CANNIBALISM

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009 | Uncategorized

Has the Episcopal Organization turned its guns on the Communion Partners?  The Communion Partner Bishops have just issued a statement on Episcopal Church polity.  It’s quite long so I’ll just quote a few parts of it:

Following the American Revolution, the several Episcopal Churches in this country received this same apostolic office from the Church of England prior to the formation of The Episcopal Church itself. This point must be emphasized: the Historic Episcopate existed among Anglicans in this country prior to the adoption of our Constitution. By subsequently using the term “Ordinary” to describe its diocesan Bishops, our Constitution affirms this historic office as understood in both Anglican and Roman Catholic tradition and recognizes the inherent authority of its Bishops, an authority they possess by means of their apostolic office and not through administrative powers enumerated in our Constitution and canons.

This inherent authority of a Bishop is also given constitutional recognition by two other provisions in our Constitution. The first, already noted, describes the Bishop and Standing Committee in the absence of a Bishop as “the Ecclesiastical Authority” in the diocese.  The second prohibits any Bishop from acting in another diocese without consent of the diocesan authority.  Not even the whole House of Bishops or, indeed, the entire General Convention acting unanimously could override this constitutional reservation of ecclesiastical authority to the diocesan Bishop and Standing Committee.  Lest there be any doubt about this issue, the Constitution specifies that Bishops can act outside their own dioceses even when authorized by the House of Bishops only in “territory not yet organized into Dioceses of this Church.”

It is significant in this regard that the office of Presiding Bishop, unlike that of diocesan Bishop, is a constitutionally-defined office.  The Presiding Bishop does not have a see and does not exercise ordinary power, but only the limited authority delegated by the Constitution and duly enacted canons.  Included in this defined authority is jurisdiction over the small number of churches known as the “Convocation of American Churches in Europe,” but even this limited jurisdiction is exercised with the consent of other Anglican Bishops having authority in Europe. The Presiding Bishop at the “direction” of the House of Bishops may also act or authorize others to act in unorganized territory, but the primary responsibility of the Presiding Bishop is, as the name implies, to preside at the meetings of the House of Bishops and to act as its agent in canonical matters.  But neither the House of Bishops as a whole nor the Presiding Bishop on its behalf has ecclesiastical authority to act within or speak on behalf of a diocese.  We emphasize this significant feature of our governance at the outset because in the recent controversies surrounding the withdrawal of several dioceses from The Episcopal Church the Presiding Bishop and others acting on her behalf, including the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor and, most recently, the retired Bishop of West Missouri, have purported to act within dioceses, to “recognize” or “de-recognize” diocesan officers and to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church in civil litigation involving dioceses. However much we may respect the desire of the Presiding Bishop to provide pastoral assistance in these areas, neither she nor anyone acting on her behalf has constitutional authority to act without consent from the Ecclesiastical Authority except in unorganized territory.  Nor are they authorized to speak for The Episcopal Church in civil litigation within a diocese. That is not among the constitutional powers conferred on the Presiding Bishop or the House of Bishops or the General Convention as a whole. That is the constitutional prerogative of the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the dioceses, their Bishops and Standing Committees.

It is significant that the same term, “voluntary association,” has been used by both the founding father of The Episcopal Church to describe the organization he was so instrumental in forming and by the civil law to describe religious societies and other unincorporated voluntary organizations in general. Our Church’s primary architect was, of course, William White, and his blueprint was The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered, published in 1782 as the Revolutionary War was nearing an end.  As a result of American independence, many of the former Church of England parishes had become independent churches while others were still organized as state churches under the control of state legislatures. White’s concept, later accepted by others in the former colonies, was that the Anglican churches would first be organized into state churches and then the state churches would organize themselves nationally as a voluntary association of state churches (now called “dioceses”).  Pursuant to this plan, White was one of the first two Americans consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1787 to serve in the Episcopal Churches. When The Episcopal Church eventually was duly organized in 1789, Bishop White and Bishop Samuel Seabury, consecrated by the Scottish Episcopal Church, sat as the first House of Bishops at the first General Convention.

As this brief summary of our founding history shows, the fundamental structure of The Episcopal Church from the outset has been that of a voluntary association of dioceses meeting together in a General Convention as equals. This structure is clearly reflected in our Constitution.  There is no provision in the Constitution that defines a diocese. The dioceses are the undefined constituent elements out of which The Episcopal Church is formed. In contrast, General Convention is created and defined in Article I, which  still provides in language virtually unchanged from the original that “The Church in each diocese which has been admitted to union with the General Convention…shall be entitled to representation….” As this current language makes clear, “Churches” in dioceses are not created by General Convention.  They are “admitted” (upon their application and its acceptance) to union with the General Convention.  Dioceses are both historically and ontologically prior to the Constitution and the General Convention. And upon admission, it is the diocese, not any other body or group, that is “entitled to representation” at General Convention.

