Received via email. Caution; the spin starts here:
Dear Friends:
Today, Thursday February 26th, 2009, I accepted on behalf of the Bishop the following
resignations:
♦ The Reverend Canon Ronald Corcoran, as Rector of St. Matthias, Victoria, and as a Diocesan Canon and priest of the Diocese of British Columbia.
♦ The Reverend Rodney May as Priest Associate of St. Matthias, Victoria and priest of the Diocese of British Columbia.
♦ The Reverend Glenn Sim as priest of the Diocese of British Columbia.As well, I have withdrawn the Permission to Officiate of the Reverend Michael Pountney, a retired priest of the Diocese of Toronto living in Victoria.
All four have indicated that they could no longer give their obedience to the authority over them, namely, the Bishop of British Columbia. They have stated their intention to receive licenses from Donald Harvey and the Anglican Network in Canada. While they have said that their resignations became effective on March 8th, 2009, I have exercised the Bishop’s prerogatives as bishop and employer to withdraw Licences and Permissions to Officiate effective today, with payout of compensation due. The clergy have all been informed that they must depart from the premises of St. Matthias, and may only return with the permission of the Bishop or his designate.
The fact that clergy and laity are no longer willing to give obedience to their bishop, should act as a bit of a clue that something is radically wrong.
Over the past many months the ordained and lay leadership of the parish have led the people through a process of discernment, which has now led to a request for a Special Meeting of Parishioners to vote on whether the parish may come under the jurisdiction of the Donald Harvey and the Anglican Network in Canada. While still rector Mr. Corcoran scheduled this meeting for March 8th, 2009. However, as such a meeting is beyond the powers of a parish, such a request is illegitimate. Mr. Corcoran was specifically ordered by both the Bishop and myself not to allow such a meeting, but he has defied those orders and called the meeting. The argument has been made that the people need the opportunity to conclude a “spirit-led process,” but my observation and that of others is that this process has not allowed for any diocesan presentations, has possibly presented misleading and biased information, and has been manipulative. Efforts to speak with the ordained and lay leadership, and the parish itself, by other diocesan clergy and laity, have been rebuffed. The Anglican Church is episcopally led and synodically governed, but in this case congregationalism has been the dominant ecclesiology.
The diocese has been making its position known for decades; the problems are perfectly clear. What difference could one more “diocesan presentation” make? I was at the Niagara diocesan presentation when St. Hilda’s voted to join ANiC: it added nothing to what we already knew – how could it?
An example of the problematic nature of the process is that at the service last Sunday Mr. Corcoran’s theme was “Be not afraid.” The well known hymn of that name was sung, and during the sermon Mr. Corcoran picked out people by name in the congregation and told them “Be not afraid.” At the communion the words “Be not afraid” was in some instances added to the words of administration. When it came time for the exchange of the peace he instructed the people to replace the greeting of the peace, – “The peace of the Lord be with you” – with those words “Be not afraid”. Mr. Corcoran appears to have replaced an ancient rite of reconciliation in the Eucharist with an encouragement to not be afraid of schism.
After seeing the draconian actions by other ACoC dioceses, the admonition to “be not afraid” is entirely understandable and appropriate.
It appears from Mr. Corcoran’s written statement to me that the churchwardens have also been in breach of the declaration and trust accepted by them under our canons and regulations. I have written to them to inform them that under Canon 6.8 d that they are now removed from office.
The Special Meeting of Parishioners scheduled for March 8th, 2009 is now cancelled, and no meeting of any group of people to consider joining the Network will be permitted on Diocesan property. It may be that some parishioners will gather somewhere else on that day or some other day and pass a motion to affiliate with the Network, but that motion will not be an action of the parish, but simply that of individuals. It may be that a significant proportion of the parishioners of St. Matthias will choose to follow Mr. Corcoran out of the Diocese and into the Network, but the leadership of the Diocese is committed to working with those who remain behind in the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This coming Sunday services at St. Matthias will be held at the regular times, led by diocesan licensed clergy. The Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi will be the preacher this coming Sunday. Following the service I will address parishioners and answer questions. I have appointed the Rev. Dr. Robert Arril to be the priest-in-charge; as priest-in-charge he will have all the responsibilities and powers of an incumbent or rector. Dr. Arril was ordained in 1975 and has served in parishes in Edmonton and Toronto, including “Little Trinity Anglican Church” in downtown Toronto. He has spent much of his ministry as a teacher and chaplain in independent schools. He was recently awarded his doctorate from the University of Victoria.
Part of the misleading information that seems to have been given out is the prospect that a new Network congregation in Victoria made up of the former clergy and former parishioners of St. Matthias will be able to soon take control of the buildings following a victory by the Network in a major lawsuit in Vancouver. Some twenty individuals associated with four Network congregations in Vancouver and Abbotsford have sued the Bishop and Diocese of New Westminster for possession of the buildings. I need to emphasize that the Diocese of British Columbia is a separate body from the Diocese of New Westminster, and that any decision in that case will not have any immediate bearing upon the situation in this Diocese.
Here we reach the nub of the situation: for the diocese, the critical aspect of what is happening is who will end up owning the buildings. For ANiC parishes, this is important, but we are willing to lose them for the sake of the Gospel. Is there any diocese that can honestly make that claim?
All church properties in the Diocese are registered in the name of the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia. The Bishop and Diocese of British Columbia have been sued by the former clergy and one former churchwarden of St. Mary’s, Metchosin for exclusive possession of the church property. This attempt has so far been denied, and the Network would have to proceed to trial and win in order to ever get use of the property. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled in favour of the Bishop and Diocese, and the Network was denied permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal. It is getting on to a year since that action was undertaken, and the plaintiffs have failed to deliver a Statement of Claim (which would initiate a trial over the property). The threshold of bringing any case to trial is very low, but the threshold for the Network to win this particular case is high. The fact that this case has not been pursued by the Network speaks for itself.
The Network has had a series of defeats in the courts in Canada. Recently our colleagues in the Diocese of Niagara received payment of $20,000 from the Network for the costs of the legal action there. The Diocese of Niagara will be in court again in March and are asking for costs of over $200,000, and I understand there is a reasonable probability that they will be awarded that amount. Donors to the legal fund of the Network should know that they are not only paying their lawyers’ fees, but those of the lawyers defending the dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada.
The Diocese of Niagara wanted $70,000 in costs but were awarded $20,000. They have now asked for over $200,000 in legal expenses: what they will be awarded remains to be seen. The contention that ANiC is further funding diocesan lawyers would only be true if ANiC finally loses the court cases. If ANiC does lose, it would be a shame; that in itself does not make the attempt to hold on to the buildings wrong, though. Once again, ANiC parishes are trying to do what they believe to be right in God’s eyes; can any of the dioceses honestly make that claim in respect to the court cases?
Recent media releases by the Network in relation to St. Mary’s, Nanoose Bay have made much of my supposed “refusal to enter into negotiation.” The suggestion that I should have “negotiated” is based on a call for mediation at the recent Primates Meeting in Alexandria. Let me be very clear that I welcome the opportunity to sit down and discuss issues with representatives of the Network, but let me also be very clear that mediation is just that – a facilitated discussion – and that it is not the same as binding arbitration! Many mediation sessions result in agreements where the participants move from entrenched positions to a focus on interests. However, mediations may also result in situations where the parties agree only to disagree. One cannot help but feel that the appeal to “mediation” by the Network is a weak attempt to portray the Diocese as being unreasonable.
One assumes that there must be some coherent thought behind that paragraph. I wonder what it is?
In any case, the call for mediation mentioned in the Primates Meeting Communiqué
http://www.aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/2/5/ACNS4574 needs to be read in context, and that context is a lack of any consensus among the Primates of what to make of the entity proposed as a new province in North America by the Common Cause Partnership. In the absence of any agreement, the Primates asked the Archbishop of Canterbury “to initiate a professionally mediated conversation which engages all parties at the earliest opportunity.” This mediation seems to be something envisioned as happening at a much higher level of the church hierarchy than the local parish and diocesan level, and is not aimed at legal disputes.It should be pointed out that the Primates unanimously endorsed the propositions that “It is not for individual groups to claim the terms on which they will relate to the Communion.” and “Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not seek to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation.” It would appear that the Anglican Network in Canada is precisely just such a group, redefining and rewriting ancient rules of organization and claiming a position within the Anglican Communion that is not justified by the facts. The Network has not hesitated to lobby hard within parishes of dioceses to get the leadership to subvert the authority of their bishops and act against the canons of the church.
