A.S. Haley—Clearing up Misconceptions about the Diocese of South Carolina “Charges”

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Q And who would be "the Bishop Diocesan" referred to by the Canon in this matter?

A In all cases involving charges made against bishops of the Church, the new canons (IV.17.2 [c]) make the Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the "Bishop Diocesan" for their purposes.

Q So the charges made against Bishop Lawrence could not have been dismissed in the first place without the consent of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori?

A That is correct. And if she had done so, we would never have heard about them being brought -- unless the complainants had appealed to the President of the Disciplinary Board (Bishop Henderson), and he decided to overrule the dismissal, and to send the charges to the Reference Panel. (There has probably not been time enough since the charges were filed for the appeal scenario to have played itself out to the point where we are now.) But if Bishop Matthews felt that the charges, if true, would amount to an "Offense" as defined under the new canons, then he could have sent them to the Reference Panel -- which is where they appear to have gone next.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop TEC BishopsTEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: South CarolinaTEC Polity & Canons* Culture-WatchLaw & Legal Issues* South Carolina

Posted October 6, 2011 at 10:14 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. episcoanglican wrote:

This is an excellent article, clear, factual, reasoned and I am very thankful for it. But it does have one teensy error if we are to use it to gain insight into what TEC is planning. It assumes they will operate by the plain meaning of the canons, which as we have seen over and over again, is not their pattern of behavior. I assume +Lawrence will eventually be charged with Abandonment and that 815 has a strategy for replacing the Standing Cmte with follow up law suits to enforce thier fiats. I have no idea what the rationale will be, but the twisting and manipulatin of the rule of law is the prevailing pattern. A.S. Haley is boxing in his logic. But 815 are streetfighters. They don’t play by the rules. People who box against streetfighters go down. I certainly hope S.C. follows and understands Mr. Haley’s points AND I hope they are prepared for a streetfight (for example, when the bell rings—- do not turn your back).

October 7, 1:06 am | [comment link]
2. sandlapper wrote:

Haley’s analysis in educational and encouraging. We can stand on our diocesan constitution and refuse to be stampeded out of TEC. At the same time, we should reiterate the Gospel and Scriptural reasons for our disagreement with TEC. That will make them choose between allowing orthodox dissent within TEC, or trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to force us out.

October 7, 10:41 am | [comment link]
3. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Well said, Sam! Let them (TEC) drive us out. They will have proven their own motto of “Only people can leave not dioceses” to be incorrect. I would like to see the explanation for that one.

October 8, 12:26 pm | [comment link]
4. Chris wrote:

it would appear then that we are in something of a stalemate…until such time that SC needs a successor to +Lawrence.  My presumption then is nothing terribly significant can happen in the interim, but how would SC go about bringing in the next Bishop?  Perhaps by then ECUSA will have effectively disintegrated, as it should…

October 8, 2:40 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): ACI says Presiding Bishop Had to be Involved in the S.C. Actions if the Canons Were Followed

Previous entry (below): Today we remember the martyrdom of William Tyndale

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)