As what we have said above indicates, The Episcopal Church is comprised of member dioceses that join together to create various central bodies and offices, including a General Convention, Executive Council and Presiding Bishop. What is not defined in our Constitution is any legal or hierarchical relationship among these various bodies. Indeed, a recent legal analysis of our Constitution and history has shown that the Constitution is devoid of the legal terminology used to express hierarchies in legal documents. On the one hand, a General Convention is created and given legislative authority to enact general canons, but the preexistent diocesan conventions are also recognized as having legislative authority and there is no provision making the General Convention “supreme” or “highest” or providing that general canons supersede diocesan ones.  Indeed, none of the following terms routinely used in legal documents to indicate hierarchical priority is found at all in our Constitution: “supreme”; “supremacy”; “highest”; “hierarchical”; “subordinate”; “sole”; “preempt”; “final”; and “contrary”. Other terms used to indicate hierarchical relationships, including “exclusive”, “subject to”, “consent”, “notwithstanding”, and “inconsistent” are found in the Constitution, but they are not used to indicate a central hierarchy.  This is often assumed and is even alleged in civil cases instituted in the name of The Episcopal Church by the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor, but there are no provisions to this effect in our Constitution as a simple search with any search engine will demonstrate. The only instance that is even debatable is the use of the term “consent” in Article V governing the admission of new dioceses, but as we have already discussed that consent is to a process initiated and controlled by the diocese, whose own consent is thereby presumed.

Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.

This autonomy was again confirmed as recently as February 2009 by the ecclesiastical court deposing Charles Bennison as Bishop of Pennsylvania. In the Bennison case, the Diocese of Los Angeles refused to cooperate with the court and to produce documents that had been requested not only by the parties, but also by a representative of the Presiding Bishop and even the court itself.  The court concluded that it had no authority to compel the diocese to comply: “Unfortunately, the diocese refused all of those requests and the Court had no ability to obtain those documents…. Rather, the Diocese of Los Angeles, a wholly autonomous entity which is not a party to these proceedings, chose not to produce the documents notwithstanding entreaties from the Court.”

The engagement we made and reaffirm is to conform to the “doctrine, discipline and worship” of The Episcopal Church. The objection that those who do not accept the interpretation of that “discipline” (polity) proposed by the Presiding Bishop are in violation of their episcopal vows is mere question begging. The objectors assume without argument that the discipline of our Church is such that anyone with a different understanding is in violation of that discipline. But this is to assert what must be proved. What the discipline of The Episcopal Church requires is precisely the question at issue. It is the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation that is novel and it is not less so for being advocated in civil court.

Not only is the diocese the fundamental unit of The Episcopal Church, it is also the fundamental unit in catholic ecclesiology by which the people of God in the particular or local churches relate to the wider communion. In a 2007 communication sent by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Bishop Howe, the Archbishop emphasized this point:

The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such…. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.

We are committed to remaining faithful members of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. We have noted with increasing concern statements by leaders and bodies of The Episcopal Church questioning our participation in the proposed Anglican covenant and opining that dioceses may not sign the covenant if The Episcopal Church as a whole were to refrain from doing so on behalf of all its dioceses.

We must speak plainly here. Any attempt to prevent willing dioceses from signing the covenant would be unconstitutional and thereby void.

What’s fascinating about this is the reaction to it.  As BabyBlue reports, the Episcopal left has gone ballistic.  This report seems to have been leaked because it was published on Apostasy West’s web site.  Susan Russell contributed her standard shrieking hysteria:

Though couched in ecclesiastical language, the statement is an entirely political document. It attempts to lay the foundation for an unprecedented power grab by anti-gay bishops who will assert that they are not bound by the Episcopal Church’s governing body: General Convention. These bishops seek to increase their own authority, while diminishing the role of the laity and clergy in the governance of the church.

The argument that dioceses are independent of the Episcopal Church is novel, and a creature of convenience. It seeks to camouflage the desire of anti-gay bishops and theologians to punish the Church for consecrating an openly gay bishop and permitting the blessing of same-sex relationships in some dioceses.

The authors of these emails profess to be loyal Episcopalians, but they openly express their hope that this statement will be used in litigation by individuals who have left the Episcopal Church to join forces with virulently anti-gay bishops in other parts of the world and are attempting to take the Church’s property with them.

To what e-mails is Miss Russell referring?  Apparently someone also leaked copies of private e-mails between some of the Communion Partner participants.  Selections were published by Executive Council member Mark Harris as well as by Simon Sarmiento.

And all this venom and outright sleaze is directed at people who want to stay in the Episcopal Organization.

Three possibilities suggest themselves.  This reaction is coordinated and 815′s fingerprints are all over it.  Because this report has struck a nerve.

UPDATE: ACI calls out Mark Harris.

12 Comments to CANNIBALISM