|
 On June 28, 2006, just a week after the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church,
the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, issued
the following press release:
Standing
Committee Requests
‘Alternative Primatial Oversight’;
Envisions Tenth Province Within Episcopal Church
Members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese
of Pittsburgh voted this morning that Pittsburgh join with
other dioceses in appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the primates of the Anglican Communion and the Panel of
Reference for “immediate alternative Primatial oversight and
pastoral care.” The Standing committee also published its
intent (pending ratification by the diocesan convention this
November 3-4) to “withdraw its consent, pursuant to Article
VII of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, to be
included in the Third Province of the Episcopal Church”
envisioning the drawing together of a new Windsor-compliant
Tenth Province in the Episcopal Church. Finally, the
standing committee committed itself to “work with and care
for all the congregations of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh.”
“These decisions are simply in character with those made by
our own convention year after year,” said Bishop Duncan. “We are and will remain the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh. We are living within the constitution and
canons of the Episcopal Church. But as the presiding
bishop-elect, Katharine Jefferts Schori, herself so
helpfully stated during the recently completed General
Convention, there are really two bodies within our church,
each with its own heart and mind. The decisions made today
don’t change who we are in the least, but they do make clear
here in Pittsburgh and to the rest of the communion with
which body in the Episcopal Church we stand,” he added.
Making that clear is especially important in light of
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ vision for the
future of the Anglican Communion put forward in his teaching
of June 27. In that vision, the Anglican Communion would be
united around a covenant of agreed theological
understandings and mutual submission. The covenant would
allow those who agreed to it to continue in “constituent”
membership in the Anglican Communion while those who were
unable to agree to it would become “associate” members of
the communion. The Archbishop also acknowledged that the
fault lines between those who could agree and those who
could not agree would not just run between provinces, but
within them, and that there may well be a need within those
provinces for an “ordered and mutually respectful”
delineation.
“We understand that these decisions may be difficult for
some Pittsburgh Episcopalians. As it has been in the past,
our goal as a diocese is to help everyone stand as they need
to stand in these difficult and divisive times. Further, in
all we do, your bishops and other diocesan leadership join
with the Standing Committee in pledging our commitment to
work with and care for all the congregations of the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to prosper their local
mission,” added Bishop Duncan.
The complete text of the resolution follows:
WHEREAS,
the 140th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh accepted the Windsor Report (2004), and its
corollary documents, the Lambeth 1.10 text (1998) and the
Dromantine Communiqué (2005), as the basis on which this
Diocese, the Episcopal Church in the United States of
America, and the Anglican Communion can go forward together;
and
WHEREAS, said Annual
Convention called upon Pittsburgh’s deputies to the 75th
General Convention of the Episcopal Church to do everything
in their power to help that Convention make a clear
statement of submission to the teaching of, and a clear
statement of intent to abide by the requirements of the said
Windsor Report and its corollary documents; and
WHEREAS, said Annual
Convention declared that, should the 75th General Convention
determine to continue its “walk apart” from the Anglican
Communion, by its failure to accept unreservedly the Windsor
Report and its corollary documents or to commit to a church
life consonant with them, the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh will stand with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses,
and Provinces that hold and maintain the “Historic Faith,
Doctrine, Sacrament and Discipline of the One Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church” whatever the costs or actions required
to do so; and
WHEREAS, the Bishop
and Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh recognize that the 75th General Convention of the
Episcopal Church has elected to walk apart from the Anglican
Communion through its failure to submit to the call, the
spirit or the requirements of the Windsor Report; and
WHEREAS,
the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has been and continues
to be a member of the Episcopal Church in the United States
of America as well as a constituent member of the worldwide
Anglican Communion in full and unimpaired communion with the
See of Canterbury and those churches, dioceses, and
provinces that uphold and propagate the historic Anglican
Faith and Order; and
WHEREAS, the
Archbishop of Canterbury in light of the actions of General
Convention 2006 has written about the future of the Anglican
Communion as having both “constituent” and “associated”
members, as well as about “ordered and mutually respectful
separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements”
within local Churches, consistent with the stated aim of the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to be a constituent member
of the Anglican Communion as provided for in the
Constitution of the Episcopal Church in the United States of
America; and,
WHEREAS, the Bishop
and Standing Committee believe it is necessary for the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to disassociate itself from
those actions of the 75th General Convention which
constitute a decision of the Episcopal Church to walk apart
from the Anglican Communion.
