An attorney representing Bishop William J. Cox has accused Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of defaming the bishop, and has demanded that she publish a correction of her announcement concerning his deposition.
In a letter dated March 27, Wicks Stephens, a lawyer representing Bishop Cox, said that since the deposition failed to achieve the canonically required majority of “the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” the deposition is “without effect and void.” The Presiding Bishop has previously been made aware of the canonical deficiencies in the vote deposing Bishop Cox, the retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland and assisting bishop in Oklahoma. Therefore, Mr. Stephens said she may be guilty of defamation if she continues to make public statements to the contrary about his client.
“In light of the foregoing, demand is hereby made that you right the wrong by which you have defamed Bishop Cox by immediately withdrawing your pronouncement of deposition and that you publish your withdrawal in the same manner and to the same extent you have published your wrongful actions,” Mr. Stephens wrote.
I want to be quite clear on this point. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the canons were not followed in the deposition of Bishop Cox. Efforts of some to try to wriggle out of it, or to pretend that there “might” be something there and that is all, or that this is somehow straining at gnats, or any other such embarrassing chicanery and casuistry simply will not do. The absence of shame and outrage from those who claim to care about justice and about polity and the importance of the canons in this matter reveals a glaring double standard for all the world to see. A number of prominent people in the Episcopal Church, by their sophistry or their silence, are robbing themselves of any credibility whatsoever to speak for “justice” in the future until and unless they speak out clearly and boldly and see that this uncanonical action be corrected. The fact that it is pastorally cruel, and that there were other possible avenues to pursue, only adds to the sad spectacle that this represents.
[i] From the elves: This thread was thrown off topic and a number of comments have been deleted. [/i]
Before anyone tries to bring it up, I am truly saddened and embarrassed that (apparently, so far as I am aware) none of the reasserting bishops present called for a roll call vote or sought to protest this action’s uncanonical basis, or to file a minority report.
This is a failure of all of the bishops, and a loss for the whole church.
Attention: Diocese of Southwestern Virginia – Bishop Powell –
This includes you. Please don’t take your usual posture of standing silent waiting on the wind to blow. This is directed at you as well:
“The absence of shame and outrage from those who claim to care about justice and about polity and the importance of the canons in this matter reveals a glaring double standard for all the world to see. A number of prominent people in the Episcopal Church, by their sophistry or their silence, are robbing themselves of any credibility whatsoever to speak for “justice” in the future until and unless they speak out clearly and boldly and see that this uncanonical action be corrected. The fact that it is pastorally cruel, and that there were other possible avenues to pursue, only adds to the sad spectacle that this represents”.
You embraced and elected KJS. You said that her election was the work of God. Find that now in this mess.
#1
Where are they now? I can forgive them for not knowing the language of the canons, but their continued silence is simply unbelievable. South Carolina stands alone. If the “inside strategy” is to have any credibility, they need to be heard and fast.
Now that I’ve gotten #3 off my chest(!), the legal strategy here is brilliant. The way to address this issue in the civil courts is indirectly, and there is no cause of action more favorable to a thorough airing of this matter than defamation. As a technical matter, the statements are defamatory per se, which puts the burden of proof that the statements are true on the defendant, i.e., the Presiding Bishop.
God’s work is certainly present in all of this. God is testing our beloved Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion. When God puts us to the test He sends a very, very special messenger to do the testing. That messenger always does a good job, except once, a long time ago.
Remember, God Heals. Eventually.
All the more reason to pray that God will enter our Presiding Bishop and heal her.
“Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi…et in Filio tuo redemisti: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.”
Also pray that God will send strength to our Bishops, and pour out his grace on them, and heal them, and give them courage. They have some very difficult times to face, but with God’s help they can certainly do what needs to be done.
“Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit…Qui vult ergo sulvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat…”
#3 says –
[blockquote] I can forgive them for not knowing the language of the canons…[/blockquote]
I would disagree. They are responsible for understanding the relevant canons. It is part of their “job description”. Some of the TEC canons, for instance, the ones violated in the +Cox fiasco, describe particular rules and behavior that are exclusively the business of bishops. These canons do not say that some more august group is to lead the bishops through all this. The bishops themselves are responsible for doing what the canons say and for being knowledgeable about what they say.
We have seen numerous instances during recent years where some TEC bishops are apparently either ignorant of scripture or at least are willing to violate what it clearly dictates. Perhaps now, their defense for what they acquiesced to in the +Cox proceedings, might be that they were ignorant of what the canons actually require. Ignorance of the clear requirements from either the Canon (the scriptures) or the TEC canons is not an excuse for a bishop. Perhaps such ignorance is common. I have no way of knowing, but it is not excusable. In a normal working environment, such ignorance would be considered clear evidence of not being qualified for a position.
I agree about the wisdom of this defamation approach. If it proceeds to civil litigation, I would imagine that KJS might find herself in “too small a box”, boxed in between indisputable statements and clear violations of unambiguous organizational rules (canons). My imagination begins to run as I consider possible witness scenarios under oath in civil court.
Kendall, do you know or does anyone know whether +Bauerschmidt of DioTN was at the HOB meeting for the voice vote, and if he was, how he voted? From the diocesan website, one would never know there was a meeting recently, let alone what a travesty was carried out there.
In a recent interview, when asked about the charges against him, Bp. Cox’s response was “I did it.”
So, he was deposed, using the same process as has been used in past depositions. It is George Conger’s unusual reading of the canon that is the innovation, not the actions of our Presiding Bishop.
But, beyond that, I find it quite absurd that the same folks who brought us the Chapman memo, with its promise to “work around and beyond the canons” and bring in “offshore bishops” are making accusations that someone else did not follow the rules.
I doubt that you will get any takers among the bishops for your novel reading of the canon. The time for objections has come and gone now. A “re-do” is simply not going to happen, regardless of how much wailing and gnashing of teeth is heard, or how many lawyers line up for their moment in the limelight.
I would suggest it is time to move on to other things. I can assure you the leadership of TEC has done so. The situation in Pittsburgh, and then in Fort Worth, might be a better use of your time and energy.
Jake, I actually laughed out loud at your post. April fools, indeed.
What, exactly, was the “it” +Cox did?
[blockquote]So, he was deposed, using the same process as has been used in past depositions.[/blockquote]
Yes, Jake. And, for a time, John Dillinger robbed banks, using the same process as had been used in past bank robberies. And, later, he robbed no more banks. 😉
Kendall+
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the canons were not followed in the deposition of Bishop Cox.
Really Kendall+, this is simply irresponsible. You can not say that this statement is true. There is a doubt. You have no definitive answer. This is simply your opinion and your high-handed arrogance at assuming that you are the final arbiter of Truth in this matter is what strains credibility. I have no idea why this means so much to you, but you should re-examine the passion with which you condemn other people’s reasonable views. It is arguable that the canons were followed. I do not consider myself either stupid or a liar (or deluded for that matter) and I believe that a majority of those PRESENT is required. If it is that cut and dried, then why have there been no objections from any member of the HoB except for +Lawrence? They must indeed all be liars or collaborators. You leave no other option. You leave no option even for sheer ignorance. Your assumptions are:
a. there is only one possible interpretation (actually, no interpretation necessary)
b. all Bishops of TEC were or have been subsequently informed of the absolute and only possible view
c. with one exception (+SC), all Bishops are either
-(i) liars
and/or
-(ii) perpetrators of fraud
Because of your fundamentalist view of absolutes on this issue, you are bearing false witness against good men and women (and true witness against some). I would hope that you will hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.
They will come for you shortly, Jake. The poor schmucks in central California who thought they would be wanted on the inside are now eating their shredded wheat. Good luck, fella, ’cause luck is all you have left with that group. Cap’n Frank.
Heaven forbid that Kendall Harmon should express an opinion on his own blog, Brian. The vehemence of your response is quite disproportionate to his comment. It almost makes me wonder if there is something going on beyond what we read here on this thread. Are you afraid that if Kendall lends his credibility to this issue it may have legs and lead to further momentum?
It’s entirely responsible, #11, by virtue of any fair reading of the relevant Canons, your sophistry notwithstanding. Those few willing to speak the truth, for all the shame of not doing so, are surely intimidated by the naked thuggery of Schori and her gang. By your reasoning, Stalin’s show trials were legit because so few stood to protest.
This lawless pack will soon get its reward, God willing.
Bishop Howe has objected. The canons call for inhibition first. They call for the unanimous consent of th three most senior bishops.
One of the bishops had already said publically this didn’t happen. And on and on.
Brian, please produce evidence that the canons were followed since they were clearly violated in many ways.
Pardon me, can anyone help me find my bible? I seem to have dropped it into this vitriolic pool of vengeance and hatred, and I can’t find it.
