Last week Mark Harris posted some thoughts on what this fall might bring to the Diocese of Pittsburgh. There are rumblings being heard from various quarters of the Episcopal Church (including the House of Bishops) that are calling for Bishop Robert Duncan (the bishop of Pittsburgh) to be formally inhibited and then deposed because of his actions in that diocese and in the Episcopal Church.
Mark’s post was motivated by a statement that the Standing Committee of the Diocese (who would be the official authority in the diocese should the bishop be removed) was willing and able to step in and run the diocese in his absence. The problem is that the Standing Committee fully supports the bishop’s actions and there is no expectation that their leadership would be any different than his has been.
Various voices from around the Communion left comments on Mark’s article. But there was a particularly disturbing post by Joan Gunderson, a parishioner of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and active voice in PEP (Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh) who have opposed the recent trajectory of the diocese.
Joan writes and explains just how little change can be expected if the Standing Committee takes charge. She also points out that Bishop Duncan and his assistant bishop have been granted land and retirement homes and money that is expected to be safe from any punishment that should be meted upon them by a Church court.
Joan says:
“The situation in Pittsburgh is such that even if Bishop Duncan were to be deposed at a House of Bishops meeting in September, the Standing Committee would go forward with the vote at convention to eliminate the accession clause from the diocesan canons. In fact, the diocesan leadership decided at its spring leadership retreat to move the convention forward to the first weekend in October (usually first weekend in November) so that there would be less time between such a deposition and the convention.
Please note that Bishop Duncan has assured himself of a comfortable transition. He has built a retirement house on land owned by the diocese and he and his wife have been deeded (as of November 2007) a life interest estate (to the longest lived survivor) in that house. The diocese also loaned Bishop Duncan the money to build that house (terms not in the public record.) In addition we understand that he AND Bishop Scriven have signed consultant contracts with the diocese for two years at full pay which will go into effect SHOULD BISHOP DUNCAN BE DEPOSED.
The Standing Committee has an overwhelming majority that supports ‘realignment,’ but there is one member who signed a public letter saying he was not realigning. This person is working hard to encourage parishes to stay in TEC. Trying to bring members of the standing committee up on charges before ‘realignment’ would be useless because the group (‘The Array’) that would conduct any Title IV proceedings is itself packed with supporters of realignment. Furthermore, there is no provision for trying the 4 lay members of Standing Committee.
However, rest assured that there are people planning for the future of the EPISCOPAL diocese of Pittsburgh. The group doing the planning represents the full cross section of those who will still be Episcopalians AFTER convention. This includes clergy and parishes who until this year have voted for all the measures put forward by those now pushing ‘realignment.’ We are a larger group than you might think.”
Later on David Wilson, a priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, President of that Standing Committee and a supporter of Bishop Duncan’s writes with this small correction to Joan’s words:
Just to set the record straight, the consultancy contracts are for one year not two and also include Canon Mary Hays as well as the two bishops
Mark’s original post and the comments quoted above can be found here.
Bishop Duncan’s deposition would likely follow a vote by the Diocese of Pittsburgh to join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The resolutions that would empower this action can be already found in the Diocesan web site.