The Amended Finally Approved Text of Resolution 2 From Yesterday

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Resolution R-2 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee

Subject: Response to Ecclesiastical Intrusions by the Presiding Bishop

RESOLVED, That this 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina affirms its legal and ecclesiastical authority as a sovereign diocese within the Episcopal Church, and be it further

RESOLVED, That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the Diocese of South Carolina demands that the Presiding Bishop withdraw and terminate the engagement of all such legal counsel in South Carolina as has been obtained contrary to the express will of this Diocese, which is The Episcopal Church within its borders.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC Diocesan Conventions/Diocesan Councils* South Carolina

Posted March 27, 2010 at 8:56 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Allen Lewis wrote:

Exactly what was changed in this resolution. What is posted here is the same as the language of the “proposed” resolutions as found on the Diocesan website.

March 27, 11:32 am | [comment link]
2. Allen Lewis wrote:

Never mind. I see that the language “and terminate” was added to the final resolve clause.

March 27, 11:40 am | [comment link]
3. AnglicanFirst wrote:

The ecclesiological primacy of the diocesan and the diocese is at issue here.

++Rowan said that the diocese is the primary organizational entity of the Anglican Communion.

The current leadership of ECUSA, aka The Episcopal Church, asserts that the confederation of ECUSA dioceses that meets every three years and which is headed by a presiding bishop has authority which supersedes that of the diocese.  In all matters appparently, including the paradigm shattering use of canon law.

March 27, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
4. Cennydd wrote:

When did General Convention give the Presiding Bishop the ‘authority which supersedes that of the diocese?’  Let’s see some proof.

March 27, 1:18 pm | [comment link]
5. Kendall Harmon wrote:

If you read carefully you can see that “withdraw and terminate the engagement of” was added, instead of “drop the retainer of” in the final resolve.

March 27, 2:02 pm | [comment link]
6. Dorpsgek wrote:

Alea iacta est.

March 27, 9:43 pm | [comment link]
7. Kendall Harmon wrote:

#6, I am not sure everyone is going to know the reference to which you speak. The phrase means “the die is cast…” and is usually associated with what Suetonious claims Julius Ceasar purportedly said prior to the crossing of the Rubicon.

It is interesting that you should write this as I have found myself much of late pondering the phrase “Les jeux sont faits” (which Sartre used as a play title) which is really the French version of this.

March 28, 5:56 am | [comment link]
8. NoVA Scout wrote:

As when I first saw this resolution, I find it confusing.  Perhaps that is because I am observing from outside the Diocese.  Is the problem it seeks to address one of nomenclature, or one of “sovereignty” or both. Could the Presiding Bishop or the national Episcopal Church, consistent with this resolution, retain counsel in South Carolina to advise and act in its interests?  I would that there would be little dispute that it could (leaving to one side Sarah’s previously stated view that there is a defect in the previous engagement by either the PB - who, according to Sarah, acted in a “corrupt” and “personal” capacity in that instance, an act that I would have thought would have required a different sort of resolutions or different sort of internal disciplinary actions at the national church level to address) and little sense that any resolution such as this could even remotely affect that capability.  Thus, by elimination, I assume that the key language in the resolution seeks to limit representations by TEC , formal or otherwise, that “The Episcopal Church”, when retaining counsel in South Carolina, is acting for “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina.”  Is that what this is all about?

March 28, 8:53 am | [comment link]
9. Dorpsgek wrote:

#7 How true Kendall, the bets have indeed been placed and the roulette ball is in motion.  There is no going back now.

March 28, 11:10 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): From Emilio, W. Texas Internet developer: Sexuality and the Episcopal Church

Previous entry (below): ENS: South Carolina Convention passes resolutions on diocesan identity, authority

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)