Jake espousing the [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3831 ]Jim Naughton line[/url]:
[blockquote]I fervently hope that it will be possible to ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar.[/blockquote]
And the standard liberal line from Bill Melnyk: “Oh, you are just hateful”. Calling for justice is hateful??? Let us just repeat this from Bp Cox’s lawyer:
[blockquote][They] are robbing themselves of any credibility whatsoever to speak for “justice” in the future…[/blockquote]
Did anyone else’s irony meter peg reading #16? An 87 year-old retired bishop, sick wife, facing trumped up charges at a kangaroo court…and calling this injustice is “vengeance and hatred.”
Familiar with the concept of “projection,” Oaky?
One more (I am busy tonight): Mark writes, “I can forgive them for not knowing the language of the canons.” One person for which it is unforgivable is David Booth Beers. Perhaps, it is time to call for his resignation?
#8 is that the best you can do! Seriously, the PB will need to do considerably better than that when her day in court comes.
Having litigated several defamation cases, I have to ask: where’s the defamation here? The statement, to be actionable consistent with the First Amendment, must be both false and reflect to the discredit of the subject. Bishop Cox admits abandoning communion, and the vote passed–whether consistently with the canons or not. It seems unlikely, in view of [i]Wolf v. Jones[/i], that the secular courts will review the question of ecclesiastical polity and status within the Church, so the defamation suit seems to me far fetched.
Not sure how to say this exactly but it seems that, to date, the degree of dither, fret, and inaction of reasserters has been matched by an equal degree of aggressiveness by the leadership of the new TEC. The more aggresive one side is, the more dithery the other becomes. Why is that, do you suppose? I wonder, too, if this bizarre dialectic may have just hit the tipping point. Perhaps people are finally getting tired of the crosses lining the road.
Bill M, I didn’t know you had a Bible, let alone would ever want to find it. What on earth would you do with it anyway, prop up a table?
Now as to the certainty that canons were not followed, well, Brain is certainly right to say there is doubt about that. There’s doubt about the resurrection, and the moon landing, and I heard from a respected advisor to a presidential candidate that our government might have brought the twin towers down, so, there’s a lot of doubt out there.
The serious doubt is whether the conservative bishops will do anything collectively. Or will they fall divided? I don’t sense that much division on the other side. But I could be mistaken. Either way, I wouldn’t count on it.
[blockquote]Cox admits abandoning communion, and the vote passed–whether consistently with the canons or not.[/blockquote]
+Cox admits to performing certain episcopal acts in Kansas, not to abandonment of communion. Furthermore, the vote that was taken was utterly illegitimate and, had the Canons even been remotely follow, had no legitimate reason to be held.
Bishop Cox admits abandoning communion
Oh, really? Where did Bishop Cox admit to abandoning the communion? Pray, tell. Is the rule with you guys that if we are guilty of one thing we are then guilty of anything you would like to charge us with?
Man, I can see DA’s accross the country salivating at the thought of that kind of power.
In his advanced years and with his considerable service to the Church, Bishop Cox has more integrity in his big toe than the combined leadership of the 815 Episcopal organization. That’s why they hate him.
[portion addressing a now-deleted comment removed]
Jake – I am surprised that your mother never taught you that two wrongs do not make a right and that just because your brother or sister wasn’t corrected when they did the same thing is no cause for you not to be corrected when you do wrong. I am guessing that this is the first case where the canons were used and no one raised any objections. The canons simply were not followed – on the cases you raised or for +Cox or +Schofield. Just because they were violated in the past does not make violating them today any less unjust.
JWirenius – the Letter of Deposition not only contains incorrect information of the type we commonly call “mis-speaking” (e.g. Bishop of Maryland, Resigned), it also contains incorrect information of the type we call “outright lies.” The letter clearly states: [blockquote] The Title IV Review Committee having certified on 27 May, 2007, pursuant to Canon IV.9.1 of the Episcopal Church, that the Right Reverend William J. Cox, Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland, Resigned, as abandoned the Communion of this Church, [b]and a majority of the members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented to this Deposition at a meeting of the House of Bishops at Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas on March 12, 2008….[/b]Emphasis Mine[/blockquote]
This was simply not true. There is the defamation. +KJS has sent to the Primates of the Anglican Commuion information that she knows is false and that defames Bishop Cox.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
RE: “Pardon me, can anyone help me find my bible?”
I doubt it.
Impugning a person’s professional reputation is defamatory per se, i.e., the defamatory nature of the statement need not be proved, only that it was made. Truth, of course, is an absolute defense, but the burden of proof on this point (that he was actually deposed) shifts to the defense.
Would Cox ultimately win a defamation action? I don’t know. There would be a complex balancing of tort law and First Amendment considerations. But the primary concern in such litigation would be avoiding an early dismissal of the lawsuit, and this is the best theory for doing so. A lawsuit that goes to trial by an 88-year-old man with a very sick wife who tried to resign to avoid embarrassment to TEC but whose resignation was refused out of pure vindictiveness will provide the necessary remedy in this case as public airing of the facts will restore his reputation in the eyes of everyone.
If you look at the Wecome page on TEC’s College for Bishops website , you will find the following hypothetical question—which the program presumably is going to answer for new bishops:
Given the railroading of Bishop Cox that’s been attempted (and thankfully now resisted), it’s rather an ironic question.
One thing we do know is this — the answer is certainly not either the Presiding Bishop or the “majority” of the House of Bishops. The “reaching out in pastoral care” by the PB somehow seems inadequate.
#16 Bill/Oakwyse, it is neither vitriol nor hatred to insist that an organization (it has long ceased to function as a Christian church) that insists on the rest of the world coming to understand and bow down before its sacred polity and Constitutions and Canons abide by them itself. We would expect no less from any secular court of law, much more from the body of Christ on earth. If you want vitriol and hatred, look no farther than the words and actions of +KJS and Booth-Beers/Godwin-Procter. If this is shalom, give me blitzkrieg!
Umm … doesn’t anyone remember Bonnie Anderson’s letter to the Panel of Reference?
Since when did the parliamentarian of the House of Bishops become an ecclesiastical trial court? It didn’t. Therefore according to the President of the House of Deputies, Schofield and Cox are NOT deposed.
BillM: “Pardon me, can anyone help me find my bible?â€
Dear Bill — I know you will be desperate. Let us know a postal address and we will send one immediately. In the meantime use this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
Thing is, Jake, most of us can read the English language. The fact that it was apparently done wrong in the past is irrelevant and you yourself basically admitted as much with those “Hey, maybe that canon needs to be tightened up but he’s deposed anyway!” blasts of yours(I do drop by your joint once in a while).
So don’t bring Chapman in here, slick. We have Mrs. Schori dead to rights and you know it. Your side’s been shown to be the one that will ignore canons if it’s advantageous. And your side’s the one that won’t do anything about people like John Shelby Spong while beating up on 86-year-old men with sick wives.
It’s by the bottle of Eye of Newt.
Shalom,
Intercessor
Oncw more we need to ask, what gain there in this for Schori? How can she successfully pillory a man who is in the last analysis, outside her reach? How does she profit by this? She and her supporters can only look like thugs and bullies – and without profit.
My best guess is that she has deliberately undertaken to challenge the entire power structure of the church because the power structure is essentially impotent. Her strategy has been to suborn and divide, and the game that makes it worth the candle is the creation of a new church, canons rewritten, entirely autonomous, whose scripture is drawn from secular America and whose voice TEC will become. In short, she sees a brave new world and her new church is at the center.
I doubt therefore if she cares a great deal about this civil suit, for her real purpose is the equivalent to shooting into a crowd. There are Anglicans all about and she expect them to do nothing but talk and jostle. She shoots, and the crowd scatters, shouting threats. She and the bishops expect to show that they hold all the high cards in America because they cannot seriously be repudiated. And so far, this is so, it appears.
She expect s the older Episcopalians to die off in their course, and she fully believes that she will recruit a new church because the church’s polity is social, activist, liberal, Universalist, a church whose primary focus is on this life in this world. And she has decided that for this omelet, as many eggs as are necessary will be broken.
And we must note that she is right in one matter: The Anglicans are scattering like so many flocks of chickens when they sight a hen hawk, and there is no one to challenge her. Tec has a leader and the Anglicans are leaderless. As a battle strategy, this is both sensible and profitable. Larry
I want to know who the bishops were who consented to this odious deposition. It literally smells to heaven. Bp. Cox certainly did not admit to abandoning communion, only to performing ordinations in Kansas. It was his dear desire to keep his good name within the church that he still loved. That was why he resigned, to avoid embarrassment to the church and himself. But these bishops took even that from him without the blink of an eye–without remorse, without apology. The shame that covers them can not be fathomed, least of all by them, it seems. This reminds me of the miasmic mindset that must have surrounded some of the terrible persecutions in past centuries.
#8, #11 To borrow a phrase from those of social conscience “No justice, No peace”
Brian, please produce evidence that the canons were followed since they were clearly violated in many ways.
My evidence is the following:
1. The Chancellor to the PB says that this interpretation of the Canons is correct.
2. The parliamentarian for TEC says that this interpretation of the Canons is correct.
3. The Canons are specific when they require the vote of the ENTIRE number of eligible bishops as when they require it for consent to the election of a Bishop.
