South Carolina Developments (VIII)—National Church releases “Fact sheet: The Diocese of South Car.”

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Steering Committee at the same time sought assistance and guidance from the Presiding Bishop’s Office.

On Thursday, October 25, representatives of the Presiding Bishop met in Charleston with a small group of lay and clergy persons...to outline steps that could be taken by such a Steering Committee. Such a group would, among other things, also be in close communication with the Presiding Bishop during the reorganization effort.

The Presiding Bishop’s Office expects this Steering Committee to announce its formation, its members, and the elements of a reorganization plan in cooperation with the Presiding Bishop within the next several days.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori • TEC Conflicts • TEC Conflicts: South Carolina • TEC Polity & Canons • * South Carolina • * Theology • Ethics / Moral Theology • Pastoral Theology

2 Comments
Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:30 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Too little, too late, and full of misinformation. Same old, same old. Nothing new here. They don’t care to follow their own rules so why would they expect anyone else to follow the rules? The fact that the Diocese of SC just will not go along to get along is just a *bee in their bonnet*.

November 13, 8:26 am | [comment link]
2. CSeitz-ACI wrote:

“In her call to Lawrence on October 15, the Presiding Bishop told him that she would not make the developments public until after Monday, October 22, when Lawrence and Bishop Waldo of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, together with their Chancellors, were scheduled to have a confidential meeting with the Presiding Bishop in New York.  She understood Lawrence to agree to the confidentiality of these developments until that time.”

What is not discussed here is why a) there would now be any point to a meeting on 22 Oct; b) the PB would think that there would be any point; c) anyone ought to keep anything confidential in the light of what had transpired?

It is as though a meeting planned under different circumstances and now pointless is meant to serve the purpose of establishing the pretext for a confidentiality that could only serve to constrict +SC.

November 13, 10:32 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): South Carolina Developments (IX)—Presiding Bishop backs ecclesiastical coup in South Carolina

Previous entry (below): South Carolina Developments (VII)—Another Local newspaper Article, Q and A with the Diocese of SC

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)