorial from The Living Church is on the mark. Should the church wish to make this change, however, it must be made in three separate places to apply to deacons, priests, and bishops.

Again, I must reiterate the need I expressed earlier for agreement on certain administrative matters among Anglican churches. It is ridiculous that there is no uncontroversial mechanism for transferring a priest from one Anglican jurisdiction to another. (See “The Covenant We Do Need.”)

Episcopal Church Canons and Overlapping Jurisdictions

Searching through the constitution & canons of The Episcopal Church sometimes leads to interesting discoveries. Today, I ran into Canon I.11, Of Missionary Jurisdictions. Here is Section 4. It reads as follows:

Sec. 4. Notice shall be sent to all Archbishops and Metropolitans, and all Presiding Bishops, of Churches in communion with this Church, of the establishment of any Area Mission, or of the organization or change of status of any Missionary Diocese outside the United States; and of the consecration, or assignment, of a Missionary Bishop therefor.

It is hereby declared as the judgment of this Church that no two Bishops of Churches in communion with each other should exercise jurisdiction in the same place; except as may be defined by a concordat adopted jointly by the competent authority of each of the said Churches, after consultation with the appropriate inter-Anglican body.

What is interesting is the second paragraph. The notion that there should be no overlapping jurisdictions in the Anglican Communion is, for The Episcopal Church, not simply a vague tradition, but an understanding enshrined in its canons. Ironically, I am living in a place where two bishops of the Anglican Communion, without any concordat, claim—or shortly will claim—jurisdiction.

Life is so interesting in Pittsburgh.

---

Apparently, this canon, in substantially its present form, was enacted in 1973 as Canon I.10. Somewhere along the line, it became Canon I.11. The paragraph in question is unchanged from what it was in 1973.

Is Pittsburgh Treating ‘Realigned’ Clergy Properly?

Loose ends from the October 4, 2008, split in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh are gradually being tied up. A judge recently declared that diocesan property belongs to the Episcopal Church diocese. On October 16 and 17, that diocese will hold its first regular convention. At that convention, the regency of the Standing Committee will end when the convention approves the Rt. Rev. Kenneth L. Price, Jr., as its provisional bishop.

It was therefore no surprise when the Standing Committee announced October 5 how it had decided to treat priests and deacons claiming to be denizens of a Southern Cone diocese headed by deposed bishop Robert Duncan. What was surprising was that it took so long to get around to dealing with the problem of “realigned” clergy. The Standing Committee had apparently been working on a strategy for some time.

What the Standing Committee decided to do was to send a letter to all priests and deacons canonically resident in the Diocese of Pittsburgh as of October 4, 2008. The letter explained that the “letters of transfer” to the Southern Cone distributed after the “realignment” vote did not, in fact, remove recipients from the roll of Episcopal clergy. It went on to say that members of the Standing Committee were “seeking to release those clergy who so desire under the provisions of Canon III.9.8.” Recipients were given three choices:

1. Those participating in the Episcopal Church diocese and already recognized as clergy of that diocese need do nothing and will remain Episcopal clergy.
2. Those who have not been participating in the diocese can reply by October 19, i.e., within two weeks, to retain their standing in The Episcopal Church.
3. Clergy who do not fall into either of the above categories—presumably those who currently imagine themselves canonically resident in the Southern Cone—and who “wish to be ‘released from the obligations of the Ministerial office [as a Priest or Deacon in the Episcopal Church] and deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination [in the Episcopal Church]’” are requested to let the diocese know in writing by October 19. Whether or not they do so, however, their names will be sent to the the Recorder of Ordinations for removal from the roll of Episcopal Church clergy.

According to the letter, “This does not affect your ordination, which you may register with whatever entity you choose. This is simply a way for us to gain clarity around the issue of who is licensed to practice ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.”

Surprising Development

The strategy of the Standing Committee is notably different from that employed in San Joaquin. Here is a brief chronology of what happened there:

• 12/8/2007: San Joaquin convention votes to leave Episcopal Church
• 3/29/2008: The Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb becomes provisional bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin
• 7/10/2008: Bishop Lamb writes to clergy asking for clarification of status; gives 8/5/2008 deadline for reply
• 10/17/2008: San Joaquin Standing Committee charges 36 priests and 16 deacons with abandonment; notification of inhibition and potential deposition to be sent
• 5/22/2009 and 5/26/2009: Notice of deposition sent to 61 clergy members (I cannot account for the fact that 61 is greater than 36+16.)
  