4. Inhibition is not a requirement for deposition. The Canons require the consent of the 3 most senior bishops to inhibit. +Schofield was not inhibited. He was deposed.
5. Only one (2 if you count +Howe and possibly 3 if you construe +Duncan’s attorney’s letter as an objection) of the bishops eligible to vote has objected. This story has garnered worldwide attention. Reportedly, there are more than 300 bishops eligible to vote. To date, even if you assume 3 have objected, that is less than 1% of the liars and collaborators that you berate. Are they all truly that evil?
On your side we have you, Dan Martins, a new bishop, a single standing committee and the ever vacillating +Howe.
Is it really more difficult for a bishop to fit through the eye of a needle than to understand the canons?
Are you and the extremely small minority of members of TEC who see this as a violation really the only people who understand this?
I am not being facetious, I think these are valid questions.
More to the point, in my opinion, is the PB’s comment made while in the D of SJ: the HoB’s interpretation of the canon is consistent with precedent, while the critics’ interpretation is inconsistent with precedent. The critics of the action seem to have made up an interpretation that seems right in their own eyes, in abstraction from tradition–and in consequence: chaos.
Their reading strategy looks for a plain sense apart from the history of the text’s interpretation, namely, how it has been read and acted on in the past.
It is quite remarkable how successful the critics’ propaganda campaign against the traditional understanding of the canon has been in creating scandal and sedition within the Body of Christ–but then this is what we have come to expect from them: when the Truth is not on your side, start shouting louder and shaking your fist!
Thank the Lord that Kendall+ IS speaking out, and expressing himself in truth and charity. Look people, we have an obligation to protect our seniors from ruthless attacks. Bishop Cox and his generous and grace-filled wife, Betty, are in their late 80s, facing some real difficulties, and this action against them was cruel and entirely unnecessary.
Ironic that it was orchestrated by the same generation that not all that long ago inveighed loud and long against what they described as an iron-fisted “establishment.” Mind you that this is a prime example of illiberalism thinly disguised as liberalism….
Once again:
Canon IV.9 uses this language: “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to voteâ€.
The same language is used in Article XII of the constitution (relating to amendments): “a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops.â€
Note that in the constitutional provision the key language “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote†(which is identical to IV.9) clearly includes bishops not present because (a) retired bishops not present have to be explicitly excluded; otherwise they would be included; and (b) active bishops not present, not being so excluded, are clearly included.
There are no exclusions in IV.9, but we are told it is TEC’s “position†that “whole number of bishops entitled to vote†changes its meaning in IV.9 to mean a majority of those present. This is risible. When the canons mean a majority of those present, they say “a majority of those present.†See III.12 and others.
Schofield was so inhibited:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_93559_ENG_HTM.htm
Cox, however, was never inhibited which is, in fact, a requirement for being deposed:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/03/five-violations-of-same-canon.html
Meaning that his “deposition” is, on its face, a violation of the canons. For my part, I understand what “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” means but I realize that I’m dealing with people who believe that words mean whatever they need them to mean.
As for the absence of objection from any bishops except Howe, Duncan and Iker, you have me dead to rights there. I’d love to see these men grow a spine some day but I don’t expect to be around to see it since I’ll probably be in an actual Christian church by then.
Folks, folks—can we all agree that the earth is round, and not flat? Can we all agree that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa?
Good.
Now, can we all agree that Bishop Cox was not inhibited under Canon IV.9?
The canon next says that the “inhibited Bishop” has 60 days to respond to the charges against him. Well, that provision doesn’t apply, since Bishop Cox (we all agree, right?) was never inhibited.
Since he doesn’t have to reply, and wasn’t inhibited, he was not “liable to deposition” under the Canon. (Brian—read the quote of the canon in the article from the previous post: inhibition is an absolute [i]prerequisite[/i] to deposition. Your assertion to the contrary is like saying “Canon IV.9 says anything I say it says, regardless of its actual words, which mean nothing.”) And where do you get your statement that “+Schofield was not inhibited”? You are “Brian from T19”—did you not read [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/9167/]this?[/url]
Since he was not “liable to deposition” under the Canon, he could not lawfully be deposed by a vote under it, no matter who or how many voted, Brian. All the debate over votes is ultimately meaningless, because [i]Bishop Cox was never inhibited.[/i]
In view of your willful ignoring of the plain words about an “inhibited Bishop . . . will be liable to deposition”, Brian, I have to ignore your words that you are not being facetious. If we cannot agree on what the plain words say, then we are speaking two different versions of English, and I guess we now have to form into two different camps about that as well.
As for Jake’s gratuitous assertion that two wrongs make a right, we don’t even have to go that far. Were the Bishops whose cases he cites first inhibited before being deposed? [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_33340_ENG_HTM.htm] Yes.[/url] End of distinction, and end of Jake’s “argument from past mistakes”.
Could we please keep to the unarguable facts here? Those who want to be counterfactual (Brian) and unhistorical (Jake) are not adding anything but confusion to the discussion.
Brian from T19, if you are ever accused of chasing your own tail, it is only because you engage in so much circular reasoning!
Similarly, Annglican Scotist, you echo +KJS’s justification of “precedent”, but it is a precedent that [b][i]she[/b][/i] set! Rather like Mohammed being called a prophet because he predicted that he would go to Mecca, which he then proceded to do. But try sometime rising bodily from the dead and ascending bodily to heaven!
#33,
Tell me you’re joking. Precedent, Gracie? Is that all you’ve got? Those theologians who justified slavery had precedent behind them. Guess we can stop worrying about the sin of slavery then. Me, I was always taught that the fact that you did the wrong thing a great many times didn’t make you right. But I didn’t go to a liberal seminary so what do I know? Forget I said anything.
Canon Harmon,
Many hearty thanks for your succinct stand as provided in the original post’s annotation and your comment #1 above. May the LORD bless your efforts and may He keep you in the palm of His hand. Would that members of the HOB possessed such clarity of expression and boldness!! I hope and trust loads of us T19 denizens are praying for you and yours. Grace & peace, AR
#33 It really is a great pleasure to see you make the argument from how the text has been interpreted by tradition. Are you feeling the irony?
It is amazing that an organization whose defense against criticism from overseas bishops has been its polity is now engaged in bending and stretching its canon law to suit its purposes. If canon, like scripture, now means what the leadership wants it to mean, no ordained person, no bishop, and with the planned extension of the scope of canon, no layperson is safe from unjust condemnation and removal.
“Moderate” Episcopalians need to wake up and realize their exposure here. Even those who are fully in agreement with the leadership at the present time should understand that they also could be targets if a disagreement arises. The Episcopal Church, having thrown overboard agreement on doctrine and practice, had only “playing by the rules” left to rely upon. Now that’s gone also.
In my experience, clergy talked big when in the company of those with whom they agree; but every diocesan convention I have been to (several), none or very few showed the courage to speak out against the liberal issues that came up. Little by little TEC has been given up to heresy for political correctness and lack of courage. They need to re-read 2 Corinthians and see how Paul dealt with this.
Brian from T19:
Your interpretation of Canon IV.9 simply holds no more water, then the argument that the earth is flat. As many have pointed out, the term “whole number of bishops entitled to vote” has a very plain meaning throughout the canons, and “by a majority of those present” also has very specific usage and a very plain meaning throughout the canons.
It is simply absurd to suggest that “whole number of bishops entitled to vote” means one thing in every canon except Canon IV.9 when it suddenly means “by a majority of those present.”
Why are not more members of the HoB speaking out? Why did the West let Hitler get away with so much before he finally crossed the line by invading Poland? (my comment is directed at the people who refused to challenge Hitler, I am NOT comparing anyone to Hitler). It is quite common for people afraid of confrontation to let a bully get away with a lot and not challenge them. TEC is an extremely defensive organization right now, so I really see no significance in the lack of bishops and SC’s standing up right now.
As to the inhibition/deposition connection, it is spelled out quite plainly in the canon. Please quote the EXACT language that permits the PB to move for a deposition without an inhibited bishop in question.
Brian:
Let’s look at your “evidence”:
1. The Chancellor to the PB says that this interpretation of the Canons is correct. IRRELEVANT. BEERS IS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PROSECUTION. THE PROSECUTION DOESN’T GET TO INTERPRET THE RULES.
2. The parliamentarian for TEC says that this interpretation of the Canons is correct. IRRELEVANT. THE PARLIAMENTARIAN RULES ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, NOT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF CANON LAW. CANON IV.9 REQUIRES A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF CONSENTS FOR A DEPOSITION TO BE VALID, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE TO BE WON.
3. The Canons are specific when they require the vote of the ENTIRE number of eligible bishops as when they require it for consent to the election of a Bishop. QUITE SO. AND I THINK THAT “WHOLE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE BISHOPS” MEANS EXACTLY THAT IN CANON IV.9.
