A.S. Haley—Conflicts Galore on the Disciplinary Board for Bishops with regard to the S.C. Matter

Posted by Kendall Harmon

In this post, I want to lay out for all to see the conflicts (in addition to those I have already made manifest) which should disqualify still other members of the Board from proceeding any further in examining the claims made against Bishop Lawrence. Let us start with his colleagues -- the bishops who sit on the Board besides its President, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson.

The Rt. Rev. Ian Douglas, Bishop of Connecticut, is presuming to judge whether, by leading his Diocese to remove its accession to the Canons of General Convention, Bishop Lawrence has thereby "abandoned" communion with ECUSA. Bishop Douglas should accuse himself of that charge, because he now leads a Diocese which has never acceded to the Canons of General Convention, but only to the Church's Constitution....

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: AnalysisEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC BishopsTEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: South CarolinaTEC Diocesan Conventions/Diocesan CouncilsTEC Polity & Canons* Culture-WatchPsychologyReligion & Culture* TheologyEthics / Moral TheologyPastoral Theology

Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:00 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. montanan wrote:

Terrific analysis - as always.  Fascinating about the other dioceses without accession clauses!

October 23, 12:02 am | [comment link]
2. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

But if that very fact of opposition, for constitutional reasons, can be allowed to constitute grounds for deposition due to “abandonment” of the Church, then what is to become of any good-faith opposition to the passage of Church canons?

Doesn’t the new Title IV world of reporting things you don’t like about your bishop, priest, deacon sound a lot like the new Homeland Security jingle “see something, say something”?

October 23, 9:14 am | [comment link]
3. wmresearchtrianglenc wrote:

I work up this morning and “smelled the bacon” (unfortunately, not literally), and lo, it was “thick-sliced and hickory-smoked”.  For quite a few years my employment—sparing the details—involved dealing with conflicts of interest matters, and thus I can say that a matter involving a potential appearance of conflict of interest isn’t a small matter. What started my “porcine’ train of thought last night was why, as a regular visitor to Charleston, there are two ECUSA dioceses in the small state of South Carolina anyway, with the Diocese of Upper South Carolina having been formed from the Diocese of South Carolina in 1922. After some research, I discovered (interestingly on a posting by the Episcopal Forum (the group saying in effect, “and of course, officer, I didn’t initiate this”) explaining that there is a history in the South Carolina of cultural differences between the Low Country (where Charleston is located) and Upper South Carolina.  So, since this bit of history probably ISN’T KNOWN AT ALL to many outside the state and not much was written on it online, it occurred to me that it’s very reasonable to suspect that the result of the proceeding involving Bishop Lawrence may very likely already be a fait accompli.  Why?  Because there simply hasn’t been the requisite concern with the appearance issues warranted by the facts involved in this important process,  an indication that the major actors involved aren’t very concerned with getting things “right”. Given the little known facts re why there are major appearance issues, a good analogy is as follows: Complaints have been made about a school coach, Coach A, who coaches in region A of a state. The state’s history is such that region A and region B of the state have a history of distinct cultural differences. Coach B, who coaches in region B of the state, has been appointed by a review committee in the state to investigate the complaints and determine what actions, if any, would be appropriate relating to the complaints involving Coach A. And since the appointer(s) of Coach B in this process refuse to recognize any appearance issue relating to the appointment of Coach B in this matter, an appearance issue involving their own actions relative to the proceeding is thus raised by this refusal—as well as the refusal to deal with other potential appearance issues involved in the proceeding—another layer to what’s already in this skillet.

October 26, 2:21 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): Proposed Resolution for the November Atlanta Diocesan Council on the “Contributions of Pelagius”

Previous entry (below): Episcopal Church Statistics (III)—Episcopal Overview: FACT 2010

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)