There are similarities between Bishop Lamb’s July 10, 2008, letter and the recent letter of the Pittsburgh Standing Committee. Each provided recipients with three options. Because Lamb required a reply, his first option—staying in The Episcopal Church—covered both the first and second options offered to Pittsburgh clergy. His second option, apparently also based on the use of Canon III.9.8 (but see below), roughly corresponds to the third option given Pittsburghers: “I no longer wish to exercise my ordained ministry in of the Episcopal Church, and desire to be removed therefrom for reasons not affecting my moral character.” Lamb offered no extended discourse on this option. His third choice—no doubt, in both senses—was: “I do not consider myself a clergy member of the of the Episcopal Church, nor do I believe I am obligated to conform to the doctrine, discipline, or worship of the Episcopal Church.”

Apparently, Lamb’s intention was to remove clergy under Canon III.9.8 if respondents chose the second option and to depose clergy under Canon IV.10 if the third option were chosen. According to The Living Church, the letter was Lamb’s fourth attempt to reach out to “alienated” clergy. Although clergy already declared to be in the Episcopal Church diocese all responded to their bishop by selecting the first option, Lamb described the response by others as “not very good.”

An ostensible difference between letters sent to former San Joaquin clergy and those sent to former Pittsburgh clergy is that the former, despite Lamb’s bootless attempts at reconciliation, have been seen as punitive. The Pittsburgh letters, on the other hand, led to headlines such as “Clergy who left Episcopal Church won’t be defrocked” and “Diocese offers to release, not depose, clergy.” An editorial, “Amen, Pittsburgh,” from The Living Church, spoke of the “grace” shown by the Pittsburgh Standing Committee (and suggested, somewhat gratuitously, how Canon III.9.8 could be made “more pastoral”). Indeed, the diocese’s explanation of its action included this:

“We’re doing this for pastoral reasons,” says the Rev. Dr. James Simons, the Standing Committee president. “We do not want to see our priestly brothers and sisters deposed.”

Not So Fast

Unfortunately, the Pittsburgh approach to what Bishop Lamb called “alienated” clergy is problematic in a multitude of ways. I believe that the Standing Committee was indeed trying to be gracious—something it has seen little of from the other Pittsburgh “diocese.” It also was likely trying to put a painful past behind it and to do so with as little paperwork and personal discomfort for all concerned as possible.

Just as Bishop Lamb elicited an anemic response from departed clergy, the Pittsburgh effort is likely to receive few, if any, responses. Three days after the Standing Committee sent out its letters, the Rev. David Wilson, one of the most militant supporters of the Pittsburgh “realignment” reproduced this letter from the Anglican group’s chancellor, Bob Devlin, in a comment on TitusOneNine:

To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican):

We have been informed that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) has sent a letter to you “seeking to release those clergy who so desire under the provisions of Canon III.9.8.” The stated purpose of this action is to update TEC’s records in a way that “does not involve deposition.” While we are very much in favor of avoiding further discord among our respective organizations, we cannot recommend that you accept this option. Canon III.9.8, entitled “Renunciation of Ordained Ministry”, has the effect of removing you from ministerial office and depriving you of “the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination.” The letter indicates that this action is only effective with respect to TEC. The plain language of the Canon is not so clearly limited.

If this is solely a matter of record keeping, we encourage the two diocesan standing committees to come together to find a solution that involves neither deposition nor renunciation of ministry. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese is ready to propose at least one way that this might easily be accomplished.

Mr. Robert Devlin
Chancellor

I cannot think of a time I have ever agreed with one of Bob Devlin’s opinions as chancellor, but I do believe his point here is well taken. Here is the complete text of Canon III.9.8 (taken from the Episcopal Church’s constitution and canons found here):

Sec. 8. Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry

If any Priest of this Church not subject to the provisions of Canon IV.8 shall declare, in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese in which such Priest is canonically resident, a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom, it shall be the duty of the Bishop to record the declaration and request so made. The Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is not subject to the provision of Canon IV.8 but is acting voluntarily and for causes, assigned or known, which do not affect the Priest’s moral character, shall lay the matter before the clerical members of the Standing Committee, and with the advice and consent of a majority of such members the Bishop may pronounce that such renunciation is accepted, and that the Priest is released from the obligations of the Ministerial office, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination. The Bishop shall also declare in pronouncing and recording such action that it was for causes which do not affect the person’s moral character, and shall, if desired, give a certificate to this effect to the person so removed from the ordained Ministry.

