In a typical Washington-style fashion, Presiding Bishop Schori has finally responded to the Diocese of Central Florida's objection to the irregularities of the so-called "depositions" that failed to achieve the necessary majority of the House of Bishops but were deemed a done deal by the Presiding Bishop herself. Two months after Central Florida wrote to her (as did a host of other dioceses as well) and as Bishop Schori leaves town for her soiree with what endowments can buy, she also left a nice little letter for Central Florida that George Conger has now unveiled with excellent analysis from the always reliable on the watch Anglican Curmudgeon.For those of you who may be tripping over bishops sipping their afternoon tea in Canterbury, let's recall that at the last House of Bishops meeting, the Presiding Bishop railroaded through the deposition of two elderly retired bishops of The Episcopal Church, including 88 year old Bishop Cox.
Remember him? Put your head around that for a minute - 88 years old and "deposed" without due process nor adherance to the canons of the Episcopal Church and what is Bishop Schori's pathetic response?“I have no ability to reverse or set aside any decision of the House of Bishops, nor does the House once the meeting [of bishops] is adjourned,” Bishop Schori wrote to the Diocese of Central Florida on June 2. However, should the two bishops “wish to re-enter” the Episcopal Church and “seek reinstatement, that is eminently possible,” she said.Her arrogance, her insolence is simply disgraceful. She's either in way over her head like this lady or she wants us to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Anglican Curmudgeon quickly reminds everyone that Schori stepped far beyond her limited authority by setting up a puppet diocese in San Joaquin, California. As he writes, "Her obstinate persistence in refusing to undo her illegal actions---when she alone has the power to correct them---brands her as a fitting object for the scorn of those who have given their lives to the practice of law. Nothing arouses this curmudgeon's ire more than a bishop who defies---and thereby defiles---the canons."
Read George Conger's zinging article here and Anglican Curmudgeon's excellent commentary on the "Bandit Bishop" here. This is must-reading in case anyone thought that Bishop Schori could leave town and think that no one would notice the mess she's left behind.
10 comments:
Funny how she has more power than the pope when she wants to do something, and less than the janitor at 815 when she doesn't.
tregonsee,
Yes, that is peculiar isn't it. Or as the Church Lady would say "how convenient".
She is following the canons of TEC -- get back in the church and work to change them if you don't like it.
"Central Florida wrote to her (as did a host of other dioceses as well)" - BB
"Central Florida and four other American dioceses" - G.Conger
Element of hyperbole here, BB?
Black Bart rides again.
Intercessor
At least four dioceses wrote expressing objections. Hyperbole aside, let's deal with the reality of what we can't afford:
-more litigation,
-more breakaway dioceses,
-more denying that the revisionist agenda isn't working.
Cut it however, and one thing's for sure. We are losing people.
We won't get them back, no matter how many lawsuits TEC wins. So far there are marginal wins, and no return of the people we used to call The Church.
That's not hyperbole.
Conger got it wrong. Our Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops acted within the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
There is a process in the House of Bishops for anyone disagreeing with the ruling of the Parlimentarian to challenge it -- not one bishop objected to the ruling during the meeting.
Those deposed have been public in their repudiation of the Episcopal Church --extremely public. And you are whining that the church did not treat them well? This is the equivalent of a man convicted of murdering his parents pleading for mercy on the basis that he is now an orphan!
I'm tired of people teeing off on PB Katharine Jefferts Schori with trumped up after trumped up charge. If your objection is to the ordination of women, be up front about it -- but lay off on ++KJS.
But the BIGGER question is why did LESS than 1/2 of the bishops attend that infamous lynching party to start with? Could it be that they are getting fatigued with this mess?
Ann and Thomas B. Woodward---I regret to inform you that it is not possible for someone who reads and understands English to claim that our Presiding Bishop is "following the Constitution and canons." If you have any doubt on this point whatsoever, please make your way carefully and conscientiously through this post, and then---if you still have trouble reading the canon---post a comment there explaining just how, under its express language, a bishop who was not first inhibited could ever be deposed, and I will respond to it.
But please do not go around posting blanket assertions that everything is all right, that "Conger has it wrong," and that the PB is following the canons. By doing so, you are simply enabling her misuse of her powers---and thus participating in her brick-by-brick (i.e., canon-by-canon) dismantling of the Church.
a.s. haley is correct. The canons state that the voting membership of the House of Bishops must vote, not just those who happen to be the room. Not only is this common sense, it's common decency. Otherwise, we would have bishops deposing bishops at a drop of a hat. It's meant to be difficult.
It is akin to imposing the death penalty on the ministry of a bishop - that is how severe this action is when it is followed canonically and ethically. The actions by the PB were unethical and without canon law to support her. Her flippant attitude in responding to the Diocese of Central Florida only brings this point into even more clarity. That she flees after posting the letter says even more.
bb
Post a Comment