Author Archive
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, December 1st, 2011
We are greatly encouraged by the decision of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops to dismiss charges of abandonment against Bishop Mark Lawrence. We appreciate the timely decision by the Board and the articulation by its President, Bishop Dorsey Henderson, of the legal basis for the decision to dismiss. We find reason for encouragement not only in the decision itself, which has been greeted with relief by those on all sides of the Church’s disputes, but also in the legal reasoning of the Board in those parts in which Bishop Henderson is speaking for the Board as a whole and not just for himself. We and others have previously expressed concerns over procedural questions raised by the Board’s investigation in this matter. This decision not only makes those procedural issues moot, it gives us new grounds for hope on five counts.
First, the Board’s decision is explicitly based on the recognition of a distinction between official actions of the Diocese of South Carolina and statements and acts by Bishop Lawrence as an individual. Bishop Henderson’s statement, here speaking for the Board as a whole, suggests that the Board probably regarded certain “actions by conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina” as “abandonment of the Church and its discipline by the diocese” (emphasis in the original). The Board, of course, did not state this conclusion so definitively, and we will address its qualifications below. But it is important to note that the Board acknowledged that the actions in question were official acts of “the diocese” even when they might constitute abandonment of TEC.
read more...
December 01 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, November 17th, 2011
We are pleased that the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada have issued further statements on Bede Parry. In light of these statements, however, two further clarifications are needed.
First, the Presiding Bishop addresses a psychological report prepared for the Roman Catholic Church in 2000 that found he had “a proclivity to re-offend with minors.” The Presiding Bishop states:
read more...
November 17 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, November 15th, 2011
In 2004 the Bishop of Nevada, Katharine Jefferts Schori, received a former Roman Catholic priest, Bede Parry, as a priest in TEC. What made this instance of a relatively common phenomenon remarkable is that Parry had sexually abused minors under his care as a Catholic priest, he had been barred from exercising his ministry in the Catholic Church, and this was known to the Bishop of Nevada when she received him into TEC.
The question of how a former Roman Catholic priest who has admitted to repeated abuse of minors under his care and who agreed to be laicized could have been received into TEC as a priest has been much discussed. It is startling that the Diocese of Nevada acknowledges that it was aware of his past misconduct, including a police report, prior to his reception, but proffers the reassurance that the Bishop and Commission on Ministry
read more...
November 15 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, October 20th, 2011
We have considered carefully the available information related to the allegations against Bishop Mark Lawrence that are currently under review by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. That information discloses an extended and troubling sequence of events that raises serious questions about transparency in the church.
We note the following:
In January 2010, Thomas Tisdale sent nine letters to the Diocese of South Carolina requesting voluminous documents from the diocese and its parishes. He advised the diocese that he had been retained to act “as South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” by the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. This caused the diocese to conclude that “perhaps the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is seeking to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese (Bishop and Standing Committee) and some of our parishes.” The Presiding Bishop subsequently told the Executive Council that “I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church.”
read more...
October 20 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, October 11th, 2011
Bishop Dorsey Henderson, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, has responded to questions concerning the canonical process underway involving Bishop Mark Lawrence. We appreciate his clarification on a matter of great interest to the church.
Many in the church had assumed that the Lawrence matter was being processed by the normal intake procedures specified under the new Title IV. Included among these were bishops sympathetic to the national church who assumed that this was the beginning of an extended procedure involving the Reference Panel, subsequent Conference and Hearing Panels, and the normal process of notice and opportunity to be heard inherent in the trial process. We were dubious of that assumption ourselves, but that was one of the questions we raised in our earlier piece on this matter. We are grateful for an answer.
read more...
October 11 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, October 6th, 2011
ACI has long been concerned about the provisions of the new Title IV. We first raised our concerns about the constitutionality of the new canons in a memorandum circulated privately two years ago. This eventually made its way to those responsible for drafting and implementing the new canon, who later replied—unsatisfactorily from our perspective. Later, in September 2010 we began publishing a series of articles by Alan Runyan and Mark McCall addressing Title IV issues more comprehensively. The first of these “Title IV Revisions Unmasked” outlined the scope of the due process and constitutional problems presented by the new disciplinary canon. The second, “Title IV Unmasked: Reply to Our Critics,” focused primarily on the constitutional issues related to the unprecedented expansion of the authority of the Presiding Bishop. The third, “Title IV and the Constitution: Dioceses’ Exclusive Authority for Clergy Discipline,” demonstrated conclusively that clergy discipline is a matter committed exclusively to the dioceses. Messrs. Runyan and McCall also summarized these concerns when they were interviewed by a group of bishops and members of the Presiding Bishop’s staff as part of an investigation conducted by the House of Bishops.