Since the canon says nothing specifically about The Episcopal Church in the second sentence, Devlin seems to have a point in saying that the process described in Canon III.9.8 effectively undoes ordination, even though the first sentence speaks of “a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church [emphasis added].” What this means in practice is unclear, and no assertion that ordination is some irreversible sacramental event can change the fact. Canon III.9.11 describes the final action that begins with Canon III.9.8. It is described not as a “deposition,” but as a “removal.” (See my post on Canon III.9.11 here.) The Episcopal Church has no control over whether some other church would consider a priest so removed to be ordained or not. Certainly, if a priest “is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination,” it seems disingenuous for the Standing Committee to say to such a priest that such a deprivation “does not affect your ordination, which you may register with whatever entity you choose.” This pollyannaish attitude on the part of the Standing Committee is also apparent in its third option offered to letter recipients:

If you have done none of the above and wish to be “released from the obligations of the Ministerial office [as a Priest or Deacon in the Episcopal Church] and deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred at Ordination [in the Episcopal Church]” and you do not instruct us to the contrary in writing, we will notify the Recorder of Ordinations to remove you from the list of clergy licensed to exercise ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church. However, we prefer that you notify us in writing of your request for this release, or send us a copy of your “transfer” documentation for our records.

Notice that the Standing Committee is quoting, sort of, from Canon III.9.8. The interpolation “[in the Episcopal Church]” is not expressed and possibly not implied in the canon. Even the other interpolation, “[as a Priest or Deacon in the Episcopal Church],” is, at best, a misleading shorthand. Canon III.9.8 applies only to priests. Canon III.7.8, which has nearly identical wording, applies to deacons. (This may not be deceptive, but it is confusing.)

But there is another problem here. Members of the Standing Committee no doubt realized when they sent these letters that the probability of getting responses from “inactive” priests or deacons was slim to none. Therefore, they made their third alternative an opt-out option. Non-responding “inactive” clergy will be automatically removed from the ranks of the ordained. Surely, however, this violates the requirement of Canon III.9.8 (and III.7.8) to the effect that a member of the clergy must “declare, in writing, to the Bishop of the Diocese” his or her desire to make a “renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom.” A bishop pronouncing a declaration of removal, as specified in Canon III.9.11, for a priest who declared his or her desire to be removed by means of not making such a request would, I suggest, be subject to presentment under Canon IV.1.1(e), i.e., “Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention.” Wouldn’t it be ironic if, in its attempt to be graceful and generous, the Standing Committee (1) removed no one from the clergy of The Episcopal Church and caused the new provisional bishop (and perhaps the clerical members of the Standing Committee) to be subjected to presentment?

Culpability and Timing

It was about time that the Standing Committee got around to dealing with departed Pittsburgh clergy. Why did they do it now and give so little time for people to respond? Bishop Lamb wrote his clergy less than four months after becoming provisional bishop and allowed nearly four weeks for reply. The article about the letter on the diocese’s Web site provides the answer:

Next month, many of these inactive clergy may be asked to join the Anglican Church in North America, an entity newly created by the group’s leaders. Unlike the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, this new religious body is not in communion with the Episcopal Church.

As long as they remain priests and deacons of the Episcopal Church and seek formal admission into a religious body that is not in communion with the Episcopal Church, the clergy could be deposed or otherwise disciplined for having “abandoned the communion.”

The convention of the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)” will be held November 6–7, 2009. At that convention, the following canonical change will be made in Canon 1 (proposed constitutional and canonical changes are listed here):

The Diocese of Pittsburgh shall be a member of that Province of the Anglican Communion known as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone the Anglican Church in North America.

In other words, Pittsburgh clergy who have left The Episcopal Church to go to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone are about to transfer to the Anglican Church in North America, which is not now, and may never be, a member of the Anglican Communion. The statement by the diocese is an admission that, after November 7, it would be impossible not to depose such clergy under Canon IV.10. Here is Section 1 of Canon IV.10:

Sec. 1. If it is reported to the Standing Committee of the Diocese in which a Priest or Deacon is canonically resident that the Priest or Deacon, without using the provisions of Canon IV.8 or III.7.8-10 and III.9.8-11, has abandoned the Communion of this Church, then the Standing Committee shall ascertain and consider the facts, and if it shall determine by a vote of three-fourths of All the Members that the Priest or Deacon has abandoned the Communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in communion with this Church, or in any other way, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the Diocese to transmit in writing to the Bishop of such Diocese, or if there be no such Bishop, to the Bishop of an adjacent Diocese, its determination, together with a statement setting out in reasonable detail the acts or declarations relied upon in making its determination. If the Bishop affirms the determination, the Bishop shall then inhibit the Priest or Deacon from officiating in the Diocese for six months and shall send to the Priest or Deacon a copy of the determination and statement, together with a notice that the Priest or Deacon has the rights specified in Section 2 and at the end of the six-months period the Bishop will consider deposing the Priest or Deacon in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.

