Reading the comments of Mr. Haller and Ms. Fontaine (and Mr. Wimberly), I am delighted at the great progress of Mrs. Schori’s reconciliation strategy. What a sad, sick “church”.
[blockquote] We did not consent to the request for Bishop Duncan because the Diocese of Pittsburgh has not… [/blockquote] With all due respect, note please the faulty logic here: By action of the diocese, the bishop is condemned. Not by action of the bishop. By action of the diocese.
Brer Rabbit,
As I said in a previous post, TEC is a place where “logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead. And Beers is talking backwards And the PB’s “off with his (Duncan’s) head!”
Read the link. TEC position is that the 60 day clock is running. Duncan will be deposed at the first opportunity, even if it takes a special meeting of the HoB to do it.
Schori and her henchmen do not want the embarrassment and expense of another Diocese pulling out of TEC. It is far cheaper and more intimidating to others to do whatever is necessary to prevent the departure of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, rather than having to sue to regain the lost property.
Hang on to your miters, we have not seen anything yet.
So, when (NOT IF) the Diocese of Fort Worth completes its diocesan resolutions/votes to re-align with the Province of the Southern Cone is Bp. Wimberly going to vote in favor, and as an accomplice of KJS, to inhibit Bishop Iker?
It is always good to know ahead of time who your friends really are.
#2 This is what happens when you apply a canon to cover a situation it was never designed to cover and was never intended for. The intention of the canon application was to recognize clergy persons who had already departed from the Episcopal Church and had no intention of remaining in the Anglican Communion. It was not intended as punishment to remove someone from office.
#3–Apparently Dorsey Henderson is available 24/7 so getting a recommendation from the Title IV Review Committee should be a piece of cake, any day, any time. Dorsey’s complicity in all this makes me wonder what they have on him.
Note that the Presiding Bishop notified Bp. Duncan that:
Pursuant to the time limits stated in Canon IV.9, the matter will not come before the House of Bishops at its next scheduled meeting in March 2008, but will come before the House at the next meeting thereafter
As many have noted, including Haller, the problem with this position is that there is one and only one sentence in Canon IV.9 making any mention of a time limit and it is this:
Unless the inhibited Bishop, within two months, makes declaration by a
Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts
alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon
IV.8 or Canon III.12.7, as applicable, the Bishop will be liable to Deposition.
It is quite clear from this sentence that the two-month period applies only to inhibited bishops. Whatever else he may be, Bp. Duncan is manifestly not inhibited. Why the Presiding Bishop would simultaneously advise Duncan that he is not inhibited and yet subject to the time limits of an inhibited bishop is an interesting question.
#7: This is easy to understand; just remember it is the Church of Wonderland:
“The question is,†said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.â€
“The question is,†said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.â€
“So, when…the Diocese of Fort Worth…votes to re-align with the Province of the Southern Cone is Bp. Wimberly going to vote in favor, and as an accomplice of KJS, to inhibit Bishop Iker?” —Spiro
Spiro’s comment may well be UNJUST to Bp. Wimberly, who seems to be saying that he will vote to inhibit bishops AFTER their dioceses vote to leave. What exactly would be the harm in that? If that’s what Wimberly does, how would he be serving as an “accomplice” of KJS? The diocese and its property would be gone.
7 Mark M.- I think that Schori is playing fast and loose when she said she was “bringing the matter before the next HoB meeting”. Most lawyers would interpret that as being a motion for deposition. But politicians would not do so, instead recognizing that the agenda could be manipulated so that for lack of a legal basis for deposition [i]at that time[/i], the HoB might pass a resolution warning Duncan or even censuring the bishop or diocese for its contemplated actions (aka thoughtcrimes). There are any number of political reasons for Schori do these things that fall short of deposition, just as Wimberly noted that the actions of bishop and diocese fell short of inhibition.
And this, from the Beers/Schori playbook explains it too:
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
9 Irenaeus- If Wimberly wanted to have clean hands, he shouldn’t play in this muck at all. But you are right about the practical results of the matter.
Why should folks who have quite publicly left the Episcopal Church and joined a completely different church body, which has proudly proclaimed itself to be out of communion with TEC, [b]care[/b] whether they are inhibited from acting in a representative capacity for the church that they left behind?
Note that I am asking only about Bp. Schofield and not other bishops who have not, as of this writing, definitively left TEC. I think the distinction Bp. Wimberley made between the two situations is perfectly logical.
Re #5: Similarly, how is it “punishment” to give folks who have
voluntarily removed themselves from a church office (bishop in the Episcopal Church), with the announced intent to take up office in another church that is not in communion with the first one, exactly what they want?
I agree with you that the canons do not precisely address this situation. However, if TEC were to take the position that these folks had lawfully transferred to another jurisdiction while continuing to function in their original ministry and locale, they would necessarily be agreeing that this is proper (a proposition they strongly deny). If they were to simply regard them as having “resigned for reasons of missionary policy,” they would retain their vote in the TEC House of Bishops. If TEC does nothing, it must continue to regard them as having continued oversight of their diocese, including the people and parishes that wish to remain Episcopalian—who would have no means of doing so without the oversight of a TEC bishop. About the only remaining alternative is to regard them as having left “this church,” which is not to say they have left [b]the[/b] church; the only route for doing that is to invoke the deposition statutes.
Re Nearly Everybody: The Episcopal Church does not purport to have the power to erase someone’s ordination (“Thou art a priest forever”). All that inhibition and deposition claim to do is to remove someone’s official capacity to function as clergy in “this church,” a term that is uniformly used throughout the Constitution and Canons to describe The Episcopal Church, not the Church Universal or even the Anglican Communion.
If Southern Cone wants to accept Bps. Schofield, Duncan, and Iker (as members, as clergy, or as bishops), that is a matter for “that church,” not “this church,” to decide. It is certainly legally free to do so. No TEC action is binding on any other member of the Anglican Communion. If Southern Cone wants to recognize its own dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth, nobody can stop them.
Other provinces are, of course, welcome not to recognize that action because no Southern Cone action is binding on any other member of the Communion, either. Historically, of course, all the provinces of the Communion recognized and enforced one another’s disciplinary actions (and nobody was allowed to transfer without letters dimissory), but those were the days when Anglicanism was still tied together by bonds of affection.
It is fighting over words, not substance, to argue whether these bishops and dioceses are still within the Anglican Communion. As a matter of observable fact, some provinces (including, but not limited to, the Common Cause Partnership sponsors) will regard them as Anglican bishops with jurisdiction in good standing. Other provinces (including, but certainly not limited to, TEC) will not regard them as having jurisdiction over a constituent entity of the Communion. That may seem strange, but it is not unprecedented. Anglicanism has not had a universally accepted “clergy roll” with full mutual recognition and transferability for over thirty years. Women priests can be clergy in good standing within most Anglican provinces, but not all.
What is not just a matter of words rather than substance is that folks who have voluntarily left TEC have no real gripe when it acknowledges their departure in the least-bad way (there is no best or even good way) possible.
Will it be interesting when the time comes when a diocese votes to remove itself from TEC to another province and the bishop refuses to go. Think about those implications…
PS to #9: In voting to inhibit a bishop only after he has left ECUSA, Bp. Wimberly is resisting 815’s expansive reading of the abandonment canon.
True, as DDW [#5] points out, the canon was intended ever more narrowly: e.g., to cover priests who became Roman Catholics without resigning their Episcopal orders. True, inhibiting bishops who transfer to another province of the Anglican Communion is spiteful and petty. But it’s still a far cry from the current practice of using the abandonment canon as a sort of unregulated ecclesiastical Guantanamo.
815 and its allies should ponder the parallels to Guantanamo detention. Under the Bush Administration’s view of Guantanamo (now partially rejected by the courts and limited by Congress), all that mattered was whether the president had branded a detainee an “unlawful combatant.” If so, the detainee could be held indefinitely without trial, without the rights available to prisoners of war or criminal defendants. Under 815’s view of the abandonment canon, ECUSA can use the abandonment canon to short-circuit the normal processes of canonical discipline and cut off most of the accused’s rights.
Coming soon to a church dungeon near you: HolyWaterBoarding. Make that one Beers or two?
I tried to post this over that the Episcopal Cafe, but I was not registered and don’t feel like doing so:
************
I have 2 law degrees and am currently employed as legal reference librarian. There is no question at all that if this were before a secular court, Tobias Haller’s interpretation would be correct. It is what the text of the canon explicitly states and there is a due process principle involved that ambiguous statutes (and I don’t think this is ambiguous – the language is pretty clear) are interpreted strictly in the defendant’s favor. So unless TEC does not believe in the same due process principles that are otherwise taken for granted in America, Haller’s interpretation will win out.
I do have an issue with Haller though in that he thinks Duncan should be inhibited by Wimberly because of his advocacy. Duncan’s argument all along has been that 815 and GC have violated their fiduciary duty to protect the catholic faith of the Church, and therefore a radical reform is necessary. He is advocating a course of action which he believes (with some justification) is entirely within the canons and constitution of TEC (and a very good case can be made that dioceses do have the right to disaffiliate with GC under the canons). So we inhibit Duncan because he has a different interpretation of the canons then 815????
Would you all agree if there was a conservative PB in power that all the liberal bishops in TEC be charged with abandonment and inhibited because the PB would decide that they were violating the “doctrine” of TEC by their advocacy for a different interpretation????
I am very disturbed by what I am seeing coming out of the liberal camp on this. Due process is flung out the window once you think you can “win.” Respect for differences (inclusivity???) is flung out the window once you think you can “win.”
What bothers me about KJS’s rush to inhibit and depose bishops like JDS is not so much indignation for what it does to JDS personally, but rather for what it does to the wider church.
1. First off, I believe that under TEC’s constitution and canons and under Anglican polity and tradition, that the Diocese of San Joaquin – and any other current TEC diocese – has every right to disaffiliate with TEC’s General Convention and affiliate with another Province. Sure, 815 may dispute that, but I have yet to see them quote any specific canonical language to justify their position.
2. The Anglican Communion is currently hanging by a thread. TEC has repeatedly refused the several attempts by the Instruments of Unity of the Communion to bring a truce to the situation with a view towards resolving it. KJS has dealt in bad faith with the Communion (as at DES). TEC has not only caused the fracture, its continuing intransigence is exacerbating the situation.
3. The TEC dioceses and bishops in the process of disaffiliating are doing so in direct response to TEC’s refusal to abide by the DES solution.
4. Rowan Williams, in his Advent Letter, called for facilitated negotiations between 815 and its internal and external opponents. Bishop Schofield has indicated to KJS that he was hopeful that those negotiations might help clarify the situation, despite 815’s and KJS’s history of bad faith negotiating.
So, in response to what these dioceses have done, KJS had several options open to her. Dan Martins has suggested one course. The point is, that KJS could have responded by trying to move foward in a non-litigious, reconciling manner with a view towards healing the Communion. But she did not. Instead, the path she has chosen is the most violent, most destructive path open to her.
Would that KJS and her minions stop trying to handle this mess like an American multinational corporation trying to threaten, intimidate and sue all potential competitors into the ground, and instead acknowledge what Rowan Williams and the other Instruments of Communion have declared – that it can’t radically and unilaterally depart from catholic Anglican doctrine and still expect to be considered fully Anglican – and seek to resolve the situation amicably, respectfully and justly. THAT, Dale, is what upsets me about this.
“I am very disturbed by what I am seeing coming out of the liberal camp on this. Due process is flung out the window once you think you can ‘win.’
I, too, have been disturbed about such for a long, long time. But I am no longer surprised. It is the predictable course of Existential Modern Liberals whose basic philosophies are irrepairably flawed.
“Would you all agree if there was a conservative PB in power that all the liberal bishops in TEC be charged with abandonment and inhibited because the PB would decide that they were violating the “doctrine” of TEC by their advocacy for a different interpretation????”
Not being an attorney, my answer is “No,” but I say that if the majority of the primates decided that they were violating the doctrine of the majority of the Anglican Communion, I’m afraid that my answer would have to be “Yes.”
Who said: “When you have the Evidence in your favor, Pound the Evidence! When you have the Law (procedurally) in your favor, Pound the Law! When you have neither the Evidence, or the Law, POUND THE TABLE! Ms. Schori is simply pounding the Table. Bp. Wimberly apparently cares more about Evidence and Law. Good for him, in this case!!
Re: #13: Dale I agree with your analysis up to a point. When I began practice I was told that a good lawyer will advise the client what he can do. A great lawyer will tell him that he’s a darn fool if he does it.
#24 I agree with you that the PB and Beers are simply pounding the table. The language of Canon IV.9 is clear that a Bishop cannot be deposed without first being inhibited. I continue to be confident that the 2 months mentioned in the PB’s letter is a smokescreen.
For 815 to attempt to run roughshod over +Duncan in the face of the clear language of the Canon would not help them with even those Primates who are inclined to agree with them. Think about this: the Canon sets up a procedure for inhibition to occur only after the three senior Bishops agree. If the PB can go ahead and have the HOB depose a bishop in a case where the three senior Bishops don’t concur, what’s the point of that provision? Why even bother asking for them to concur?
I repeat: Canon IV.9 is clear. Any attempt to go around it will only make the PB and Beers look to the whole Anglican world like the nasty, evil people we have come to know.
The purpose of the request by Schori that +Bishop Duncan reply within 60 days is so that he can be deposed by the HoB after 60 days if he does not respond.
BillS, that may be her purpose, but it has no basis in the Canon.
What Mark McCall (#7) quoted above is the controlling language. She may be evil, but I don’t think we should conclude that she and Beers will attempt something that can’t be supported by Holy Polity.
Hanks and others – KJS and David Booth Beers will almost certainly attempt to depose Duncan regardless of what the canon says. They will do so with two justifications:
1. If you look at the “legislative history” of this canon, the original language did not include the inhibition. The part about suspending the bishop was a later addition. Even as late as 1979, the language suggested that the suspension was an optional add-on. You can bet that DBB and KJS will argue that this history will trump the text of the canon.
