On February 2, 2010, the American Anglican Council (AAC) released an accounting of how The Episcopal Church (TEC) has spent millions of dollars in over 50 lawsuits, deposed or inhibited 12 bishops and more than 400 other clergy, and violated its own canons numerous times. The Rev. Phil Ashey, AAC Chief Operating Officer and practicing attorney, authored the paper at the request of several members of the Church of England's General Synod in preparation for their vote on regarding the nature of their relationship with the Anglican Church in North America. On February 4, Mr. Simon Sarmiento, member of the Church of England and founder of the blog Thinking Anglicans, published a rebuttal of what he called “factual inaccuracies” in the AAC’s paper. Mr. Sarmiento is not an attorney and admitted to having the help of, among others, The Episcopal Church’s lead lawyer, David Booth Beers, and the Presiding Bishop’s Special Council for property litigation, Mary E. Kostel.

Mr. Sarmiento’s full paper is located here.

The following is a reply to Sarmiento’s assertions of factual inaccuracies.

1. The numbers of clergy deposed for abandonment of communion is at least 237, not 170. The number of bishops so deposed is three. In addition, nine bishops and at least 152 clergy have been removed for “renunciation of ordained ministry” in violation of the plain reading of the canons.

All of this has been documented in our paper The Episcopal Church: Unjust and Overbearing Episcopal Acts, at pp. 3-21. The list we published does not purport to be a complete list—in fact, since we have published it, more clergy have contacted us and identified themselves as having been inhibited, deposed or released under the abandonment and renunciation canons by TEC. We have documentation and substantiation showing the inhibition, deposition and release of all these clergy for either alleged abandonment of communion or renunciation of ministry. The American Anglican Council can provide copies of this documentation by facsimile or e-mail if requested.

Read the entire article here.

10 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments

Comments:

Boy, facts can be a real pain sometimes.

[1] Posted by Bill2 on 02-05-2010 at 02:48 PM • top

1. I would have to spend way more time than I have in determining whether the renunciation of orders is a requirement if moving out of the Episcopal church or not - maybe there is a kind soul out there who can clarify this point for us poor peasants? And what is the precedent for this in years past? I have heard this same argument before and it would be nice to have the facts.

2. The paper didn’t even try to address the multiple times the TEC leadership VIOLATED the canons in deposing and renunciating priests and bishops.

3. The paper didn’t even try to address the fact that the TEC leadership has refused, in almost every case, to resolve legal issues via mediation or collaboration. Their legal “slash and burn” policy is an embarrasment to all people who call themselves “followers of Christ”.

4. I thought overall it was a pitiful response…it missed responding to many of the more important points.

Thoughts?

[2] Posted by B. Hunter on 02-05-2010 at 03:18 PM • top

B. Hunter, I’m no professional and I’m not in orders, but it looks to me….and I’m sure to some others….as if the Episcopal Church is claiming that as far as they’re concerned, they’re the only Church that matters, and therefore, they’ll do whatever they please. As far as I can tell, their orders are the only ones that mean anything to them. Apparently they ignore the fact that a bishop of one province of the Anglican Communion is a bishop of the entire Church of Christ, and the same applies to other clergy. They also conveniently choose to ignore the fact that bishops and clergy of the Province of the Southern Cone….including those Americans and Canadians who took refuge in that province….are also bishops and clergy of the entire Church of Christ, and as far as the rest of the Communion is concerned, they’re clergy in good standing, and are faithful Anglican Christians.

[3] Posted by Cennydd on 02-05-2010 at 03:55 PM • top

I might also add that every one of those bishops and other clergy has been licensed by the Archbishop of the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas, the Most Rev Gregory Venables, one of two of our archbishops….the other being the Most Rev Robert Duncan.

[4] Posted by Cennydd on 02-05-2010 at 03:58 PM • top

I guess I am not a thinkin anglecan but just another thurd world moron. Thanx for clering up my confuson.
Intercessssssooorrrr

[5] Posted by Intercessor on 02-05-2010 at 04:01 PM • top

#1 It is unprecedented prior to the current PB’s regime. Prior to this clergy frequently “transferred” from TEC to other Provinces without renouncing orders.

The aim of the PB’s unprecedented interpretation as far as I can work it out, is:
1. To prevent those who transfer to, say, Southern Cone ministering in any way in TEC churches.
2. To humiliate those who transfer.

[6] Posted by driver8 on 02-05-2010 at 05:01 PM • top

Hah! I know of a good many clergy who say that it’s an honor to be mistreated by Katharine Jefferts Schori!

[7] Posted by Cennydd on 02-05-2010 at 06:21 PM • top

Proof # (number to large to parse or print) that trusting revisionists and moderates with facts is not advisable.

[8] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 02-05-2010 at 06:54 PM • top

#8 - trusting revisionists and moderates with the Gospel is not advisable either.

[9] Posted by Festivus on 02-06-2010 at 09:26 AM • top

I also found this interesting:

4. The statement “all clergy—including bishops—who leave TEC for another province of the Anglican Communion… are required to complete a corresponding exit process [under the Renunciation of ministry canons]..” is manifestly false and misleading.
There is nothing in the plain language of canons III.9.8 and III.12.7 that require a Renunciation of Ministry upon a transfer to another province of the Anglican Communion—period. As we note in our brief at page 13, use of the Renunciation canons for transfers creates a novel and functional definition of Holy Orders in The Episcopal Church, the net effect of which might well be to redefine American Anglicanism in TEC as an autonomous church with an autonomous understanding of both communion and Holy Orders.

This would be true if and only if TEC was asserting those leaving were moving to a different religion. Might you give them this point, as most who left seem to be Orthodox Christians, not Hindus, Pagans, Druids or Universalists as TEC has among the ordained.

[10] Posted by Festivus on 02-06-2010 at 09:32 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.