4. Inhibition is not a requirement for deposition. The Canons require the consent of the 3 most senior bishops to inhibit. +Schofield was not inhibited. He was deposed. CANON IV.9 ONLY MAKES AN “INHIBITED BISHOP” LIABLE TO DEPOSITION. A BISHOP NOT INHIBITED IS NOT LIABLE TO DEPOSITION UNDER CANON IV.9, THUS INHIBITION IS A REQUIREMENT TO DEPOSITION ACCORDING TO CANON IV.9. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IS THERE BRIAN, AND IF YOU DISAGREE PLEASE QUOTE THE EXACT LANGUAGE YOU USE TO JUSTIFY YOUR POSITION.
5. Only one (2 if you count +Howe and possibly 3 if you construe +Duncan’s attorney’s letter as an objection) of the bishops eligible to vote has objected. IRRELEVANT. SILENCE OF THE MAJORITY DOES NOT JUSTIFY TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. IF A GANG OF THUGS BEATS UP AN OLD MAN, BUT ONLY ONE THUG OBJECTS, DOES THAT MAKE THE ASSAULT “RIGHT”?
The historical parallel coming to my mind is the French revolution, and how it came to eat its children at the end…. I am thankful for those who are standing for basic faithfulness to those canons which are now being so selectively interpreted. Isn’t it fair to say that the reasserters who have acted beyond the canon have never claimed that they weren’t?
Again, I ask, is it time to call for David Booth Beers resignation? The preceding one or two flawed depositions and current two flawed and very flawed depositions came under his chancellorship.
The lawyers on both sides of the fence who are contributing to this dialog are not equivocating about the gravity of the mis-interpretations of the canons. This makes the indulgent accommodation of Brian, Jake and Scotist all the worse, pathetically compromising the integrity and credibility. For example on Jake’s blog, a lawyer writes,
[blockquote]I am afraid (though I would rather not) that I agree with those who think this was not in order. The expression “majority of those entitled to vote” (or similar expressions) is used in various places in the Constitution and Canons. It seems fairly clear, if you look at all those places, that it is intended to ensure an “absolute” majority, and not merely a majority of those present.[/blockquote]
But Jake, Brian, and Scotist sadly ignore this. Listen to this lawyer. Listen to D. C. Toedt. Listen to EmilyH.
But the march of folly continues. We have the sycophantic – “Yes, King George the disturbance in the colonies is being taken care of.” “Yes, President Johnson, the war in Vietnam is going splendidly.”
Sorry; I went to bed. Bishop Cox is quoted in the Tulsa World as stating, in relation to the gravamen of the charge that he abandoned communion with TEC, “which I did.” The article is here
Now, defamation per se presumes damages, not falsity. The First Amendment’s protection for speech requires a plaintiff establish that the alleged defamatory speech is not protected–that is, that it is a false statement of fact.
Look. folks, I’m not commenting on the canons; I’m a civil litigator and free speech scholar, not a canon lawyer. But there is a lot of loose legal talk going around, and some of the commentary is ill-informed.
As to the canonical question, I think that the St. James Elmhurst decision has it right: polity and status questions are for the denomination, not the secular courts. That’s what [i]Wolf v. James[/i]. (If you want to read the St. James opinion, as opposed to a reaction to the result, I’ve digested and linked it here).
So, again I ask: where’s the falsity? And without falsity, there can be no claim for defamation.
#41 – Yes, when I first read #33’s remark shown below, my brain circuits almost froze from irony overload! Albeit unintentionally, he seems to have succintly diagnosed the situation in TEC in one sentence.
from #33
I think it important for this thread to discern the difference between Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield as this thread is about Bishop Cox. I realize the two are related because they both occurred at the same meeting and under the same canon at the time, but what happened in both instances is different.
Jake is therefore quite wrong to bring up the question of what he calls George Conger’s interpretation as that has to do with the issue of the whole number of bishops and what that means. Bishop Cox’s situation ALREADY is in violation of the canons before that vote even occurs.
The number of red herrings brought into the discussion does not alter the fact that the key issues are not being addressed and yes the language of the canons is what matters, especially on the issue of the inhibition and the involvement of the three senior bishops.
JWirenius [#49] –
Knowing how reporters sometimes “manufacture” quotes, the best you have done is to demonstrate that Bishop Cox might have admitted to abandoning the communion. It would be better if he were directly quoted as saying, “Yes, I have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.” But the vague quote in the article you referenced, really does not do it for me.
Besides that, the fact is that Bishop Cox was not inhibited, was not given a speedy trial (as required by the canons). There are enough violations of procedure to make it doubtful that a valid deposition has taken place. But, I suppose, you and I will continue to disagree on this score.
Thank you Kendall, for bringing the discussion back to topic. As a cradle Episcopalian, my questions on this matter are about the absolute deadly silence from the vast majority of the HOB. Were they all asleep at the meeting or what? Now where are their voices? Anyone who has ever been to a Parish meeting knows that the first thing you do is be certain that you have a quorum. If not, no meeting! So why couldnt the Bps count noses just like everyone else? It is glaringly obvious that the established procedure and rules were not followed in the case of Bp. Cox. If TEC is trying to persuade people that they are righteous and above board and justified in their actions, this is no way to do it. Can the civil courts have a voice in this matter or is this another case of “this is church policy and rules”. Perhaps one of your other commenters knows. I am grateful that Bp. Cox at least has an attorney to make his case. On the other hand, is this all what Jesus asked us to do in His name?
To continue what I said earlier: Schori et al properly belong in the class, so common to the 19th century, of idealists who genuinely believe that they can produce a utopian society in this world. In ithis, she is at one with the Brook Farm experiment, the Owenites, the Fourierists. All failed of course, because of human nature. Nevertheless, she is a utopian.
In a way, this is not surprising: In a corrupt and hedonistic culture, who should be surprised that fundamentalists have appeared in large numbers as a reaction? And in a bitterly dystopian culture, such a creature as we now have, no one should be surprised that utopian dreams have appeared. Her power to disrupt will remain great because she has tied her utopian dreams to American liberalism and its fads, but she will lack the power to remedy the ills she perceives simply because the human world cannot heal itself alone, although science and scientism promise much, and, since she is a scientist, she accepts science’s successes and its hubris.
But it is still well to recall Plinx’s taunt which we should treat as a call to the barricades. See the entry above about the rabbi – well over on the left as is so much contemporary Judaism – and her marriage “hunger strike.” You can all see that this woman is part of a much larger movement that is increasingly successful. Who will address the issue of the eventual success of the homosexual movement? No, 50, the result is not chaos because the rest of the US pays no attention to these events. Nor is TEC in disorder. Only the Anglicans wring their hands, as you may see here, to no effect.
Question: We need a leader. The ABC is, as you know, impotent. How does the Anglican Church in this country find a leader? Is it not time for all the branches to find an American ABC? How does the church call a great council in this country? Time to give over thinking globally and begin tending our own garden? Larry
JWI(#49), did you mistype at the end of your post? Otherwise, your post makes no sense. Are’nt you claiming there very well might be falsity (I think pretty clearly there is) but not damages? OTOH, suppose a criminal defendent agrees to the charges against him, tries to plead guilty without a trial, but the court refuses his plea. Then suppose there is a massive error in the trial. Say a majority of 12 jurors is required, but only five jurors are seated, and four find the defendent guilty. Can the members of the court say, the state found the defendent guilty and impose sentence? Would there be no damage in such a scenario?
The Tulsa article quote is this:
[blockquote] Cox resigned from the House of Bishops last spring when the bishops formally charged him with violating church law by ordaining two Anglican priests in Overland Park, Kan., at the request of an African archbishop.
A trial was never held, but the House of Bishops voted him out Wednesday for abandoning the communion of the church.
“Which I did,” Cox said. [/blockquote]
The “I did” could be referring to the violating church law or abandoning the communion. Not clear.
56, Or the quote could be to something entirely different, for example: “Did you have breakfast this morning?” The sentence before the quote is something the reporter wrote and may or may not be related to the quote.
No. 55 (Dave C): Actually, my egregious typo was in leaving unfinished my sentence regarding Wolf, which was meant to close with a link to the case and the word “says.” (You raise an interesting question about damages, as Bp. Cox’s reputation seems enhanced in some circles, not diminished, but in libel per se cases, damages are presumed, and would have to be rebutted).
No, the lack of a false defamatory statement is twofold: First, there is no conduct that is attributed to Bishop Cox that he has not admitted (assuming, as Allen Lewis (No 49) properly points out, that the quote is not manufactured, or distorted, which I did assume, especially as the article seems to me to if anything be pro-Bishop Cox). If the quote means–as I took it to mean, Robroy–that by realigning with Argentina, Bishop Cox acknowledges that he has left the communion of TEC (which makes sense, and in no way reflects negatively on his character), then no statement impugning him based on a false factual premise exists.
Second, the PB’s statement is factually accurate: the vote deposing Bishop Cox was taken and the resolution carried, and was pronounced valid at the time and place she asserts, and was pronounced valid by those entrusted with construing and enforcing the rules, including quorum and (if applicable) supermajority requirements. (Note: not going into canon law. Not my field). Thus, the otherwise true statement, to even arguably constitute defamation, would have to carry with it innuendo of immoral conduct–but the only statement of grounds is that of abandoning communion–which Cox at least appears to have admitted. (And, of course, even if he didn’t, the PB would rightly say, that was the finding of the HOB, which she is reporting accurately). (That’s why, Phil Snyder, I think your point is not unconvincing at the end of the day–the HOB concluded that this is what the canon meant, so voted and so ruled–and under Wolf, who is to gainsay it?)
This doesn’t mean that the desposition was canonically correct–again, not my area–it just means that the statement, as an accurate report of the HOB’s action, cannot constitute, as far as I can see, defamation enforceable at civil law. This is especially the case where the bishop is a public figure by virtue of his office, the subject is of public concern, and the First Amendment applies in its full rigor.
Again, just my own opinion, but I’ve litigated several defamation cases, including libel per se arising out of employment–and, unless there’s more to it, I wouldn’t touch this one.
Sorry to do a drive-by–but work calls, and I must answer. Hope the clarification helps.
[blockquote] Again, I ask, is it time to call for David Booth Beers resignation?[/blockquote]
Why in the world would DBB resign? He’s doing exactly what his masters are telling him to do and getting results. Trampling the Canons, not to mention any sense of justice, is a feature here, not a bug.
#58, I think it’s not going to be quite as easy for the PB to wash her hands of this as you posit. The process for deposing +Cox was corrupt at virtually every level, at times by the PB herself, and to suggest that she can claim ignorance of that which she is sworn to uphold stretches credulity. I believe it will be difficult for her to say that her ecclesiastical lapdogs yapped happily on cue about whether the Canons were followed.
Jamesw, I agree with you. “The whole number of bishops entitled to vote” means EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. It does NOT mean a quorum of those present for the meeting. It means ALL of the members of the entire House of Bishops who are entitled to vote……not just those who happen to have been present at the meeting!
The rules are the rules, and if you aren’t going to abide by those rules, then LEAVE!
In other words, git outta Dodge!
#33. Dear Brian,
1. Goebbels said Hitler was correct.
2. Goering said Hitler was correct.
3. 10,000 officers in his wehrmacht said Hitler was correct.
Did all of that make Hitler correct?
Regards,
— Stan
#56 – good points but more than that… this is a newspaper article. Can we be 100% sure that the article accurately reports the interview? (This is not a slur on the reporter mind you. Mistakes happen. And then you have editors. And what is a good reporter going to do? Just submit a transcript?)
Bishop Cox said “which I did”. But in response to what? There is even a third alternative. “Ordaining two Anglican priests” is the referent for “which”. It is the way the article is composed that even begins to suggest ‘which’ refers to ‘abandoning communion’. Did the reporter want to give a false impression? Was not careful in how paragraphs were arranged? Did an editor mess this up? Only a transcript would truly resolve this.
A newspaper article is important and significant. But I am not sure to what extent it constitutes “legal evidence that proves someone’s guilt”. Especially when the structure of the article (“which I did” just hanging out there without a clear referent) leaves too much room for uncertainty.
1. Goebbels said Hitler was correct.
2. Goering said Hitler was correct.
3. 10,000 officers in his wehrmacht said Hitler was correct.
Did all of that make Hitler correct?
As far as the application of German law, absolutely. Ethics is another question entirely.
Kendall+ claims that this is about words. Unfortunately, he makes himself the sole arbiter of truth regarding the canons of TEC. The canons are set up by the Church for the Church. The job of the parliamentarian is to determine the rules of procedure that apply. It was determined by the parliamentarian that a majority of bnishops present is enough. Therefore, it is enough. The Church has ruled.
As for the idea that a bishop who has not been inhibited can not be deposed, it is simple selective use of language. Much like reasserters do with the Scriptures, they are doing the same thing here – not looking at the entirety of the canons.
Finally, regardless of whether I am a liar or a sycophant in Kendall+ eyes (remember, simply being wrong is not an option according to him), the fact remains that +Cox is deposed. The shrill wails of a few reasserters will die down soon enough and we will all go on about our business. The ABC will no longer recognize +Cox as a bishop. The outcome will be the same.
#65 – nice tries. There are dozens of cogent replies but I would submit just the following:
Set aside, for the sake or argument, what insiders say the canons mean. What do you think? Are you willing to state here and “publicly” whether you think the canons were followed properly?
The references to Germany are unhelpful. brian this is about words and what words mean. Please use the wording of the canon and show how this supports what happened with Bishop Cox.
In spite of repeated pleas, you have consistently not done that.
.
Also, please stop making claims about what I say which say what I did not say, and to try somehow make this about me. It does you no credit when you do not reflect others accurately.
“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. During the period of Inhibition, the Bishop shall not perform any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of which the Bishop holds jurisdiction or in which the Bishop is then serving.”
This is what the canons say based on the version I found online. This did happen with Bishop Schofield. The TEc leadership tried to get it to happen with Bishop Duncan, but failed to get all three senior bishops to consent and so the process could not move forward.
This was not followed with Bishop Cox.
From the Living Church:
[i] Unfortunately, he makes himself the sole arbiter of truth regarding the canons of TEC. [/i]
Okay. All right. I know that Canon Harmon is perfectly capable of defending himself here, but THIS IS HIS BLOG! You’re a GUEST HERE! At no point have I read where Canon Harmon has made himself “the sole arbiter” of anything, let alone the truth.
Your problem, Brien, seems to be that he’s speaking categorically. Well, that’s perfectly acceptable. He doesn’t need to hedge everything he writes on his own blog so that you feel more welcome or more affirmed or less affronted or whatever it is you’re after. Canon Harmon has made an argument, and you’ve made a mere assertion which you are either unable or unwilling to back up. If you have some sort of evidence to support your contentions, then provide it. Otherwise, knock it off. Ascribing these sorts of outrageous motives to people is part of what got the comments turned off in the first place!
I apologize for taking us off-topic, Elves. But seriously!
That’s the thing, Brian. Read what’s quoted in #68. Schori admits she cut corners.
I want to return to a point Kendall made in the very first comment and modify my response in #3.
I can understand bishops not being prepared during the meeting for the technical issues surrounding the voting requirements. They did not know in advance how many bishops would be present and that this therefore would be an issue. I do not understand or excuse, however, their failure to deal with the other canonical abuses at issue in the Cox case. They knew this was coming for two months. The issues were widely discussed. The attempted inhibition of Bp. Duncan raised some of these issues (those related to deposition without inhibition) and they were ventilated as nauseam in the blogosphere if not elsewhere.
But the unique issues concerning Bp. Cox were also discussed. On Jan. 19, I raised them on this blog [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/9326/#172719] here[/url]. On the day of the vote I raised them again on this blog [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/10775/#195766]here[/url]. Of course, one tends to remember one’s own comments, but I am sure these issues were discussed elsewhere. But even if they had not been, the bishops had a duty to prepare for this meeting; the information was in the public domain; it was a defining moment for the House of Bishops and TEC. They should have objected loudly and often. Why was an 86-year old man left to fight this alone?
There’s an important issue falling through the cracks here, not unrelated to San Joaquin. I was present at the ordinations in question, and expect one of the ordinands will soon become our Senior Pastor.
The pertinent question is whether TEC’s jurisdiction is geographic or institutional. As a corollary, do they have hierarchical jurisdiction (in the Roman Catholic style) over individuals.
Christ Church, Overland Park was, in May 2005, not a part of the Diocese of Kansas, by legal agreement. It may as well have been Southern Baptist.
Consequently, TEC is either declaring that a) it has full jurisdiction within every one of a collection of contiguous geographic areas known as Dioceses, or b) has hierarchical control over every single individual who has ever held an ordained position within its alleged boundaries.
Having resigned from TEC, +Cox was acting as a bishop under the authority of the Diocese of Kampala, in a parish under the authority of the Diocese of Kampala.
TEC’s only possible claims against him are that a) they have complete jurisdiction over a swath of geographic territory, and therefore he could not be [i]anywhere[/i] or do [i]anything[/i] of a pastoral nature within the Diocese of Kansas — or anywhere else for that matter — without their permission, or b) they maintain complete control over his pastoral activities because [i]at one time[/i] he was a bishop under their jurisdiction.
In essence, they are claiming a perpetual non-complete clause, and unless he signed such a document, they’re blowing smoke. It’s the same question soon to be at issue in California.
Kendall, thank you also for getting thread back on topic….Concerning Bishop Cox illegal deposition, 294 Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops, 133 or so present at start of meeting of House of Bishops……
do we have a list pf those in attendence?? we need to publish and let world know of these spineless Bishops who refuse to stand up to God’s word…at least SC Diocese has some guts and I am sure others I dont know about….
Attention: Diocese of Florida, Bishop Howard…..”WHAT SAY YOU??”
Our prayers are with Bishop Cox and all others that are targets of this corporate warfare…
Anglican Ron
[blockquote]TEC’s only possible claims against him are that a) they have complete jurisdiction over a swath of geographic territory, and therefore he could not be anywhere or do anything of a pastoral nature within the Diocese of Kansas—or anywhere else for that matter—without their permission, or b) they maintain complete control over his pastoral activities because at one time he was a bishop under their jurisdiction. [/blockquote]
Or c) that as a bishop of The Episcopal Church he performed ordinations on behalf of another province within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Kansas without that Bishop’s permission. Bishop Cox has not been flogged, or sued, or put in prison, or deprived of one penny of his pension or one iota of his membership in the diocese of Kampala (or wherever it is that he is working these days). The Episcopal Church has simply acknowledged that he has abandoned The Episcopal Church to work for another province. He has chosen to belong to another branch of the Anglican Comminion, and he is no longer a Bishop of The Episcopal Church.
I have not heard that anyone has threatened to have him arrested if he ordains more priests for Kampala. It’s simply made very clear that he is no longer acting as a member of, or on behalf of, TEC. Does anyone dispute that?
Ladytenor, I dispute it – ECUSA purports to have gone further than that and revoked him from his orders.
Yes, 74, I do. Not that it matters, but the canon states “not in communion with this Church”. Unless TEC is claiming that it is not in communion with the Anglical Communion provinces, under the plain language of the Canon it’s not abandonment. What Bishop Cox did may fall under another disciplinary canon, but not abandonment of communion.
Again, not that it matters, but the canon was written to deal with bishops leaving for the Roman Catholic and Reformed Episcopal Churches which are clearly not in communion with TEC.
[blockquote]The Episcopal Church has simply acknowledged that he has abandoned The Episcopal Church to work for another province. He has chosen to belong to another branch of the Anglican Comminion, and he is no longer a Bishop of The Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]
Well, messed that up, anyway what I meant to do was [blockquote]The Episcopal Church has simply acknowledged that he has abandoned The Episcopal Church to work for another province. He has chosen to belong to another branch of the Anglican Comminion, and he is no longer a Bishop of The Episcopal Church. [/blockquote]
Rather than go thru with the whole process of deposition and the baggage it implies on the recipient, couldn’t they have simply accepted his resignation if this is all they really wanted to accomplish? Sorry, but there is definitely a tone of vindictiveness that now comes out from that big tent of TEC toward those who do not wish to toe the party line.
72. Bart Hall,
I understand at the time the actions were undertaken on behalf of the Diocese of Kampala, +Cox was a member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, he was not a bishop of the Diocese of Kampala. Had the Bishop of Kampala had come in person to ordain Patrick Wildman and DO Smart, this would be a different matter.
You wrote: “Consequently, TEC is either declaring that a) it has full jurisdiction within every one of a collection of contiguous geographic areas known as Dioceses”
Yes. The Episcopal Church is still the official Anglican body in the United States. The Archbishop of Canterbury has yet to recognize any missionary venture (I think those were the words he used) from other Anglican bodies that cross traditional geographical boundaries. The precedent of geographical boundaries date back to Nicea.
+Cox swore allegiance to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church, and disobeyed the discipline piece.
Ladytenor is right. He has abandoned The Episcopal Church to work for another province, and the deposition acknowledges that. I wish we had a better way to do so that doesn’t sound so punitive.
I’m coming into this late. I guess my question is, people can say it’s wrong, but what is the remedy? I can only see it through a presentment to inhibit and remove the Presiding Bishop for violation of the canons. I don’t see that happening, or it going anywhere if it were commenced. With a secular charitable organization, you could file suit in court to remove the officers and directors, or petition the state attorney general to do the same. But neither the courts nor a state A.G. are going to touch this.
But, at this point, the Episcopal Church has not only lost all spiritual validity, it has also lost legal validity from a secular perspective. Related to this is the absolute refusal to respond to requests on how the denomination is now spending its money. Among other things, the church’s independent auditors (if such exist) ought to be publishing warnings to potential donors that they are giving to an organization that is operating in violation of its own governing documents.
Whether the IRS can intervene to threaten removal of tax exempt status would be another issue. With a substantial secular nonprofit, I think the alarm bells would have already gone off at the Service. We had that happen here when the IRS, in conjunction with the state A.G., basically forced removal of trustees of a substantial charitable trust that were abusing their position. But because of Church and State concerns I highly doubt the IRS would intervene here.
I certainly don’t see how any responsible charitable donor can prudently be giving a dollar to this organization at this point. The sad thing is that the scriptures command that a church be impeccable in how it behaves, not only for the sake of believers but also in what non-believers see. (See II Corinthians 8:20-21.)
paxetbonum #79 – I know the GCC will want to be consistent in its principles, so I’m just wondering – how far back does the precedent of Christian marriage being only between one man and one woman date? Maybe, if you cleared that up, nobody would laugh out loud at your statement first, then think you’re a hypocrite later.
PatetBonum (#79)
The text of Canon IV.9 section 1 reads: [blockquote]If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body [b]not in communion with the same[/b], or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body [b]other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church[/b], so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church; [/b] (empahsis mine) [/blockquote]
Are you now stating that TECUSA is no longer part of the Anglican Communion or at least not in communion with Southern Cone or Uganda? Can you show me which of the three subsections Bishop Cox has violated?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Brian:
You say “As for the idea that a bishop who has not been inhibited can not be deposed, it is simple selective use of language.” Let us examine the canon in question, since you seem adverse to looking at the actual language. Note that this is the ONLY canon dealing with bishops who abandon communion.
Okay, Brian. Let’s break that down for you a little bit.
Note Brian, the use of the word “shall”, not “may”. And the “shall” requires the consent of the three senior bishops. Accordingly, the canons mandate only one course in response to a bishop accused of abandoning communion – that he or she be inhibited, and that such inhibition must be consented to by the three senior bishops. There is no other course of action consonant with this canon.
Note, Brian, the continued use of “shall” which is now paired with “forthwith”. In the dictionary, “forthwith” is defined as “immediately”.
Note, Brian, that the subject in this sentence is always “the inhibited bishop”. Not a bishop who is not inhibited. Why? Because as the earlier section makes clear, the ONLY canonical course of action against a bishop charged with abandoning communion is inhibition which requires the consent of the three senior bishops. According to this sentence, Brian, the ONLY bishop “liable to deposition” is an “inhibited bishop”. There is no canonical warrant for a non-inhibited bishop to be liable for deposition.
Note Brian, the pattern in the section “if x, then y. Otherwise z.” The only canonical path to deposition is to follow this path.
Note that the only bishop “liable to deposition” is an inhibited bishop. The inhibited bishop has a last chance to avoid deposition by denying that he has done so. If he does not do so, or his denial is not accepted by the PB and the three senior bishops, then AND ONLY THEN, may the House of Bishops “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote…give its consent” to the deposition.
Brian, if you continue your assertion that an uninhibited bishop is liable to deposition, I repeat – QUOTE US THE EXACT LANGUAGE FROM THE SPECIFIC CANON YOU ARE USING TO JUSTIFY YOUR ASSERTION. No more vague statements or quoting somebody else. Absent that, I will consider that you are well aware that your argument has no merit.
Phil #81
There’s a lot of anger in your remarks. +Cox knew what he was doing when he violated canons. He has said as much in a recent Living Church article. I can’t recall touching on marriage in my original post, or advocating a position on sexuality.
Phil Snyder,
You wrote:
If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, [b] or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church; [/b] I’ve changed the bolds this time.
The Anglican Communion is a communion of self governing churches, not one church. We are a full constituent member of the Anglican Communion and so are Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Southern Cone. The Archbishop of Canterbury has not recognized missionary ventures of the aforementioned churches in the US that are in violation of traditional boundaries. +Cox had no “express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church” to ordain on behalf of another province of the Anglican Communion. He didn’t and he admits as much.
Your argument is circular, #84. The realm of religious bodies defined within the Canon as being prohibited from episcopal acts and Confirmation are those that TEO is not in communion with. If TEO is deposing +Cox for performing those acts for the Southern Cone, it’s an admission that TEO is not in communion with the SC. QED.
At any rate, that is beside the point, no? Even if +Cox is guilty of all you and TEO claim, TEO still has to follow its procedure to depose +Cox. And that, it is obvious, was not done.
Pax, that maybe be true, but it’s a disciplinary violation, not abandonment. The phrase “such religious body” refers to a church not in communion with TEC. That means the Roman Catholics or Baptists or Methodists. Anglican clergy are interchangable, or used to be, across the communion.
The only reason this canon is being used is because it allows summary proceedings without a trial.
[blockquote]The only reason this canon is being used is because it allows summary proceedings without a trial. [/blockquote]
Bingo. And they even botched that.
paxetbonum #84 – no, no anger at all. Thanks for avoiding my question: it’s telling.
The point here is that when the Canons say “this Church” they mean TEC.
For example, Article I sec. 2
“Each Bishop of THIS CHURCH having jurisdiction….shall have seat and vote in the House of Bishops.”
So when it says, “without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church;” regardless of your interpretation of the standing of the Anglican Communion in relationship to this Church, they mean The Episcopal Church. +Cox didn’t have express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church. That’s it.
