Can the Diocese of SC Vote on Glasspool?
You will recall that the Diocese of South Carolina voted on this resolution – offered by its Standing Committee and Deans – back in October:
I have searched all over that diocese’s site, and I cannot find a final, passed version of that resolution. But I seem to recall they passed it. Correct me if I’m wrong.Resolution #2
Subject: Second Guiding Principle for Engagement
“Godly Boundaries”
Offered by: The Standing Committee and Deans
Whereas the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church have failed to operate within the boundaries of its canons and continued participation in such behavior would make the Diocese of South Carolina complicit in this dysfunction, be it
Resolved that this Diocese authorize the Bishop and Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions; and be it
Further resolved that the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).
If they indeed passed this resolution, withdrawing from all bodies of TEC, how can they vote on any action of the Episcopal Church, including the election of Bishop-Elect Glasspool?
Addendum, 12/09/09:
I'm sorry my short note was confusing to some of our right-leaning friends. Nor did I realize that Kendall Harmon would send over1,000 people over to my humble blog today. So let me clarify.
I am well acquainted with the Constitution and Canons of our Church. I know that the Diocese of South Carolina can register its opposition by refusing to vote. I know that "no vote" constitutes a "no" vote.
And I'm aware of the silly resolution that South Carolina passed, in its effort to distance itself from the lepers in the Episcopal Church.
When I asked, "Can the Diocese of SC Vote on Glasspool?," I meant to ask whether the folks in South Carolina would have the courage to abide by the resolution they passed. I wonder whether they will have the courage to refuse to vote and take counsel in our church. They passed a resolution pledging themselves to withdraw from all the "heretical" counsels of the Episcopal Church. Of course, they will see this and all other episcopal elections as "tainted" by TEC's "heresy." I am well aware that their abstaining from the Glasspool election would count as a "no" vote. Any idiot knows that. Duh!
What I want to know is: Will the Diocese of South Carolina be able to contain its homophobia enough to decline a vote on Glasspool? Will that diocese have enough integrity to abstain on this vote?
Later, it will become interesting to see whether SC has enough integrity to forbear on future votes on which it might want to speak. Then we shall see whether SC has real integrity or an Alice-in-Wonderland view of the world.
Bottom line: If SC meant what it passed, they will "withdraw themselves" from a vote on Bishop-Elect Glasspool. If they vote on this one, they will prove themselves liars and homophobes. In other votes, they may reveal more of themselves. In passing their silly resolution, the Diocese of South Carolina opened themselves to a special sort of scrutiny. I look forward to observing their actions.
posted by Lisa Fox at 12/07/2009 11:06:00 PM
18 Comments:
It passed. Sigh.......
So, they can't. Vote. But, they will.
Sigh.
So what will the registrar who receives all these consents do with SC's? What can the PB do? Something for the Council of Advice.
I am so tired of these people wanting things both ways. Either leave or stay but don't go back and forth between one or the other stirring up trouble as you go.
I'm a little confused as to why this is a big deal on this election. Assuming that SC voted, they'd vote "no". If a diocese doesn't send in a consent form, it still counts as a "no", correct? Wasn't that why Lawrence's first nomination was turned down? Any incorrect or missing ballot is a "no". Their new resolutions will hurt them if a conservative bishop is elected to another diocese and they want to vote "yes", they won't be able to, right? It doesn't change anything in this election and could help progressives in the long run.
Chris H.
charitably, they should still have a vote. Let the Diocese be our prodigal son.
According to Canon III.11.4, the majority of all Standing Committees and all Bishops with Jurisdiction are required for the Bishop-Elect to be ordained Bishop.
So, even if South Carolina does not vote, it still counts as one "not consenting."
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil beat me to it, but practially speaking an abstention is the same as a No vote. So I would guess they will not bother to respond to the request for consent.
The resolution says they will "begin withdrawing". I haven't heard exactly what and when, so...
Sometimes Wise is correct, "begin withdrawing" are the operative words. Moreover, what SC will begin withdrawing from are those councils of TEC that SC concludes are not functioning within the canons of TEC. What SC was careful not to do was withdraw from TEC. That may yet happen, but my sense of +Lawrence is that he will only leave when TEC's progressive leadership takes the step that amounts to the straw breaking the camel's back. What will that be? Who knows, but probably not consecrating Canon Glasspool. When we see formal changes to the canons and the prayer book to redefine marriage to include same sex persons, then I'd say you are getting warm.
I will not be at all surprised to see formal "no" votes submitted both by +Lawrence and the SC Standing Committee. SC never said that they would cease to be a voice for the historic faith so long as they remain a part of TEC.
