Support the Café
Search our site

Reference panel recommends process of Conciliation in the charges against the Rt Revd J Jon Bruno

Reference panel recommends process of Conciliation in the charges against the Rt Revd J Jon Bruno

The group who brought charges against the Rt Revd J Jon Bruno has posted a response from the Rt Revd F Clayton Matthews on behalf of the Reference Panel. The panel convened by conference call on Wednesday, 29 JUL 2015. The panel consisted of the Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop; the Rt Revd Catherine M Waynick, the President of the Disciplinary Board and the Rt Revd F Clayton Matthews, the Intake Officer for the Disciplinary Board.

In his letter Bishop Matthews cautioned the parties to carefully consider any action on their part which could damage the conciliation process. In a separate letter to the group which brought the charges against Bishop Bruno, Bishop Matthews informed them that he had appointed the Revd Kathleen M Kelley as their advisor in the Title IV proceedings.

Letter advising of the panel’s decision for conciliation.

Letter advising the appointment of the Revd Kathleen M Kelley as an advisor.

Image from vearexperts.com

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

21 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Woodrum

In America, the government can not establish a church or favor one over another, but it certainly can, has and does regulate churches and their clerks, a principle established long before America in the English case of Becket v. Henry.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Eric Bonetti

While TEC's model of governance mirrors the American system of representative democracy in many ways, it cannot validly be said to abandon basic American principals of law, for our system of jurisprudence mandates separation of church and state. One cannot abandon that which was separate from the beginning.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
wmpaul

Uh, do you realize that C Seitz is referring to ECUSA's constitution?

The comment policy asks everyone to post using their first and last names. - ed

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Professor Christopher Seitz

"In abandoning basic American principles of law, it reeks of the Star Chamber."

It also abandons TEC Constitutional principles.

The committee charged with evaluating this did not disagree. It said that because TEC has no official Court to adjudicate the matter, it would hand over to GC whatever it decides every triennium.

Which of course begs the question. Well then why even have a Constitution at all?

The problem of the Star Chamber is that it can first be on the communist side and then on the fascist. That's what it means to let power reside in 'whoever presently has the power.'

Blessed Sabbath.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Paul Woodrum

A Title IV case can indeed do more harm than good when innocent until proven guilty is cast aside and allegations alone are used restrict a priest, remove income and even housing without revealing the allegation nor the person making it. Abandoning all concern for protecting clergy against false accusation, it is slanted toward protecting the church from lawsuits under the guise of sympathy for the alleged victim. In abandoning basic American principles of law, it reeks of the Star Chamber.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jay Croft

How did this discussion of Bp Bruno turn into a discussion of LBGT persons?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Professor Christopher Seitz

Let's see.

Title IV conciliation re: Bruno.
Title IV conciliation re: amicus Bishops.
Next phase: Title IV impact on failure properly to 'make provision' for LGBT couples.

Or do you believe this will not happen?

Kind regards.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Jay Croft

Still very vague and I'm giving up trying to follow this thread.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café