RESOLVED,
that the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Episcopal
Diocese of Pittsburgh in good faith hereby join with the
other dioceses of the Episcopal Church who are appealing to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican
Communion, and the Panel of Reference for immediate
alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral care so that a
unifying solution might be found to preserve an authentic
Anglican community of witness within the United States of
America and provide pastoral and apostolic care to
biblically orthodox Anglicans in this country regardless of
geographical location; and
RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh,
pending final ratification by its 141st Annual Convention,
withdraws its consent, pursuant to Article VII of the
Constitution of the Episcopal Church, to be included in the
Third Province of the Episcopal Church, seeking emergence of
a new Tenth Province of the Episcopal Church which is fully
Windsor compliant, positioned with that part of the
Episcopal Church determined to maintain constituent status
in the Anglican Communion.
RESOLVED FURTHER,
that the Bishop and Standing Committee commit to work with
and care for all the congregations of the Episcopal Diocese
of Pittsburgh to prosper their local mission regardless of
whether they remain in “constituent” status or might elect
otherwise.
Final Adoption: Wednesday,
June 28, 2006 |
Pittsburgh was neither the first nor the last Episcopal diocese to ask for “alternative Primatial oversight.” Less attention has
been paid to the diocese’s reputed removal of itself from its province.
(A province is a regional grouping of Episcopal dioceses.) No other
diocese made a similar move, so it seemed to be left to Pittsburgh
Episcopalians to react to it.
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) took a few days to
respond to both moves, issuing the following press release:
|
Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail:
jrgunder@hotmail.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Pittsburgh Action Called Divisive
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — July 2, 2006 — Progressive
Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) has characterized the
resolutions passed by the Standing Committee of the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh on June 28 and the standing
committees of five other dioceses as a divisive media event.
The resolutions request “alternative Primatial oversight”
(APO) from the Anglican Communion. The Pittsburgh statement
also claims to be withdrawing the diocese from Province III,
one of nine groupings of dioceses provided for by the canon
law of The Episcopal Church. The requests for APO, first
from the Diocese of Fort Worth, which issued its statement
before the close of The Episcopal Church’s triennial General
Convention (June 13–21), and then, nearly simultaneously
this past week, from Pittsburgh, South Carolina, San
Joaquin, Central Florida, and Springfield, suggest that the
requests are part of a coordinated strategy planned long
before the church’s meeting in Columbus.
Statements made before the General Convention of The
Episcopal Church by Network Moderator, the Rt. Rev. Robert
Duncan of Pittsburgh, and other traditionalists set such a
rigid standard that they ensured that The Episcopal Church
would fail to satisfy the traditionalists. Whereas the
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, an “advisory
and consultative body,” can be asked by the Archbishop to
“enquire into, consider and report” on situations involving
“dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities,” the
dioceses requesting APO and other Network dioceses are in
dispute with virtually the whole of The Episcopal Church,
not simply with its primate. Although the Pittsburgh
Standing Committee used a recent reflection by Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams as support for its action, other
Archbishops in the worldwide Anglican Communion have read
the statement quite differently, with those of New Zealand
even characterizing responses like Bishop Duncan’s as “a
misrepresentation of his [Williams’] address.”
“This request is divisive, yet without substance,” said PEP
President Joan R. Gundersen, “since our primate, the
Presiding Bishop, has virtually no power and exercises no
“oversight” over dioceses and their bishops. It is an
irresponsible attempt to create a media event, without
regard to the genuine harm this does to parishes in the
diocese, to The Episcopal Church, and to the Anglican
Communion.” It represents a premature judgment of our
Presiding Bishop-elect, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, of
Nevada. The move by the Standing Committee has brought
distress to Episcopalians committed to The Episcopal Church,
as parishioners fear the organizational estrangement being
sought by their bishop. It stirs up division and anxiety in
the many parishes that are divided in their response to the
recent church controversies and to the course of action
being pursued by Bishop Duncan.
The alleged withdrawal of the diocese from Province III is
even more disingenuous. Not only does the diocese already
have little involvement in provincial affairs, but the
Bishop of Pittsburgh well knows that the creation of
provinces and the assignment of dioceses to provinces can
only be done by canon of the General Convention. It would
not be unprecedented for a diocese to ignore its province,
but neither the Standing Committee nor the Convention of the
diocese can remove the diocese from Province III; only
General Convention can do that, and not before 2009.
