A.S. Haley—The Presiding Bishop Flouts the Canons Again

Posted by Kendall Harmon

[This post is 'Sticky' - new entries below]
Bishop Lawrence (a) did not address any writing to the Presiding Bishop; (b) did not renounce his ordained Ministry; and (c) did not request to be removed from that Ministry. The elaborately crafted press release from the Public Affairs Office is simply a poor attempt to cover over a huge, public lie.

That huge, public lie has been told simply for the sake of the Presiding Bishop's and ECUSA's own convenience. It is convenient for them to be rid of Bishop Lawrence now, rather than wait until next March's meeting of the House of Bishops -- that way, they avoid the necessity of taking another illegal vote of "deposition" by less than the full majority of bishops that the Abandonment Canon requires; and they are now free to reorganize those in South Carolina wishing to remain with ECUSA into a pseudo-diocese with a puppet bishop whose immediate and most important mission will not be the welfare of his parishioners, but instead the filing of a lawsuit against Bishop Lawrence and the real Diocese's corporate trustees, in an attempt to force them to turn over all of the Diocese's property and assets.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts SchoriTEC BishopsTEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: South CarolinaTEC Polity & Canons* TheologyEthics / Moral TheologyPastoral Theology

16 Comments
Posted December 5, 2012 at 3:11 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Cennydd13 wrote:

Thank you, Mr Haley.  That woman is a liar, and the sad part is that the people of The Episcopal Church are letting her get away with flouting the C&Cs;, but unfortunately, when they do nothing about it, they become as complicit in it as she is.  I know there are a lot of good people in TEC who are as disgusted with her behavior as any of us are, but why they don’t act to put a stop to her actions is completely beyond my understanding.

December 5, 8:54 pm | [comment link]
2. Cennydd13 wrote:

There is no conceivable excuse for it, in my opinion.

December 5, 8:56 pm | [comment link]
3. Langley Granbery wrote:

My condolences in the death of your sister, Mr. Haley. Thank you for your important ministry. You are a blessing to the Church.

December 5, 9:29 pm | [comment link]
4. aldenjr wrote:

#1 What would you have us do?

December 5, 11:44 pm | [comment link]
5. Cennydd13 wrote:

4.  What would I have you do?  Well, how about bringing charges against her, for starters?  Not that it would do any good, I agree, but at least you’d let that woman know that as Episcopalians, you’re disgusted with her.  But then again, she already knows this, doesn’t she? 

You have your General Convention, and you can use it in a positive way to ensure that no such Presiding Bishop is ever again chosen to lead your Church, but in order to do that, you need to rebuild a conservative wing, and that’s going to take years to accomplish.  You also need to make sure that she doesn’t try to get reelected at your next Convention.  Think she won’t either try it, or work to ensure that someone like her won’t run?  She will, beccause dictators love the power they have over others, and they hate to give it up. 

Get busy!

December 6, 11:42 am | [comment link]
6. Cennydd13 wrote:

I meant to say that she will work to ensure that someone like her does run.

December 6, 11:44 am | [comment link]
7. Sarah wrote:

I love to receive advice from people who never did any of those things when they were members of TEC.

December 6, 4:38 pm | [comment link]
8. "Peter in the pew" wrote:

Where is Bonnie Anderson? Haven’t heard her name in a while and yet she was so close to the source. Any takers?

December 6, 8:08 pm | [comment link]
9. Christopher Johnson wrote:

And I can’t get enough rejoinders from people who don’t do anything even though they still are.

December 6, 8:28 pm | [comment link]
10. MichaelA wrote:

Curmudgeon, thanks for taking the time to highlight this.  For so many people in USA, this is old hat - Ms Katherine Schori shamelessly flouting her own canons - so what’s new?

But we shouldn’t take it gor granted.  Each such instance is wrong, and should be clearly publicised as such.  It is also easy to forget that there are many all over the Anglican Communion who don’t realise the full extent of the evil that has been taking place in TEC.  The more these things are publicised, the more chance they will hear about it.

In Australia, even liberals are embarrassed by Katherine Schori - hence why when she visited here in 2010, no-one invited her to speak.  Eventually the Primate of Australia let her preach at one of his parish churches - a visiting Primate!  It is about time that those in England and other places also realise how poisonous this person is - an incompetent, bumbling, oppressive excuse for a presiding bishop.

December 6, 10:27 pm | [comment link]
11. Cennydd13 wrote:

10.  Thank you, MichaelA, for nailing her right on the nose!

December 7, 12:11 am | [comment link]
12. Cennydd13 wrote:

And Sarah I wasn’t a member of TEC when KJS was elected PB.

December 7, 12:12 am | [comment link]
13. Creedal Episcopalian wrote:

Sara, Christopher,

  Gently, gently!  There is no action anyone can take here that will have any effect on the status of the PB-ess or the coterie of reprobates that have stolen the denomination, whether still a part of PECUSA or not. It is now evident that there never has been. We should not recriminate between ourselves; Rather just watch in bemusement as the leadership of PECUSA carves and follows their own footpath to perdition. Hopefully there will pieces left to pick up and rebuild with.
dioSC has been forced to move to a better place. To quote that famous South Carolinian, Br’er Rabbit: “Please don’t throw me in dat briar patch!”

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

December 7, 11:17 am | [comment link]
14. flaanglican wrote:

I would love to see Archbishops of other provinces call Kate to inform of her of her renouncing of her orders because of the unbibilical actions of TEC. She’ll complain she didn’t write anything.  “Well, we voted to change our Canons yesterday.” Turn it around on her.

December 7, 3:14 pm | [comment link]
15. Sarah wrote:

RE: “And I can’t get enough rejoinders from people who don’t do anything even though they still are.”

Excellent.  I’ll keep right on providing them in response to silliness and hypocrisy, as I occasionally find the time, and wait expectantly for some of those who are no longer in TEC to continue to proffer the advice that they themselves never took.

Because as everyone knows, I’ve been as quiet as a mouse, and as still as a stone. ; > )

RE: “There is no action anyone can take here that will have any effect on the status of the PB-ess or the coterie of reprobates that have stolen the denomination, whether still a part of PECUSA or not.”

Sure, Creedal—and everybody here knows that, too.  It’s just that the rejoinder was irksome, understandably.

December 7, 4:29 pm | [comment link]
16. Uh Clint wrote:

I’ve never been a part of PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC, so I have no issues as to what I myself may have done or not done.

Speaking as an outsider, and being familiar with TEC Canons and the events being discussed, I fail to see what is wrong with holding PB Schori accountable for her violations of the Canons.  A presentment/complaint can be filed against any member of the clergy, and as outlined by the ACI and others there are sufficient grounds to do so in the current instance.  Simply saying “it won’t work” or “there’s no point in doing it” and then declining to even make the attempt concedes the issues, and guarantees that no one will be held accountable.

Bishop Lawrence’s statement clearly detailing that he did not send anything in writing to the PB and did not renounce his ministry (and the lack of any evidence to the contrary) demonstrates that the action against +Lawrence is based on fraud.  If that isn’t sufficient to file charges - why not?  Please explain.

(And kindly don’t resort to the notion that “the PB has control over everything, so there’s no use; a complaint would just be ignored.”  Even a complaint which is relegated to the circular file can be important, since accountability can then be called for in the handling/mishandling it receives.  Seeds must be planted to harvest a crop.)

December 8, 3:31 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): (Anglican Ink) Canterbury concedes Anglican Communion has become “corrupted”

Previous entry (below): Presiding Bishop Says Mark Lawrence Says what he did not Say, right out of George Orwell

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)