Clearly, the Standing Committee has concluded that the departed clergy have not “abandoned the Communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church,” although they are about to liable for their “formal admission into any religious body not in communion with this Church.” This is curious, in that, in San Joaquin and elsewhere, clergy who have left The Episcopal Church and taken their congregation to other Anglican provinces have indeed be judged guilty of having “abandoned the Communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church.” Why has only Pittsburgh decided that one has not abandoned the communion of this Church until one has left the Anglican Communion? The diocesan office would have no trouble documenting the open renunciation of the discipline of The Episcopal Church by those clergy now reputedly in the Southern Cone.

The answer, of course, is found in Jim Simons’ statement that the Standing Committee did not want to depose their “priestly brothers and sisters,” in other words, their friends. It is clear from statements made by the Standing Committee that the decision was made to let the “realigners” off without deposition. The next job was to figure out some interpretation of the canons to allow this. Frankly, this looks more like favoritism than it does generosity. Moreover, the timing is cynical. Elsewhere I described what what is going here as giving out GET OUT OF JAIL FREE cards to guilty friends now because we know they are about to commit even greater infractions that will make it embarrassing or impossible to distribute them a few weeks later. Also, both depositions and removals must be pronounced by a bishop with jurisdiction, so it is especially convenient that the Standing Committee’s deadline comes two days after Bishop Price will be given jurisdiction in Pittsburgh.

Whereas I believe that all priests who left the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh for the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)” are guilty of abandonment, additional charges could be leveled against at least some clergy—violation of diocesan and church canons, conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, etc. The fact is that some priests simply took the path of least resistance, whereas others were every bit as deeply involved in the subversion of The Episcopal Church as was their deposed bishop. Even were the Standing Committee to deal “pastorally” with some clergy, is not someone like the Rev. Geoff Chapman, author of the infamous “Chapman letter,” culpable enough to deserve deposition under Title IV? Apparently not in the eyes of the Pittsburgh Standing Committee.

Consequences

After hours of study, I can find little substantive difference between removing a priest or deacon from the body of Episcopal Church clergy using the removal of Title III or the deposition of Title IV. Clearly, deposition implies that the person deposed is guilty of some bad behavior. If any Pittsburgh clergy are “removed” under Title III, however, everyone will know it was not for their good behavior. According to Canon IV.15, “Deposition shall mean a Sentence by which a Member of the Clergy is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority of God's word and sacraments conferred at ordination.” How is this really different from being “released from the obligations of the Ministerial office, and … deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred in Ordination,” as it is stated in Canon III.9.8? (Actually, Canons III.7.8–10, III.9.8–11, IV.8, and IV.10 cross-reference one another in ways that make my head spin. The line between discharging a member of the Episcopal clergy for bad behavior or not is broad and gray.)

In an ideal world, a priest or deacon deposed by The Episcopal Church would not automatically be eligible to be received as clergy in another church, certainly not one of the Anglican Communion. The (Universal) Church, and even the Anglican Communion, is fragmented, however, and what The Episcopal Church does probably only has real significance within The Episcopal Church. This is a reason for not creating the perception that departed Pittsburgh clergy are getting off easy. Clergy in South Carolina, Albany, or elsewhere may get the impression that trying to remove a diocese from The Episcopal Church is not such a big deal. In fact, it is.

In a church in which dissidents are forever accusing the Presiding Bishop and other bishops of cutting corners in the application of church canons, and in a church where we expect our canons to preserve good order—not to mention ownership of property—it is incumbent upon church leaders to follow canons with diligence and sincerity. I do not believe the Pittsburgh Standing committee has done that, however loving and pastoral their motives might be. Taking a non-response to be the equivalent of a written request to a bishop takes unreasonable—and perhaps presentable—liberties with Episcopal Church canons.