|
Serial: |
AC03-A01-02 |
PEP Argument Briefing Paper
|
Title: |
Amendment Removes Us from the Church |
|
|
|
|
Applicable
to: |
Proposed
Constitutional Amendment: Article I, Section 1
|
|
|
|
|
Author: |
Joan R. Gundersen |
|
|
|
|
Date: |
11/6/2003 |
Alteration of Article I, Section 1, or any attempt to do so, would mean that the diocese no longer qualifies as a diocese of the Episcopal Church, USA.
·
The ECUSA constitution requires an “unqualified submission”
to its canons be included in the constitution and canons of every new diocese.
There is no provision for later deciding otherwise.
·
The ECUSA constitution reserves to General Convention
the right to set up a court of appeal that shall have final say on all matters
of Doctrine, Faith, or Worship. The proposed amendment tries to take control of
a topic already reserved to the national church. Doing so is a declaration that
the diocese is acting outside of the constitution of the church.
·
Passing this amendment would mean that the diocese no
longer meets the qualifications to be a diocese. It is a de facto declaration
that the diocese has left the ECUSA, which it cannot do. Passage of this
amendment would thus provide strong grounds for claiming that the Diocese of
Pittsburgh is schismatic, having initiated a break with the ECUSA. It would
also declare that those in support of the amendment no longer legitimately
represent the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
·
For a bishop or other cleric to make, advocate or intend
such a break could be construed as a violation of his or her ordination vows.
·
This Diocese was created by General Convention as a
geographical division of the whole church. Such a subsidiary unit cannot
reasonably overrule, or separate itself from, the body that gives it its legal
standing and existence. Just as a state law cannot overturn a federal one, a
diocesan canon cannot overturn a national canon. There should be no expectation
that the amendment can do anything to change the relationship of the diocese to
the ECUSA. Why would we even have a national constitution and canons if
individual dioceses could pass conflicting resolutions at will?
·
[Information only—use only if necessary] The Diocese of
Fort Worth amended its constitution in a similar way in 1997. There have been
no consequences to the diocese, presumably because the provision to ignore
General Convention has [arguably] never been acted upon.
From page C1 of the
materials provided to deputies to the 2003 Annual Convention:
Resolved, by this 138th
Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, that a second
sentence be added to Article 1 [sic], Section 1 of the Constitution:
In cases where the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh speak to the contrary, or where resolutions of the Convention of said Diocese have determined the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or resolutions of its General Convention, to be contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the local determination shall prevail.
From the ECUSA Constitution (Article V, Section 1):