From here:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Yesterday was a difficult day in the House of Bishops and the Episcopal Church. I want you to hear directly from me about the House of Bishops’ vote to depose the Bishop of Pittsburgh for abandoning the communion of this Church. The House of Bishops reached this decision after weighing considerable evidence. We also prayed and listened intentionally to each other; our decision was careful and informed.

The Bishop of Pittsburgh has led the efforts to separate the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh from The Episcopal Church by advocating for changes in the accession clause in that diocese’s constitution and canons. He also supports a canonical change which would move the diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone. His actions supporting these changes were never in dispute. Critically, he presided at the Diocesan Convention in 2007 at which the change in the constitution of diocese was approved in the first reading. His failure to rule the resolution out of order and his clear advocacy for its full passage at the upcoming convention in October by a second vote are demonstrative. The judgment of the House of Bishops was that by these actions Bishop Duncan made an open renunciation of the discipline of this church, thereby abandoning the communion of this Church.
There is an effort underway to suggest that the House of Bishops did not follow the canons of our Church in these proceedings. However these are the same procedures followed in three other depositions in the last few years, none of which were protested under the rules of the House of Bishops. When these procedures were challenged, the House of Bishops sustained the ruling of the president. It has also been suggested that the abandonment of communion proceedings do not permit the bishop in question the benefit of due process. Bishop Duncan could have ended these proceedings at any time by re-committing to the order and discipline of this Church and pledging to halt the contemplated actions of the convention by ruling the anticipated vote out of order when it was presented to the convention. Furthermore, he could have come before the house and offered a vigorous defense. His failure to do either places the outcome completely on his shoulders.

Finally, I believe that yesterday’s action is essential to maintain the order and discipline of our Church and the collegiality of the House of Bishops. It permits the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to move forward. Some individuals may decide not to do so, but your House of Bishops has empowered those committed to the mission of the Episcopal Church to carry forward that ministry in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. We acted as responsible pastors and stewards of the Church. I fully support the actions of our House of Bishops and voted for this action.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to forgive, yet we must also hold each other accountable. We must also pray for peace for all involved in these difficult events. I ask your prayers for Bishop Duncan and his family. Pray also for the people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Faithfully,

(The Rt. Rev.) James R. Mathes is Bishop of San Diego

Of Interest:

Canon 8. Of Property

Section a) Any Congregation or other institution holding or intending to hold title to real property shall be incorporated. Its form of incorporation shall be in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in harmony with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and of this Diocese, and the directions of Diocesan Convention.

Section b) All property, real and personal, held by or for the benefit of any Congregation of this Diocese is held in trust for the Diocese and The Episcopal Church. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.

Read them all.

The fact, timing and manner of the action taken by the American House of Bishops toward Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh has filled us with dismay. He is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and is guilty only of guarding his people from false teaching and corrupt behaviour as he promised to do. Once more the upholders of the orthodox faith are made to suffer at the hands of those who have introduced new teachings.

However, the action has also had the effect of clarifying matters even further. It is now impossible to believe that the exhortations of the Lambeth Conference and the Windsor Continuation Group will be heeded. No Pastoral Forum has been established. We remain convinced that the faithful Anglicans of North America need to have their own Province recognised by the Communion as a whole. We are determined to stand with Bishop Duncan and those who, like him, have protested in the name of God against the unscriptural innovations which have caused such divisions amongst us.

In the absence of other substantive provision from the historic structures of the Communion, the Primates’ Council gives its full support to Archbishop Greg Venables in receiving Bishop Duncan as a Bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone.

Once again within a few months the landscape of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has changed””as if Gafcon and Lambeth were not enough. What does this deposition mean? Frankly, it is still unfolding, but I offer the following reflections:

”¢ The House of Bishops whether intentionally or not has enhanced the power of the Presiding Bishop. With consequences far beyond the deposition of The Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, this vote by interpretation and application of Title IV.9, has established invasive reach for the PB. It is now possible for a sitting bishop of TEC to be deposed without prior inhibition or trial, rendering superfluous the role of the three Senior Bishops of the House. Beyond this is the quizzical ruling that it takes more votes from the House to receive the resignation of a retiring bishop then to depose a sitting one! Then there is the curious fact that it takes a two-thirds vote of the house to overturn a ruling of the chair, thus when combined with rendering moot the role of the senior bishops and the plain reference to a needed “majority of the whole house entitled to vote” in Title IV.9””there is enhanced power to the PB regardless of who may hold the chair, now or in the future. A development mercurial indeed, when one considers the PB and House of Bishops have repeatedly declined the authority to speak on behalf of The Episcopal Church when queried for commitments by the Communion’s Instruments of Unity; deferring instead to the authority of General Convention.

”¢ I fear that however reasoned or temperately the members of the House of Bishops or the Presiding Bishop’s Office explains this deposition it will further trouble the waters of discord. There are several reasons for this: While Title IV.9 mentions a bishop abandoning the communion by open renunciation of the Discipline of this church, (which is ostensibly the clearest rationale for why the presentment was brought against Bishop Duncan), it is also clear from the same canon that prior to mentioning renunciation of the Discipline of the Church there is the reference to the Doctrine of the Church. Many from within TEC itself, as well as those in the various provinces of the Anglican Communion, are not unaware that there have been more then a few bishops of this Church who have in public settings and in published writings, renounced or at least denied the Doctrine of TEC. Others have allowed rites of worship, which if not having actually crossed the authorized boundaries in their approval of pastoral liturgies for same-sex blessings, have all but done so””doing pirouettes on a knife’s edge. Doesn’t the House of Bishops look as if it is being selective in holding its theological “conservative” bishops and dioceses accountable in matters of the Church’s discipline (i.e. the Constitution & Canons), while having no will to hold “liberal” bishops, retired and active, accountable on matters of doctrine and worship? And even in this matter of the Church’s discipline we may look selective: For instance what does the Presiding Bishop and the HOB’s intend to do with those bishops who contrary to the canons allow or even invite open communion of the unbaptized?

Ӣ As you may already know Bishop Duncan has been received as a bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone. Rather then helping to mend the fabric of the Communion torn by TEC in 2003 by actions contrary to Lambeth 1.10, this recent action of the House of Bishops further tears the fabric of the communion. Even as I write this account voices of support for Bishop Duncan are being raised in various provinces of the Anglican Communion.

