Posted on 12/08/2003 10:57:30 AM PST by ahadams2
ACiNW Respond to "Inaccurate" Statement by Bishop Ingham
The Diocese of New Westminster recently issued a media statement accusing the parishes of the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) of being so uncooperative that the Diocese may be forced to “exercise both a fiduciary and a stewardship responsibility to preserve the territorial integrity of the Diocese, and the assets of its parishes, for the future of the Anglican Church in British Columbia”. The media statement contained a number of inaccuracies that need to be corrected.
Q: What led the Diocese to make this statement?
A: The Diocese was reacting to a letter written by the ACiNW Council to the Canadian House of Bishops. The ACiNW's letter was in response to the Canadian House of Bishops' motions that requested that a mediator be appointed to establish interim episcopal oversight for dissenting parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster, while a task force explored the concept of such oversight in general. The measure depended on Bishop Terry Buckle 's willingness to refrain from episcopal ministry in New Westminster (which he agreed to do on November 7 th to allow for this process). For their part, the ACiNW letter expressed some receptiveness to the Bishops' motions; but they also realized this plan would leave them without episcopal oversight for an indefinite period of time. So they called for a Bishop to be appointed to oversee them in the interim, on a temporary basis, while the mediator worked with the two parties. Mainly for reasons of proximity, the ACiNW suggested Bishop William Anderson to be that interim Bishop. In its statement, the Diocese declined to mention that the ACiNW's appeal was for a temporary Bishop while the mediator worked between the two parties.
Q: The news release said the powers of the Episcopal Visitor are “greater than the Church of England's ‘flying bishops'”. Is this true?
A: No. Episcopal Visitor has no power or authority whatsoever. The Episcopal Visitor can perform only one type of Episcopal act – confirmations – and only then with the permission of Bishop Ingham. The Episcopal Visitor has no authority to ordain, appoint, remove, or discipline clergy. He cannot issue clergy licenses. Flying Bishops in England routinely perform all these functions on an ongoing basis. The Episcopal Visitor is on an initial one-year contract, renewable only with Bishop Ingham's permission, and is scheduled for about three or four visits total. Flying Bishops are indefinite appointments. The Episcopal Visitor is a retired Bishop, whereas Flying Bishops are full Bishops that have full episcopal standing in the House of Bishops.
Q: The Bishop of New Westminster says appointment of the Episcopal Visitor ought to be satisfactory.
A: Not according to the Primates of the Anglican Communion or the Canadian House of Bishops' motions. Both of these bodies mandated “adequate provision for episcopal oversight” – not episcopal pastoral care. The Episcopal visitor would provide pastoral care, but no oversight, to dissenting parishes. In a memo to New Westminster clergy introducing the Episcopal Visitor in May 2003, Bishop Ingham underscored that fact: “The Diocesan Bishop retains canonical authority over all parishes and licensed clergy, including jurisdiction in all episcopal acts. None of the duties of the Episcopal Visitor shall in any way exclude or replace the same responsibilities of the Diocesan.”
Q. Has the ACiNW rejected the Episcopal Visitor “out of hand” without giving him a chance?
A: The Bishop of New Westminster has acknowledged in writing to a parishioner that the Episcopal Visitor was not adequate for the ACiNW. In a letter dated May 21 st , he wrote, “I have been quite clear in my own statements that Bishop Hockin has been appointed for St. Clements [non-ACiNW parish] and not for the 8 parishes [of the ACiNW]. The media tends to spin it otherwise, but there is no intention on my part to impose someone on you without your input.” The Bishop offered the measure of Episcopal visitor in May 2002, before the Synod voted on the blessing of same-sex unions. At that time, the ACiNW clergy said it may provide a starting point, but rejected it as too weak for their long term needs. When the House of Bishops endorsed the then-old measure in October 2002, the ACiNW felt that Bishop Ingham had pitched a measure he knew the ACiNW found unacceptable. Some Bishops even appeared to be unaware that the ACiNW had already rejected the measure.
Q: The news release said that what the ACiNW proposes “is not possible in our system”. Is that true?
A: What the ACiNW proposes is in fact possible in our system. A Bishop can give permission for another Bishop to minister within his or her geographical jurisdiction. Geographical jurisdictions have been altered in the past, by agreement of two Diocesan Bishops (the Dioceses of Yukon and Caledonia have such an agreement in place); the Anglican Church of Canada is currently working towards a non-geographical Bishop to minister specifically to Aboriginal people. The Anglican Church of Canada also has a non-geographical Bishop for the Armed Forces.
Q: The Bishop of New Westminster says the ACiNW is opposed to reconciliation within the Diocese.
A: The ACiNW's desire is to resolve all outstanding conflicts. But it is more than just the ACiNW's relationship with the Diocese that needs reconciliation; it is also the Diocese's relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion. A large portion of the Anglican Communion has severed relations with our Diocese; a majority have declared impaired relations with us. If the ACiNW can be accused of failing to cooperate with the Diocese, it must be obvious that it is because the Diocese has refused to cooperate with the worldwide Anglican Communion. Simple reconciliation is in fact agreeing to be tacit partners in a schismatic campaign, and leaves our parishes outside of “full communion with the Church of England throughout the world” – a founding principle of the Anglican Church of Canada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.