Creating a tenth province, as suggested by the resolution,
likewise, can only be accomplished by General Convention. “A
province of Network dioceses would be a pastoral disaster,”
Gundersen suggested. “At least 13 parishes in this diocese
have declined to be part of the Network and declared a
commitment to The Episcopal Church. Despite assurances from
the Standing Committee, these parishes, and similar parishes
in other dioceses, either will be abandoned or forced into a
being part of the Network against their will.”
The system of provinces that is now part of the organization
of The Episcopal Church is less than a century old. One
reason such a feature was discussed for many decades without
being implemented was the concern that creating provinces
might encourage the development of churches within the
church. “The Network has often talked about creating an
‘orthodox’ church within the church,” explained Gundersen,
“but the nineteenth-century arguments against dividing the
church still apply today. The requests for oversight and
withdrawal to a separatist province fly in the face of
traditional Anglican willingness to worship together while
allowing a broad spectrum of interpretations of Scripture
and belief. It is a radical betrayal of the central
traditions on which the Anglican Communion is built.”
Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail:
jrgunder@hotmail.com
On the Web:
This document
PEP
Action of diocesan Standing Committee
Panel of Reference
Archbishop Williams’ reflection
Statement from New Zealand
The Episcopal Church
Constitution and canons of General Convention (i.e., of The
Episcopal Church)
Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh is an organization
of clergy and laypeople committed to the unity and diversity
of The Episcopal Church, and of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh. It is a member of the Via Media USA alliance.
# # # |
On July 11, nine Pittsburgh parishes, led by the two parishes that
sued Bishop Robert Duncan and other diocesan leaders two-and-a-half
years ago, held a press conference and came very close to suggesting
that the diocesan leadership had finally broken away from the Episcopal
Church. Here is the press release from that group:
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACTS:
The Rev. Dr. Harold T. Lewis, Rector
Calvary Episcopal Church
412-661-0120, Ext. 18
412-661-6077 (fax)
HLewis@calvarypgh.org
www.calvarypgh.org
www.pittsburghepiscopal.org
The Rev. Diane Shepard, Rector
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church
412-243-6100
412-243-6105 (fax)
ststephenswilk@verizon.net
NINE PARISHES CHALLENGE RECENT
ACTIONS
OF THE BISHOP AND STANDING COMMITTEE
OF THE DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH;
DECLARE THEIR LOYALTY TO THE
EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Pittsburgh, PA, 11 July 2006.
Nine urban, suburban and rural congregations in the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh today challenged the recent
actions of the Right Reverend Robert William Duncan and the
Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On 28 June
2006, the Bishop and Standing Committee announced their
intention to withdraw from the duly recognized,
geographically-determined Province III of The Episcopal
Church, envisioning the emergence of a
theologically-determined "Province X." The parishes believe
that these steps, if left unchallenged, could effectively
remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church. The
congregations further believe that by requesting
"alternative primatial oversight," the Bishop and Standing
Committee seek to remove the Diocese from the oversight of
the presiding bishopelect of The Episcopal Church, the Right
Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori. The parishes also
believe that all of these actions constitute an effort to
retain use of property which is properly within the
jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church while withdrawing from
The Episcopal Church.
History and Rationale
The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is a founding
member of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and
Parishes, and the Right Reverend Robert William Duncan,
bishop of Pittsburgh, serves as its moderator. The Network
was formed following the election of the Right Reverend V.
Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. Subsequent
to this development, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, at its
conventions of 2003 and 2004, passed an amendment to the
Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, declaring that
the Diocese would not be bound by decisions of General
Convention when such decisions ran counter to its own
understanding of Faith and Order. In the Stipulation which
ended the lawsuit filed in the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas by Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, and St.
Stephen's Church, Wilkinsburg against Bishop Duncan et al.,
all parties agreed that congregations in the Diocese
desirous of disaffiliation from the Network could achieve
that end by notifying the Bishop in writing. We believe that
in their act of disaffiliation from the Network, those
congregations expressed their loyalty to The Episcopal
Church.
Representatives from eleven congregations that have
opted out of the Network held a meeting on 29 June 2006. In
subsequent meetings the following statement was drafted, and
was subsequently accepted by representatives of the parishes
indicated below. It is offered as a manifestation of our
faithful understanding of Christ's love, and is predicated
on a belief that the way to resolve differences is to seek
reconciliation with those with whom we disagree, and not to
withdraw from communion with them. It emerges, too, from our
belief that The Episcopal Church is part of Christ's one,
holy, catholic and apostolic church, and is a church
grounded in the Biblical principle of justice.
