Video (or audio only) of Bishop Duncan’s Report on the Primates’ Meeting

What jumped out at me was that the consents for (+)Lawrence are running 45:41 against.

The whole (+)Lawrence consent-thing shows just how politicized TEC is.  The ‘manner of life’-clause of B033 had a clear and unambiguous intent in the original context.  What’s more, even if you construed it more broadly so as to include other lifestyles than homosexual practice, there is no conceivable sense in which Mark Lawrence presents a schism-inducing ‘challenge’ to the wider-Communion of Anglican churches.  Even if he were hell-bent on pulling DioSC out of TEC—which he has denied, time and again—tell me who abroad would think that is reason enough to deny him an episcopal consent?  I defy anyone to argue that even the ultra-liberal Canon Kenneth Kearon would draw such a ludicrous implication.  What a scharade!

The fact is, the liberal majority in TEC is using Mark Lawrence’s consecration as payback for dissenting against Gene Robinson’s consecration.  Let’s call a spade, a spade.

Steve, you are spot on.  I believe the sooner the “niceties” of the debate are removed, the sooner the battle royale can be waged.  Consents for Lawrence should be a fait accompli using the logic of the Loon Left after Robinson.

But that just won’t happen, will it?

-Jim+

I am outraged that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had to spend 34K on legal fees in January alone due to the absolutely mendacious lawsuit filed by Rev Lewis and Calvary Church.  The bleeding hearts are so distraught over the supposed lack of concern about poverty by orthodox Episcopalians yet spend like drunken sailors on frivolous and un-Christian lawsuits.  The basis of this lawsuit is that the Diocese of Pittsburgh has already left TEC- that’s what they have argued in court.  It’s simply not true and they know it.  If they had a shred of integrity they would drop the lawsuit immediately.

This brings up some interesting questions of how SC will proceed if the trend continues and he does not receive the needed consents.  My reading is that they are not likely to take a rejection casually, and just go back and find a suitably compliant candidate.  There seem to be two general ways to go. 

The first is to invite a few episcopal friends to conduct the consecration anyway, which is attractive, easily doable, and probably the correct thing to do from a non-political aspect.  It does however provide TEC the opportunity to declare the bishopric vacant, with all the attendant legal fun and games.  It also violates the cease fire implicit in the Dar2007 communique. 

Looking at the situation more politically, they could start a new search, timed to last until September 30th.  The new, or perhaps the old, selectee could be chosen to the same standards.  Any of the likely outcomes of TEC’s actions will provide a more hospitable environment.  While perhaps less satisfying than the other approach, this does provide a way to keep TEC and the courts out of SC.  There is ample precedent for the Standing Committee to run the diocese during a new search, and absolutely none for intervention from outside the diocese.

Nevin,

There is far too much Integrity, and not enough integrity.

APB

” they could start a new search, timed to last until September 30th.”

BUT, APB, in the meantime, the SEE of SC is truly vacant. We don’t even have a suffragan.. Bp Salmon (bless his heart) is only serving under the “permission” of the Presiding Bishop.

He’s long past the age of “retirement”, and what would happen IF she decided to “withdraw” that permission? 

Under the canons (there we go again), does an official “search” process put a stop to “national” interference?

Its truly a scary time down here.

The most important point about the 45-to-41 SC situation is the clarity it provides.  We now have a demonstration, beyond all doubt or argument, that nearly half of the dioceses of ECUSA are hopelessly corrupt.

That in itself is extremely valuable, and something for which we should all be thankful.

Why?  Why should we be thankful for this?  I was at the meeting in Monroeville and all the usual PEP suspects dragged out all their usual lines.  Most prominently, the rector responsible for the lawsuit against Bp. Duncan stated very clearly that he has no intention of giving it up and allowing people who “have no right to it” to keep their buildings and that the Primates were “presumptuous” for asking him to do so.  The revisionists are not going to change.  They will sign whatever is put in front of them and continue doing as they have done before.  And there will be no consequences.  You can pretty much count on it.  We have already had abundant clarity; we need consequences for continued defiance.

The most important point about the 45-to-41 SC situation is the clarity it provides.  We now have a demonstration, beyond all doubt or argument, that nearly half of the dioceses of ECUSA are hopelessly corrupt.

The Diocese of Southern Ohio recently elected the replacement for +Thompson. The election committee was all hand picked liberals as near as I can tell. The one that was chosen was the “most liberal” of a choice of all liberals. This was the reply to me from the woman who came to the church to tell about the election results. She seemed proud of the situation. I think I shocked her when I said, “that’s no good.”, with a lot of disgust in my voice.

The current trajectory, which is against consent, emphasizes the two church reality.

Will SC compromise the second time around to ensure consent?  Will the candidate be forced to over commit regarding allegience to TEC in order to win?  I hope not.

It is high time that everyone, revisionist and traditionalist, admit the truth—TEC is hopelessly divided and that there is no way the present situation can go on. We have had evidence before, with Griswold, the TEC leadership will sign anything, and then go off and do whatever they want. There must be a division of TEC into two provinces. That is simply the only way that there can be peace. Neither side is going to give in and the ONLY way forward is to divide TEC. It isn’t a pleasant thought but it is the only way that the traditionalists within TEC can get back to doing what the Church is here for—-proclaiming the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, FrRick is probably right. Sadly, because his outcome is so bad. But the fact is that the lefties are going to trash this decent bishop-elect. This is so wrong. But the lefties will celebrate their “victory” and give us no margin.

variation on a theme:  let it go until October 1, then get approval from Council/Vicar… setting the precedent of PB and GC and Standing Committees from now-having-walked-apart dioceses having no further input.

*something* will have to trip the wire of canonical chaos… could be this… or he can get consecrated elsewhere and then “lent” to SC by PV, etc… endless possibilities.

without minimizing the real grief in SC, they may just have to win the “first in show” on this one… hang in!

You are beginning to see almost all of the HOB falling in line with ++Shori’s argument that they need to compromise “for a season” in order to win the larger war.  Prediction—the HOB will comply.