2. In any case, there is no competent independent body in TEC to rule on the meaning of the canons. The only recourse to a wilful abuse of the canons by KJS is for a Presentment to be lodged against her after the fact or for she herself to be charged with Abandonment of Communion for violating the discipline of this Church. Either charge *should* be valid, but what do you think the chances are that KJS would be convicted? The liberals have the reins of power in TEC, and we see their commitment to due process.
So I fully expect KJS to proceed with the deposition. What the orthodox must do is continue to point out the canonical violations in so doing, and thereby undercut TEC’s credibility both to the Anglican Communion and to the American media.
JamesW:
[i]1. First off, I believe that under TEC’s constitution and canons and under Anglican polity and tradition, that the Diocese of San Joaquin – and any other current TEC diocese – has every right to disaffiliate with TEC’s General Convention and affiliate with another Province. Sure, 815 may dispute that, but I have yet to see them quote any specific canonical language to justify their position. [/i]
To KJS the episcopal church is like the “Hotel California” — once you are in, you can check out, but you can never leave.
[blockquote] What the orthodox must do is continue to point out the canonical violations in so doing, and thereby undercut TEC’s credibility both to the Anglican Communion and to the American media.
[/blockquote]
JamesW, that is one of the reasons why I have been making this point both here and on Stand Firm. The language is clear and we must continue to say it loudly and often.
It would be interesting (or maybe better than interesting) if +Duncan would respond to her letter by pointing out that he has not been inhibited and so the Canon does not allow the HOB to act.
I was initially very disappointed when Bishop Wimberly consented to Bishop Schofield’s inhibition, but when I read the following part of canon 9, I changed my mind.
CANON 9: Of Abandonment of the Communion of This Church by a Bishop … (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, …
Presuming this is what Bishop Wimberly based his consent on, I would have to agree. Bishop Schofield has admitted himself into the Southern Cone and TEC is, by preceding with this inhibition, is stating that they are not in communion with the Southern Cone. I base my presumption that this is what Bishop Wimberly based his consent on because the difference between Bishop Duncan and Bishop Schofield sited by Bishop Wimberly is that Bishop Duncan (along with his Diocese) have “not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church,” therefore he has not admitted himself into a religious body not in communion with TEC.
The relevant portion of Canon IV.9.2 reads
“Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, 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, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.â€
A modest suggestion: when discussing the relevance of time limits in Canon IV.9, quote the part of the canon containing the time limit.
I fully agree with your analysis and strategy. Yet, the reappraisers read it differently, and they have the votes. Most importantly, +Bp Duncan is the kingpin, the major thorn in her side. Schori may believe that if she can take him down, there will short term be some commotion, but he is then no longer in a position to cause her trouble.
Equally important, she does not want to allow him to lead DoP out of TEC. Maybe they leave anyway, but with her appointed henchman in charge it will be more difficult.
“Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” Schori to Beers.
History repeats itself.
As a follow-up to my #33, note that the “otherwise†sentence, which is the sole basis being proposed for going ahead with Duncan’s deposition, states that it is the PB’s “duty†to present the matter to the HOB at the next meeting. That, however, is precisely what she informed Bp. Duncan she will not do.
So far the plan seems to be to apply to the non-inhibited Duncan the time limits applicable to inhibited bishops and then pursuant to an alleged “duty†to go forward without an inhibition at the next meeting, to ignore that duty and do it at the meeting after that. I think it’s clearer now.
BillS, I understand what you’re saying. However, there is such a thing as over-reaching.
I could easily imagine THE THREE SENIOR BISHOPS taking some umbrage with the PB and Beers just blowing off what is clearly their prerogative under the Canon. And in my hopeful moments, I want to believe that there are a bunch of otherwise liberal bishops who don’t want to be part of a lynching.
Hanks #36 – yet another reason why we orthodox need to make sure that the correct interpretation of Canon IV.9 gets out there and stays out there. TEC is proposing trampling basic due process rights. They need to be called on it. They have the raw power to force this through – but they cannot control the reaction to that display of brutality.
Re #32: Southern Cone has since 2003 maintained that it is not in communion with TEC. Therefore, it is hardly a stretch to hold that someone who joins that province has abandoned communion with TEC (while somebody who has only announced plans to join that province in the future has not). The issue is not whether both TEC and Southern Cone are members of the Anglican Communion (i.e., in communion with the historic See of Canterbury), as they both clearly are for the moment, but whether they are in communion with one another in these particular circumstances.
Those are two separate issues. For example, TEC is in communion with both Canterbury and the ELCA, but that does not mean that the ELCA is in communion with Canterbury or that Lutherans now are Anglicans. Similarly, some Lutheran churches in Europe that are in communion with Canterbury, but not TEC, do not constitute part of the Anglican Communion.
Being in communion is not an either/or binary choice; there can be areas where communion exists, but is not complete. Nigeria and England, for example, are in communion for purposes of sharing the sacraments under most circumstances, for the transfer of laity, and for altar and pulpit exchange of male clergy, but not for purposes of allowing female English clergy to exercise their ministry in Nigeria. TEC recognizes Southern Cone ordained ministry when exercised in South America, but not when exercised in North America without the consent of the local TEC bishop.
re 13: I suspect that this is to some degree really about creating more “facts on the ground” to make it difficult for the communion opponents to press their case at Lambeth. Inhibiting and deposing Schofield, Duncan, and Iker (and I would imagine a bunch of others) puts Cantuar in the position of having to reconsider whether they should be invited; assuming he sticks with the letter of his rules, they would be disinvited, and there would be more likelihood of a major pullout by the conservative South. That in turn would tend to tilt Lambeth towards not expelling ECUSA. If I were Williams, I’d probably invite them anyway, even though that would then give 815 a pretext for quitting the communion in a small blue (but entirely “justified”) huff. On the other hand, I can also see American bishops going to Lambeth anyway, in defiance. Isn’t self-righteous indignation wonderful?
Further to jamesw’s emphasis on due process, consider the Title IV Review Committee’s action. They simply took the complaining parties allegations, slapped a one page cover letter on it and called that their certificate of abandonment. How did they identify the acts and declarations constituting the alleged abandonment? Merely by saying that the acts and declarations constituting abandonment are “fully set forth” in the materials submitted by the complaining parties (i.e., they’re there but it’s up to you to find them?), and elsewhere saying, without analysis, that “taken together or separately” the information submitted demonstrates abandonment by an open renunciation of Doctrine, Discipline or Worship.
Is the Diocese of Pittsburgh bound under their existing canons to follow TEC’s conclusion? What if their Chancellor concluded that TEC was faulty in their interpretation of the canons? As a matter of employment law – is Bishop Duncan an employee of TEC or the Diocese of Pittsburgh? Would this be considered interference in his employment – which – if I remember correctly was one of the issues Benisson was sued for (also in PA)? It would seem to me that any action by TEC is far more complicated than they intend.
Dale (#38), there has been no authoritative declaration from TEC that it is out of Communion with anybody, let alone the Southern Cone. Declarations of the Southern Cone should not be given effect in disciplinary proceedings within TEC. The language of the canon should be read to require a finding first that when ++Schofield acted, TEC itself had already broken off communion with the Southern Cone, and he then joined them notwithstanding TEC’s declaration. This is why 815 and Beers are hoist by their own petard: to carry out the deposition of ++Schofield, they will have to admit that the consecration of ++VGR broke communion with the Anglican provinces that have so regarded it.
Dale, this discussion thread is about the threatening letter to Bp Duncan, not about Bp Schofield coming deposition. The canonical legal maneuverings against Bp Schofield are both expected and irrelevant. On the other hand, the threatened deposition of Bp Duncan are both unexpected and very relevant. Nobody expected the PeeBee to play this fast and this loose with canon law. It is clear that 815 wants to be proactive rather than reactive.
What would happen to the diocese of Pittsburgh realignment process if Bp Duncan is deposed before the next diocesan meeting? How is this going to affect the realignment process of Quincy?
My reading of the constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh is that they can not vote to leave the Episcopal Church until their next Annual Convention. The soonest such a convention could be held under the same constitution is October 1 of this year.
That should give everyone an idea of what time frame we are looking at.
Assuming that the Presiding Bishop does not intend to depose Bishop Duncan at the Spring meeting of the House of Bishops, she can call a meeting of the House of Bishops so to do at her pleasure.
Dale,
What Ed said in 39.
A mantra (otherwise known in some circles as a “talking point”) heard around the Anglican Communion in places especially that have fostered, engendered, developed, same-sex union blessings and other theological and liturgical innovations, is this: “They might have said what they said, but we still consider ourselves to be inclusive and open to all fellowship and Communion, and that includes them.”
The naive eat that stuff up.
I say that because if a statement of break of Communion comes from some other Anglican Province (and, note, you should probably quote those source documents when you state those things), and a Canonical response against an affected member of this body is called forward presuming THEIR statement of break to now be OUR statement of break (as in not being a Church in Communion and thus allowing for claiming Abandonment from that section), then ….
the naive have been deceived.
Who will tell the deceived that their trusted leaders placed contingencies on their stated inclusiveness and “love”?
Not you, not me…..its not our responsibility. No, those leaders themselves. And they will not do that until they have been brought up short. And even then, we see, there are no apologies. I hate to be skeptical, but I doubt if there will be apologies coming.
After reading Canon IV.9, my conclusion is that it’s poorly written and ambiguous.
Sec. 1 says:
If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church [in ways enumerated here] it shall be the duty of the Review Committee […] to certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment, which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding Bishop.
So far, so good; the Review Committee has done so. Then it goes on:
The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon.
The canon simply fails to consider the case where the three senior bishops might not consent, as happened here. That silence could mean that if the consent to inhibition is not given, the entire process is stopped. However, the intent of inhibition is clearly to be like a temporary injuction, to put a halt to things while the investigation proceeds. In that case, it seems a reasonable interpretation that the inhibition is “optional”; that the requisite steps are the certification followed by the meeting of the HOB to consider deposition. The canon is ambiguous on this.
Sec. 2 then goes on:
The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and Inhibition.
…which, again, simply assumes that the senior bishops consented to the inhibition once the certification was in hand. The argument that inhibition is a required step seems to come largely from the next sentence:
Unless the inhibited Bishop, within two months [says he didn’t do it] the Bishop will be liable to Deposition.
…which on the face of it does not apply to a bishop who is not inhibited, but to my mind is simply sloppy writing for “the bishop we’ve been talking about.” Admittedly, one might very well argue that, sloppy or not, what the canon says is what it says.
Further evidence that this canon is just plain badly written comes from the next sentence:
If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting to Inhibition, terminate the Inhibition.
which seems to be missing a verb. I presume it’s intended to say “the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent etc., shall terminate” (or perhaps “…may terminate,” a not inconsequential difference) “the Inhibition.” Doesn’t anybody proofread these things?
In any case, the canon goes on:
Otherwise [that is, if the Presiding Bishop is not “reasonably satisfied” that the statement that the accused bishop had the opportunity to submit within the two months after being notified constitued a convincing retraction or denial] it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House.
…at which point the entire House gets to vote on whether or not to depose.
So at the end of the day I would say:
1) Somebody needs to write these things more carefully.
2) A strictly by-the-letter interpretation of the canon could be taken to mean that if the three senior bishops do not consent to inhibition, the process is derailed and proceeds no farther.
3) While reading for the intent is always dangerous, it seems clear enough in this case that the intent behind this canon is that once a bishop is certified by the Review Committee, then either he recants or convinces the PB that the charges are baseless, or the matter goes to the HOB for a vote.
I’m not sure that either interpretation of the canon is obviously more correct than the other; and this is why the secular government has courts to issue binding interpretations of the laws. That being said, my inclination would be that since the Review Committee has concluded that there is sufficient reason to investigate the matter, it might as well go to the HOB to decide it.
Debates about which interpretation of the canons is correct are, unfortunately, meaningless. The Presiding Bishop is going to depose Bp. Duncan (and Bp. Iker too) regardless of what the canons say. Due process no longer regulates how TEC acts; we have entered a period of hardball where 815 is going to use its control of the TEC bureaucracy to achieve the results the Presiding Bishop wants, when she wants them. Full stop.
Publius, what you say may be true. All the more reason for calling the PB on her ruthless, devious, evil actions. We want the whole Anglican and Christian world to know how cavalier Sister Kate is with due process and the truth if she proceeds with deposition of Bishop Duncan.
So the discussion about her holy and sacred Canons is worth the time.
Ross: And that is why it is important to compare the current language to previous language in this canon.
The current canon says this:
Unless the inhibited Bishop, within two months…
Now you are suggesting “sloppy” drafting and what they really meant to do was refer to the bishop in question. But the previous canon did just that. Here is the 1979 version:
The Presiding Bishop shall forthwith give notice to the said Bishop of such suspension, and that unless he…
So from 1979 to current, the canon language was specifically changed from “the said Bishop” to “the inhibited Bishop”. That, Ross, is not sloppy drafting.
And an age-old principle of statutory interpretation is that you must go by the text of the statute. In the case of Canon IV.9, the text is very plain. Only an “inhibited bishop” is liable to deposition and only an “inhibited bishop” has a 2 month window to recant. That is what the canon says. If the liberals don’t like it, they should change the canon at the next General Convention according to the rules, not engage in abuse of process.
If we abandon the letter of IV.9 to apply intent, see #5. The intent of this canon was never to deal with contested matters. That is what presentments are for.
Ross, the Canon makes no sense in this case because it was not intended for a sitting bishop who had attended the last HOB meeting and was still part of the Episcopal Church. It was intended for a Bishop who had left the Episcopal Church for another fellowship all together. Thus, if Duncan had declared his intention to become a Roman Catholic priest and had taken steps to do so, then the canon would make sense.
What KJS is attempting to do here is work around a trial such that +Duncan doesn’t have the opportunity to defend himself. If she wanted to depose him, the bring him up on charges – specifying the canons he has violated, give him a fair trial (such as Walter Righter had) and let the process work itself out. Otherwise, you will have to wait until he leaves for another province and then depose him after he has ceased to be a member of the HoB.