I. We believe that the action by the Right Reverend
Robert William Duncan, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh, and the Standing Committee of the Diocese,
announcing their decision to withdraw from Province III is
tantamount to leaving The Episcopal Church. According to the
Canons of The Episcopal Church, each diocese belongs to one
of the nine recognized geographically constituted provinces.
While there is a provision for leaving one (geographical)
province and joining another, there is no provision for
constituting a province based on ideological or theological
grounds. We believe that the proposed formation of a
Province X, therefore, is canonically and constitutionally
irregular, and it is highly unlikely that the General
Convention will approve such a province, either in advance
of its purported formation, or ex post facto. We
believe that since Province X does not exist and is unlikely
to exist, leaving Province III constitutes leaving the
organized structure of The Episcopal Church.
II. The creation of Province X, in our view, is a
mechanism to isolate dioceses, parishes, and perhaps
individuals from The Episcopal Church. The formation of the
Province is seen by us as the most recent step in an attempt
to create a church separate from The Episcopal Church. Since
the Diocese is part of The Episcopal Church, and cannot
exist apart from The Episcopal Church, we believe that the
Bishop and Standing Committee cannot legally remove the
Diocese from The Episcopal Church for the purpose of
planting it in some other province, or for any other
purpose.
III. We believe the request made by the Bishop and
Standing Committee for "alternative primatial oversight" is
further indication of an intention to depart from The
Episcopal Church. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury (at
the request of the Primates) did set up a Panel of Reference
which could hear appeals from dioceses in dispute with their
own national church authorities and "to assist in the
resolution of these difficulties" [Panel of Reference
Mandate, 6 May 2005] the specific remedy requested is
unprecedented and contrary to the basic understanding of the
Anglican Communion as a fellowship of autonomous provinces.
We believe the request for alternative primatial oversight
constitutes a rejection of the duly elected leadership and
governing structures of The Episcopal Church.
IV. The Bishop and Standing Committee have cited, in
justification for their actions, comments made by the Most
Reverend Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his
"Reflections" promulgated in the week following the General
Convention of The Episcopal Church. But it must be pointed
out that as the Archbishop himself has stated, the
Archbishop's statement is not definitive, and nothing in
that document is binding. Any final disposition on any
restructuring of the Anglican Communion, after consultation
with the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council and
other bodies, will, according to the Archbishop, be a
lengthy process, a process that will begin in earnest at the
Lambeth Conference of 2008. Moreover, even if the Anglican
Communion is restructured, that action, in and of itself,
would have no effect on the structure of The Episcopal
Church, or on the relations between The Episcopal Church and
its dioceses. We believe the actions of the Bishop and
Standing Committee have interpreted the Archbishop's
document to suit their own views. As Presiding Bishop Frank
Griswold has said in response to the Archbishop's statement,
"It is misleading that some, in responding to the
Archbishop's lengthy theological reflection, have focused
their attention on speculations about a yet-to-be determined
outcome."
V. We oppose any efforts on the part of the Bishop and
Standing Committee to take the Diocese outside of the
recognized structure of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop and
Standing Committee have stated that they believe it
necessary for the Diocese of Pittsburgh to "dissociate
itself from the actions of General Convention." Since the
General Convention is the supreme governing authority of The
Episcopal Church, and all dioceses are bound by its actions,
such dissociation as described by the Bishop and Standing
Committee constitutes, in our opinion, withdrawal from The
Episcopal Church. We believe that any resolutions or
constitutional amendments passed at conventions of the
Diocese of Pittsburgh which would purport to release the
Diocese from compliance with decisions of the General
Convention are canonically improper and invalid.
VI. According to canon law, property owned by a diocese
is held in trust for The Episcopal Church. We believe that
the repeated claims of the Bishop and Standing Committee to
be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, while at the same
time acting to separate the Diocese from the decisions of
The Episcopal Church, therefore, constitute an attempt to
retain legal possession of property held in trust for The
Episcopal Church, while at the same time taking steps to
remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church. In light of
these actions, we believe that the Bishop and Standing
Committee do not represent the interests of the duly
recognized Diocese of Pittsburgh.