Advent blessings. <><
Dang, SometimesWise (#8) and Joe (#9) beat me to the punch -- that's what I was going to say!
I'm sorry my short note was confusing to some of our right-leaning friends. Nor did I realize that Kendall Harmon would send over1,000 people over to my humble blog today.
So let me clarify.
I am well acquainted with the Constitution and Canons of our Church. I know that the Diocese of South Carolina can register its opposition by refusing to vote. I know that no vote constitutes a "no" vote.
And I'm aware of the silly resolution that South Carolina passed, in its effort to distance itself from the lepers in the Episcopal Church.
When I asked, "Can the Diocese of SC Vote on Glasspool?," I meant to ask whether the folks in South Carolina would have the courage to abide by the resolution they passed. I wonder whether they will have the courage to refuse to vote and take counsel in our church.
They passed a resolution pledging themselves to withdraw from all the "heretical" counsels of the Episcopal Church.
Of course, they will see this and all other episcopal elections as "tainted" by TEC's "heresy."
I am well aware that their abstaining from the Glasspool election would count as a "no" vote. Any idiot knows that. Duh!
What I want to know is: Will the Diocese of South Carolina be able to contain its homophobia enough to decline a vote on Glasspool? Will that diocese have enough integrity to abstain on this vote? Later, it will become interesting to see whether SC has enough integrity to forbear on future votes on which it might want to speak. Then we shall see whether SC has real integrity of an Alice-in-Wonderland view of the world.
Bottom line: If SC meant what it passed, they will "withdraw themselves" from a vote on Bishop-Elect Glasspool. If they vote on this one, they will prove themselves liars and homophobles. In other votes, they may reveal more of themselves.
In passing their silly resolution, the Diocese of South Carolina opened themselves to a special sort of scrutiny. I look forward to observing their actions.
Lisa,
I think you mis-read the resolution. It proposes that the Diocese of South Carolina remove itself from councils "that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons...."
Are you proposing that DSC not participate in the election of the Bishops Suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angels? Well, they didn't. Are you proposing that the DSC Standing Committee not fulfill its canonical requirement to vote on the consent? There is nothing in the consent process (nor in the resolution) that would preclude the DSC Standing Committee from voting, nor would the consent process preclude the Bishop of DSC from voting.
As I understand the resolution, the DSC will no longer send its bishops to HoB meetings; it won't send deputies to General Convention. It won't work to get its members elected or appointed to TEC's CCABs. It won't fund 815. However, it will work within the Anglican Communion and will work with like minded dioceses within TEC and it will work with any organization in TEC that accepts and practices the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has receive them."
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Personally I'd like to see assessments determine who and how many can vote. Those who pay vote. Those who don't don't and are not included in the total from which the needed is calculated. I don't understand why everyone else has to bear the burden while some get all the privileges without paying their share.
Oh, that is indeed tempting, Pseudo! God knows the Purer-Than-Thou dioceses aren't paying anything to TEC. Your proposal is luscious ... though [alas...] uncanonical.
About letting only those who contribute vote in TEC elections.
What a great idea! Can we expand it? Everyone gets one vote per dollar contributed to a parish or to a diocesan convention or to General Convention. Why not take it further than TEC? Let's let only those who pay income taxes vote for congress. Only those who pay property taxes get to vote on property tax issues. No one who receives net government largess (e.g. receives more money from the government than they pay) should be able to vote in that government's elections.
(end of sarcasm)
While it may seem good to you now to restrict votes to those who contribute, the progressive wing of the Church will not be in asendency forever. There may be a time when the only protest the progressives have is to withold funding at the national level. Beware of making draconian rules that will one day apply to you.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, The Purported Brother --
Are you now so deafened by your hatred that you can't even hear humor when it is trumpeted? I made it abundantly clear that I was replying to PseudoPiskie in jest.
Methinks you have become totally hysterical, "YBIC Phil." I recommend counseling.
You and your folks have totally lost your sense of humor. Perhaps you could go to a healing service. I bet they have plenty of them in your diocese.
Now pshaw! Away with you, Phil, you who calls himself a "brother," but who merely roams the blogosphere seeking enemies. I believe you have made yourself a sufficient laughingstock. But if you thrive on derision, do come again, and I will explain some other psychiatric disorders you are displaying in your vainglory.
Phil has always been incapable of rational human interaction, you know that, Lisa . . . and that's coming from me!
"Brother," indeed - just like Cain.
For some strange reason, heading towards the right kills one's sense of humour. Have you ever seen any actually funny right-wing comedians? As far as those who believe they possess The Faith One Received™, well, that's serious business and Puritans have never been known for their "jolly japes and jokes."
Post a Comment
<< Home