The Lead

Bishop Edward MacBurney, whose brief inhibition by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was a cause celebre among conservative Anglicans, has agreed to lead the breakaway diocese of Quincy on an interim basis, the Cafe has learned.

MacBurney, 80, was Bishop of Quincy from 1988-1994. He was inhibited by the presiding bishop in April 2008 for performing confirmations in the Diocese of San Diego in June 2007 on behalf of Bishop Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone without seeking permission from the Bishop of San Diego, the Rt. Rev. James Mathes.

Venables has claimed authority over numerous parishes in the United States and Canada in the wake of the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. He had previously claimed authority of the Diocese of Recife in the province of Brazil.

Response to the inhibition, which occurred two days after the death of the bishop's son, was heated among conservative Anglicans. The Forward in Faith chapter in the United Kingdom said the "purported inhibition" was "nothing less than contemptible, confirming our view that a ‘graceless and totalitarian’ mindset now holds sway in the upper echelons of TEC."

The Rev. Robert S. Mundy, Dean of Nashotah House Theological Seminary wrote: "What is going on right now is a cold, calculated show of force; and no amount of dressing it up with language about compassion is going to change that reality. Those who for decades spoke of tolerance, compassion, and inclusion are now running the Episcopal Church; and it is turning out just like George Orwell's Animal Farm."

MacBurney's inhibition was lifted on September 9, 2008 after he apologized. According to Episcopal Life Online:

Jefferts Schori's September 9 order admonishe[d] MacBurney to not make any other such visits and to apologize in writing to Mathes "for not respecting his authority as Bishop of that Diocese."

In November, he agreed to assume some of administrative responsibilities in the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy when the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman resigned just three days before the diocesan convention at which a majority of delegates voted to leave the Episcopal Church and join Venables' Province of the Southern Cone. Ackerman, who cited health concerns in resigning, was named an assisting bishop in the neighboring Diocese of Springfield, which is led by a fellow conservative, Bishop Peter Beckwith, a month later. However, Ackerman continues as president of Forward in Faith--North America, which is a member of the recently-founded Anglican Church of North America, which is seeking recognition as an Anglican province.

Comments (6)

Guess the inhibition should have been left in place.

Posted by ann | January 8, 2009 12:23 AM

He will probably be inhibited again shortly, and deposed after that. It is a sad game this man plays.

Posted by David Allen |dah • veed| | January 8, 2009 12:33 AM

OK, Jim, now I'm completely confused: MacBurney agreed to whom?

I read this story as "MacBurney agreed to (presumably) ++KJS to lead this diocese in the interim" (similarly to +Lamb being provisional in San Joaquin, and ____ as acting bishop in Pittsburgh).

Then ann's comment, above, made me think I'd gotten this bass-ackwards. :-0

Which "Quincy" (faithful or schismatic)? Who asked MacBurney? Do faithful Episcopalians in Quincy HAVE a bishop now? Wazzup???

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | January 8, 2009 1:54 AM

As the article above notes, Bishop MacBurney agreed to lead the "breakaway" diocese. I'd prefer to call them a "group" since the actual Diocese of Quincy has gone nowhere and is still in TEC. MacBurney is leading whatever that group is which left TEC for the Southern Cone/Common Cause/ACNA. All these complaints about TEC being cruel and playing hardball are a hoot. They come from a group that apparently expects no consequences to acts of schism.

Joan Gundersen

Posted by JRG | January 8, 2009 10:27 AM

He agreed to lead the breakaway diocese. Not the folks who are remaining with the Episcopal Church.

Posted by Jim Naughton | January 8, 2009 10:33 AM

A nte on terms: I think it is fair to call these folks a diocese and fair to call the Anglican Church in North American a church. Anyone can form a church and designate it as such. Any church can have dioceses if it chooses. I don't think it is sensible to do as, say, the Church Times has done and refer to ACNA as a province. That grants what is contested. ACNA is not a province of the Anglican Communion. It is not a province of anything. Hence: yes to church and diocese, no to province.

Posted by Jim Naughton | January 8, 2009 11:23 AM

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.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations