In her posting, Jan [Nunley] says that there are “90 possible” elections affected by defective consents. Let’s suppose in the past it didn’t matter so much, because our church was in a difference place. But in the Lawrence debacle, we were all quoted chapter and verse on why the canons matter. Frankly, I agree with this rigid canonical adherence, but it has to be the same, in all cases, no matter what. It’s only fair. It’s only just
Now we’re told it was about signatures. Of course, it’s hard to see why we insist on the signature portion of the canons, but we look past the textual requirements. I’m also not sure the claim on the importance of signatures is valid. These days, electronic “signatures” in lots of forms are considered equivalent with ink signatures, in lots of situations. The Living Church is reporting that South Carolina was told not to use the “short form” in its consents. Fine. But why wasn’t Virginia told the same thing?
In all elections since the South Carolina election, it seems to me that it is important to ensure that there is adherence to the canons. If we’re tossing out one election because of defects, I think we need to toss out others as well. I am not saying that Virginia’s election should be tossed out, or that the ordination was irregular. I am saying that an “oops” should emanate from 815, and in the future we should follow the canons precisely. If the canons are no longer deemed adequate, there’s a little project to work on before GC 2009.
It seems to me what we heard “law, law” in the case of South Carolina. And we’ve heard “Gospel, Gospel” in other cases. Let’s have law and Gospel in all cases, balanced appropriately. Why am I writing about this budding controversy? Well, I think how we handle these conversations has to do with how we’ll handle other, more difficult issues. When the response from church leadership to all this is, “Let’s don’t and say we did, shall we?” it hardly seems to respect the dignity of those who find this situation challenging. Much better would be a straightforward, official explanation of why canons are applied particular ways at particular times. I’d like this problem to go away. And I’d like to avoid this particular conversation in the future.
This was my position precisely. Adhereing to the specific letter of the law is fine and generally keeps everyone on equal footing. But if 815 played loosy-goosey with the canons in past elections they must announce their intention to adhere strictly to election canons and allow a grace period for conformity. As it stands now, Mr. Beers was simply casting around for a convenient excuse for his mistress to use. Now they have been caught and their fraud exposed.
Thank you, Scott Gunn – very well said.
I think we should all recall the words of our Presiding Bishop as she announced the invalidation of the election of a bishop in South Carolina — the first time this had happened in more than 70 years.
[blockquote]”In the past, when consents to episcopal elections have been so closely contested, the diocese has been diligent in seeking to have canonically adequate ballots submitted, asking Standing Committees to resubmit their ballots when necessary,” she added. “It is certainly my hope that in future any diocese seeking consent to an election will use all possible effort to ensure that ballots are received in an appropriate form and in a timely manner.”[/blockquote]
The truth is, that apparently some of the consents to the election of the bishop of South Carolina were in blatant violation of the canons, and thus invalid. . . . And apparently ALL of the consents to the election of the bishop of Virginia were in blatant violation of the canons and thus invalid.
Thing is . . . Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose NOT to invalidate the election of the bishop of Virginia, despite the blatant violation of the canons. And Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose to invalidate the election of the bishop of South Carolina, based on the blatant violation of the canons.
I started out thinking that there would be some valid explanation — perhaps only a few wrong forms with the NON-CANONICAL language on them were sent out.
But instead we are treated to a ridiculous “wave of the hand” toward the peasants and a “all the elections were non-canonical” explanation.
Just amazing.
Amazing. And I thought I was entirely hardened.
Here’s additional fodder from TLC article:
“the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews, Bishop for the Presiding Bishop’s Office of Pastoral Development, cautioned the diocese about the language in its consent request. Fr. Sanderson said that Bishop Matthews considered the matter important enough that he delayed giving approval for South Carolina to send out its consent requests until he had personally sent the canonically correct language to Fr. Sanderson, who said he cut and pasted the relevant portion of Bishop Matthew’s email message directly into the South Carolina standing committee consent request letter.”
I would suspect that Fr. Sanderson has a copy of the letter (from which he cut and pasted) and could share bishop Matthew’s cautionary instructions on this blog? This would be very instructive.
Can this be the polity that the ABC will be coming all the way to New Orleans for the HOB to explain to him?
#4 and all, “for the record” after some urging by commenters at EpiScope, Jan Nunley has issued an update to her original blog entry to retract the incorrect claim that South Carolina used the uncanonical “short form”
You can read her update here:
http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/episcope/2007/07/and-another-thi.html
At least she has corrected her blatantly false statement. But other than that she hasn’t conceded anything.
#6, yes one thing has been cleared up, but another bit of confusion has been added. I tried to post this comment over at epiScope, but I can’t get there now. Either an issue at my ISP, or the DOS bug has stricken typepad…
Anyway, Jan seems to have one bit of confusion. For whatever reason, the canons do not prescribe the language of consent when an election is approved by General Convention (See III.11.3). Apparently it is enough for a resolution to pass both Houses. However, the canons are quite clear for consent by Standing Committees (See III.11.4). In the latter case, both the wording and signatures are precisely described. Comparing one with the other is apples to oranges.
SG+
Thanks very much Scott. Your information, and both of your blog entries, are very appreciated.
Jan Nunley also points out that the canons for GC consent include language that differs from the canon regulating Diocesan consents. That’s fine – GC consent language is clearly defined in canon III.16.3, and diocesan consent language is clearly defined in canon III.16.5 (not III.22.3 as Nunley incorrectly cites). The language in which recent GC consent was given recently is different apparently from the proscribed consent. Maybe I’m not reading the canons correctly but nowhere do I see a canon that allows for an acceptable ‘shortened’ substitute consent for dioceses or GCs. It’s pretty clear the writers of the canons intended them to be followed to the letter, not substituted for. With our unique polity (decisions made for the whole church only in GC), and no evidence of any acceptable substitutes being approved in GC, I would think this is not a minor matter at all.
Let’s just follow this dog —
Dow+, in case you are following this, or if someone else is who can grab your attention, would you be willing to share from where that original consent form came, the one for which Bp Matthews shut down the start of the consent process? I for one don’t believe you would do anything regarding consents for your own diocese to take (non)canonical short-cuts. So you must have thought it was an acceptable form. And is that same form with which you started identical to the one Virginia S.C. used?
(And one more thing, brother, just because I’m curious about the flow – is or was the Office for Pastoral Development the PB’s (+Griswold at that time) consent process watchdog?)
Thanks,
Rob
Not only is Episcope down but Rev Nick Knisely’s Entangled States is down too at the same time. Nick is the Chair of the GC Standing Cmte of Communications and and one of the editors at Episcopal Cafe.
Here’s the problem with typepad and entangledstates, I suspect: a power outage in the SFO area.
http://laughingsquid.com/massive-power-outages-hit-san-franciscos-soma-district/
How much do we love the Internet?
And my blog is hosted by typepad too.
The internet is broken today I guess…
[blockquote]But instead we are treated to a ridiculous “wave of the hand†toward the peasants and a “all the elections were non-canonical†explanation. [/blockquote]
See, Sarah, it’s like this:
* First the Holy Spirit did a new thing WRT the Bishop of Virginia
* Then the Holy Spirit reconsidered and undid the new thing WRT the Bishop of South Carolina
I suspect we’ll see similar oscillations in the whims of TEC’s Holy Spirit in the coming months and, oddly, they will miraculously conform to the legal, social and political necessities of 815 at that particular point in time.
Is he kidding? Without the proper signatures, it is not evidence of consent. It isn’t evidence of anything at all.
As others elsewhere have speculated, if there really are many, perhaps as many as 80 consents that have been made with irregular, non canonically correct formats, what does that do to the claim put forward by TEC in their legal actions, that they are a canonically governed body?
If a substantial number of bishops have been irregularly approved, does that not impact the entire institution?
Maybe they’ll be disinvited to Lambeth?
The horror, the horror!
#16, if a Standing Committee President emailed 815 and said “We have consented, and this was our resolution” with the appropriate text, is that evidence of consent? There are no signatures with ink, but intent is crystal clear. What if only the SC President signed a resolution and then they mailed that physical document to 815? Is that evidence of consent?
My point was that some have insisted on the absolute necessity of actual signatures, but these same people have been willing to dispense with the requirement to use specified text. The canons make no distinctions. If signed consents with the “wrong” text are OK, then why aren’t consents with the canonical text — showing intent — but without signatures?
Pax,
Scott+