The Pastoral Council and the Primatial Vicar
Thus far, most of our discussion of the Primates' Communiqué has focused on the issue of human sexuality. For the weekend, I'd like to shift the focus to the proposals for a Pastoral Council and a Primatial Vicar. What do we make of these?
Speaking just for myself, these are the proposals about which I've been most willing to heed Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's call for patient listening. It's much more appropriate here than in regard to issues of human sexuality, which we've been debating for more than 30 years.) Additionally, bending toward the will of the Primates on this issue doesn't require great sacrifice from an isolated minority while asking nothing from the rest of the Church.
Which isn't to say that I necessarily like this proposal, only that it doesn't strike me as a cut and dried matter of conscience.
The best analyses of the pastoral council, primatial vicar scheme that I have read so far, come from Bishops William Persell of Chicago and John Howard of Florida, neither of whom much care for it.
In my own reading, I've noticed one thing that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. In the discussion of the duties of the Pastoral Council, the Primates say this body should: "consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion."
The relevant language in the Windsor Report reads:
"There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary."
Part of the Council's charge, then, has nothing to do with providing adequate care for theological minorities. Rather, it is authorized to act as an external body to police our internal activities and recommend sanctions against the Church and against individual bishops. The potential for mischief making is apparent and unlimited. This is Dromantine's Panel of Reference with an even more meddlesome brief. And considering how little research the Panel does before making its pronouncements, this provision alone is enough to make me extremely skeptical about the Council and the Vicar.
Click on the "continue reading", or pay a visit here and look at pages 8 thru 10 to see the relevant recommendations. The relevant sections of the Windsor Report can be found here
A Pastoral Council
��The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.
��The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the scheme proposed below to
o negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the Primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 20031;
o authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme;
o assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care;
o liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who currently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those parishes within the scheme;
o facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion (TWR, §156);
o advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion;
o monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report;
o consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion;
o take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme
and report to the Primates.
A Pastoral Scheme
��We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions.
��We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters2. We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion.
��We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.
On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that
��the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles”3, or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
��in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
��the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.
Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.
We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.
Thanks for raising this issue, Jim. It appears that this proposal would, indeed, grant extraordinary authority to the proposed Pastoral Council.
A careful reading of the Communiqué does reveal that part of its responsibility would be to "monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report" and to recommend sanctions as outlined in §157.
Further, it should be noted that, in the proposed "Pastoral Scheme," "the Presiding Bishop ... will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar." The Primatial Vicar, however, would then be accountable NOT to the PB, but "shall be responsible to the Council."
The proposed Council, in turn, would have NO accountability to TEC. It is "to act on behalf of the Primates," with only the vague reassurance that it should do so "in consultation" with TEC.
The idea of vesting the Presiding Bishop's duties and powers in a person who is then responsible only to the AC primates is quite extraordinary in its own right. Since I am unaware of any provision in our Constitution and Canons which would allow such delegation of oversite to another jurisdiction, I fail to see how this proposal could be adopted except by action of General Convention.
Posted by Doug Simonsen | March 2, 2007 1:56 PM
"Part of the Council's charge, then, has nothing to do with providing adequate care for theological minorities. Rather, it is authorized to act as an external body to police our internal activities and recommend sanctions against the Church and against individual bishops."
There's a real problem here for the Church of England, assuming that Akinola and his English allies are successful in getting the provisions of the Communique to apply to the Church of England also.
The English statute known as Praemunire, which dates back to the early 15th century, has been interpreted since Henry VIII's reign as making it unlawful to give foreign prelates power over the English Church. "Bonds of affection" are all right, being voluntary and vaguely defined but the kinds of clear powers to sanction that have been given to the Pastoral Council are questionably legal under that ancient statute.
So long as the Church of England is an Established Church -- and there are no signs of this changing -- no foreign power can dictate its policies to it.
Posted by Charlotte | March 2, 2007 3:41 PM
I appreciate the remarks from Bishop Howard.
What has perplexed me from the start is the whole question of what is really involved with being under "alternate primatial oversight". My impression is that as far as day-to-day life in an average parish goes, the role of the Presiding Bishop is that of a name and title regularly incorporated into the Prayers of the People. I cannot believe those prayers to be the heavy burden which the disaffected folks claim has forced them to demand an alternative to the current PB.
I can understand that some might want a substitute as chief consecrator, but that occurs infreqently (and is by definition not something that would affect a current diocesan bishop, some of whom are most vocal in their desire for APO).
The PB also has an administrative role, but it is not my impression that those calling for APO are at this point seeking an agent inside the operating structure of the national offices of TEC.
The other main area in which the PB serves is as the ambassador of TEC to other churches and to the Anglican Communion. Now, I find it hard to describe this role as "oversight"--but I wonder if this isn't the real focus of requests for APO. That is, that the goal is for the PV to effectively be a second primate representing part of TEC, and for the PV to make statements and commitments on their behalf that the PB would not make. This disturbs me, as it seems more a form of schism than one of "alternate oversight".
However--and here's the thought that really concerns me--what if it's not really about the Presiding Bishop? I have read comments to the effect that in TEC, responsibilities that are internationally considered "primatial" are in fact only partly vested in the PB and can more properly be said to belong to General Convention. Is it possible that the intent is for the PV (and the Pastoral Council) to act as alternate authorities to GC as well as to the PB, thereby subverting or destroying the democratic governance structure of TEC?
I could never support an "alternate primacy" in which the PV/PC would not be responsible to the General Convention.
Posted by Dirty Davey | March 2, 2007 6:00 PM
It would be a change to the nature of Anglicanism were the House of Bishops to accede to the demands of the Communique. The autonomy of the Churches of the Commununion would no longer be sacrosanct, and the primates, having realized their new power over the practices of the American Church, would only continue with increasing pace to accrue to themselves more exlusive influence over the Communion. Note section five of the propesed Covenant and the appropriation to the Primates of exclusive power to determine and define for all the Churches teachings on "Communion-wide" matters of faith. While there is language here that would seem to reign in or limit this power, its ambiguity suggests a desire among the primates to leave adequate room for the expansion of this power. The Communique is a bald play for power. So is the Covenant. Neither should be regarded as temporary measures. If the Episcopal Church continues giving undue attention to the noisiest children in the room, it will capitulate to the Communique's demands for the establishment of the Pastoral Council and/or the Primatial Vicar. To the degree that TEC accepts either of these demands, Anglicanism will be changed radically and permanently. In so doing, TEC will have pulled the trigger, and that will be a terrible legacy to leave for those few progressive Christians who will remain with it.
Posted by Jim Stockton | March 2, 2007 8:43 PM
The primatial vicar should be accountable to no one but the Presiding Bishop. This is a pastoral concession, almost certainly an inadvisable one, to groups that do not wish to accept the elected leadership of the House of Bishops. The council scheme of the Primates suggests an unwarranted pastoral intervention by prelates who have no authority to do so. The Episcopal Church cannot, should not, and must not accept this proposal, just as it must utterly reject the Primates other demands, including the proposed Covenant. It is worth noting that even my former bishop, Dorsey Henderson, the author of the ill-conceived B033, who claims to be a "Windsor Bishop in a Windsor Diocese" has expressed concerns about the confessionalism of the covenant as stated.
Those who want this kind of global canon law can go to Rome, as far as I am concerned. There are advantages to the Roman system, such as clarity. There is nothing Anglican about it. What shocks me is that the Covenant is even worse than the WR, mentioning the Articles of Religion and 1662 Prayer Book.
Posted by Bill Carroll | March 3, 2007 1:19 AM
I appreciate the remarks from Bishop Howard.
What has perplexed me from the start is the whole question of what is really involved with being under "alternate primatial oversight". My impression is that as far as day-to-day life in an average parish goes, the role of the Presiding Bishop is that of a name and title regularly incorporated into the Prayers of the People. I cannot believe those prayers to be the heavy burden which the disaffected folks claim has forced them to demand an alternative to the current PB.
I can understand that some might want a substitute as chief consecrator, but that occurs infreqently (and is by definition not something that would affect a current diocesan bishop, some of whom are most vocal in their desire for APO).
The PB also has an administrative role, but it is not my impression that those calling for APO are at this point seeking an agent inside the operating structure of the national offices of TEC.
The other main area in which the PB serves is as the ambassador of TEC to other churches and to the Anglican Communion. Now, I find it hard to describe this role as "oversight"--but I wonder if this isn't the real focus of requests for APO. That is, that the goal is for the PV to effectively be a second primate representing part of TEC, and for the PV to make statements and commitments on their behalf that the PB would not make. This disturbs me, as it seems more a form of schism than one of "alternate oversight".
However--and here's the thought that really concerns me--what if it's not really about the Presiding Bishop? I have read comments to the effect that in TEC, responsibilities that are internationally considered "primatial" are in fact only partly vested in the PB and can more properly be said to belong to General Convention. Is it possible that the intent is for the PV (and the Pastoral Council) to act as alternate authorities to GC as well as to the PB, thereby subverting or destroying the democratic governance structure of TEC?
I could never support an "alternate primacy" in which the PV/PC would not be responsible to the General Convention.
Posted by Dirty Davey | March 3, 2007 10:50 AM
Just to add my two cents, the Primatial Vicar idea is a non starter because it gives the unhappy minority a wedge to use to weaken our polity and undermine the current PB. Yes she is woman, which just galls the stuffings out of a few of our Bishops and some of their followers, but she was elected by the HOB and approved by the Deputies so they just need to get over it and learn to make an accomodation with that fact. If they cannot abide the situation they should retire or renounce their orders and leave TEC. It's time to stand up for what we say we believe and let the chips fall where they may. The Communion will be a lot worse off without us than having us remain and agree to disagree over some of our issues and work toward reconciliation. This is about a lot more than homosexuality and our leadership should acknowledge it.
Posted by Richard III | March 3, 2007 6:25 PM