Reading the comments of Mr. Haller and Ms. Fontaine (and Mr. Wimberly), I am delighted at the great progress of Mrs. Schori’s reconciliation strategy. What a sad, sick “church”.
[blockquote] We did not consent to the request for Bishop Duncan because the Diocese of Pittsburgh has not… [/blockquote] With all due respect, note please the faulty logic here: By action of the diocese, the bishop is condemned. Not by action of the bishop. By action of the diocese.
Brer Rabbit,
As I said in a previous post, TEC is a place where “logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead. And Beers is talking backwards And the PB’s “off with his (Duncan’s) head!”
Read the link. TEC position is that the 60 day clock is running. Duncan will be deposed at the first opportunity, even if it takes a special meeting of the HoB to do it.
Schori and her henchmen do not want the embarrassment and expense of another Diocese pulling out of TEC. It is far cheaper and more intimidating to others to do whatever is necessary to prevent the departure of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, rather than having to sue to regain the lost property.
Hang on to your miters, we have not seen anything yet.
So, when (NOT IF) the Diocese of Fort Worth completes its diocesan resolutions/votes to re-align with the Province of the Southern Cone is Bp. Wimberly going to vote in favor, and as an accomplice of KJS, to inhibit Bishop Iker?
It is always good to know ahead of time who your friends really are.
Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX
#2 This is what happens when you apply a canon to cover a situation it was never designed to cover and was never intended for. The intention of the canon application was to recognize clergy persons who had already departed from the Episcopal Church and had no intention of remaining in the Anglican Communion. It was not intended as punishment to remove someone from office.
#3–Apparently Dorsey Henderson is available 24/7 so getting a recommendation from the Title IV Review Committee should be a piece of cake, any day, any time. Dorsey’s complicity in all this makes me wonder what they have on him.
I encourage everyone to read the comments at Episcopal Café in the piece linked above, especially those of Tobias Haller, both there and on his own blog to which he links. I commend Haller for having the integrity to read Canon IV.9, to accept what it quite plainly says and to disagree publicly with his fellow progressives.
Note that the Presiding Bishop notified Bp. Duncan that:
As many have noted, including Haller, the problem with this position is that there is one and only one sentence in Canon IV.9 making any mention of a time limit and it is this:
It is quite clear from this sentence that the two-month period applies only to inhibited bishops. Whatever else he may be, Bp. Duncan is manifestly not inhibited. Why the Presiding Bishop would simultaneously advise Duncan that he is not inhibited and yet subject to the time limits of an inhibited bishop is an interesting question.
#7: This is easy to understand; just remember it is the Church of Wonderland:
“The question is,†said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.â€
“The question is,†said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.â€
“So, when…the Diocese of Fort Worth…votes to re-align with the Province of the Southern Cone is Bp. Wimberly going to vote in favor, and as an accomplice of KJS, to inhibit Bishop Iker?” —Spiro
Spiro’s comment may well be UNJUST to Bp. Wimberly, who seems to be saying that he will vote to inhibit bishops AFTER their dioceses vote to leave. What exactly would be the harm in that? If that’s what Wimberly does, how would he be serving as an “accomplice” of KJS? The diocese and its property would be gone.
7 Mark M.- I think that Schori is playing fast and loose when she said she was “bringing the matter before the next HoB meeting”. Most lawyers would interpret that as being a motion for deposition. But politicians would not do so, instead recognizing that the agenda could be manipulated so that for lack of a legal basis for deposition [i]at that time[/i], the HoB might pass a resolution warning Duncan or even censuring the bishop or diocese for its contemplated actions (aka thoughtcrimes). There are any number of political reasons for Schori do these things that fall short of deposition, just as Wimberly noted that the actions of bishop and diocese fell short of inhibition.
And this, from the Beers/Schori playbook explains it too:
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
9 Irenaeus- If Wimberly wanted to have clean hands, he shouldn’t play in this muck at all. But you are right about the practical results of the matter.
Re #4: OK, I’ve asked this question before, but…
Why should folks who have quite publicly left the Episcopal Church and joined a completely different church body, which has proudly proclaimed itself to be out of communion with TEC, [b]care[/b] whether they are inhibited from acting in a representative capacity for the church that they left behind?
Note that I am asking only about Bp. Schofield and not other bishops who have not, as of this writing, definitively left TEC. I think the distinction Bp. Wimberley made between the two situations is perfectly logical.
Re #5: Similarly, how is it “punishment” to give folks who have
voluntarily removed themselves from a church office (bishop in the Episcopal Church), with the announced intent to take up office in another church that is not in communion with the first one, exactly what they want?
I agree with you that the canons do not precisely address this situation. However, if TEC were to take the position that these folks had lawfully transferred to another jurisdiction while continuing to function in their original ministry and locale, they would necessarily be agreeing that this is proper (a proposition they strongly deny). If they were to simply regard them as having “resigned for reasons of missionary policy,” they would retain their vote in the TEC House of Bishops. If TEC does nothing, it must continue to regard them as having continued oversight of their diocese, including the people and parishes that wish to remain Episcopalian—who would have no means of doing so without the oversight of a TEC bishop. About the only remaining alternative is to regard them as having left “this church,” which is not to say they have left [b]the[/b] church; the only route for doing that is to invoke the deposition statutes.
Re Nearly Everybody: The Episcopal Church does not purport to have the power to erase someone’s ordination (“Thou art a priest forever”). All that inhibition and deposition claim to do is to remove someone’s official capacity to function as clergy in “this church,” a term that is uniformly used throughout the Constitution and Canons to describe The Episcopal Church, not the Church Universal or even the Anglican Communion.
If Southern Cone wants to accept Bps. Schofield, Duncan, and Iker (as members, as clergy, or as bishops), that is a matter for “that church,” not “this church,” to decide. It is certainly legally free to do so. No TEC action is binding on any other member of the Anglican Communion. If Southern Cone wants to recognize its own dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth, nobody can stop them.
Other provinces are, of course, welcome not to recognize that action because no Southern Cone action is binding on any other member of the Communion, either. Historically, of course, all the provinces of the Communion recognized and enforced one another’s disciplinary actions (and nobody was allowed to transfer without letters dimissory), but those were the days when Anglicanism was still tied together by bonds of affection.
It is fighting over words, not substance, to argue whether these bishops and dioceses are still within the Anglican Communion. As a matter of observable fact, some provinces (including, but not limited to, the Common Cause Partnership sponsors) will regard them as Anglican bishops with jurisdiction in good standing. Other provinces (including, but certainly not limited to, TEC) will not regard them as having jurisdiction over a constituent entity of the Communion. That may seem strange, but it is not unprecedented. Anglicanism has not had a universally accepted “clergy roll” with full mutual recognition and transferability for over thirty years. Women priests can be clergy in good standing within most Anglican provinces, but not all.
What is not just a matter of words rather than substance is that folks who have voluntarily left TEC have no real gripe when it acknowledges their departure in the least-bad way (there is no best or even good way) possible.
Will it be interesting when the time comes when a diocese votes to remove itself from TEC to another province and the bishop refuses to go. Think about those implications…
Just think about it.
