Some, I am certain, will argue about the actions of Bishop Duncan and some of the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and seek to justify the action of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops. My argument is not whether or not he did something, but the fact that we have a new rule of order that has evolved, and it has not been brought about by the Councils of the Church nor is in keeping with Canonical structure. As I have shared before, this is a precedent that is a danger to the dignified order of The Episcopal Church as we have known it, and this must be corrected.
During the past year we have had several matters that have been handled by the House of Bishops that have disturbed a number of bishops within the House, as well as many clergy and laity across the Church.
To begin with, two bishops, the Rt. Rev’d William J. Cox (retired) and the Rt. Rev’d John-David Schofield, (Bishop of San Joaquin) were deposed earlier this year when a vote was held under the direction of the Presiding Bishop. This action was seen by many, including me, as contrary to the Constitution and Canons of General Convention [2006], as Title IV.Canon 9.Section 2 specifically states that if the action is taken by the House of Bishops, then it must be “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry ”¦” (Note: “majority of the whole number,” not just those in attendance) Additionally, precluded in this action was the inhibition of these two men as the three senior bishops of the Church failed to provide consent to the Presiding Bishop to inhibit them. The actions taken in both of these circumstances were done through a pre-emptive interpretation of the Constitution and Canons.
Following this action, which met much opposition post House of Bishops meeting, the Presiding Bishop called a special convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin for the purpose of electing a new bishop, an individual picked and nominated by her. This action, the calling of a convention by the Presiding Bishop, was also in violation of the Constitution and Canons of General Contention [2006] as it was done under the precept that there was no Ecclesiastical Authority as the Presiding Bishop had declared the Standing Committee invalid. This action, conflicts with The Constitution and Canons as they provide very clearly that the Standing Committee is the Ecclesiastical Authority when there is not a bishop, and in this particular case the Diocese of San Joaquin had a duly elected body to fill this responsibility.
I am saddened to report that this behaviour did not end here, as during the most recent meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City, the deposition of a third bishop was raised. The Rt. Rev’d Robert W. Duncan (Bishop of Pittsburgh) was deposed on the grounds of “abandoning the Communion” by virtue of a roll call vote with 88 bishops in favour and 35 opposed. I voted in opposition to the resolution to depose. Much time, in fact a tremendous amount of time was spent on this matter, which had been added to our original agenda. Also added was a “hearing” on this with the Council of Advice, and in my capacity as Chair of this body, presided over this 1/1-2 hour session. (I might point out that if you look at the vote from the standpoint of diocesan bishops, that is bishops with jurisdiction, the vote was actually 50 to 30.)
There was much debate over the rightness, or better stated, the wrongness of this entire allegation, and there was considerable opposition to the charge against Bishop Duncan. The resistance to the action being taken was centered more on what was seen as pre-emptive action pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of General Convention [2006] and failure to provide due process. The pre-emptive action as applied to the Canons, and failure for proper process, rest in the fact that Bishop Duncan was never inhibited, nor did he have the right of a trial made available to him.
The ruling to place this before the House for deposition was made by the Presiding Bishop, and as I have previously written to the diocese, I was one of the bishops that challenged the ruling based upon the irregularities stated above. This required a two-thirds majority to overrule, and thus did not carry. This was subsequently followed by a request for a roll call vote being asked for by nine bishops, myself included. These things were not carried out in the form of a rebellious mood, but rather, with deep concern for the direction the Church is moving with total disregard for proper order, adherence to the Constitution and Canons, and a precedent being set that will enable the disruption of any bishop or diocese that does not subscribe to the present direction of General Convention or the Office of the Presiding Bishop.
Some, I am certain, will argue about the actions of Bishop Duncan and some of the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and seek to justify the action of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops. My argument is not whether or not he did something, but the fact that we have a new rule of order that has evolved, and it has not been brought about by the Councils of the Church nor is in keeping with Canonical structure. As I have shared before, this is a precedent that is a danger to the dignified order of The Episcopal Church as we have known it, and this must be corrected.
Read it all from here