”¢ I fear that while repeatedly asking other Provinces of the Communion to understand the uniqueness of our Church’s polity, and requesting a gracious patience towards the complexities of our local or provincial needs, we now appear to have limited capacity in offering this to one another within The Episcopal Church.

Ӣ There will be louder, more urgent, and convincing calls (indeed they have already been heard in several quarters) for another Anglican Province in North America.

All of this leads me to believe that the challenges that lie before a predominately conservative diocese like South Carolina have now been enormously increased if only because of the perception of our parishioners and clergy””but, more pertinently from what I fear is a failure of the present House of Bishops to realize just how far from historic Christianity our church has drifted….

Read it carefully and read it alll.

First, I am dismayed that Bishop Duncan has taken several actions that he has….

But the bulk of my sadness and anger is reserved for the Presiding Bishop and those who have attempted to buttress her course of action. No, I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on TV. But I do read and write English with a modicum of fluency. I know what lots of words mean. I can diagram sentences. And I can spot ambiguity from a mile away. There is nothing ambiguous about Canon IV.9. That the HOB’s lawyer-bishops cast aside common sense in order to “find” ambiguity that they could then resolve in favor of the Presiding Bishop’s desires is to their shame. So ”¦ shame on them. As a result of their work, the best hermeneutical tool for understanding the polity and discipline of the Episcopal Church these days is, alas, Alice in Wonderland, where words mean only what those in power say they mean.

I am also sad and angry””well, mystified might be a more accurate term””at the tunnel vision of the HOB majority. It is actually doing harm to their own cause. Before they took on the Duncan matter, our bishops took some time to bask in the afterglow of the Lambeth Conference, wherein they made lots of new friends and reached deeper levels of mutual understanding with their episcopal peers from other provinces. So it is incredible to me that they cannot see how their action in deposing Bishop Duncan is likely to be interpreted abroad as a pre-emptive purge of an annoying colleague, convicting a man for what he thinks and plans rather than for what he has done (shades of the film Minority Report), yet another example of TEC’s “progressive” juggernaut steamrolling all opposition.

Read it all.

From here:

That this Synod: noting (1) the deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh in The Episcopal Church, by the assembled bishops of that church, on 18 September 2008; (2) the good standing and high reputation Bishop Bob Duncan has as an orthodox Anglican bishop, as represented by statements of support being expressed in recent days by the Archbishops of Sydney, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Cone, West Indies, Kenya, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Singapore, numerous bishops within The Episcopal Church itself, and the Bishops of Winchester, Rochester, Chester, Exeter, Blackburn and Chichester; (3) various developments in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada in recent years which place increasing pressure on faithful orthodox Anglicans to conform to changes in theology, liturgy and ethics rather than to uphold and maintain the 2000 year old teaching of the church; offers its support to Bishop Bob Duncan, to the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and to all bishops and dioceses in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada as they seek to find a way forward which embodies the true spirit of orthodox Anglicanism.

Have we come so far from our Catholic tradition that we have forgotten the power of martyrdom, on which the Western church is built? Does no-one in TEC understand any more the meaning of sacrifice?

Because a martyr is what Bob Duncan now is. The Episcopal Church should not need a heretically catholic Anglican such as me to tell it that the next step up from martyrdom is sainthood. Bishop Duncan’s office has been inundated with emails, phonecalls and letters of supportm since the ill-advised deposition. Since Friday, he has had personal messages from six primates, including ++Anis and ++Chew, indicating their intention not to recognise the deposition and to support the Pittsburgh “remnant”. There have been all kinds of other ones as well from various bishops, clergy and laity all over the world. They are being catalogued on a new site, set up specially to venerate the deposed bishop.

And now in England, six bishops are pledging their support and saying they will continue to recognise him. Surely that is momentous enough to warrant an archiepiscopal comment? Or perhaps all pretence of episcopal collegiality has been abandoned.

Read it all.

Read it carefully.

The “Sentence of Deposition” does not reflect, however, her interpretation of the canon. It includes the recitation “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented to this Deposition at a meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City , Utah , on 18 September, 2008”¦.” That is, the Sentence does not read, following the Presiding Bishop’s own memorandum and ruling, “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops present,” nor does it recite the actual language of the relevant canon. Instead, the Sentence adopts the plain reading of the canon the Presiding Bishop overruled: “a majority of members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented”¦”

Surely one thing all parties can agree on is that this did not happen in Salt Lake City . There are close to 300 members of the House of Bishops “entitled to vote.” Only 88 consented to the purported deposition. Far from a majority, this is fewer than a third of the bishops entitled to vote. So why does the “Sentence of Deposition” now concede the legal point made by bishops and others who requested canonical integrity? Is it because an accurate recitation, one using the Presiding Bishop’s own words, “a majority of bishops present at the meeting,” would be invalid on its face? This Sentence of Deposition only confirms ACI’s stated concern that the legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question by this proceeding.

Read it all.

“In their deliberations at the special session last week, the House of Bishops was clear that this action is based on Robert Duncan’s actions and statements to facilitate the departure of congregations out of the Episcopal Church,” Robertson told ENS. “This was not based on Robert Duncan’s theological position.” Duncan has taken a conservative stance on such issues as church attitudes toward homosexuality.

The Title IV Review Committee had certified in December that Duncan had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church under the terms of Canon IV.9.1 “by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church.”

The Presiding Bishop moved to inhibit Duncan (restrict his episcopal acts) during the time between the certification and the time she brought the matter to a meeting of the house. However, the House’s three senior bishops could not agree unanimously with Jefferts Schori’s request. The canon on abandonment does not call for a formal trial, as do the disciplinary canons.

John H. Lewis, Duncan’s attorney, said in a September 18 statement that was posted on the diocese’s website September 22, that Duncan “was denied his fundamental right — the right to a church trial ”¦ because the Presiding Bishop believes that his ‘deposition’ will assist her in her desire to seize the property of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.”

Read it all.

The Communion has repeatedly asked TEC to make pastoral provisions and avoid steps that will alienate further those within TEC who wish to live by the Anglican faith which they believe to be true and remain in fellowship within the Anglican Communion. Even as recent[ly] as at the recent Lambeth, the great majority of Bishops present, including those from TEC, have expressed sincere desire for healing and reconciliation and to observe restraints on contentious issues for the Windsor-Covenant process to proceed.

The HOB has instead proceeded to depose a faithful bishop of the Gospel and the diocese under his care. This raises serious questions yet again, and more strikingly so soon after Lambeth, as to how sincere TEC and some of its bishops are in wanting to bring reconciliation, healing and resolution to the Communion crisis at hand.

Read it all.

“But I am influenced heavily by the impact on relationships-relationship within The Episcopal Church and relationships within the Anglican Communion, if we act now rather than acting AFTER the Pittsburgh Convention has its second reading on the proposed constitutional change. To be sure, there will be a price to be paid whether abandonment is determined now or then-but I think the cost will be considerably higher if we are seen to act precipitously. There is a matter of “good will”, of mercy, as well as justice, which I consider relevant.

“Yes, Duncan intends to abandon within the meaning of the canon-no doubt in my mind whatsoever. But I think the finding of abandonment will be viewed as less unacceptable, less unfavorably, if the diocesan convention has acted the necessary two times, rather than just one. I also believe that we should put the ball back in Duncan’s court-let the decision be his, not ours.

“I also consider it important that we attempt as much as possible to separate what we think and feel about Bob Duncan (and others considering similar moves) from the greater good of Christ’s mission and Church-that is, separate personalities from what, by God’s grace, we can do to promote more effectively both the mission AND the unity of the Church.

“I am anxious to hear the thoughts and opinions of others, but this is where I am at the moment. I am not compelled, or even impelled-but I am inclined to vote no on a finding of abandonment now, and to vote yes on any effort to suspend action until after the Pittsburgh convention acts.

Read it all.

Under the revised canons, inhibition occurs as soon as the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee certifies sufficient grounds to proceed with a hearing. Retired bishops, who by and large have not attended meetings of the House of Bishops in recent years, will lose their status as voting members of the House.

During a press conference sponsored by the American Anglican Council (AAC) shortly after the deposition vote on Sept. 18, the Rev. Philip Ashey, president of the AAC, observed that it was now easier to depose a bishop for abandonment than it is for a bishop to resign or for the House to approve a 10-minute recess during debate. The loosening of procedural safeguards for the accused greatly expands the Presiding Bishop’s curial powers over the church. From its inception right up through its recent submissions to the Covenant Design Group, a curial style of polity is something that most Episcopalians have strongly resisted.

The deposition of Bishop Duncan prior to his actually leaving The Episcopal Church may further future litigation interests against the current diocesan leadership in Pittsburgh, but is likely to “tear the fabric” of the Anglican Communion further. The ham-handed manner in which this deposition was advanced also may diminish the number of conservative delegates to the annual meeting in Pittsburgh who will vote to remain with The Episcopal Church on Oct. 4.

Read it all.

The numbers really start to get interesting, however, when one looks at the geographical spread of the data, and considers the level of each diocese’s 2007 contribution to the TEC budget. Here is where the data starts to be telling: it shows that Bishop Duncan was deposed by a combination of the dioceses that are the biggest contributors overall to TEC, as well as by those that are in what has been called, in the political arena, the “blue-county corridors.” (Click here for an animated map of how these areas have changed in the presidential elections from 1960 to 2004. Are we surprised?)

Total contributions to TEC by “Yes” dioceses: $20,593,549 (72%)

Total contributions to TEC by “No” dioceses: $ 6,237,162 (22%)

Total contributions by unrepresented dioceses: $ 1,621,881 (6%)

Do you begin to see how TEC is run by the wealthiest players? Only fifty-four percent of the dioceses voted to depose Bishop Duncan, but they contribute 72% of the funds coming to TEC from all the dioceses.

Read it carefully and read it all.

I posted much of the following information in the entry below with the Excel spreadsheet of how the bishops voted on the question of deposing Bishop Duncan. Kendall has requested I make this a stand alone entry to ensure it gets visibility. –elfgirl
——

In working on putting the roll call vote data into spreadsheet format, and adding in information about absent diocesan bishops, and reviewing the total number of eligible bishops, etc. I made several startling discoveries.

1. If I correctly understand Louie Crew’s House of Bishops data, there were 290 TOTAL bishops that were entitled to vote at the HoB meeting. Only 127 bishops attended the HoB meeting, not even 50% of eligible bishops.

2. ONLY 56 TEC diocesan bishops (or “acting” diocesans, see note below) — representing exactly 50% of the 112 TEC dioceses — voted YES to depose Duncan. In the remaining 56 dioceses, the diocesan bishop either voted No, abstained, was absent, or the see of the diocese was vacant. The breakdown is as follows:

29 Diocesans / Acting Diocesans Voted NO
4 Abstained
17 diocesans were absent (TEC only counted 15 as absent, I’m not sure why there is a discrepancy)
(among the absent diocesans are at least 4 who would almost certainly have voted No (Ackerman, Iker, Duncan, Wimberly)

6 sees are vacant with no acting bishop (including PA since Bennison is inhibited and couldn’t vote)

Among “Acting Diocesans,” I’ve counted Lamb (San Joaquin), Frey (Rio Grande), MacDonald (Navajo), Buchanan (S. Virginia) all of whom attended the meeting.

3. Finally, something else is very striking. A few dioceses had extraordinary clout in the vote. A mere 6 dioceses (Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Chicago, North Carolina and Maine) accounted for 21 of the 88 YES votes (nearly 1/4 of the total Yes votes). Wow.

Comments and questions welcomed, but I’ll be traveling for 2 days and will not be able to reply quickly. –elfgirl

You’ll find all the details in the revised spreadsheet here:
http://kendallharmon.net/t19/media/Duncan_Deposition_Vote_(rev).xls

The House of Bishops believes that by this vote they have cancelled +Duncan’s ordinations as deacon, priest and bishop, and rendered him a layman in the church. For those of you who may have forgotten, Bishop Bob Duncan was not only the Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, but is still the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and moderator of the Common Cause Partners Federation. This last organization is seeking recognition from the GAFCON Primates’ Council as an orthodox Anglican Province for North America.

Immediately following Duncan’s deposition, Primate Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone (an Anglican province encompassing much of South America) announced that he and the Southern Cone House of Bishops welcomed Bishop Duncan in as a member of their Anglican province, thus preserving his holy orders as a bishop and giving him episcopal standing internationally.

Duncan’s alleged wrongdoing boils down to his being prophetic and speaking to TEC leadership that they have lost their spiritual legitimacy. For this truthful word they charged him with something he hadn’t done, leave TEC, so this was an execution based on anticipatory actions in the future. These allegations, without trial or proper procedures being followed, led to an ecclesiastical lynching, and 88 bishops of the church were the ones responsible.

We do applaud the 35 bishops who voted no the first time to the illegal actions taken. The Presiding Bishop announced in advance that she had reviewed all of the likely legitimate challenges to her proceedings and in anticipation found them failed. Her attempted refutation was based on her and her chancellors’ interpretation, and with a lynch mob dressed in Episcopal purple they were “somber and soberly” bent on getting their jobdone. Most people would take the plain meaning of the canons and bylaws, but she fashioned such mental gymnastics to justify setting aside the codified procedure that you might lose track of where she was going. She created ambiguity where there was none and then announced that in cases of ambiguity the final advantage had to rest with the presiding bishop’s point of view. In the United States there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and any ambiguity goes to the accused, but not so in the Robespierre Court of the HOB. The bishop and Diocese of Albany issued in advance a well-reasoned letter of protest describing the faults of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori’s process ….[which should be carefully digested by everyone].

Read it all.

Jim Naughton: There is the case made in blogs today that the House of Bishops ran afoul of its own rules in the Canons of the Church in deposing +Bob. The 5 day issue that Bp. Lawrence raised is one. Didn’t this deposition need to be looked at under diff canon? There is the notion screaming in the blogs today that +Bob’s deposition was done all wrong. Give us a sense of the actions taken.

Bp. Michael Smith: If you are referring to the notice being given 30 days prior and to the 3 senor bishops have to agree to inhibition prior to deposition, let me say this. Meeting notice wasn’t an issue. We knew it would be on the agenda at the September meeting. There were 2 challenges to the Presiding Bishop’s ruling on other two issues in question. I offered one (the need for the three Senior Bishops to agree to inhibition prior to deposition) and Bp. Mark Lawrence offered the second (with regard to the number of bishops needed to vote on this issue.) This is a contentious issue and area of great disagreement. In our system, there is no Supreme Court. In the context of any meeting we are free to challenge the Presiding Officer. We did that. We were overruled by 2/3 majority of this House. The ruling will stand. Eventually, General Convention will change those canons and/or clarify them….

Rich: Pittsburgh realigns and new diocese will be formed in TEC?
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori: Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will not go away even if convention will make the inappropriate vote to realign. One member of Standing Committee will remain within TEC (rumored to be the Rev. Jim Simon) and will be the center of the new diocese. People from across the aisle are rejecting realignment. They are coming together to act against and actively protest these schismatic actions. It is a vastly different situation than San Joaquin and we will move quickly to reestablish the diocese of Pittsburgh.

Read it carefully and read it all.

One consequence of TEC’s deposition of the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan—surely overlooked in the “prayerful” rush to judgment—is to confirm that The Episcopal Church is not a hierarchical organization.

How did that happen? I shall explain.

TEC is now forced to regard the see of Pittsburgh as vacant. And who can fill the vacant see? The Presiding Bishop? No. The House of Bishops? No. The House of Deputies? No. General Convention? No. The Executive Council? No. (I shall call all of these together “the usual suspects.”)

Answer: Only the clergy and parishioners of the Diocese of Pittsburgh can.

That’s some hierarchy. Were this the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope or a Cardinal would have a new bishop in the office on Monday.

Or consider this: who has the power to call a diocesan convention in Pittsburgh, now that there is no diocesan? Any of the usual suspects? No.

Answer: Only the Standing Committee of the Diocese, acting as the Ecclesiastical Authority when there is no bishop, can call a diocesan convention.

Again, that’s some hierarchy.

Read it all.

I would like to thank Dr. Gundersen, a church historian, for reviewing my recent paper, “Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchical?”. Reading her response, one could perhaps be forgiven when informed that my paper contains a “fatal flaw” for thinking that she had discovered that TEC’s constitution did in fact contain explicit technical legal language identifying General Convention as the supreme or highest authority. But she makes no such claim. Nor did she discover that the Church of England, contrary to the claims in my original paper, lacked a “Supremacy Act” and an “Oath of Supremacy” at the time TEC was being formed. Or that the governing legal instruments of other churches widely-regarded as hierarchical are actually devoid of the legally-precise hierarchical language identified in the original paper. Because those points are at the heart of the argument developed in that paper, one senses right away that the “fatal flaw” is unrelated to the main lines of the paper. What is not so quickly apparent, however, is that Dr. Gundersen’s critique itself contains a “fatal flaw”: she overlooks my discussion of the very topic she says is not there. It is Dr. Gundersen who engages in an anachronistic and legally uninformed reading of the text, and it is she who clearly misunderstands legal terminology, preferring to use colloquial definitions and references to an ordinary dictionary for the legal terminology analyzed in the original paper.

What follows is necessarily technical, but to avoid the anachronistic reading Dr. Gundersen gives the language in question some technical understanding is required….

Read it all and note that a fuller version with footnotes is available.

From the Lead, appended to an article on the post-HoB Press Conference. Here are the official minutes of the Business Session of the HoB Meeting including the roll call vote on the deposition of Bp. Duncan

House of Bishops Business Meeting
Little America Hotel, Salt Lake City, Utah
September 18, 2009

The business meeting of the House was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Prayers were offered by Chaplain Carol Wade and the roll of bishops was called by Secretary Bishop Kenneth Price. It was determined that the 127 bishops present represented significantly more than a quorum. Bishop Clifton Daniel moved, on behalf of the Dispatch of Business Committee, the agenda for the day. It was adopted.

The Presiding Bishop then recognized Vice President Bishop Dick Chang who moved that the House go into a Committee of the Whole to discuss the matter of the deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan. Parliamentarian Bishop John Buchanan explained that as a Committee of the Whole no minutes would be taken and no motions made. The rest of the morning session was spent as a committee of the whole in which 21 bishops spoke. The morning section of the business session recessed for Holy Eucharist at 11:45 a.m. and lunch
.
The business session resumed at 2:00 and the Committee of the Whole continued with 14 more speakers. When no more speakers requested to be recognized the Presiding Bishop declared the Committee of the Whole to be ended and the following motion was made and seconded.

