Bishop Iker addresses the alleged "renunciation of orders"
Just in case you wondered if I could possibly be wrong about Bishop Iker intending to renounce his orders in the statement of November 24th, the good bishop has made his intent crystal clear in this statement on our diocesan website:
What Renunciation?
The Presiding Bishop is misleading the Church and misrepresenting the facts in her recent allegation that I have renounced the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church.
According to Canon III.12.7, any Bishop desiring to renounce his orders “shall declare, in writing, to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom…” and that the PB shall then “record the declaration and request so made.”
I have not written to the Presiding Bishop making any such declaration or request. I hope the House of Bishops will hold her accountable for her continued abuse of the canons.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
December 6, 2008
What Renunciation?
The Presiding Bishop is misleading the Church and misrepresenting the facts in her recent allegation that I have renounced the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church.
According to Canon III.12.7, any Bishop desiring to renounce his orders “shall declare, in writing, to the Presiding Bishop a renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church, and a desire to be removed therefrom…” and that the PB shall then “record the declaration and request so made.”
I have not written to the Presiding Bishop making any such declaration or request. I hope the House of Bishops will hold her accountable for her continued abuse of the canons.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
December 6, 2008
posted by Texanglican (R.W. Foster+) | 5:12 PM
4 Comments:
Oh, he renounced alright. He sent a response on 11/24 - he sent it to everyone and that includes the BP.
It's very surprising that he is stating canon law regarding reunciation. I didn't know he obeyed canon laws. Let's see....does he obey the one about ordaining women? Or, does he obey the one about the property being held in trust for the EPISCOPAL CHURCH?
Besides, he left the Episcopal church, didn't he? So, he can't exactly come back now and try to use the canon's to protect him.
Or, is it he only obeys with the laws he agrees with?
I see the cowardly ANON is back and in full effect. Anyone can be a sniper... own up to your comments and say who you are!
When it comes to Canon Law and TEc, Bishop Iker had never violated them or any of them... As far as Ms. Schori it is done daily which is awesome because it will really backfire when she brings anything to court!
I'm pretty sure Jack Iker's statement that he has not renounced his orders was made for legal reasons only. Asking the whole diocese to leave the Episcopal Church while claiming he had not left it would have been a formula for disaster (as far as defections go) if all of the people in the diocese thought Jack Iker intended to remain in the Episcopal Church and also intended everyone else except him to leave the Episcopal Church. After all, Jack Iker is the leader of the Southern Cone movement in the Diocese of Fort Worth. I think the legal battles that will follow will have nothing to do with how Jack Iker left the church (resignation, renunciation, deposition, abandonment, it doesn't make any difference, he's out of the Episcopal Church now and into some other church along with the diocesan leadership and a significant number of the membership of the diocese). Texas corporate law and property statutes and Episcopal Church canons (both our diocesan and TEC national Canons) will be interpreted by the courts, but how Jack Iker exited the church will be of little consequence to either party. The question will be who is the legal owner of the properties and who has the legal right to ownership. People have already chosen their own church membership. The court battle(s) will not be about those people and their strong emotions, it will be about the buildings and who the court decides will have posession. Sadly, both sides will waste a lot of money that could be spent helping people instead of consuming legal fees.
Check out the new link on the Bishops web site and what it has to say about the "legalities" of each party...
Post a Comment
<< Home