Don
PS to #9: In voting to inhibit a bishop only after he has left ECUSA, Bp. Wimberly is resisting 815’s expansive reading of the abandonment canon.
True, as DDW [#5] points out, the canon was intended ever more narrowly: e.g., to cover priests who became Roman Catholics without resigning their Episcopal orders. True, inhibiting bishops who transfer to another province of the Anglican Communion is spiteful and petty. But it’s still a far cry from the current practice of using the abandonment canon as a sort of unregulated ecclesiastical Guantanamo.
815 and its allies should ponder the parallels to Guantanamo detention. Under the Bush Administration’s view of Guantanamo (now partially rejected by the courts and limited by Congress), all that mattered was whether the president had branded a detainee an “unlawful combatant.” If so, the detainee could be held indefinitely without trial, without the rights available to prisoners of war or criminal defendants. Under 815’s view of the abandonment canon, ECUSA can use the abandonment canon to short-circuit the normal processes of canonical discipline and cut off most of the accused’s rights.
Coming soon to a church dungeon near you: HolyWaterBoarding. Make that one Beers or two?
When you’ve dozens of nails to drive, everything looks like a hammer.
“When you’ve dozens of nails to drive, everything looks like a hammer” —Ed the Roman
True and to the point. But hammer-wielding power abuses had better take care who they nail: Matthew 25:41:46.
Make that “hammer-wielding power ABUSERS.”
Make that Matthew 25:41-46.
Sorry about my typos. I usually do better.
I tried to post this over that the Episcopal Cafe, but I was not registered and don’t feel like doing so:
************
I have 2 law degrees and am currently employed as legal reference librarian. There is no question at all that if this were before a secular court, Tobias Haller’s interpretation would be correct. It is what the text of the canon explicitly states and there is a due process principle involved that ambiguous statutes (and I don’t think this is ambiguous – the language is pretty clear) are interpreted strictly in the defendant’s favor. So unless TEC does not believe in the same due process principles that are otherwise taken for granted in America, Haller’s interpretation will win out.
I do have an issue with Haller though in that he thinks Duncan should be inhibited by Wimberly because of his advocacy. Duncan’s argument all along has been that 815 and GC have violated their fiduciary duty to protect the catholic faith of the Church, and therefore a radical reform is necessary. He is advocating a course of action which he believes (with some justification) is entirely within the canons and constitution of TEC (and a very good case can be made that dioceses do have the right to disaffiliate with GC under the canons). So we inhibit Duncan because he has a different interpretation of the canons then 815????
Would you all agree if there was a conservative PB in power that all the liberal bishops in TEC be charged with abandonment and inhibited because the PB would decide that they were violating the “doctrine” of TEC by their advocacy for a different interpretation????
I am very disturbed by what I am seeing coming out of the liberal camp on this. Due process is flung out the window once you think you can “win.” Respect for differences (inclusivity???) is flung out the window once you think you can “win.”
Dale:
What bothers me about KJS’s rush to inhibit and depose bishops like JDS is not so much indignation for what it does to JDS personally, but rather for what it does to the wider church.
1. First off, I believe that under TEC’s constitution and canons and under Anglican polity and tradition, that the Diocese of San Joaquin – and any other current TEC diocese – has every right to disaffiliate with TEC’s General Convention and affiliate with another Province. Sure, 815 may dispute that, but I have yet to see them quote any specific canonical language to justify their position.
2. The Anglican Communion is currently hanging by a thread. TEC has repeatedly refused the several attempts by the Instruments of Unity of the Communion to bring a truce to the situation with a view towards resolving it. KJS has dealt in bad faith with the Communion (as at DES). TEC has not only caused the fracture, its continuing intransigence is exacerbating the situation.
3. The TEC dioceses and bishops in the process of disaffiliating are doing so in direct response to TEC’s refusal to abide by the DES solution.
4. Rowan Williams, in his Advent Letter, called for facilitated negotiations between 815 and its internal and external opponents. Bishop Schofield has indicated to KJS that he was hopeful that those negotiations might help clarify the situation, despite 815’s and KJS’s history of bad faith negotiating.
So, in response to what these dioceses have done, KJS had several options open to her. Dan Martins has suggested one course. The point is, that KJS could have responded by trying to move foward in a non-litigious, reconciling manner with a view towards healing the Communion. But she did not. Instead, the path she has chosen is the most violent, most destructive path open to her.
Would that KJS and her minions stop trying to handle this mess like an American multinational corporation trying to threaten, intimidate and sue all potential competitors into the ground, and instead acknowledge what Rowan Williams and the other Instruments of Communion have declared – that it can’t radically and unilaterally depart from catholic Anglican doctrine and still expect to be considered fully Anglican – and seek to resolve the situation amicably, respectfully and justly. THAT, Dale, is what upsets me about this.
20. jamesw wrote:
“I am very disturbed by what I am seeing coming out of the liberal camp on this. Due process is flung out the window once you think you can ‘win.’
I, too, have been disturbed about such for a long, long time. But I am no longer surprised. It is the predictable course of Existential Modern Liberals whose basic philosophies are irrepairably flawed.
“Would you all agree if there was a conservative PB in power that all the liberal bishops in TEC be charged with abandonment and inhibited because the PB would decide that they were violating the “doctrine” of TEC by their advocacy for a different interpretation????”
Not being an attorney, my answer is “No,” but I say that if the majority of the primates decided that they were violating the doctrine of the majority of the Anglican Communion, I’m afraid that my answer would have to be “Yes.”
For what it’s worth.
Who said: “When you have the Evidence in your favor, Pound the Evidence! When you have the Law (procedurally) in your favor, Pound the Law! When you have neither the Evidence, or the Law, POUND THE TABLE! Ms. Schori is simply pounding the Table. Bp. Wimberly apparently cares more about Evidence and Law. Good for him, in this case!!
Re: #13: Dale I agree with your analysis up to a point. When I began practice I was told that a good lawyer will advise the client what he can do. A great lawyer will tell him that he’s a darn fool if he does it.
#24 I agree with you that the PB and Beers are simply pounding the table. The language of Canon IV.9 is clear that a Bishop cannot be deposed without first being inhibited. I continue to be confident that the 2 months mentioned in the PB’s letter is a smokescreen.
For 815 to attempt to run roughshod over +Duncan in the face of the clear language of the Canon would not help them with even those Primates who are inclined to agree with them. Think about this: the Canon sets up a procedure for inhibition to occur only after the three senior Bishops agree. If the PB can go ahead and have the HOB depose a bishop in a case where the three senior Bishops don’t concur, what’s the point of that provision? Why even bother asking for them to concur?
I repeat: Canon IV.9 is clear. Any attempt to go around it will only make the PB and Beers look to the whole Anglican world like the nasty, evil people we have come to know.
The purpose of the request by Schori that +Bishop Duncan reply within 60 days is so that he can be deposed by the HoB after 60 days if he does not respond.
BillS, that may be her purpose, but it has no basis in the Canon.
What Mark McCall (#7) quoted above is the controlling language. She may be evil, but I don’t think we should conclude that she and Beers will attempt something that can’t be supported by Holy Polity.
Hanks and others – KJS and David Booth Beers will almost certainly attempt to depose Duncan regardless of what the canon says. They will do so with two justifications:
1. If you look at the “legislative history” of this canon, the original language did not include the inhibition. The part about suspending the bishop was a later addition. Even as late as 1979, the language suggested that the suspension was an optional add-on. You can bet that DBB and KJS will argue that this history will trump the text of the canon.
2. In any case, there is no competent independent body in TEC to rule on the meaning of the canons. The only recourse to a wilful abuse of the canons by KJS is for a Presentment to be lodged against her after the fact or for she herself to be charged with Abandonment of Communion for violating the discipline of this Church. Either charge *should* be valid, but what do you think the chances are that KJS would be convicted? The liberals have the reins of power in TEC, and we see their commitment to due process.
So I fully expect KJS to proceed with the deposition. What the orthodox must do is continue to point out the canonical violations in so doing, and thereby undercut TEC’s credibility both to the Anglican Communion and to the American media.
JamesW:
[i]1. First off, I believe that under TEC’s constitution and canons and under Anglican polity and tradition, that the Diocese of San Joaquin – and any other current TEC diocese – has every right to disaffiliate with TEC’s General Convention and affiliate with another Province. Sure, 815 may dispute that, but I have yet to see them quote any specific canonical language to justify their position. [/i]
To KJS the episcopal church is like the “Hotel California” — once you are in, you can check out, but you can never leave.
[blockquote] What the orthodox must do is continue to point out the canonical violations in so doing, and thereby undercut TEC’s credibility both to the Anglican Communion and to the American media.
[/blockquote]
JamesW, that is one of the reasons why I have been making this point both here and on Stand Firm. The language is clear and we must continue to say it loudly and often.
It would be interesting (or maybe better than interesting) if +Duncan would respond to her letter by pointing out that he has not been inhibited and so the Canon does not allow the HOB to act.
I was initially very disappointed when Bishop Wimberly consented to Bishop Schofield’s inhibition, but when I read the following part of canon 9, I changed my mind.
CANON 9: Of Abandonment of the Communion of This Church by a Bishop … (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, …
Presuming this is what Bishop Wimberly based his consent on, I would have to agree. Bishop Schofield has admitted himself into the Southern Cone and TEC is, by preceding with this inhibition, is stating that they are not in communion with the Southern Cone. I base my presumption that this is what Bishop Wimberly based his consent on because the difference between Bishop Duncan and Bishop Schofield sited by Bishop Wimberly is that Bishop Duncan (along with his Diocese) have “not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church,” therefore he has not admitted himself into a religious body not in communion with TEC.
Episcopal Café has now posted a [url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/does_the_lack_of_inhibition_of_1.html]â€reply briefâ€[/url]. After emphasizing the sentence from the PB’s letter to Bp. Duncan that I quoted above in #7, this post continues:
A modest suggestion: when discussing the relevance of time limits in Canon IV.9, quote the part of the canon containing the time limit.
hanks,
I fully agree with your analysis and strategy. Yet, the reappraisers read it differently, and they have the votes. Most importantly, +Bp Duncan is the kingpin, the major thorn in her side. Schori may believe that if she can take him down, there will short term be some commotion, but he is then no longer in a position to cause her trouble.
Equally important, she does not want to allow him to lead DoP out of TEC. Maybe they leave anyway, but with her appointed henchman in charge it will be more difficult.
“Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” Schori to Beers.
History repeats itself.
As a follow-up to my #33, note that the “otherwise†sentence, which is the sole basis being proposed for going ahead with Duncan’s deposition, states that it is the PB’s “duty†to present the matter to the HOB at the next meeting. That, however, is precisely what she informed Bp. Duncan she will not do.
So far the plan seems to be to apply to the non-inhibited Duncan the time limits applicable to inhibited bishops and then pursuant to an alleged “duty†to go forward without an inhibition at the next meeting, to ignore that duty and do it at the meeting after that. I think it’s clearer now.
BillS, I understand what you’re saying. However, there is such a thing as over-reaching.
I could easily imagine THE THREE SENIOR BISHOPS taking some umbrage with the PB and Beers just blowing off what is clearly their prerogative under the Canon. And in my hopeful moments, I want to believe that there are a bunch of otherwise liberal bishops who don’t want to be part of a lynching.
Hanks #36 – yet another reason why we orthodox need to make sure that the correct interpretation of Canon IV.9 gets out there and stays out there. TEC is proposing trampling basic due process rights. They need to be called on it. They have the raw power to force this through – but they cannot control the reaction to that display of brutality.
Re #32: Southern Cone has since 2003 maintained that it is not in communion with TEC. Therefore, it is hardly a stretch to hold that someone who joins that province has abandoned communion with TEC (while somebody who has only announced plans to join that province in the future has not). The issue is not whether both TEC and Southern Cone are members of the Anglican Communion (i.e., in communion with the historic See of Canterbury), as they both clearly are for the moment, but whether they are in communion with one another in these particular circumstances.
Those are two separate issues. For example, TEC is in communion with both Canterbury and the ELCA, but that does not mean that the ELCA is in communion with Canterbury or that Lutherans now are Anglicans. Similarly, some Lutheran churches in Europe that are in communion with Canterbury, but not TEC, do not constitute part of the Anglican Communion.
Being in communion is not an either/or binary choice; there can be areas where communion exists, but is not complete. Nigeria and England, for example, are in communion for purposes of sharing the sacraments under most circumstances, for the transfer of laity, and for altar and pulpit exchange of male clergy, but not for purposes of allowing female English clergy to exercise their ministry in Nigeria. TEC recognizes Southern Cone ordained ministry when exercised in South America, but not when exercised in North America without the consent of the local TEC bishop.
If communion is not a transitive operator, there is a real problem.
re 13: I suspect that this is to some degree really about creating more “facts on the ground” to make it difficult for the communion opponents to press their case at Lambeth. Inhibiting and deposing Schofield, Duncan, and Iker (and I would imagine a bunch of others) puts Cantuar in the position of having to reconsider whether they should be invited; assuming he sticks with the letter of his rules, they would be disinvited, and there would be more likelihood of a major pullout by the conservative South. That in turn would tend to tilt Lambeth towards not expelling ECUSA. If I were Williams, I’d probably invite them anyway, even though that would then give 815 a pretext for quitting the communion in a small blue (but entirely “justified”) huff. On the other hand, I can also see American bishops going to Lambeth anyway, in defiance. Isn’t self-righteous indignation wonderful?
Further to jamesw’s emphasis on due process, consider the Title IV Review Committee’s action. They simply took the complaining parties allegations, slapped a one page cover letter on it and called that their certificate of abandonment. How did they identify the acts and declarations constituting the alleged abandonment? Merely by saying that the acts and declarations constituting abandonment are “fully set forth” in the materials submitted by the complaining parties (i.e., they’re there but it’s up to you to find them?), and elsewhere saying, without analysis, that “taken together or separately” the information submitted demonstrates abandonment by an open renunciation of Doctrine, Discipline or Worship.
#21… thank you. Well said.
