THE BISHOP OF ALBANY
THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET,
with Addendum
with Addendum
The Rt. Rev. William Love, Bishop of Albany, has ordered a rejection, in his diocese, of Resolution B012 adopted by last summer's General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
Resolution B012 says that a bishop opposed to allowing same-sex marriage rites in his or her diocese cannot block these from the diocese. The bishop must allow another bishop to minister to the clergy, laity, and congregations favoring s-s marriage. It also emphasizes that the local rector has the canonical authority over services in the parish. In short, the resolution moves from the bishop to the rector control over s-s marriage.
Bishop Love argued against this resolution. The resolution is to go into effect on the first Sunday in Advent, 2018.
See an article on this in Episcopal Cafe here . This article has the link to Love's letter to his diocese, of November 10, 2018. Love concludes his letter with this:
"Until further notice, the trial rites authorized by Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed), and Diocesan Canon 16 shall be fully complied with by all diocesan clergy and parishes."
Thus, Love is reverting to the pre-B012 stance that the bishop can block s-s marriage in his or her diocese. This is a direct repudiation of a resolution adopted by the Episcopal Church's governing body.
The question in my mind now is whether this rises to the level of abandonment of the communion. That would be up to the Disciplinary Board for Bishops to decide. The Board would have to deal with this if a complaint is properly made by communicants of the diocese of Albany.
We all remember that communicants of SC made a complaint in 2011 against Bishop Lawrence. The Board considered it and finally voted that the charges against Lawrence did not quite rise to abandonment of the communion. Then, Lawrence issued the quit claim deeds in disregard of the Dennis Canon. In 2012, communicants lodged a second complaint to the Board. This time the Board voted that Lawrence had indeed abandoned the communion, primarily by his actions in violation of the Dennis Canon. When the presiding bishop received the decision of the Board, she placed a restriction on Lawrence. She did not know that Lawrence and the small band of advisers around him had already secretly decided to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church and were waiting for her to take "any action of any kind" against him. As soon as the PB placed the restriction on Lawrence, the diocesan leaders declared the independence of the diocese and the schism began. The break was a secret set-up allowing the PB to be seen as the aggressor and Lawrence as the innocent victim.
What Love has in mind here, only time will tell. The Episcopal Church has a well-established practice of enforcing its rules and regulations on all of its bishops.
________________________________________
ADDENDUM, 12 November 4:00 p.m.:
Presiding Bishop Michael Curry and House of Deputies President Gay Clark Jennings have issued public responses to Bishop Love's letter of 10 November. Find an article in Episcopal Cafe about this here .
PB Curry wrote the following:
"In all matters, those of us who have taken vows to obey the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church must act in ways that reflect and uphold the discernment and decisions of the General Convention of the Church."
As we all know, the PB is not a pope, or absolute authority. He or she is constrained by the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Church. The PB may try to solve this problem informally one-to-one. PB Jefferts Schori tried that with Bishop Mark Lawrence. It did not work. Lawrence met with her one time in the crisis, Oct. 2, then refused to see her again.
The process laid out in the canons is for communicants of the diocese to file a complaint with the Disciplinary Board for Bishops which would then decide whether the bishop had abandoned the communion. The DBB acts as a sort of grand jury. If no, the bishop is cleared. If yes, the PB must impose a restriction on the bishop who then has two ways in which he or she could get the restriction removed, a letter to the PB or a hearing before the House of Bishops.
In Lawrence's case, he declared that the diocese, including himself, had left the Episcopal Church as of Oct. 15 and no longer recognized its constitution and canons. He ignored the PB's restriction and its subsequent steps. The problem that led to the lawsuits was over the property of the diocese and the 50 parishes/missions that claimed to have left the Episcopal Church with property in hand in violation of the Dennis Canon. Last year, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that 29 of the parishes remain under trust control of the Episcopal Church and its diocese. We are now waiting on the circuit court to implement the decision as we await the federal court's decision on the ownership of the entity of the old diocese.
Not everyone in the diocese of Albany was happy with Bishop Love's letter. Parishioners of St. Andrew's, in Albany, burned the bishop's letter on the steps of the church. See the article in Episcopal News Service here .
________________________________________
ADDENDUM, 12 November 4:00 p.m.:
Presiding Bishop Michael Curry and House of Deputies President Gay Clark Jennings have issued public responses to Bishop Love's letter of 10 November. Find an article in Episcopal Cafe about this here .
PB Curry wrote the following:
"In all matters, those of us who have taken vows to obey the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church must act in ways that reflect and uphold the discernment and decisions of the General Convention of the Church."
As we all know, the PB is not a pope, or absolute authority. He or she is constrained by the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Church. The PB may try to solve this problem informally one-to-one. PB Jefferts Schori tried that with Bishop Mark Lawrence. It did not work. Lawrence met with her one time in the crisis, Oct. 2, then refused to see her again.
The process laid out in the canons is for communicants of the diocese to file a complaint with the Disciplinary Board for Bishops which would then decide whether the bishop had abandoned the communion. The DBB acts as a sort of grand jury. If no, the bishop is cleared. If yes, the PB must impose a restriction on the bishop who then has two ways in which he or she could get the restriction removed, a letter to the PB or a hearing before the House of Bishops.
In Lawrence's case, he declared that the diocese, including himself, had left the Episcopal Church as of Oct. 15 and no longer recognized its constitution and canons. He ignored the PB's restriction and its subsequent steps. The problem that led to the lawsuits was over the property of the diocese and the 50 parishes/missions that claimed to have left the Episcopal Church with property in hand in violation of the Dennis Canon. Last year, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that 29 of the parishes remain under trust control of the Episcopal Church and its diocese. We are now waiting on the circuit court to implement the decision as we await the federal court's decision on the ownership of the entity of the old diocese.
Not everyone in the diocese of Albany was happy with Bishop Love's letter. Parishioners of St. Andrew's, in Albany, burned the bishop's letter on the steps of the church. See the article in Episcopal News Service here .
