A. S. Haley, aka the Anglican
Curmudgeon, has posted painstaking analysis of the Episcopal Church’s attack on
the Diocese of South Carolina.
What I find most disturbing is the use of double jeopardy as a modus operandi.
In 2011, the Disciplinary Board for
Bishops looked at the charges against the Bishop of South Carolina, Mark
Lawrence, and did not find him guilty
of “abandonment.” Yet in
2012 the Disciplinary Board did find him guilty.
So what changed? The board’s
membership. Presiding Heretic
Schori was able to stack the board at the 2012 General Convention, and having
done so, her people pushed the same charges against Lawrence and found him in
“abandonment” this time.
Yes, this is double jeopardy. We see
here “the tactic of bringing up the same charges over and over again until
there is a majority in favor of them.”
Now this is legal. The Episcopal Church may commit double
jeopardy in its deliberations if it wishes. The U. S. Constitution is not part of the Canons of The
Episcopal Church. But it is a sad
commentary that not only does TEC not hold to Biblical standards, it cannot
even bring itself to meet minimal secular standards of fair play anymore.
Meanwhile, those who filed the
complaints against +Mark Lawrence have revealed themselves. They claim to have acted independently,
that “no one from elsewhere in the Episcopal Church encouraged or initiated the
complaint.” Yeah, right.
Their number is 14, twelve laypeople and only TWO priests. That --Schori did not
find more tools than that speaks volumes.
-------
UPDATE:
-------
UPDATE:
This action is a deplorable assault upon the Bishop of
this Diocese. The attack came in the midst of negotiations whose stated intent
was to find a peaceful solution to our differences with the Episcopal Church.
It involved a process in which there was no prior notice of the proceedings, no
notice of the charges against him nor any opportunity to face the local accusers
(who remained anonymous until today).
Also deeply concerning is the fact that all of the stated
reasons for “abandonment” were known nearly a year ago, when an earlier attempt
to remove him failed. This second attempt is double jeopardy of the most
egregious sort and is contrary to the very canons they have used. Worst of all,
canons that were originally meant for the removal of clergy who had well and
truly “left” the church are now being used to purge a Bishop who has diligently
sought to keep his Diocese both intact and within the Episcopal Church.
. . . it strains every notion of common sense to apply the charge of
"abandonment" in this case. This is a provision that is in canons to
make it expeditious to deal with a priest or bishop who has openly decamped to
another ecclesial body, or none; a cleric who stops showing up for meetings,
stops worshiping as an Episcopalian, and disavows any association with the
Episcopal Church.
By contrast, since I became a bishop in March of last year, Mark
Lawrence has attended every meeting of the House of Bishops except one, which a
great many bishops also missed because it was held in Ecuador. He was present
at General Convention. He has continued to lead a diocese that uses the
Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer in its worship. He has abandoned
nothing, and to accuse him of doing so is ludicrous on its face.
1 comment:
It only took one Judas, so 14 is overkill.
Post a Comment