The new title became effective on July 1, 2011, and already has been invoked in two proceedings against bishops of the Church. Given our past concerns, it is appropriate to take initial stock of the new canons as applied. Our succinct summary: it is even worse than we expected. We address three issues below: (1) what procedures are followed in initiating proceedings against bishops; (2) what standards are applied when restricting the ministry of bishops before trial; (3) what standards are applied in evaluating allegations before deciding to proceed with an investigation.
read more...
October 06 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011
In our previous papers we have shown that the new Title IV is unconstitutional in two key respects: it usurps the exclusive constitutional authority given to dioceses for the trial of priests and deacons and it gives the Presiding Bishop unprecedented and unconstitutional authority over diocesan bishops. These conclusions continue to be disputed, both publicly and privately, by those primarily responsible for drafting the revised Title IV even as these issues are under review by others throughout the church. Given the purposes of our previous papers, we have presented only the highlights of the extensive historical analysis that supports our conclusions. In light of the continued defense of the constitutionality of these revisions, however, we think it is important to present the full analysis. We begin with this review of the historical background of Article IX of the Constitution, the article that commits clergy discipline to the exclusive authority of the dioceses. We submit that this review demonstrates conclusively that Title IV as enacted is unconstitutional.
read more...
March 23 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011
In September 2010, we published an article demonstrating that the new Title IV disciplinary canons enacted at the last General Convention are unconstitutional and unwise: unconstitutional because they infringe on the exclusive rights of dioceses to institute courts for the discipline of clergy and give the Presiding Bishop metropolitical authority over other bishops; and unwise because they deny basic due process rights to diocesan clergy.1 Now, five months after our article was published, three participants on the task force that drafted the new title have published a paper responding to our analysis.2 Our critics address only the constitutional questions in the two parts of their paper. No response is offered to our concerns about the abrogation of basic due process rights in the new canons.3 Those concerns remain, but this reply addresses only the arguments made by our critics.
read more...
February 23 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Friday, February 4th, 2011
Much has already been written about the Primates’ Meeting that concluded last Sunday. From our perspective, the most important evaluation of this gathering is one that assesses its place in the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion that has been developed with considerable effort, thought and consensus over the last century. That ecclesiology can be summarized as defining the Anglican Communion as a communion of autonomous churches bound together by a common faith—in the words of TEC’s constitution, the “historic faith and order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer”—and linked institutionally by four “Instruments of Communion” that, in the words of the Covenant, “assist in the discernment, articulation and exercise of our shared faith and common life and mission.” Sadly, the Dublin meeting constituted a repudiation of this well developed Communion ecclesiology.
First, as we and others have already noted, the Dublin meeting represented only a small fraction of the Communion’s active members. Thus, from the very outset it lacked one of the defining criteria of a Communion Instrument, the ability to function as a body that “interprets and articulates the common faith of the Church’s members (consensus fidelium)”. (Covenant 3.1.4.) Last week, the consensus fidelium was to be found elsewhere with those who did not attend.
read more...
February 04 2011 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Wednesday, January 26th, 2011
It has been reported that on two occasions Primates of the Global South advised the Archbishop of Canterbury that they would not attend the current Primates’ Meeting if the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church were present. Of the fourteen Primates who made this representation, it appears that only one will be attending any part of the meeting. In this light, the defensive explanations of why Primates are not attending offered by the Secretary General and the Communion Office (e.g. visa problems, diary conflicts, etc.) must raise eyebrows. Why should we think that those who publicly stated two months ago why they were not planning to attend now really wanted to come, but forgot they had another appointment?
A little candor by those in attendance would be nice: there is a problem, and it is a major problem. Are the Primates who have gathered in Dublin facing it, or are they still pretending that everybody has “moved beyond” the resolute disrespect of TEC and The Anglican Church of Canada towards their previous commitments and the commitments of the Communion at large?
read more...
January 26 2011 | Articles
Next »