Is the Diocese of Pittsburgh bound under their existing canons to follow TEC’s conclusion? What if their Chancellor concluded that TEC was faulty in their interpretation of the canons? As a matter of employment law – is Bishop Duncan an employee of TEC or the Diocese of Pittsburgh? Would this be considered interference in his employment – which – if I remember correctly was one of the issues Benisson was sued for (also in PA)? It would seem to me that any action by TEC is far more complicated than they intend.
Dale (#38), there has been no authoritative declaration from TEC that it is out of Communion with anybody, let alone the Southern Cone. Declarations of the Southern Cone should not be given effect in disciplinary proceedings within TEC. The language of the canon should be read to require a finding first that when ++Schofield acted, TEC itself had already broken off communion with the Southern Cone, and he then joined them notwithstanding TEC’s declaration. This is why 815 and Beers are hoist by their own petard: to carry out the deposition of ++Schofield, they will have to admit that the consecration of ++VGR broke communion with the Anglican provinces that have so regarded it.
Dale, this discussion thread is about the threatening letter to Bp Duncan, not about Bp Schofield coming deposition. The canonical legal maneuverings against Bp Schofield are both expected and irrelevant. On the other hand, the threatened deposition of Bp Duncan are both unexpected and very relevant. Nobody expected the PeeBee to play this fast and this loose with canon law. It is clear that 815 wants to be proactive rather than reactive.
What would happen to the diocese of Pittsburgh realignment process if Bp Duncan is deposed before the next diocesan meeting? How is this going to affect the realignment process of Quincy?
My reading of the constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh is that they can not vote to leave the Episcopal Church until their next Annual Convention. The soonest such a convention could be held under the same constitution is October 1 of this year.
That should give everyone an idea of what time frame we are looking at.
Assuming that the Presiding Bishop does not intend to depose Bishop Duncan at the Spring meeting of the House of Bishops, she can call a meeting of the House of Bishops so to do at her pleasure.
Dale,
What Ed said in 39.
A mantra (otherwise known in some circles as a “talking point”) heard around the Anglican Communion in places especially that have fostered, engendered, developed, same-sex union blessings and other theological and liturgical innovations, is this: “They might have said what they said, but we still consider ourselves to be inclusive and open to all fellowship and Communion, and that includes them.”
The naive eat that stuff up.
I say that because if a statement of break of Communion comes from some other Anglican Province (and, note, you should probably quote those source documents when you state those things), and a Canonical response against an affected member of this body is called forward presuming THEIR statement of break to now be OUR statement of break (as in not being a Church in Communion and thus allowing for claiming Abandonment from that section), then ….
the naive have been deceived.
Who will tell the deceived that their trusted leaders placed contingencies on their stated inclusiveness and “love”?
Not you, not me…..its not our responsibility. No, those leaders themselves. And they will not do that until they have been brought up short. And even then, we see, there are no apologies. I hate to be skeptical, but I doubt if there will be apologies coming.
RGEaton
After reading Canon IV.9, my conclusion is that it’s poorly written and ambiguous.
Sec. 1 says:
So far, so good; the Review Committee has done so. Then it goes on:
The canon simply fails to consider the case where the three senior bishops might not consent, as happened here. That silence could mean that if the consent to inhibition is not given, the entire process is stopped. However, the intent of inhibition is clearly to be like a temporary injuction, to put a halt to things while the investigation proceeds. In that case, it seems a reasonable interpretation that the inhibition is “optional”; that the requisite steps are the certification followed by the meeting of the HOB to consider deposition. The canon is ambiguous on this.
Sec. 2 then goes on:
…which, again, simply assumes that the senior bishops consented to the inhibition once the certification was in hand. The argument that inhibition is a required step seems to come largely from the next sentence:
…which on the face of it does not apply to a bishop who is not inhibited, but to my mind is simply sloppy writing for “the bishop we’ve been talking about.” Admittedly, one might very well argue that, sloppy or not, what the canon says is what it says.
Further evidence that this canon is just plain badly written comes from the next sentence:
which seems to be missing a verb. I presume it’s intended to say “the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent etc., shall terminate” (or perhaps “…may terminate,” a not inconsequential difference) “the Inhibition.” Doesn’t anybody proofread these things?
In any case, the canon goes on:
…at which point the entire House gets to vote on whether or not to depose.
So at the end of the day I would say:
1) Somebody needs to write these things more carefully.
2) A strictly by-the-letter interpretation of the canon could be taken to mean that if the three senior bishops do not consent to inhibition, the process is derailed and proceeds no farther.
3) While reading for the intent is always dangerous, it seems clear enough in this case that the intent behind this canon is that once a bishop is certified by the Review Committee, then either he recants or convinces the PB that the charges are baseless, or the matter goes to the HOB for a vote.
I’m not sure that either interpretation of the canon is obviously more correct than the other; and this is why the secular government has courts to issue binding interpretations of the laws. That being said, my inclination would be that since the Review Committee has concluded that there is sufficient reason to investigate the matter, it might as well go to the HOB to decide it.
Debates about which interpretation of the canons is correct are, unfortunately, meaningless. The Presiding Bishop is going to depose Bp. Duncan (and Bp. Iker too) regardless of what the canons say. Due process no longer regulates how TEC acts; we have entered a period of hardball where 815 is going to use its control of the TEC bureaucracy to achieve the results the Presiding Bishop wants, when she wants them. Full stop.
Publius, what you say may be true. All the more reason for calling the PB on her ruthless, devious, evil actions. We want the whole Anglican and Christian world to know how cavalier Sister Kate is with due process and the truth if she proceeds with deposition of Bishop Duncan.
So the discussion about her holy and sacred Canons is worth the time.
Ross: And that is why it is important to compare the current language to previous language in this canon.
The current canon says this:
Now you are suggesting “sloppy” drafting and what they really meant to do was refer to the bishop in question. But the previous canon did just that. Here is the 1979 version:
So from 1979 to current, the canon language was specifically changed from “the said Bishop” to “the inhibited Bishop”. That, Ross, is not sloppy drafting.
And an age-old principle of statutory interpretation is that you must go by the text of the statute. In the case of Canon IV.9, the text is very plain. Only an “inhibited bishop” is liable to deposition and only an “inhibited bishop” has a 2 month window to recant. That is what the canon says. If the liberals don’t like it, they should change the canon at the next General Convention according to the rules, not engage in abuse of process.
If we abandon the letter of IV.9 to apply intent, see #5. The intent of this canon was never to deal with contested matters. That is what presentments are for.
Ross, the Canon makes no sense in this case because it was not intended for a sitting bishop who had attended the last HOB meeting and was still part of the Episcopal Church. It was intended for a Bishop who had left the Episcopal Church for another fellowship all together. Thus, if Duncan had declared his intention to become a Roman Catholic priest and had taken steps to do so, then the canon would make sense.
What KJS is attempting to do here is work around a trial such that +Duncan doesn’t have the opportunity to defend himself. If she wanted to depose him, the bring him up on charges – specifying the canons he has violated, give him a fair trial (such as Walter Righter had) and let the process work itself out. Otherwise, you will have to wait until he leaves for another province and then depose him after he has ceased to be a member of the HoB.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder