Irregular confirmations in Ohio spark stern response from bishops
Irregular confirmations in Ohio spark stern response from bishops
by Jan Nunley
ENS 031504-1
Monday, March 15, 2004
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Ohio Bishop J. Clark Grew II, and Ohio Bishop-elect Mark Hollingsworth Jr. responded sternly to five retired Episcopal bishops and a diocesan bishop from Brazil who confirmed 110 individuals at a service held March 14 in an Orthodox church in Akron, Ohio, without the permission of the local diocesan bishop.
Bishop William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire, was the celebrant at the confirmation Eucharist, held at Presentation of Our Lord Orthodox Church in Akron. Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, preached, and Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Northern Brazil was a special guest whose presence was described in a press release issued by the American Anglican Council (AAC) as “illustrating international support for the measures.” Also participating in the confirmations were Bishop Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; Bishop William Cox, retired assistant bishop of Oklahoma; and Bishop Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee.
The six congregations involved were Church of the Holy Spirit, Akron; St. Anne’s in the Field, Madison; St. Stephen’s, East Liverpool; St. Barnabas, Bay Village; St. Luke’s, Akron; and a non-ECUSA congregation, Hudson Anglican Fellowship, Hudson, whose rector serves on the staff of St. Luke’s.
In a statement released March 15, Griswold declared that the bishops “have arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The claim that their action was pastoral and in accordance with a mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is contradicted” by statements from the Primates that, he said, clearly indicated that provisions for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities are “a matter to be resolved by the province.”
The canons of the Episcopal Church, as well as those of the councils of the undivided Christian Church--beginning with Nicaea in 325 A.D.--specify that no priest or bishop may perform sacramental acts in another diocese without prior permission of that diocese’s ecclesiastical authority.
Boundaries crossed
In January 2000, Allison and Dickson were part of a group that consecrated two American priests, John H. Rodgers and Charles H. Murphy, as bishops for what became the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a breakaway Anglican group operating under the auspices of the Provinces of South East Asia and Rwanda. In June 2001, they also participated in the irregular consecration of four additional bishops for the AMiA. Both actions were denounced by then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey as divisive.
Benitez told the Ohio congregation that he and the other bishops were present “in direct response to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Primates of the Anglican Communion” in their call for episcopal oversight for dissenting minorities and that their participation represented “emergency measures” for the Ohio congregations.
“Our active bishops are currently seeking means for providing Adequate Episcopal Oversight, and if an acceptable plan is approved, these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary. But right now, we consider these actions an essential and imperative response to a pastoral emergency in northern Ohio,” Benitez added.
It was not clear to which group of bishops Benitez referred. But in a memo drafted for the AAC’s Bishops’ Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight, released by the Washington Post in January, the Rev. Geoff Chapman stated:
As an intermediate step, we will respond to the urgent pastoral need in our country by offering Adequate Episcopal Oversight to parishes or remnants of parishes who share our deeply held convictions, proceeding under the guidance of our Bishops and the Primates. Bp Griswold’s offer of “Extended Episcopal Care” is unacceptable, fundamentally flawed and disingenuous, and does not meet the needs of our parishes or the intentions of the Primates. Our AEO will maintain confidentiality in the application process, and seek transfer of parish oversight across geographic diocesan boundaries to an orthodox bishop, the right of pastoral succession, liberty of conscience in financial stewardship (the right to “redirect” funds), and negotiated property settlements affirming the retention of ownership in the local congregation.
The AAC later disavowed the memo, saying that it was an unapproved draft.
Attempt to co-opt bishops’ meeting?
“In consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chancellor, our bishops have been considering a draft plan for episcopal pastoral care which they will address further when we gather for our spring meeting later this week in Texas,” Griswold said in his statement. “Why, I am moved to ask, did these bishops decide that Confirmation of these persons was pastorally necessary at this moment and act without permission of the Bishop of Ohio? Given that the House of Bishops will meet later this week, I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction that will appear sufficiently lacking in pastoral concern for ‘dissenting minorities’ to justify what they have done in the eyes of others. I trust that they will be disappointed in their hope and that the vast majority of bishops of this church--occupying the diverse center--will find a way forward that is clear and just in its principles, pastoral in its approach and responsive to the needs of the church in this present moment.”
Griswold quoted a letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who told him, “My hope and prayer is that this meeting will offer generous and constructive ways forward within the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation, and the consequent distraction from our main task of proclaiming Christ.”
‘No place in our polity’
Bishop-elect Hollingsworth released a statement March 15 declaring his disappointment that the priests and bishops involved “chose to begin their relationship with me, not with direct and honest dialogue, but by acting in this manner. I certainly don't want anyone to think that this behavior is characteristic of Christian community, especially the young people of those congregations.
“An action of this sort, designed to break down the community of faith, has no place in our polity. No one group can define for the whole Church what constitutes an ‘emergency,’” Hollingsworth continued. “The laity and the clergy of the Diocese of Ohio, meeting in convention last November, clearly articulated their support of an inclusive theology in the larger Church, and their affirmation of its actions in last summer's General Convention. It is a singular privilege to begin serving with them in this diocese at a time of such great potential for the Church.”
Bishop Grew, calling the service “unauthorized and clandestine,” said that “there is no crisis in the Diocese of Ohio, except the one created by a group that hopes to hold on to attention that is slipping away as time passes, a group that may use the threat of further extracanonical action as a way to manipulate the House of Bishops in its deliberations on the matter of alternative oversight.”
But, Grew said, “Neither the House of Bishops nor the Diocese of Ohio is likely to be swayed by sudden confrontational actions. Any response by the Diocese of Ohio in this matter will be prayerfully considered and characterized by the life of Jesus himself, who calls us all to unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.”
The following is the full text from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold:
By their recent action in the Diocese of Ohio, five of our retired bishops and a bishop from the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil have arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The claim that their action was pastoral and in accordance with a mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is contradicted by the statement of the Primates last October which states quite clearly that they, “reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own,” and that they “call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care,” and that they should do so “in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”
Provisions for “episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities” is thus clearly a matter to be resolved by the province. That is precisely what this church is seeking to do. In consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chancellor, our bishops have been considering a draft plan for episcopal pastoral care which they will address further when we gather for our spring meeting later this week in Texas.
With respect to this forthcoming meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent letter to me, “My hope and prayer is that this meeting will offer generous and constructive ways forward within the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation, and the consequent distraction from our main task of proclaiming Christ.”
What is quite clear is that whatever pastoral response is agreed to, it must, as the Archbishop points out, be consistent with the “constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA.” Here I note that according to our Constitution:
A bishop shall confine the exercise of such office to the Diocese in which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal acts in another Diocese by the Ecclesiastical Authority thereof…[Article II,Sec.3]
Why, I am moved to ask, did these bishops decide that Confirmation of these persons was pastorally necessary at this moment and act without permission of the Bishop of Ohio? Given that the House of Bishops will meet later this week, I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction that will appear sufficiently lacking in pastoral concern for “dissenting minorities” to justify what they have done in the eyes of others. I trust that they will be disappointed in their hope and that the vast majority of bishops of this church--occupying the diverse center--will find a way forward that is clear and just in its principles, pastoral in its approach and responsive to the needs of the church in this present moment.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
March 15, 2004
-- The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service
by Jan Nunley
ENS 031504-1
Monday, March 15, 2004
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Ohio Bishop J. Clark Grew II, and Ohio Bishop-elect Mark Hollingsworth Jr. responded sternly to five retired Episcopal bishops and a diocesan bishop from Brazil who confirmed 110 individuals at a service held March 14 in an Orthodox church in Akron, Ohio, without the permission of the local diocesan bishop.
Bishop William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire, was the celebrant at the confirmation Eucharist, held at Presentation of Our Lord Orthodox Church in Akron. Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, preached, and Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Northern Brazil was a special guest whose presence was described in a press release issued by the American Anglican Council (AAC) as “illustrating international support for the measures.” Also participating in the confirmations were Bishop Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; Bishop William Cox, retired assistant bishop of Oklahoma; and Bishop Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee.
The six congregations involved were Church of the Holy Spirit, Akron; St. Anne’s in the Field, Madison; St. Stephen’s, East Liverpool; St. Barnabas, Bay Village; St. Luke’s, Akron; and a non-ECUSA congregation, Hudson Anglican Fellowship, Hudson, whose rector serves on the staff of St. Luke’s.
In a statement released March 15, Griswold declared that the bishops “have arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The claim that their action was pastoral and in accordance with a mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is contradicted” by statements from the Primates that, he said, clearly indicated that provisions for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities are “a matter to be resolved by the province.”
The canons of the Episcopal Church, as well as those of the councils of the undivided Christian Church--beginning with Nicaea in 325 A.D.--specify that no priest or bishop may perform sacramental acts in another diocese without prior permission of that diocese’s ecclesiastical authority.
Boundaries crossed
In January 2000, Allison and Dickson were part of a group that consecrated two American priests, John H. Rodgers and Charles H. Murphy, as bishops for what became the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a breakaway Anglican group operating under the auspices of the Provinces of South East Asia and Rwanda. In June 2001, they also participated in the irregular consecration of four additional bishops for the AMiA. Both actions were denounced by then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey as divisive.
Benitez told the Ohio congregation that he and the other bishops were present “in direct response to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Primates of the Anglican Communion” in their call for episcopal oversight for dissenting minorities and that their participation represented “emergency measures” for the Ohio congregations.
“Our active bishops are currently seeking means for providing Adequate Episcopal Oversight, and if an acceptable plan is approved, these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary. But right now, we consider these actions an essential and imperative response to a pastoral emergency in northern Ohio,” Benitez added.
