So the resolution “authorize[s] the Bishop and Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture”. The Standing Committee and Bishops’ power to grant or decline consent is not canonically dependent upon participation in any body of the Episcopal Church.
According to Canon III.11.4, the majority of all Standing Committees and Bishops with jurisdiction are required for consent, not just a majority of those consents received. In fact, there is not a place on the Consent Form in the Canons to say that you do not consent. There is no “no” vote. So, even if the Diocese of South Carolina doesn’t vote, it still counts towards the total required for consents.
Yet another post by a person who knows absolutely nothing, it appears, about the canons of TEC . . . which is congruent with her knowledge of Scripture as well. It appears to be a general trend for her.
Babbling with utterly no knowledge, but plenty of the usual bile and rage, and still rankled by the gall of South Carolina’s rejection of her gospel.
My goodness, such rigid legalistic rhetoric and illogical logic. I am amazed once again. I know I shouldn’t be…but I am!
The Diocese can and I am sure will participate in who is to be or not be a bishop for the entire Episcopal and Catholic Church. It is their decision and not any other bishop or even a Presiding Bishop (whose only authority is to preside at three meetings).
After Bishop Bruno’s statement that a vote against the new suffragan bishop elect is discriminatory and a violation of Church canons confuses orientation with behavior as we all know…
He knows better too, but thinks he can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of those who do not see or understand the difference.
My or my, what the offended won’t do or say when they are challenged. The attacks keep coming….and I am sure they will until they get rid of the unenlightened.
Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy,
We can debated this and refer to past foofoos by others, but to me, SC should do nothing. Even if to register a “no” vote it were necessary to answer, they should still do nothing to remain true to the resolution they passed. They stated that they would not participate…..so don’t participate…no picking and choosing as others have done…..My opinion for what it is worth…..
Yep. I think it’s tied to that line of “=” Anglican First decided to use. Delete those, and the comments should go back to normal ( and I’ll be able to read them on my iPhone…)
[Please let us know if this has been fixed now on your screen – Elf]
Canons schmanons – we have a Presiding Bishop now to declare what is legalistic! I suppose denying a vote to SC would legitimize the idea that dioceses can withdraw from TEC.
A majority of bishops with jurisdiction (i.e., a diocesan bishop) and a majority of diocesan standing committees must consent to the election for the consecration to take place.
The only way that South Carolina’s non-participation in the consent process could affect the outcome would be if Schori decided that South Carolina wasn’t a diocese of TEC, possibly reducing the number of consents required by one.
I wouldn’t put it past her. But I doubt that even she would be [b]that[/b] brazen–particularly after what the S.C. Supreme Court recently said. After all, it’s about the properties.
++Katharine could not care less whether or not (+)Glasspool receives consent. She has no interest either way. It ias not part of her agenda. Never has been. So those of you who believe she will discount SC’s vote or are engaging in “she did it first” logic are missing the point. The point, as Dee has pointed out, is (1) what SC meant by the resolution and (2) whether or not they will stick to that meaning.
FWIW, here is how I see it
Whereas the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church have failed to operate within the boundaries of its canons
The consent to +Gene was done by “the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church.” South Carolina has maintained that such a decision was out side the boundaries of its canons.
and continued participation in such behavior would make the Diocese of South Carolina complicit in this dysfunction…begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions;
Withdrawal (or non-participation) is required, unless “begin withdrawing” means that the process is not yet finished.
the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).
Since South Carolina has no problem applying the effects to past actions, I would assume that they will not participate in this vote.
However, this should not be a problem as the absence of a vote does not count as a vote for consent.
No canon is above her Emperialness, now, is it? She make ’em up out of whole cloth as she has done. What’s Lisa’s problem? She lives in Texas. Two Texan diocese have said no already – on the record. I think she’s just torqued off and needed to vent. Otherwise, her canonical concerns can be better directed to the PB’s multiple violations of canons and impending Matriarchy.
Actually I believe (according to her blog) that Lisa is in Missouri.
And #16, I have no doubt that consent votes will be received from the remaining “rump” dioceses of FW, SJ, and Quincy. The TEC Dio. of Pittsburgh will vote too, although I don’t know if they are likely or not to give consent.
As Brian said (in essence) we don’t really know what is meant by “withdrawal” nor do we know what “begin the process of withdrawal” means to those in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. I am not really sure it matters one way or the other, except to say that I’m pretty sure the Diocese of South Carolina is still a Diocese of the Episcopal Church. Whether they will be tomorrow, next month, or next year remains to be seen. The ultimate question, I suppose, is whether the intent of the leadership is to simply withdraw from participation in the governance of the Episcopal Church or if it is to withdraw from the church altogether.
My best guess for Pittsburgh is that there will be three clergy votes and one lay vote to reject and four lay votes to approve (assuming everyone is present and that my reading of the laity – based on their parish of origin – is accurate), which means that George Werner will probably be the one to break the tie.
re 12: Well, the one thing KJS won’t do is say that they aren’t a diocese; that would be tantamount to freeing them! The best she could do is create a rump diocese which she could hope would consent. If they can’t vote, and there’s nobody else to vote int their place, then they haven’t consented. And it says volumes about the either the ignorance (and after the Forrester debacle, who has an excuse for ignorance?) or the bitterness circulating around the election.
Well, if Lisa is in Missouri, perhaps she should worry about Missouri? Nah. It’s in the bag for Glasspool. Just the “show me” diocese staying, as George Wayne Smith so eloquently phrased it, “as Anglican as we can.”
So the resolution “authorize[s] the Bishop and Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture”. The Standing Committee and Bishops’ power to grant or decline consent is not canonically dependent upon participation in any body of the Episcopal Church.
“Can the Diocese of SC Vote on [Canon Mary] Glasspool?”
What a ‘delicate’ concern for ‘legalisms.’
How does she feel about Ms Schori’s disregard for the ‘niceties’ and ‘legalisms’ associated with the application of canon law within ECUSA?
How does she feel about Ms Schori’s ‘willy nilly’ defrocking of clergy?
According to Canon III.11.4, the majority of all Standing Committees and Bishops with jurisdiction are required for consent, not just a majority of those consents received. In fact, there is not a place on the Consent Form in the Canons to say that you do not consent. There is no “no” vote. So, even if the Diocese of South Carolina doesn’t vote, it still counts towards the total required for consents.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
All that DioSC (the Bishop and the SC) have to do is nothing at all.
Taking no action is, for all intents and purposes, a “no” vote.
An outright “no” vote, along with a written explanation for it, would of course be a stronger statement.
Yet another post by a person who knows absolutely nothing, it appears, about the canons of TEC . . . which is congruent with her knowledge of Scripture as well. It appears to be a general trend for her.
Babbling with utterly no knowledge, but plenty of the usual bile and rage, and still rankled by the gall of South Carolina’s rejection of her gospel.
My goodness, such rigid legalistic rhetoric and illogical logic. I am amazed once again. I know I shouldn’t be…but I am!
The Diocese can and I am sure will participate in who is to be or not be a bishop for the entire Episcopal and Catholic Church. It is their decision and not any other bishop or even a Presiding Bishop (whose only authority is to preside at three meetings).
After Bishop Bruno’s statement that a vote against the new suffragan bishop elect is discriminatory and a violation of Church canons confuses orientation with behavior as we all know…
He knows better too, but thinks he can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of those who do not see or understand the difference.
My or my, what the offended won’t do or say when they are challenged. The attacks keep coming….and I am sure they will until they get rid of the unenlightened.
Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy,
We can debated this and refer to past foofoos by others, but to me, SC should do nothing. Even if to register a “no” vote it were necessary to answer, they should still do nothing to remain true to the resolution they passed. They stated that they would not participate…..so don’t participate…no picking and choosing as others have done…..My opinion for what it is worth…..
Elves, The comments above extend over the right hand column. I’m reading on Foxfire Mozilla 5.0. Anyone else having a problem?
Off2 – it may have something to do with the banner. Sorry we will look into it.
Yep. I think it’s tied to that line of “=” Anglican First decided to use. Delete those, and the comments should go back to normal ( and I’ll be able to read them on my iPhone…)
[Please let us know if this has been fixed now on your screen – Elf]
Canons schmanons – we have a Presiding Bishop now to declare what is legalistic! I suppose denying a vote to SC would legitimize the idea that dioceses can withdraw from TEC.
A majority of bishops with jurisdiction (i.e., a diocesan bishop) and a majority of diocesan standing committees must consent to the election for the consecration to take place.
The only way that South Carolina’s non-participation in the consent process could affect the outcome would be if Schori decided that South Carolina wasn’t a diocese of TEC, possibly reducing the number of consents required by one.
I wouldn’t put it past her. But I doubt that even she would be [b]that[/b] brazen–particularly after what the S.C. Supreme Court recently said. After all, it’s about the properties.
Elves,
Yep, that fixed it. Thanks!
++Katharine could not care less whether or not (+)Glasspool receives consent. She has no interest either way. It ias not part of her agenda. Never has been. So those of you who believe she will discount SC’s vote or are engaging in “she did it first” logic are missing the point. The point, as Dee has pointed out, is (1) what SC meant by the resolution and (2) whether or not they will stick to that meaning.
FWIW, here is how I see it
Whereas the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church have failed to operate within the boundaries of its canons
The consent to +Gene was done by “the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church.” South Carolina has maintained that such a decision was out side the boundaries of its canons.
and continued participation in such behavior would make the Diocese of South Carolina complicit in this dysfunction…begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the Communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions;
Withdrawal (or non-participation) is required, unless “begin withdrawing” means that the process is not yet finished.
the Diocese of South Carolina declares that the most recent example of this behavior, in the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56, to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese, and in violation of our diocesan canon (XXXVI sec.1).
Since South Carolina has no problem applying the effects to past actions, I would assume that they will not participate in this vote.
However, this should not be a problem as the absence of a vote does not count as a vote for consent.
I would assume S.C. would ignore the consent process and not show up for the installation.
Seems pretty easy to me.
Well, if a diocese can’t withdraw, which votes will count or not count from the dioceses of San Joaquin, Quincy, Fort Worth, etc?
No canon is above her Emperialness, now, is it? She make ’em up out of whole cloth as she has done. What’s Lisa’s problem? She lives in Texas. Two Texan diocese have said no already – on the record. I think she’s just torqued off and needed to vent. Otherwise, her canonical concerns can be better directed to the PB’s multiple violations of canons and impending Matriarchy.
Actually I believe (according to her blog) that Lisa is in Missouri.
And #16, I have no doubt that consent votes will be received from the remaining “rump” dioceses of FW, SJ, and Quincy. The TEC Dio. of Pittsburgh will vote too, although I don’t know if they are likely or not to give consent.
As Brian said (in essence) we don’t really know what is meant by “withdrawal” nor do we know what “begin the process of withdrawal” means to those in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. I am not really sure it matters one way or the other, except to say that I’m pretty sure the Diocese of South Carolina is still a Diocese of the Episcopal Church. Whether they will be tomorrow, next month, or next year remains to be seen. The ultimate question, I suppose, is whether the intent of the leadership is to simply withdraw from participation in the governance of the Episcopal Church or if it is to withdraw from the church altogether.
Scott,
My best guess for Pittsburgh is that there will be three clergy votes and one lay vote to reject and four lay votes to approve (assuming everyone is present and that my reading of the laity – based on their parish of origin – is accurate), which means that George Werner will probably be the one to break the tie.
re 12: Well, the one thing KJS won’t do is say that they aren’t a diocese; that would be tantamount to freeing them! The best she could do is create a rump diocese which she could hope would consent. If they can’t vote, and there’s nobody else to vote int their place, then they haven’t consented. And it says volumes about the either the ignorance (and after the Forrester debacle, who has an excuse for ignorance?) or the bitterness circulating around the election.
Well, if Lisa is in Missouri, perhaps she should worry about Missouri? Nah. It’s in the bag for Glasspool. Just the “show me” diocese staying, as George Wayne Smith so eloquently phrased it, “as Anglican as we can.”
Why would South Carolina object? Holy Scripture is silent on the matter of lesbians. Leviticus condemns a man lying with a man, right? 🙂
I’m wondering why Canon Harmon has linked to such a lightweight as Lisa Fox. Does she have creds I don’t know about?
RE: “Holy Scripture is silent on the matter of lesbians.”
Wow — yet another example of colossal ignorance of Scripture.
Every day, another revelation of the depths.