Saturday, January 27, 2007

Virginia Diocesan Council Update: Canon 3 revision pulled from debate by chancellor

There's a break right now so the delegates can haul their luggage out of their rooms for check-out before the end of Council. Unlike in last years, the resolutions section went by quickly and uneventfully R-5 was adopted (was Same Sex Blessings) as a substitute, but I don't have the language yet (but it was substantially changed).

There was far more activity over the new canons and revised canons: C1 failed, C-2 was referred to committee; C-3 was also surprisingly referred, and C-4 and C-5 passed. C-3, which would have required that incorporating churches include the language that they are Episcopal Churches was challenged - but not by the orthodox, but by the progressives. The reasoning was that the canon change implies that the diocesan legal team (since the chancellor was the proposer) needed the clarification because the current status of incorporation is unclear. A delegate from a progressive church asserted that he believes it is clear and by changing the canon would strengthen the orthodox position that the incorporation was unclear. He challenged the chancellor of the diocese to confirm that the incorporation is clear now or why are they changing the canons? The chancellor conferred with his advisors and then suddenly recommended that the proposed canon be referred back to committee. In other words, the chancellor indeed sees that there is no assumption in the church incorporation that a church is Episcopal and so the canon was introduced to make that clear. Challenged by the progressives that this could backfire in litigation, the chancellor pulled his canon from consideration.

Okay, I know this is very episco-wonkism, but I have to say it was a rather illuminating moment. It is also clear who are the sharp strategists in the Diocese of Virginia. The chancellor stood down rather than defend his canon at the last minute.

Here is the canon that was "referred" before a vote could be taken by the chancellor:

C-3 Amend Canon 12

Amend Canon 12 to add an additional Section 11 as follows:

Section 11. Any Church of this Diocese that incorporates under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia must include in its Articles of Incorporation a provision that the corporation accedes to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and of the Diocese of Virginia as an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the Bishop or the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese of Virginia required by Diocesan Canon 10.1 for a group of people to be called a Church.

Rationale: The Constitution and Canons of the General Convention and of the Diocese of Virginia prescribe requirements for a group of people to be called a Church (Canon 10.1) and remain a Church. While there may be appropriate reasons for an Episcopal Church to be incorporated, incorporation should not change the requirements for a group of people to be called a Church or their responsibilities as an Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia. This proposed amendment provides the explicit requirement for an incorporated Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia to include an accession statement in its organizational documents confirming its acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the Bishop or Ecclesiastical Authority.

Submitted by:
Russell V. Palmore, Jr.
Chancellor
J.P. Causey Jr., Lay Delegate, St. JohnÂ’s, West Point


Usually what is saved for last is what is most controversial. That has usually been resolutions. But this year it's the Report on the Standing Committee, the Election of the Ecclesiasticall Court, and the Budget. Stay tuned.

bb

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

BB: Is the Diocese of Virginia going to allow SSB's or not? BLD

Anonymous said...

Baby Blue,

The introduction of the resolution, whether withdrawn or not, tends to show the existing canon, objectively viewed, is ambiguous and subject to construction using extrinsic evidence, such as the proceedings in this year's diocesan council which attempted clarification. Who at 815 is the attorney for the chancellor? Keep it up!

A simple country lawyer

Anonymous said...

BB:
A less considered but potentially more damaging canon was C-2 which would have allowed a bishop of the Diocese to name any confirmed communicant to the vestry of a mission.

So that means that within any four minute time period at a Standing Committee, a bishop could declare a church abandoned, have the standing committee agree, and declare the chgurch is now a mission. He would then be able to replace the priest with a vicar of his choosing, and then, replace the vestry with a vestry committee of his choosing that would not even need to be made up of people from the church/mission. The chancellor of the diocese, the bishop's spouse and some guy named Steve from Richmond could become the vestry committee of the newly established mission ... and of every other mission in the diocese.

It was an amazingly strong power play that most in the room (almost all) missed until it was referred.

Anonymous said...

RS - why was it referred? It sound like something they would have jumped on?

Anonymous said...

Also, BB or RS et al:
what was the gist of this resolution, and why was it withdrawn?
R-8: Negotiations with Departed Congregations (WITHDRAWN)

Anonymous said...

(1) When a resolution was allowed on the floor on Friday to suggest holding renewed negotiations with departing congregations, there was an audible hiss of voices and hundreds of scowls. From my table on the floor of the convention it was obvious this was an unwelcome resolution. I was unable to be at the committee discussion later in the day to hear how it was treated ... In its place the Council on Saturday chose to commend Bishop Lee for his words and work in sustaining the legacy of the church. By the way the word "legacy" was the big term of the Council. Bishops and speakers used it often as in we need to protect our legacy. Talk about lookin g backward ... Anyway, by Satuday it was as if R8 just got sucked into the distant beyond never to return. (perhaps someone who attended the Commission meeting late Friday could help us know more about that process).

(2) I asked for the canon to be referred to the Const & Canons Committee for further review because it did not address multiple loopholes, i.e., that a person could serve on more than one vestry, that a majority of a vestry might not even belong to a local mission. I assume that most of the delegates had no idea about the canon or the way it could have been used. They were happy enough to send it back to committee.

I waited to speak to the resolution only after the motion to refer had been seconded so I could keep open the chance to speak to the main motion again at a later date ... and would have then made further suggestions about how the canon might be applied maliciously. In the end it only needed a short commentary on the canon's loopholes to have it sent for futher review. It was interesting that no one else spoke to it, not even the Bishop's lawyer who had proposed the canon i the first place.

May C2 languish in the dark recesses of the committee for years to come ...

Anonymous said...

RS - Good job batting down C-2. I was going to go after it from another angle, but I like your points.

As far as R-8, it was withdrawn during the committee hearing. It was the hottest topic at the hearing. Main objections raised were that it would weaken Bp. Lee's hand. Basic assumption seemed to be that he (Lee) needed to threaten serious legal action even though he would likely want to negotiate eventually. Many emotional comments during the discussion "I would trust Bp. Lee with my life" and such. Other claims were that the departing churches were threatening legal action against their "remnant" groups, that they had filed action preventing Bp. Lee on the property. And of course the line that filing the results of the votes at courthouses constituted legal action - in other words accusing the departing churches of taking the first legal action shot.

The worst part of the hearing though was that, unlike previous years, the committee allowed the crowd to applaud and cheer points they liked. This really built the emotional energy against the resolution. I can only assume that this helped lead to its withdrawal.

Unknown said...

Bless you all for your comments here! I totally agree on the comment about C-2 and I am very glad you posted your comment, RSchllnbrg1. You are absolutely right about the "power play" in the room that was missed - it was amazing.

If you are who I think you are (RS), your presentation on C-2 was nothing short of outstanding! I don't know if you have your comments written down that you made on the floor, but not only what you said, but how you said it was awesome! Thank you for posting here - you were a hero at Council, there is no other way to put it. I thank God for you.

bb

Anonymous said...

No charge.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Baby Blue, RS. You were great.