VII. The authority in The Episcopal Church of any bishop
and standing committee of a diocese derives from the
authority of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal
Church, which are set by the General Convention. We believe,
therefore, that any claim of the Bishop and Standing
Committee that their authority derives from being "in full
and unimpaired communion with the See of Canterbury and
those churches, dioceses and provinces that uphold and
propagate the historic Anglican Faith and Order" is based on
specious reasoning.
VIII. In light of the foregoing statements, we further
believe that we represent those in this Diocese who are
loyal to The Episcopal Church. Accordingly, we extend an
invitation to others who wish to remain in The Episcopal
Church to join us in our efforts. We remain committed to the
building up of the Body of Christ in the Episcopal Diocese
of Pittsburgh.
All Souls Church, North Versailles - 412-823-1440
Calvary Church, Shadyside - 412-661-0120
Church of the Holy Cross, Homewood - 412-242-3209
Church of the Redeemer, Squirrel Hill - 412-422-7100
St. Brendan's Church, Franklin Park - 412-364-5974
St. Matthew's Church, Homestead - 412-461-5291
St. Stephen's Church, Wilkinsburg - 412-243-6100
St. Thomas, Church, Canonsburg - 724-745-2013
St. Thomas & St. Luke's Church, Patton - 814-674-5847
###### |
The Communications Director of the diocese attended the press
conference, so it was unsurprising that Bishop Duncan had a rejoinder on
the Web that same afternoon:
|
Diocese Responds to Calvary Press Conference
Bishop Robert Duncan responded to reports this afternoon of
a meeting and press conference at Calvary Episcopal Church
called by the leadership of nine congregations of the
diocese.
“There continues to be confusion about the Episcopal Diocese
of Pittsburgh’s status in the Episcopal Church,” said Bishop
Duncan, “I will say again what we have been saying for
months now. We have no plans to be anything but faithful,
orthodox, Anglican-Communion-bound Episcopalians, today,
tomorrow and the day after that. We are the Episcopal
Church in this place and we are going to continue being what
we always have been.”
Bishop Duncan went on to note that the June 28 decisions of
the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Standing Committee did
not bring the diocese outside of the Constitution and Canons
of the Episcopal Church in any way. Instead, they simply
served to make clear the diocese’s firm intention, expressed
by overwhelming margins at numerous diocesan conventions, to
remain a “constituent” member of the Anglican Communion,
even while much of the Episcopal Church continues choosing a
path that is breaking that bond.
Responding to claims made at the press conference that the
specific standing committee action to give notice of an
intent to disaffiliate from Province III of ECUSA's internal
provincial structure (providing the diocesan convention
approves this November) signified an attempt to “leave” the
Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan stressed that it is nothing
of the sort. In fact, the action is governed by the
Episcopal Church’s constitution. “Article VII of the
Constitution of the Episcopal Church guarantees that no
diocese will be included in a province of the Episcopal
Church ‘without its own consent.’ The specific history of
the application of this article includes a diocese
(Missouri, 1964 – 1977) withdrawing its consent and being
treated as extra-provincial during multiple meetings of
General Convention before finally being re-included in a
different province. The precedent and history unequivocally
support the Standing Committee’s considered action,” said
Bishop Duncan.
“The majority of this diocese knows very well what it feels
like to be a minority in the affairs of our national
church. I and everyone else involved in diocesan leadership
here in Pittsburgh have committed to continue working with
the minority here in every way we can, both in support of
their local ministries and to facilitate decisions of
conscience. I pray that all of us, majority and minority,
will treat each other with grace and charity as we struggle
to stand for the priorities we have embraced,” concluded
Bishop Duncan.
- Posted July 11, 2006
-
|
Not to be outdone, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh issued,
later that day, a 10-page white paper that I wrote. The paper, “An
Appraisal of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s ‘Withdrawal’ of Consent to
Inclusion in Province III,” challenges the validity of what was done by
the Standing Committee and points out that canonical changes that can
only be made by the General Convention would be necessary to create a
tenth province, something it is highly unlikely to do. Most especially,
the paper contradicts the bishop’s view that the “precedent and history
unequivocally support the Standing Committee’s considered action.” The paper had
been in the works since the Standing Committee passed its resolution,
but it was gratifying to be able to release it when we did. The report,
as a PDF file, can be downloaded below. The version here is dated
7/17/2006 and includes minor corrections from the original 7/11/2006
report.
| |
 |
An Appraisal of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s
“Withdrawal” of Consent to Inclusion in Province III |
|
NOTE: Additional developments are discussed in a later essay, “More
Thoughts on Provinces in The Episcopal Church.”
|
