Bishop Wimberly: why I did not consent to inhibition

Bishop Don Wimberly of Texas has released the following statement on his reasons for not consenting to inhibit Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori asked me along with the other two most senior bishops (Peter Lee of Virginia and Leo Frade of Southeast Florida) for consent to move forward with two inhibitions, one for John-David Scofield, Bishop of San Joaquin and Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburg, for abandonment of the Communion of the Church. We consented to Scofield because the Diocese of San Joaquin had recently voted to leave the Episcopal Church. We did not consent to the request for Bishop Duncan because the Diocese of Pittsburgh has not held their annual convention yet and therefore has not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church, as the Diocese of San Joaquin had. Even though waiting postpones the issue coming before the House of Bishops, I believe it is prudent to take every precaution and afford Bishop Duncan the opportunity to remain in the Episcopal Church.

The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of Texas

It is not known whether or not the other senior bishops gave consent.

Posted by Ann Fontaine on January 17, 2008 4:04 PM | |
Comments (5)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't read anything about Dioceses in the Canon on Abandonment of Communion. The Canon is about the individual and his or her actions that might lead one to think that he or she has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church by renunciation of its Doctrine, Discipline and Worship. This need not involve the vote of a diocesan convention; indeed, I would think a bishop who advised or fostered schism and accused the hierarchy of apostasy to have renounced the good order of the church even if the diocesan convention repudiated the advice and accusation. Abandonment does not require re-affiliation; it is about the claim no longer to be accountable to the authorities which one had vowed to obey; not necessarily the alignment with a new authority.

Posted by tobias haller [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 17, 2008 5:07 PM

The reasons given do not change the timeline in my reading of the canons. Once the letter from the Title IV committee is received and delivered to Bishop Duncan the 60 days begins. Whether or not the senior bishops agree to inhibition the House of Bishops will hear the case as soon as they meet after the 60 days. Inhibition only prohibits episcopal acts during that time period.

Posted by Ann Fontaine [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 17, 2008 5:09 PM

Mark Harris

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2008/01/three-amigos-and-difficulty-in-issuing.html

makes the argument that perhaps the distinction is that inhibitions are meant to prevent sabotage and this might be where the distinction between the Schofield and Duncan case lies.

At any rate, the clock towards a trial did start as soon as the Presiding Bishop informed Duncan. There was time that passed between the PB sending the certification to the senior bishops and the time she informed Duncan of the certification sans inhibition.

Posted by John B. Chilton [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 17, 2008 5:31 PM

I am inclined to think the inhibition is required, and urge Wimberly to reconsider. See my blog posting, "The Uninhibited Bishop."

Posted by tobias haller [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 17, 2008 6:27 PM

What Tobias said.

Susan Russell

Posted by revsusan [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 18, 2008 2:58 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space