Adelphoi,
(The influence of Rowan Williams in the background may serve the F in F interests here) -- P.T.
March 19th, 2003
The Most Rev'd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017-4503
Most Reverend Father in God:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, was glad to receive your letter of December 11th. It was discussed at the Council's February meeting, and I was directed to respond on its behalf.
The Council is cognizant of the Covenant adopted by the House of Bishops, which offers the possibility of 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' within the existent Constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church. But we note that the Covenant speaks of 'the visitor', without stating who 'the visitor' is to be. It was to provide such visitors that FIF/NA's Assembly put forward the names of two godly priests, in the hope that one or more might be consecrated to fulfill that ministry.
We are aware that, under the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, a Presiding Bishop cannot simply choose and consecrate a bishop. Any bishop chosen for this ministry must be duly and canonically elected by a diocese. But while you do not have metropolitical jurisdiction, you do have a 'bully pulpit'. You have said that you are committed to providing the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised those we represent, and to the House of Bishops' resolution as a means of doing this. We enclose a proposal which we believe would achieve that end in a manner entirely consonant with the Constitution and Canons. We call upon you to use the considerable influence of your office to bring this proposal to fruition.
However, we would be less than forthright with you, and fail in our responsibility to those we represent, if we did not go on to say that the House of Bishops' proposal for 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' seems to us to fall far short of the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised and our constituency requires. We have enclosed a statement outlining what we consider its deficiencies, and suggesting a remedy.
On behalf of those we represent, the Council implores you, as our father in God, to use the full force of your office not merely to provide for the consecration of one or more bishops to serve as 'visitors' under the Covenant, but to take the actions necessary to establish a binding system of alternate pastoral care within The Episcopal Church.
Yours sincerely,
(The Rev'd Canon) Warren Tanghe, SSC
Secretary, Forward in Faith, North America
A Proposal from the Council of Forward in Faith, North America, to the Presiding Bishop for the implementation of the Covenant
The Covenant adopted by the House of Bishops speaks of 'the visitor' who is to provide supplemental pastoral care, without defining who that 'visitor' is to be.
The number of bishops who do not ordain women, and thus would be acceptable to those the Council represents, is small. Age and infirmity limit the availability of those who are retired. At the same time, a number of diocesans have openly stated their hesitancy to have another diocesan minister in their jurisdiction.
The Assembly of Forward in Faith, North America, has therefore suggested to the Presiding Bishop the names of two worthy priests, acceptable to and affirmed by the only organization representing those who adhere to the historic all-male priesthood of the Church, in the hope that one or both of them may be consecrated to care for those we represent.
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, therefore calls upon the Presiding Bishop to take the following or similar steps to secure the consecration of one or both of the priests whose names the Assembly put forward or of other suitable persons to serve as bishops visitor to those who affirm the historic, all-male priesthood of the Church.
* to get financial provision for the support of one or more bishops visitor included in the national church's budget;
* to contact FIF/NA diocesans, American Anglican Council diocesans, and even diocesans who would not consider themselves conservatives but might be open to such an idea (the Bishop of Bethlehem, for example) to find one or more willing to set in motion the process leading to the election by their dioceses of one or more bishops suffragan partly funded by the national church, whose stated duties would include serving as a bishop visitor wherever invited; and
* to urge both the church's acceptance of such a plan, and the consents of the bishops and dioceses to the election and consecration of the person or persons so elected. We believe this proposal is entirely consonant with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.
A Proposal from the Council of Forward in Faith, North America to the Presiding Bishop for the provision of Alternate Episcopal Care
The Council of Forward in Faith, North America, respectfully submits that the House of Bishops' proposal for 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' falls far short of the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion has promised and the loyal Anglicans we represent require. In particular:
* the House of Bishops' resolution says that 'the provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care shall be under the direction of the bishop of the diocese', but in fact, under the existent canons, the diocesan not only directs it but decides at his discretion whether or not to offer it in his diocese, or to a particular congregation within his diocese. Thus, the provision is inadequate and inequitable, both in that not all congregations which wish it have access to it, and in that the person who decides whether or not they will have access is the person whose actions gave rise to the request for such care in the first place.
* the term 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' is not defined, and would therefore seem to mean whatever each diocesan deems it to mean. For instance, it is by no means clear that it should include the administration of the Sacraments. Again, this is inadequate and inequitable.
* the House of Bishops deems the provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care to be 'a temporary arrangement'. But the impairment of communion created by a diocesan's including women among the ordained is not temporary, and the process of reception recognized by the Communion is one that the Eames Commission has stated will last generations, not months or years. The matter at issue is not a temporary dispute between a bishop and a congregation or priest, but, as the Anglican Communion has recognized, a deep and long-term rift which impairs their communion.
Insofar as 'supplemental episcopal pastoral care' means the provision of sacramental and pastoral care in addition to that provided by the diocesan rather than in its stead, it does not address the central issue of impaired communion. For it may still be expected that one will receive the Eucharist from the diocesan - in the case of clergy, given recent threats and actions, on pain of being judged to have abandoned the Communion of this Church and deposed. If the diocesan is male, we publicly affirm the validity of the sacraments he celebrates. But if he has impaired the unity of the diocese by obtruding into its ordained ministry those whom not all recognize to be validly ordained, or those whose conduct is unworthy of the ordained, then conscience demands that we refuse to receive the Sacrament from him as a sign of our impaired communion with him.
The Council is aware that you have contacted a number of congregations which presently enjoy supplemental pastoral care, and have been told by at least some of them that their present arrangements are acceptable. But surely you realize that those you contacted may fear that, were they to say otherwise, word might get back to their diocesans and create problems for them. They may want something different, something more, but are fearful of jeopardizing what they have in the absence of a secure system to provide what they seek, just as a number of congregations known to the Council are fearful of requesting even supplemental episcopal care lest they damage their relationships with their bishops and their dioceses.
That is why The Episcopal Church needs to go beyond what the Covenant provides. Perhaps the present provisions of the Constitution and Canons do not provide for it; but just as they have been amended to other ends, so they can be amended to this end. The Council wishes to offer the full resources of Forward in Faith, North America, to work with those who serve on your staff and advise you to devise amendments to Article I of the Constitution, and complementary canons, in such a way as to allow the election of a bishop or bishops suffragan to the Presiding Bishop to serve our constituency, parallel to the provision for 'national' bishops suffragan to serve the Armed Forces and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. Such provisions would need to include a mechanism whereby a congregation could assert that its communion with its diocesan is impaired, and the exercise of pastoral and sacramental care of that congregation and its clergy would thereupon be placed in this suffragan's hands, much as the Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces and the chaplains under his authority exercise pastoral and sacramental care even in domestic military facilities.
The Episcopalians and Episcopal congregations represented by Forward in Faith, North America, have proved themselves loyal to their church. In spite of dismissal, hostility and even persecution, we remain within it, and do not wish to leave it. The Council looks to you, Presiding Bishop, to use the 'bully pulpit' which your office affords to call the church and its leaders to restore us to our full and rightful place in this community of faith, embracing and affirming both us and the place which our understanding of God's truth holds in the church's life. We further look to you not just to call upon the church, but to lead the church, to reward our fidelity by taking the actions necessary to provide the 'appropriate episcopal care' which the Communion affirms is our due as loyal Anglicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment