Quincy church amendments ignored

Episcopal constitution's changes 'null and void'
By MICHAEL MILLER
Peoria Journal Star
June 16, 2007

PEORIA - The Episcopal Church's executive council this week warned the Diocese of Quincy and three other dioceses that changes in their constitutions over the past three years are "null and void."

The problem, Quincy officials said Friday, is the diocesan constitution has not been changed since at least 1993.

The executive council adopted a resolution "reminding" the dioceses, each of which has requested alternative oversight, that they can't change their constitutions in an attempt to change their relationship with the denomination.

It’s all here …and let us try to explain this situation, although it's complicated enough to make your hair hurt. 

Executive Council's action goes back to the attempt by these four named dioceses, following the 2006 General Convention, to declare that they were leaving their geographical provinces within the Episcopal Church, allegedly in anticipation of some future non-geographical but theologically like-minded "Province X" (which doesn't exist, even in the planning stages).

Now, Title I, Canon 9 of the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons declares:

Subject to the proviso in Article VII of the Constitution, the Dioceses of this Church shall be and are hereby united into Provinces as follows...

And here's that proviso in Article VII of the Constitution:

Dioceses may be united into Provinces in such manner, under such conditions, and with such powers, as shall be provided by Canon of the General Convention; Provided, however, that no Diocese shall be included in a Province without its own consent.

So far, so good: you can't force a diocese to join a particular province, and a diocese can request a change of provinces. But all four dioceses did consent to join their present provinces. And no diocese can just float free, says Canon 9, Section 2b:

By mutual agreement between the Synods of two adjoining Provinces, a Diocese or Area Mission may transfer itself from one of such Provinces to the other, such transfer to be considered complete upon approval thereof by the General Convention. Following such approval, Canon I.9.1 shall be appropriately amended.

See, there's no provision for withdrawing from a province, only for transferring to another existing province. So no diocese can transfer itself to a province that doesn't exist. And, of course, unless General Convention approves the transfer, it can't happen anyway.

So all Executive Council is really saying is that since the declarations by these four Episcopal dioceses are clearly counter to the Constitution and Canons that all dioceses agreed to follow when they were formed, they're "null and void." Here's Article V, Section 1:

After consent of the General Convention, when a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the Secretary of the General Convention and approved by the Executive Council of this Church, such new Diocese shall thereupon be in union with the General Convention.

Pittsburgh's Lionel Deimel has an interesting analysis of the situation here and here.

For more, see these links...

Episcopal Diocese of Quincy seeks alternative oversight

San Joaquin diocese to consider constitutional amendments severing relationship with the Episcopal Church

PITTSBURGH: Convention backs Duncan's desire to leave Province III, achieve alternative primatial oversight

Fort Worth: Standing Committee resolves to leave Province VII

Comments

[Michael Miller]

The Rev. Jan Nunley very clearly told me on Friday 6/15 that the named dioceses "had passed amendments" to their constitutions within the past three years. She mentioned nothing about "declarations" following the 2006 General Convention. Nor did the ENS story mention any such thing.