The “lobbying hard” consists of offering a spot in the lifeboat to passengers aboard the Titanic.
I am pleased to report that St. Mary’s, Nanoose Bay has begun its recovery. On Sunday February 15th an afternoon service was held in the church, led by Archdeacon Brian Evans. Some twenty parishioners showed up, and they were joined by over fifty clergy and laity from neighbouring parishes. By all accounts it was a joyful service. The following Sunday the Rev. Ron Macluskie, the new Priest-in-Charge, led a service attended by some forty parishioners (not including visitors). While a small group, this is a good motivated core to rebuild the parish. Please pray for them and Ron as they step forward in faith.
This appears to be a familiar strategy employed and tested by other dioceses: import people from other parishes to give the appearance of a viable congregation. It doesn’t actually work that well; once the novelty wears off, the imported congregation dissipates.
The fundamental purpose for the existence of this Diocese, now marking 150 years of ministry, is to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed. I expect that when the dust settles on this latest crisis the Diocese will be able to focus itself on doing the real work of Christ in these places.
Again, this has been a challenging time for me and the Officers of Synod as we consult and determine collectively how best to preserve the interests of the Diocese of British Columbia in carrying out its purpose. I thank you for your prayers and support. May this season of Lent, which is fundamentally a season of reconciliation and healing, and one in which we remind ourselves of who we are and whose we are, be a blessing to us all.
Yours in Christ,
Bruce +
The Venerable Bruce Bryant-Scott
Commissary to the Bishop
Diocesan Executive Officer & Diocesan Archdeacon
I’m dizzy, and I haven’t even read the whole thing yet.
Since when has Southern Cone been kicked out of the communion? I must have missed that press release.
Kate do you have any Gravol left?
be not afraid that is a keeper
Perhaps Bishop Mike should borrow a Tim Horton’s now hiring sign, his staff turn over is getting in line with the coffee shop
Hmm, I wonder if Bruce+ now realises why the previous parish did not do this “by the books”, as he complained last time!
I still find it hard that they cannot see how this kind of missive sounds. Heavy handed, punitive and defensive.
I’m just left thinking, like last time, the utter pointlessness and absurdity of such a statement. At the end of the day, who cares? If the diocese want to claim that they have the ‘parish’ – then let them, they’re welcome to it. The church – that is the people – will be gone. If they can rebuild a church from the shell that remains, then great, though that has not had a great track record so far.
This is just another heavy handed example of the instutional defensiveness, who when faced with the reality that they have lost the hearts and minds of people, respond by putting up a facade in defense.
To be honest, it doesn’t really matter, at the end of the day the facts are the facts, so let the diocese keep its ‘parish’. They don’t yet seem to appreciate that the more they behave in this way, the more people are going to see through this facade, and the more hearts and minds they are going to lose.
I sincerely pray for the apostate bishops repentence as while they may “win the battle” in the civil courts, they face a certain judgement in the Higher Court. I do not think I need to explain that one.
I have to wonder when or if the bishops who claim to be orthodox will call the apostates to task. One has to wonder if they are more concerned with their pension that for the Gospel.
I wonder if I can be a devil’s advocate for both sides – or perhaps sit in the middle and see where the snowballs fly. I happened to be reading the ‘stuff’ in the back of the Prayer Book (BCP) this morning.
FOR the Network:
Article XX: “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” The ACoC is attempting to do that. Thankfully, due to the Network and ACNA theologians, their success rate is not as high as it might be.
Article XIX: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men[sic], in which the pure Word of God is preached, . . .” as noted above, the Church is the people, not the building.
FOR the Diocese:
Consecration of a Church or Chapel: p.688
“Now therefore , we …….., by Divine permission Bishop of …….., do by virtue of the authority ordinary and episcopal to us committed, consecrate the said building . . . . . for public worship, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Anglican Church of Canada, by name of ………..” It looks as if the building(s) belongs to the diocese.
I’m not going to disagree with people who feel they need to retain their buildings for ministry and worship – but it seems that ‘spiritually’ (and is that ‘legally’?) the buildings belong to the consecrating body, i.e. the ACoC. Yet – as has been noted many times – ‘spiritually’ many dioceses, as well as the ACoC in its legislative bodies, have removed them selves from the faith in which these buildings were set aside for use.
Rev Ron Corcoran’s sermon was a pastoral sermon with an appropriate theme, but the bishop’s commissary Bruce Bryant-Scott, has deliberately misinterpreted this sermon to be a call to be not afraid to join ANiC. Each and every person Rev. Corcoran asked to stand and comforted with Jesus’ admonition, “Be not afraid,” had received pink slips that week, or was dealing with significant medical conditions or family situations. And every person had been contacted prior for permission to do so. The title of Rev. Corcoran’s sermon was My Peace I Give to You:
“In this world, you will have tribulation, but take heart, Jesus has overcome the world.” “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. (John 14:27).
It was a pastoral sermon. Sorry Bruce. We’re real people with real concerns. And we need our pastor.
The continuing heavy handed approach of the Diocese of BC (and other dioceses) are unnecessary and appalling, and such actions have been driving a number of people further away from the ACC. The diocese has had ample opportunity to make its perspective known and continues, with the ACC as a whole, to make the revised theology well known through their diocesan and national journals as well as the actions of synods. This is a vindictive turf battle. Where are Christian charity and respect within Anglicanism, at a minimum?
Sam – I’m so interested to read your explanation of Rev Corcoran’s sermon. A pitty the rest of the Diocese does not know in what context or to whom he preached.
#5 Margo:
With all due respect, when my mother-in-law passed away, the priest conducting the funeral service consecrated the ground where she was to be buried. In that instance, the act of consecration did not cause the title to the burial plot to vest in him. So too, I don’t think the act of a bishop consecrating a parish building causes the title to the property to vest in either him or in the diocese he represents. Just an observation.
I think it is reasonably tacky for “The Venerable Bruce Bryant-Scott, Commissary to the Bishop, Diocesan Executive Officer & Diocesan Archdeacon” to refer the Rev. Canon Corcoran throughout this bitter letter as “Mr. Corcoran”, while reserving for himself such a stack of honourable titles. The Venerable Bruce Bryant-Scott, Commissary to the Bishop, Diocesan Executive Officer & Diocesan Archdeacon, despite all his listed credentials, must be under the false impression that giving up a license to serve under the Bishop of British Columbia is equivalent to renouncing one’s solemn promises before God to serve Christ’s flock!
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
St. Matthias is a Christian community struggling to follow the Way in our modern world. We pray for all concerned. Many fear the ACC has fallen away from the path that leads to the narrow gate—and that our parish must choose which path to take:
“two roads diverged in a wood and I, I took the path less travelled by
and that has made all the difference”
Clearly we cannot judge anyone else—–prayers are given for all on our human journey but choose we must.
Winter Traveler #9 – yes – thankyou – I consecrated the ground when I buried my father’s ashes in England, and subsequently my mother’s, and you are right – I believe I have ‘title’ to the land (which may have an expiry date on it!) – but only because my parent’s are buried there and there was some type of purchase (the city still owns the cemetery) – not because I consecrated it.
It never ceases to amaze me how the revisionists are so quick to accuse the Biblically Faithful of breaking the (their) rules. They conveniently forget that as Christians we are obliged to obey the rules that God gave us. They also conveniently forget that they are the ones who first broke the rules of the Worldwide Anglican Communion when they refused to comply with resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998.
I could go on, but to what purpose? These revisionists in British Columbia (and elsewhere in Canada) will not listen to the Biblically Faithful, and they will neither listen to God’s Holy Word. They are agenda driven secularists, hell bent on pursuing their earthly devises and desires.
May God have mercy on them, and show them the error of their ways.