It was not clear to which group of bishops Benitez referred. But in a memo drafted for the AAC’s Bishops’ Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight, released by the Washington Post in January, the Rev. Geoff Chapman stated:
As an intermediate step, we will respond to the urgent pastoral need in our country by offering Adequate Episcopal Oversight to parishes or remnants of parishes who share our deeply held convictions, proceeding under the guidance of our Bishops and the Primates. Bp Griswold’s offer of “Extended Episcopal Care” is unacceptable, fundamentally flawed and disingenuous, and does not meet the needs of our parishes or the intentions of the Primates. Our AEO will maintain confidentiality in the application process, and seek transfer of parish oversight across geographic diocesan boundaries to an orthodox bishop, the right of pastoral succession, liberty of conscience in financial stewardship (the right to “redirect” funds), and negotiated property settlements affirming the retention of ownership in the local congregation.
The AAC later disavowed the memo, saying that it was an unapproved draft.
Attempt to co-opt bishops’ meeting?
“In consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chancellor, our bishops have been considering a draft plan for episcopal pastoral care which they will address further when we gather for our spring meeting later this week in Texas,” Griswold said in his statement. “Why, I am moved to ask, did these bishops decide that Confirmation of these persons was pastorally necessary at this moment and act without permission of the Bishop of Ohio? Given that the House of Bishops will meet later this week, I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction that will appear sufficiently lacking in pastoral concern for ‘dissenting minorities’ to justify what they have done in the eyes of others. I trust that they will be disappointed in their hope and that the vast majority of bishops of this church--occupying the diverse center--will find a way forward that is clear and just in its principles, pastoral in its approach and responsive to the needs of the church in this present moment.”
Griswold quoted a letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who told him, “My hope and prayer is that this meeting will offer generous and constructive ways forward within the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation, and the consequent distraction from our main task of proclaiming Christ.”
‘No place in our polity’
Bishop-elect Hollingsworth released a statement March 15 declaring his disappointment that the priests and bishops involved “chose to begin their relationship with me, not with direct and honest dialogue, but by acting in this manner. I certainly don't want anyone to think that this behavior is characteristic of Christian community, especially the young people of those congregations.
“An action of this sort, designed to break down the community of faith, has no place in our polity. No one group can define for the whole Church what constitutes an ‘emergency,’” Hollingsworth continued. “The laity and the clergy of the Diocese of Ohio, meeting in convention last November, clearly articulated their support of an inclusive theology in the larger Church, and their affirmation of its actions in last summer's General Convention. It is a singular privilege to begin serving with them in this diocese at a time of such great potential for the Church.”
Bishop Grew, calling the service “unauthorized and clandestine,” said that “there is no crisis in the Diocese of Ohio, except the one created by a group that hopes to hold on to attention that is slipping away as time passes, a group that may use the threat of further extracanonical action as a way to manipulate the House of Bishops in its deliberations on the matter of alternative oversight.”
But, Grew said, “Neither the House of Bishops nor the Diocese of Ohio is likely to be swayed by sudden confrontational actions. Any response by the Diocese of Ohio in this matter will be prayerfully considered and characterized by the life of Jesus himself, who calls us all to unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.”
The following is the full text from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold:
By their recent action in the Diocese of Ohio, five of our retired bishops and a bishop from the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil have arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop. The claim that their action was pastoral and in accordance with a mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion is contradicted by the statement of the Primates last October which states quite clearly that they, “reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own,” and that they “call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care,” and that they should do so “in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”
Provisions for “episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities” is thus clearly a matter to be resolved by the province. That is precisely what this church is seeking to do. In consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his chancellor, our bishops have been considering a draft plan for episcopal pastoral care which they will address further when we gather for our spring meeting later this week in Texas.
With respect to this forthcoming meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent letter to me, “My hope and prayer is that this meeting will offer generous and constructive ways forward within the constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA that will guarantee Episcopal care for all and avoid further fragmentation, and the consequent distraction from our main task of proclaiming Christ.”
What is quite clear is that whatever pastoral response is agreed to, it must, as the Archbishop points out, be consistent with the “constitutional and canonical structures of ECUSA.” Here I note that according to our Constitution:
A bishop shall confine the exercise of such office to the Diocese in which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal acts in another Diocese by the Ecclesiastical Authority thereof…[Article II,Sec.3]
Why, I am moved to ask, did these bishops decide that Confirmation of these persons was pastorally necessary at this moment and act without permission of the Bishop of Ohio? Given that the House of Bishops will meet later this week, I can only surmise that their intention is to co-opt the bishops’ agenda and provoke a reaction that will appear sufficiently lacking in pastoral concern for “dissenting minorities” to justify what they have done in the eyes of others. I trust that they will be disappointed in their hope and that the vast majority of bishops of this church--occupying the diverse center--will find a way forward that is clear and just in its principles, pastoral in its approach and responsive to the needs of the church in this present moment.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
March 15, 2004
-- The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service
posted by KHR+ at 1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home