ENS reports San Joaquin Episcopalians greet bishop recommended for provisional role.
The new website for the San Joaquin diocese contains information about the Special Meeting of the Convention of the diocese.
Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a report by Steve Levin Clock is ticking for fate of Bishop Duncan:
The leader of the Episcopal Church will poll bishops nationally next month in an effort to move the possible deposition of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. ahead to May.
While Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s reasons have not been made public, the impact of accelerating the deposition could be far reaching not only for Bishop Duncan but the entire worldwide Anglican Communion…
…According to an e-mail sent this week from David Booth Beers, the chancellor to the presiding bishop, to about two dozen Pittsburgh Episcopalians representing a spectrum of the diocese, he wrote that the Rev. Jefferts Schori would “poll the House of Bishops in April to see when the House would next like to meet to discuss, among other things, the certification respecting Bishop Duncan. It is not accurate to say that she is seeking approval to proceed; rather, she seeks the mind of the House as to when to proceed.”
If Bishop Duncan goes, he will take many good, conservative Episcopalians with him.
Why not review the certification of the gay NH bishop?
Let’s pray for Bp Duncan to have a change of heart instead of beating up on Bp Robinson.
Because *the bishop* of New Hampshire (not “gay NH bishop”) hasn’t abandoned the communion of TEC, Frank?
To be “taken” by Duncan (pun intended!) is, regrettably, to cease to be Episcopalian.
Lord have mercy!
Bishop Robinson has violated no canon, has called no one apostate, and has not advocated violence against anyone.
Sure, let’s get rid of the righteous gay guy and keep those who have actually done the things outlined above.
Makes perfect sense.
NOT!
“If Bishop Duncan goes, he will take many good, conservative Episcopalians with him. Why not review the certification of the gay NH bishop?” – asks Frank Driscoll I’m surprised that you don’t know that answer, Mr. Driscoll. Bishop Robinson has not tried to betray his vows at consecration, and actively engage in a schismatic movement, as has Bishop Duncan. Nobody is deposed for their God-given sexuality, or for their being low church or high church, or for their having conservative beliefs or liberal beliefs in the meaning of Scripture. But, they are deposed, or should be, for deliberate schismatic activity,… Read more »
The canon in question defines abandonment of communion as “open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline or worship of the Episcopal church”. Note the ‘or’. It is clearly the case that attempting to ‘take a diocese out of the Episcopal church’ (if such a thing even exists) is to contravene the discipline of the Episcopal church, regardless of one’s feelings about doctrine. Indeed, if Bishop Duncan feels the Episcopal church has established false doctrine, he has no other option than to resign his position.
Out of the legions of gay bishops (including scores of popes and patriarchs) down through the centuries, the only thing that sets +Robinson apart is his honesty. The only thing that has changed is now the Church must now do openly what it has done on the sly for 2000 years.
And, more to the point, the activities for which Duncan could be disciplined go back way before Gene Robinson appeared on the scene. He’s been calling TEC everything under the sun, moon, stars and earth since about an hour after his consecration. As long as it was all talk there was nothing the Presiding Bishop could do; however, he’s moved into action with the first vote for a change to his diocesan constitution at the last convention. The current view seems to be that actions bring re-action: Duncan has been living in a bubble if he doesn’t believe there are… Read more »
The Lead/Daily Episcopalian has referenced a letter by Bishop Duncan’s attorney addressed to the Chancellor, David Beers, Esq., who advises the PB, challenging the findings of the Review Committee that would have allowed the PB to inhibit +Duncan if three senior bishops had concurred with the Committee’s findings. The same article also links the supporting evidence made available to the Review Committee by Mr. Beers and senior clergy canonically resident in the Dio. of Pittsburgh, documenting +Duncan’s role in scheming to take his diocese out of TEC. However, +Bob Duncan still maintains his innocence, taking his stance on “the faith… Read more »
I fear I do strongly agree with many posters. Duncan’s ire has long been heated, since way long before anybody had ever heard of Bishop Robinson, nationally or internationally. Duncan seems very angry that more people do not take him seriously as at least a prophet if not an especially retro modern apostle. He seems angry that anybody dares to follow Jesus of Nazareth outside of his narrow and conformed penalisms. He doesn’t much like the prayer book revisions, if I remember the past correctly. He probably is not all that happy about having a woman gifted enough to be… Read more »
“Out of the legions of gay bishops (including scores of popes and patriarchs) down through the centuries, the only thing that sets +Robinson apart is his honesty.” Ah, but you see, there is no greater sin than his. Reviling? Slander? Lying? Jailing the innocent? None of these really matter. They are merely the stuff of politics and deal as much with who, in the end, gets his way. We can even change our minds as to the sinfulness of things as long as the establishment stands to benefit. The only truly defiling sin, what appears to be sin against the… Read more »