“RESOLVED, that pursuant to Canon IV.9.2 of the Episcopal Church, the House of Bishops hereby consents to the Deposition from the ordained ministry of the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.”

The following explanation accompanied the resolution.

EXPLANATION: On December 17, 2007, the Title IV Review Committee certified to the Presiding Bishop, pursuant to Canon IV.9.1, that the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, had “abandoned the communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of this Church.” In the intervening months since the Presiding Bishop gave notice to Bishop Duncan of the foregoing certification, Bishop Duncan has failed to submit to the Presiding Bishop sufficient retraction or denial of the actions found by the Title IV Review Committee. Accordingly, the Presiding Bishop has presented the matter to the House of Bishops and requested consent to Bishop Duncan’s Deposition.

Bishop William Love then called for division with the following statement:

“We the undersigned being voting members of the House of Bishops, hereby call for division of each and every vote of this House on any matter put to vote with respect to the status of the Bishop of Pittsburgh as a bishop and member of this House of Bishops and that each member’s vote, whether it be aye or nay, be entered in the journal.”

This above call was signed by Bishops William Love, James Adams, David Reed, Michael Smith, Edward Little, Geralyn Wolf, Mark Lawrence, John Howe and Bruce MacPherson. She ruled that the roll would be called on the final vote.

Bishop Michael Smith made a challenge was then made and seconded regarding the chair’s ruling that no inhibition was needed before the house considered deposition. The matter was put to a vote and more than the requisite 2/3 vote sustained her ruling.

Bishop Lawrence made a challenge was then made and seconded regarding the chair’s ruling that the requisite votes for deposition would be arrived at by a majority of the bishops eligible to vote who were present at this meeting. The matter was put to a vote and more than the requisite 2/3 vote sustained her ruling.

Prayer was then offered by Chaplain Carol Wade and the roll was called on the matter of the deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan. The motion passed by a vote of 88 Ayes. 35 Nays and 4 Abstentions. A complete list of the votes of the 127 bishops present is as follows:

RECORD OF VOTES CAST REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP DUNCAN

Consecration Number Consecration Date Name Role Diocese Vote re: Duncan
627 11/26/67 William Frey Assisting Rio Grande n
665 9/12/71 Otis Charles Resigned y
721 10/31/77 Bob Jones Resigned y
722 2/11/78 Robert Anderson Assistant Los Angeles y
779 1/21/84 James Ottley Assistant Long Island y
780 1/25/84 Leopold Frade Diocesan Southeast Florida y
785 5/19/84 Peter Lee Diocesan Virginia n
804 2/15/85 Allen Bartlett Resigned y
812 10/11/86 Arthur Williams Resigned y
819 2/24/87 E. Don Taylor Assistant New York y
830 9/27/88 C. Christopher Epting Bishop for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations y
835 2/25/89 John Buchanan Assistant Southern Virginia y
839 4/15/89 John Howe Diocesan Central Florida n
844 8/20/89 Sergio Carranza Assistant Los Angeles y
854 3/24/90 Charles Keyser Assisting Florida y
861 1/26/91 Chester Talton Suffragan Los Angeles y
864 3/15/91 Victor Scantlebury Assistant Chicago y
865 3/23/91 Steven Charleston Assistant California y
868 6/9/91 Jerry Lamb Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin y
869 6/15/91 Alfred Marble Assisting North Carolina y
870 8/16/91 Julio Holguin Diocesan Dominican Republic a
872 2/29/92 Peter Beckwith Diocesan Springfield n
876 11/19/92 Jane Holmes Dixon Resigned y
879 3/6/93 James Stanton Diocesan Dallas n
883 9/11/93 F. Clayton Matthews Bishop for Pastoral Development y
885 10/29/93 James Jelinek Diocesan Minnesota y
891 4/17/94 Edwin Gulick Diocesan Kentucky y
894 5/24/94 Russell Jacobus Diocesan Fond du Lac a
900 10/29/94 Kenneth Price Suffragan Southern Ohio y
901 1/21/95 Henry Louttit Diocesan Georgia y
902 2/3/95 Dorsey Henderson Diocesan Upper South Carolina n
904 3/25/95 Vernon Strickland Resigned y
907 6/24/95 David Jones Suffragan Virginia y
909 10/21/95 Robert Ihloff Resigned y
912 1/27/96 Catherine Roskam Suffragan New York y
913 2/17/96 Geralyn Wolf Diocesan Rhode Island n
917 5/4/96 Andrew Smith Diocesan Connecticut y
918 5/31/96 Carolyn Irish Diocesan Utah y
919 6/29/96 Paul Marshall Diocesan Bethlehem y
922 9/21/96 Clifton Daniel Diocesan East Carolina y
924 10/12/96 Gordon Scruton Diocesan Western Massachusetts y
925 10/26/96 F. Neff Powell Diocesan Southwestern Virginia y
926 1/4/97 Richard S.O. Chang Resigned y
929 6/7/97 Catherine Waynick Diocesan Indianapolis y
930 6/28/97 C. Wallis Ohl Diocesan Northwest Texas n
933 9/13/97 Mark MacDonald Diocesan Navajoland a
934 9/26/97 Bruce Caldwell Diocesan Wyoming y
936 1/31/98 Charles Jenkins Diocesan Louisiana n
937 3/14/98 Barry Howe Diocesan West Missouri y
938 3/28/98 Chilton Knudsen Resigned y
939 4/25/98 Mark Sisk Diocesan New York y
940 6/6/98 Harry Bainbridge Diocesan Idaho y
942 10/10/98 John Rabb Suffragan Maryland n
944 2/27/99 Charles vonRosenberg Diocesan East Tennessee n
945 3/13/99 William Persell Resigned y
946 4/10/99 Keith Whitmore Assistant Atlanta y
947 4/24/99 J. Michael Garrison Diocesan Western New York y
949 10/9/99 D. Bruce MacPherson Diocesan Western Louisiana n
950 2/5/00 Wendell Gibbs Diocesan Michigan y
951 2/12/00 George Packard Bishop Suffragan for Chaplaincies n
952 3/18/00 Edward Little Diocesan Northern Indiana n
953 4/29/00 J. Jon Bruno Diocesan Los Angeles y
955 6/17/00 Michael Curry Diocesan North Carolina y
956 6/17/00 Duncan Gray Diocesan Mississippi n
957 9/23/00 William Gregg Assistant North Carolina y
958 9/30/00 Stacy Sauls Diocesan Lexington y
959 10/14/00 James Curry Suffragan Connecticut y
961 10/21/00 James Waggoner Diocesan Spokane y
963 2/24/01 Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop y
965 4/28/01 Thomas Ely Diocesan Vermont y
966 5/12/01 Philip Duncan Diocesan Central Gulf Coast y
968 7/7/01 J. Neil Alexander Diocesan Atlanta y
969 7/14/01 Francisco Duque Diocesan Colombia y
970 10/13/01 William Klusmeyer Diocesan West Virginia n
971 10/20/01 Lloyd Allen Diocesan Honduras n
972 10/27/01 Gladstone Adams Diocesan Central New York y
973 11/18/01 Pierre Whalon Suffragan American Churches in Europe a
974 2/7/02 Marc Andrus Diocesan California y
975 3/2/02 G. Wayne Smith Diocesan Missouri y
976 3/16/02 James Adams Diocesan Western Kansas n
979 6/1/02 John Chane Diocesan Washington y
981 1/18/03 Gayle Harris Suffragan Massachusetts y
982 1/25/03 James Shand Diocesan Easton n
983 4/5/03 Alan Scarfe Diocesan Iowa n
984 11/28/97 David Alvarez Diocesan Puerto Rico y
985 9/13/03 Joe Burnett Diocesan Nebraska y
987 9/27/03 C. Franklin Brookhart Diocesan Montana n
989 10/4/03 Robert O’Neill Diocesan Colorado y
990 10/18/03 George Councell Diocesan New Jersey n
991 10/18/03 Steven Miller Diocesan Milwaukee n
992 11/1/03 S. Johnson Howard Diocesan Florida y
993 11/2/03 V. Gene Robinson Diocesan New Hampshire y
994 11/8/03 Dean Wolfe Diocesan Kansas y
995 2/21/04 Gary Lillibridge Diocesan West Texas n
996 4/24/04 Kirk Smith Diocesan Arizona y
997 4/17/04 Mark Hollingsworth Diocesan Ohio y
998 5/8/04 Michael Smith Diocesan North Dakota n
999 9/18/04 G. Porter Taylor Diocesan Western North Carolina y
1001 1/22/05 Bavi Rivera Suffragan Olympia y
1002 3/5/05 James Mathes Diocesan San Diego y
1003 6/11/05 E. Ambrose Gumbs Diocesan Virgin Islands n
1005 8/26/06 David Reed Suffragan West Texas n
1006 9/9/06 S. Todd Ousley Diocesan Eastern Michigan y
1007 9/16/06 William Love Diocesan Albany n
1008 9/30/06 Barry Beisner Diocesan Northern California y
1010 10/26/06 Nathan Baxter Diocesan Central Pennsylvania y
1011 1/6/07 Larry Benfield Diocesan Arkansas y
1012 1/27/07 Mark Beckwith Diocesan Newark y
1013 1/27/07 John Bauerschmidt Diocesan Tennessee n
1014 3/10/07 Dabney Smith Diocesan Southwest Florida n
1015 3/10/07 Robert Fitzpatrick Diocesan Hawaii y
1016 4/28/07 Thomas Breidenthal Diocesan Southern Ohio y
1017 5/26/07 Shannon Johnston Coadjutor Virginia n
1018 6/30/07 Laura Ahrens Suffragan Connecticut y
1019 9/8/07 Sean Rowe Diocesan Northwestern Pennsylvania y
1020 9/15/07 Edward Konieczny Diocesan Oklahoma n
1021 9/15/07 Gregory Rickel Diocesan Olympia y
1022 11/10/07 Mary Gray-Reeves Diocesan El Camino Real y
1023 1/5/08 Dan Edwards Diocesan Nevada y
1024 1/12/08 John McKee Sloan Suffragan Alabama n
1025 1/26/08 Mark Lawrence Diocesan South Carolina n
1026 2/2/08 Jeffrey Lee Diocesan Chicago y
1027 1/25/94 Sylvestre Romero Assisting New Jersey y
1028 5/3/08 Stephen Lane Diocesan Maine y
1029 5/31/08 Prince Singh Diocesan Rochester y
1030 6/28/08 Eugene Sutton Diocesan Maryland y
1031 7/12/08 Paul Lambert Suffragan Dallas n

.
The Rules of Order call for the introduction of new bishops at each business meeting. The Presiding Bishop had introduced them the day before. They are:

Bishop Steven Lane, Bishop Diocesan of Maine
Bishop Prince Singh, Bishop Diocesan of Rochester
Bishop Eugene Sutton, Bishop Diocesan of Maryland
Bishop Paul Lambert, Bishop Suffragan of Dallas

The Rev. Brian Thom, elected Bishop Diocesan of Idaho, was also introduced. His consents have been received but he is not yet consecrated.

The following bishops, who have died since our last meeting, also were remembered with a moment of silence. They are:

Bishop Robert Spears, Rochester, resigned
Bishop Ronald Haines, Washington, resigned
Bishop Frank Vest, Southern Virginia, resigned
Bishop Jose Gonzalez, Newark, resigned

As a communication from the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Jefferts Schori explained that in the matter of inhibited Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania, we are still waiting a verdict from the Trial Court. Bishop Allen Bartlett will continue serving as Assisting Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania until December 31. The Presiding Bishop will meet with the Standing Committee on October 3 to discuss next steps.

After comments from six bishops regarding a desire to be clear in explaining the actions of the House regarding the deposition of Bishop Duncan, the House shared in prayer and took a brief break.

Bishop Chilton Knudsen, reporting for the Committee on the Resignation of Bishops,
moved that the resignations of Bishops Harry Bainbridge and Wallis Ohl both be accepted, the
canonical reason being “advanced age.” Both resignations were accepted.

The agenda as set forth in the Rules of Order is the reading of the minutes of the last meeting. Motion was made to dispense with this reading as the minutes are posted on the College of Bishop web site. Motion Passed.

Several announcements were made, Bishop Chris Epting reported on ecumenical and interreligious issues coming to General Convention. These include full communion with the Moravians, a modest proposal for relations with the Presbyterians and principles and approaches to be used in interreligious talks. He also announced his office is now in Omaha, Nebraska.

The Presiding Bishop then called on bishops to reflect on the actions of this meeting, and after 13 bishops spoke, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted, Certified

Kenneth L. Price Jr., secretary James Mathes, chair,
House of Bishops Committee on Certification of Minute

Michael Smith
Committee on Certification of Minutes

1. The process against Bishop Duncan has been flawed from the start.

The Presiding Bishop’s letter of September 12, 2008, to the bishops states that she made a submission to the Title IV Review Committee in November 2007 “suggesting” that Bp. Duncan had abandoned the communion of this Church. She states that the “thrust” of her submission was not that he had already left TEC, but that by claiming that the diocese had a right to do so and should exercise that right he had made an open renunciation of the discipline of TEC. She then states that the Review Committee “evidently” agreed with her analysis because it sent her a certification of abandonment.

The reason for the Presiding bishop’s uncertainty about what the Review Committee concluded is that the Committee did not specify the basis for its certification, which is plainly contrary to the requirement of Canon IV.9 that the certification contain “a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment.” The certification simply referred to voluminous evidence of news clippings and other materials dating back to 2003.

Taking a different approach, a memorandum from the Task Force on Property Disputes, dated September 5, 2008, claims that “Bishop Duncan has conclusively completed his own separation from TEC” and that “there is no doubt that Bishop Duncan has left The Episcopal Church.” (Emphasis supplied.) This submission relies on materials obtained in August 2008 in the civil lawsuit brought against Bp. Duncan, raising the question whether the purpose of that lawsuit was not to use the civil courts to assist in the deposition attempt. In six pages of highlighted documents from the lawsuit, the Task Force memorandum manages only to establish the unsurprising conclusion that Bishop Duncan proposed that the diocese amend its canons to permit re-alignment and supports passage of the canon amendments. And that conclusion is not made any more surprising by attaching the adverb “actively” to every bullet point. Note the inconsistency between the Task Force’s claim that Bp. Duncan “has conclusively completed his
own separation” and the Presiding Bishop’s complaint that “Bishop Duncan has unfortunately announced that he will not attend this meeting of the House.” And not even the Presiding Bishop knows where the Review Committee stands on this issue, but she assumes they “evidently” agree with her.

It is one thing for the Presiding Bishop to speculate as to what the basis of the Review Committee’s certification was, but another thing for the respondent to have to guess….

Read it all.

The Presiding Bishop’s memo (see below) is a fascinating read. I do not wish to engage the issue of whether Bishop Duncan should or should not be deposed. I am concerned that he or any other Bishop facing deposition should be treated fairly.

The difficulty facing the PB and HoB is clearly, and I think fairly, presented by our Presiding Bishop. “Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a ‘regular or special meeting of the House’ and, second, be ‘by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.’

Problem: these days it is difficult to get “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to attend an interim meeting of the HoB. And even if that goal were achieved, then a motion to depose would require an almost unanimous vote by the Bishops present.

Pierce’s translation: taking the two requirements together (vote at an actual meeting and a super majority is required), it is difficult to depose a Bishop for abandonment.

Pierce’s observation: I think that was the intention. Note the additional requirements for deposing a priest or a deacon (see Canon IV.10)

What do to do? The PB speaks:

“In these circumstances, I concur with my Chancellor and the Parliamentarian that any ambiguity in the canon should be resolved in favor of making this important provision work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied because a majority or nearly a majority of voting bishops are no longer in active episcopal positions in the Church and their attendance at meetings is hampered by age, health, economics, or interest in other legitimate pursuits.”

In secular law any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant or the accused. The general principle is that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be punished. Here, however, exactly the reverse is being argued. In order for “this important provision [to] work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied,” the three in authority have decided to reduce the majority required to the absolute bare minimum, ie a majority of Bishops present and voting. In other words, the bar has been set high, discipline may be stymied, therefore lower the bar.

The PB then states: “I concur with this advice, and that will be the ruling of the Chair. Any member of the House may appeal the ruling of the Chair, which may be overruled by a two-thirds vote pursuant to House Rule XV, p.192.”

If there be any integrity remaining in our House of Bishops, the ruling of the Chair will indeed be successfully appealed.

–The Rev. Nathaniel W. Pierce is an Episcopal pirest and blog reader who lives in Trappe, Maryland

“I shall present to the House the matter of the certification to me by the Title IV Review Committee that Bishop Robert W Duncan has abandoned the Communion of this Church within the meaning of Canon IV.9,” she wrote.

However, the rules of the House of Bishops forbid modifying the agenda of a special session after the meeting has been announced, placing her plans in legal and canonical limbo. Whether the bishops will challenge her request is unclear, however, as her past legal missteps in the cases of Bishops John-David Schofield and Williams Cox provoked protests from bishops and dioceses distressed over what they perceived was her abuse of office, but no action followed.

On Aug 20 Bishop Schori wrote to the bishops stating “as discussed in our spring meeting and confirmed in our time at Lambeth, we will hold a special meeting of the House of Bishops September 17-19 in Salt Lake City, Utah.” “The main purpose of this meeting,” Bishop Schori wrote, “will be to reflect and deliberate together following the Lambeth Conference.”

In the schedule appended to the letter, two sessions are labelled “Lambeth de-brief”, two “Business meeting”, and one “Theological Education.” No mention is made of Bishop Duncan or any disciplinary action in the formal letter calling the special session.

Following the release of the Presiding Bishop’s letter, a number of bishops contacted her to ascertain whether or not rumours that Bishop Duncan would be brought up on charges before the session were true.

Read it all.

Download the full pdf and read it all.

Please note that this is an introduction to the following post written by Mark McCall–KSH.

Sad to say, it seems virtually certain that TEC will reject any covenant proposal that limits its autonomy. Its leadership has consistently argued for a view of communion that resides in mutual hospitality and practice (as seen from the leadership’s perspective). They have also made clear their resistance to any meaningful form of restraint on a Province that decides to act against the views of the Communion as a whole.

Should the General Convention reject the proposed covenant, the paper we are posting clearly implies that individual dioceses within TEC have a constitutional right to vote for adoption on their own. The Instruments of Communion would then have to decide whether or not to allow individual dioceses that dissent from the negative actions of their Province to be covenant partners with the other Provinces of the Communion. Circumstances such as these present other polity issues, but the Archbishop of Canterbury has already indicated the theological appropriateness of this course of action. It would, nonetheless, still have to receive some form of Communion approval. It is difficult to imagine that such approval would not be forthcoming.

It is painful to think of TEC rejecting the covenant, though this is the course of action intimated. This eventuality will result in individual dioceses being put in the position of adopting a covenant on their own. There is a promise of renewal and reform attached to these possibilities. By adopting the covenant, dissenting dioceses within TEC would place themselves within a communion of provinces and dioceses wherein effective hierarchies are extant. In so doing they would place the hierarchy that orders their own dioceses within a more Catholic (with big C) and less congregationally ordered form of polity.

Read it all.

Anyone? I cannot get the link on the Evening Bulletin in Pennsylvania to work, and cannot find the article on their website.

At Lambeth, TEC’s bishops were (whether deliberately, or negligently—it makes no difference) giving out wrong information about the lawsuits they are involved in with their own parishes. The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Gledhill, in the Province of Canterbury, reports on his Weblog about the meeting of his indaba group on August 2 (Day 18 of the Lambeth Conference):

In the discussion afterwards we are told that the US House of Bishops has regretted for the hurt it has caused and its lack of consultation and has issued a public apology – though no one has the exact wording. We are also told that the Canadians have voted against same-sex blessings – though two dioceses are pressing their bishops to change that. We are told that in the lawsuits in America between parishes and their dioceses it is the dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers.

Since it is well known to many individual Episcopalians who have been involved in the many lawsuits instigated and still pending at all levels here that the statement I have put into boldface type above is simply not the case, it did not take long for a blog reader familiar with the details in Virginia to inform the good Bishop of the facts on the ground there. The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon put the information up on his site at TitusOneNine, and it elicited this comment from a reader:

In the interest of being scrupulously fair: this just refers to the Virginia situation, is it possible there are other parishes/dioceses where the reasserters are suing?

Well, let us be scrupulously fair, and see just what the facts are. The Episcopal Church and/or one of its Dioceses played the role of plaintiff—the party who initiates a case in court, by filing a complaint—in bringing the pending or former lawsuits I have listed below over Church property and assets in the courts of the United States. This list makes no claim to be complete; it comprises just the ones I have read about (I have listed them alphabetically by State, and not chronologically):

Read it all and, yes, do take the time to look up the references.

After extensive consultation, and with the consent of the Standing Committee, I am moving the time and place of the 143rd Annual Convention of the Diocese to Saturday, October 4th, 2008, at St. Martin’s Church, Monroeville.

Registration of clerical and lay deputies will be from 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. The Convention Eucharist will begin at 8:30 a.m. The business session of Convention will begin immediately following the Eucharist. Lunch will be served at midday. It is anticipated that all matters required to come before the Annual Convention will be complete during the afternoon, with adjournment at the completion of said business.

The date and place of the Annual Convention having been previously set, I am announcing this change under the provisions of Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the Diocese. The expressed threat of deposition of the Diocesan Bishop at a September meeting of the House of Bishops is the “sufficient cause.”

Read it all.

This event is a conference for bishops and it seems completely right for this topic to kick off this historic event. But I think that this topic also speaks to the Archbishop’s hope to confront what he has identified as a “major ecclesiological issue.” I think that the Archbishop has given up trying to get our bishops to take an independent stand on the future of the moratorium of same sex blessings for instance, and is now moving to “plan B” and turning his attention to encouraging our bishops to understand their “distinctive charism” as bishops, perhaps in a new way. I envision Archbishop Rowan pondering in, to use his word, “puzzlement” why these bishops of the Episcopal Church don’t just stand up and exercise their authority as bishops like most of the rest of the bishops in the Communion do. Why would our bishops “bind themselves to future direction for the Convention?” Some of us in TEC in the past have thought that perhaps the Archbishop and others in the Anglican Communion do not understand the baptismal covenant that we hold foundational. Perhaps they just don’t “get” the way we choose to govern ourselves; the ministers of the church as the laity, clergy and the bishops, and that at the very core of our beliefs we believe in the God- given gifts of all God’s people, none more important than the other, just gifts differing. We believe that God speaks uniquely through laity, bishops, priests and deacons. This participatory structure in our church allows a fullness of revelation and insight that must not be lost in this important time of discernment. But I think our governance is clearly understood. I just don’t think the Archbishop has much use for it…

At the Lambeth Conference, I believe that the voice of the conformed bishop will be easily heard and affirmed. The prophetic voice will not be easily heard.

Read it all.

After all arguments are made that can be made, it remains clear that a “majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” does indeed mean what it says: a majority of bishops with voting rights in the House of Bishops. The legislative history to which Bishop Sauls points demonstrates that the canon has always had this meaning, and it has never changed.

First, it must be noted that Bishop Sauls does not address at all the numerous other canonical violations of the Presiding Bishop in her handling of the matters involving Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin. He assures us that Canon IV.9 contains procedural safeguards, but does not mention that Bishop Cox was denied those very safeguards. He points out that the Presiding Bishop must present the matter of certification of abandonment to the House of Bishops at its next meeting, but does not acknowledge that this was not done in the Cox case. He emphasizes the procedural protections afforded by the role of the three senior bishops, but does not acknowledge that they were never consulted about Bishop Cox. There is scant protection in procedural safeguards that are ignored.

Second, notwithstanding his scrutiny of the nineteenth century forerunners of Canon IV.9, Bishop Sauls does not address the fact that the language in the current canon is found elsewhere in TEC’s current Constitution, in Article XII concerning constitutional amendments: such amendments are adopted by “a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops.” It is absolutely clear in this provision that active bishops not present are counted for purposes of determining the required majority when the phrase “whole number of bishops entitled to vote” is used. Bishop Sauls never mentions this provision.

Read it carefully and read it all.