Jeffersonian, why not just call TEC what the church wants to be called TEC?
#89 – why try to change the subject?
[i] We seem to be getting off topic and concentrating on personal discussions. Please return to the original thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
What do you think? Are you willing to state here and “publicly†whether you think the canons were followed properly?
Yes, the canons were followed properly.
Please use the wording of the canon and show how this supports what happened with Bishop Cox.[/i]
Emphasis mine
+Cox abandoned the communion of TEC by the highlighted action. He was not inhibited, so [o]therwise, 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.
Also, please stop making claims about what I say which say what I did not say, and to try somehow make this about me. It does you no credit when you do not reflect others accurately.
You made the post about you by adding this assertion:
I want to be quite clear on this point. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the canons were not followed in the deposition of Bishop Cox. Efforts of some to try to wriggle out of it, or to pretend that there “might” be something there and that is all, or that this is somehow straining at gnats, or any other such embarrassing chicanery and casuistry simply will not do. The absence of shame and outrage from those who claim to care about justice and about polity and the importance of the canons in this matter reveals a glaring double standard for all the world to see. A number of prominent people in the Episcopal Church, by their sophistry or their silence, are robbing themselves of any credibility whatsoever to speak for “justice” in the future until and unless they speak out clearly and boldly and see that this uncanonical action be corrected. The fact that it is pastorally cruel, and that there were other possible avenues to pursue, only adds to the sad spectacle that this represents.
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt (therefore an absolute, fundamental, unquestionable truth) that the canons were not followed. You then go on to accuse any person who disagrees with you of:
1. “try[ing] to wriggle out of it” – knowledge of the fact, but lying
2. “pretend[ing] that there ‘might’ be something there and that is all” – knowledge of the fact, but lying
3. “this is somehow straining at gnats” – knowledge of the fact, but downplaying the importance
4. “chicanery” – knowledge of the fact, but practicing deception
5. “casuistry” – knowledge of the fact, but unethically analyzing this in a vacuum
6. “those who claim to care about justice and about polity and the importance of the canons in this matter” – knowledge of the fact and lying.
7. “sophistry” – knowledge of the fact, but practicing subtle deception
8. “silence” – knowledge of the fact, but choosing to ignore it
So, as you point out again and again, this is about words. It is not about you, but about what you said. Above are your words, where have I misrepresented them? [/i]
Brian,
You’re on to something here in this quote of the canons that you emphasize:
[blockquote][i]If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church …(iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church,…[/i][/blockquote]
It appears that TEC is, through this action against +Cox, (and +Schofield as well) declaring that it is not in communion with Uganda or the Southern Cone. Thus the deposition of +Cox is appropriate even though apparently the canons were not followed as they have been quoted above. In the eyes of TEC, +Cox has left the Communion.
I guess it remains to be seen when TEC will formally declare itself to be its own Communion.
Brian,
When was +Cox inhibited?
Jeffersonian, see above:
+Cox abandoned the communion of TEC by the highlighted action. He was not inhibited,
Oh, and what is the numeric value of “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote?”
I’m seeing clearly that your bullet items 1-8 apply fully to your specious arguments.
Again, Brian, that is begging the question. That was the charge, but I’m asking when the three senior bishops consented to the request to inhibit +Cox.
Paxet:
Actually, you need to parse out the quote:
“by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church.”
The clause that follows “so as to extend” depends on the actions being undertaken for “other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church.” So Phil’s point stands.
Oh, I see. You’re contending that the “otherwise” is the alternate of the entire previous Canon. This is, as I said, specious nonsense. The alternate course of action applies to an unrepentant [b]inhibited[/b] bishop, not one that has merely been charged. Schori’s inability to get consents for +Cox’s inhibition clearly short-circuited the process and the vote in the kangaroo assembly (after all, she wanted to avoid an actual court trial) is null and void on its face, even had the majority of all bishops entitled to vote signalled their assent.
#92. I am almost – almost – laughing at this rather creative interpretation. To what does “otherwise” refer? “If he is not inhibited then…”? Rubbish. Maybe just maybe “otherwise” refers to the first possible resolution. Namely “good faith denials” and the removal of inhibition. “If these conditions are met… terminate the inhibition. Otherwise…” You know, the immediately preceding sentences. Reading Comprehension 101 for 6th graders. Excuse me – 4th graders. (Getting a little impatient and snippy here.)
Your creative interpretation can be paraphrased as “if someone is in trouble then you will follow due process steps a, b, c – otherwise (that is, you choose not to follow due process) you depose based on a majority of all those entitled to vote”. Skipping the still-devastating issue of “majority of all those entitled to vote” the implied logic of your creative interpretation (“if you do not wish to follow due process then this is how you proceed”) is astounding.
I am terribly sorry – but this is just being stubborn. In any other context (if the shoe were on some other foot) I cannot believe otherwise intelligent people would swallow this.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. This thread is again being hijacked. Regretfully, some very fine comments- all directly related to this comment- will be deleted. Please don’t allow one individual to so dominate a thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Brian (#91): Apart from your being wrong about the requirement for a prior inhibition, it appears that your theory of the declarations or acts alleged to constitute abandonment is different from that contained in the certification of the Title IV review committee. The Title IV review committee concluded that the abandonment occurred “by renouncing the Discipline of The Episcopal Church.” That would have been under clause (i) of Section 1 rather than clause (iii) as you are maintaining. Even so, the review committee couldn’t quite bring itself to say that the “renunciation” was “open” as clause (i) requires.
Rick
I am terribly sorry – but this is just being stubborn. In any other context (if the shoe were on some other foot) I cannot believe otherwise intelligent people would swallow this.
I disagree that it is a stretch. However, the fact remains that all but 2 (arguably 3) of the Bishops of the Episcopal Church, the parliamentarian and the chancellor “swallow this.” Even if you argue that some are being silent, then you are arguing that they are collaborators in this so-called travesty. Numerically, the people “swallow[ing] this” are a staggering majority. The numbers of those who “swallow this” are astronomical. So either your side is the only one not blinded or there are an huge number of bishops who are just plain lying.
Following on #102, the certification by the Review Committee is [url=http://geoconger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/cox-title-iv-report.pdf]here[/url]. Mike Watson always beats everyone to the punch!
Brian, point to one instance where a Bishop of the Episcopal Church was deposed without first being inhibited and then your (and Schori’s, and Beers’, and the parliamentarian’s) reading would have some precedent for support. But the unarguable historical fact is that never in the course of over 150 years has the Canon been read that way, [i]except[/i] in the case of Bishop Cox. Inhibition, according to the plain language of the canon, is what makes a Bishop “liable to deposition”. That’s the way it’s been done and followed for over 150 years, and inventing a new reading at this juncture to save face for what was done with Bishop Cox is throwing out the baby to save the bathwater.
Brian: Come on, you can’t really believe your post #92, can you? Let’s play along with you for the 5 seconds it will take to show how utterly ridiculous your purported interpretation is.
Okay, so you say
Three points/questions:
1) Why does section 1 say that the PB “SHALL” inhibit the bishop in question. Under your proposed interpretation, it would have to be “MAY” inhibit the bishop in question. “Shall” does not suggest that the thing is optional.
2) Why does your interpretation not fit with the logical ordering of Canon IV.9? Section 1 clearly refers to the act of “abandonment of communion” and the inhibtion. Section 2 clearly refers to the subsequent process of deposition. Your proposed interpretation requires a logical break in the middle of section 1, then section 1b and section 2a be grouped together. Then section 2b be its own section, followed by section 2c be yet another section. You are suggesting a crazy ordering of snakes and ladders to order Canon IV.9 instead of accepting its logical structure.
3) Your interpretation does not follow the grammar or flow of the canon. The flow of the relevant area in section 1 says this:
According to your interpretation, there is a logical break between “thereon” and “During”, but that goes completely against the grammar and flow of the section. The phrase “the period of Inhibition” clearly is a reference to the inhibition the PB was REQUIRED to have imposed in the previous sentence.
Also the term “otherwise” in section 2 immediately follows a conditional statement with the first option being that the inhibition is lifted (i.e. no further need to depose). The placement of “otherwise” logically must refer to this immediately preceeding statement.
4) Your suggested interpretation has no basis in the legislative history of this canon.
Brian – I quite agree that the majority of the HoB is swallowing this patently ridiculous interpretation of the canons. The question I have is – will the secular courts?
As I pointed out, this contention is either a deliberate falsehood or delusional…You pretend that all is settled and over, Brian. It is far from that.
I’m just repeating myself now, so this is my last post unless something new is out there.
Jeffersonian, all I can say is that I am proud to be in league with 291 false or delusional bishops, the chancellor and the parliamentarian. As I am certain you are proud to be in league with all those people who have no decision making ability on this issue and the 3 bishops who do. 293 to 3 are pretty good odds!
Chancellor
Ok, then you agree that there is precedent for reading Canon IV.9 voting as a majority of those present. As to the inhibited part, there is a first for everything.
Jamesw
1. “SHALL” applies only if there is consent to inhibition.
2. Your logical analysis is flawed. It is written as an IF…THEN…OR…THEN
3. See flow of 1 above
4. Plenty of legislative histories do not anticipate every situation possible
The question I have is – will the secular courts?
I don’t find it relevant. Only time will tell.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, all I can say is that I am proud to be in league with 291 false or delusional bishops, the chancellor and the parliamentarian. As I am certain you are proud to be in league with all those people who have no decision making ability on this issue and the 3 bishops who do. 293 to 3 are pretty good odds! [/blockquote]
[url=http://www.logicalfallacies.info/bandwagon.html]Bandwagon Fallacy[/url]
The rest jamesw says better than I, so I’ll let your non-response to him stand as a monument to your mendacity.
JamesW, it would seem that our friend believes that inhibition is an optional step in the deposition process, to be deployed or not by the PB depending on some arcane, unspoken criteria. I imagine that, under this new-and-improved reading of the Canons, a PB could invoke inhibition if (s)he wanted to delay or scuttle the process in the knowledge that the three senior bishops would not consent. Alternately, she could stampede directly to the deposing step by calling up enough of her like-minded bishops to scape together a quorum, find a compliant and timid parliamenarian, a sock-puppet chancellor and have run her enemy out on a rail.
I’ll leave it to our revisionist deep-thinkers as to how this differs from a show trial.
Brian,
Apparently you don’t know how to read the English language.
The canon you cite as the charge says:
religious body other than this church or another church in communion with this church…
Do you not acknowledge the Southern Cone as “another church in communion with this church” as a part of the Anglican Communion?
If you do, then your argument is without merit and frivolous. If not, then you must acknowledge that the Episcopal Church has left the Anglican Communion.
Which is it? As we say here in Texas, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
I’m a reappraiser. Heck, I’m a lefty/liberal who usually posts here to point out weaknesses, inconsistencies and bigotry in re-asserter arguments.
The process used against Bishop Cox stinks to high heaven. The canon was willfully misread. We progressives are right about a lot of things, but we’re dead wrong if we defend this proceeding.
Not only that, but this was stupidly handled and unnecessary. The PB had Cox dead to rights–he was proud of what he did–but now he’s been railroaded and given his health he’s been made a potential martyr. Not a good moment for a group that claims to seek (social) justice within (and without) the church.
The HOB should admit it is wrong, repent and either
A. Do it correctly, or
B. Just forget the whole thing
Dan Ennis
Thank you for your comment. As one who has been an outspoken critic of the Cox deposition, I want to acknowledge that it would clearly have been possible (although unwise, IMO) to depose Bp. Cox in accordance with the canons. We are talking about means here, not ends, but rules are the essence of justice in an ordered community.
#103 – First I genuinely appreciate Brian’s persistent participation in this discussion. Gotta give credit for that.
[blockquote]However, the fact remains that all but 2 (arguably 3) of the Bishops of the Episcopal Church, the parliamentarian and the chancellor “swallow this.†Even if you argue that some are being silent, then you are arguing that they are collaborators in this so-called travesty. Numerically, the people “swallow[ing] this†are a staggering majority. The numbers of those who “swallow this†are astronomical. So either your side is the only one not blinded or there are an huge number of bishops who are just plain lying.[/blockquote]
Aside from the Bandwagon Fallacy… and the issue of to what extent one must accept without protest how people who want an End judge the quality of the Means… (one is reminded of the process by which the Southern Baptist Convention was transformed – at times with flagrant violations of parliamentary procedure but hey the President of the convention ruled that way and so did the parliamentarian who by the way was drinking buddies with the ringleaders so who are we “Baptist liberals” to say what is or is not right procedure?)… you are (unintentionally I think) offering us a wee piece of blackmail here.
What do I mean? You offer a neat dichotomy. “Either we are not blind or they are all liars”. I thought binary thinking was the bugbear of fundamentalists but I guess there are exceptions. You attempt to place us (critics of the means used by +Schori et al) in the position of having to choose between hubris and malice. And because we are reluctant to accuse so many bishops of “lying”… hence this constitutes emotional (or moral?) blackmail.
This is a false dichotomy which I reject. I argue that the Presiding Bishop was wrong. Those who say she did no wrong are also wrong. And those who said nothing are wrong. Wrong. I do not know about lying. Maybe it is “knowing falsehood”. Maybe laziness. Maybe cowardice. Maybe… it is zeal for the End (or Cause or Goal or Vision or… whatever) so strong that otherwise good and intelligent people stumble? because they want the End so badly they demur when the Means are problematic. Many (certainly not all) arguments advanced to defend the depositions boil down to “these guys deserved it… the Presiding Bishop had to do this to protect the Church” (so any Means to gain such a worthy End).
It (this false dichotomy and implicit blackmail) is a highly effective rhetorical technique. Took me a while to spot it.
Brian:
So when the canon says “The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said Bishop”, the “shall” means that she is required to if she chooses to, but is not required to if she doesn’t choose to?!?!? The language does not read “If the three senior bishops consent, then the PB shall…” but rather the “PB with the consent of the three senior bishops, shall…” The plain grammatical flow of this sentence is does not permit the twisting you are doing Brian.
And note, Brian, that for other offenses, the PB can issue a temporary inhibition on a Bishop without any consents needed by Senior Bishops! Why would the canon put such an onerous burden on what you suggest to be a completely optional inhibition. It simply makes no sense. The intepretation you propose is absurd.
Brian, you say “It is written as an IF…THEN…OR…THEN”…..except that it isn’t written that way at all. You are proposing to slash sentences in half; to disregard the logical organization of section 1 and 2; and to twist meanings into absurd nonsenses.
And the legislative history, Brian, makes it quite clear what was intended.
Will this ever come to the secular courts? I don’t think directly, but it very well might come up indirectly. The two areas in which it might come up have to do with (1) whether or not TEC is following its own rules, because if it can be demonstrated that it is openly violating its own rules, that will undermine its claim to be a heirarchical church; and (2) whether or not Jerry Lamb has standing to sue in California as the bishop of San Joaquin.
But there is more to it then that Brian – there is the moral credibility of TEC at stake. The only people defending your interpretation are interested parties connected to the system, a few sycophants and yourself. Those who are siding with the argument that there has been a serious canonical violation include virtually all practicing attorneys and legally trained individuals – liberal and conservative – who post to TitusOneNine or StandFirm.
I spent a number of years doing legislative drafting and have commented several times over the last few weeks, making the same points that jamesw, Chancellor, Jeffersonian, Mark McCall, and others (including DC) have made. This is not a complicated Canon and the plain reading of it can not reasonably be avoided. The violations in the case of Bishop Cox are absolutely clear, no matter how hard Brian continues to want it to be otherwise.
However, probably the most important point in all this is the one jamesw just made. That is, TEC’s moral credibility, claim to stand for justice, and its basic integrity and claim to be Christian are at stake. The PB’s conduct in all this is reprehensible (“despicable” in Bishop Howe’s view) and the failure of bishops to speak out is shameful.
Of course the canon is clear, but that misses the point. Schori et al are not worried about what this canon, or any other, says, since it is her stated intention to rewrite canons as necessary. The above arguments are largely reasonable but irrelevant. This should be transparent to you.
She is marching to quite a different drum. See my post above. Her interest is in establishing the New Kingdom Of This World so that the attachments of the Old World need removal. Tell me, what do you think the standard canons are to her? And if she does not obey them, who will interfere with her? You are judging her by your own standards and she clearly hold them in disregard, and why should she not? All your talk is of no effect.You cannot touch her. Larry
Aside from the Bandwagon Fallacy… and the issue of to what extent one must accept without protest how people who want an End judge the quality of the Means…
The made-up Bandwagon Fallacy does not apply here. These 291 Bishops are not jumping on the bandwagon. As Kendall+ asserts, they have been informed. They have heard the arguments. They just agree with the chancellor and the parliamentarian.
You attempt to place us (critics of the means used by +Schori et al) in the position of having to choose between hubris and malice. And because we are reluctant to accuse so many bishops of “lying”… hence this constitutes emotional (or moral?) blackmail.
Don’t accuse me on this one! This is the only option presented by Kendall+ in his argument above. Which is the only reason I posted in the first place. I believe that there are 2 additional options – we genuinely believe that this reading is correct and/or we are stupid. Kendall+ placed before you the 2 options. Reread what he has written above.
So when the canon says “The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said Bishopâ€, the “shall†means that she is required to if she chooses to, but is not required to if she doesn’t choose to?!?!?
james, I can’t help you out any more than I have. It means SHALL inhibit IF the 3 senior bishops consent. If they do not consent, then it goes to the House.
The only people defending your interpretation are interested parties connected to the system, a few sycophants and yourself.
EXACTLY!!!! And the only people who matter are the the interested parties connected to the system! Get it? That is what is important. Not my interpretation, your interpretation, sycophants or others. ONLY INTERESTED PARTIES CONNECTED TO THE SYSTEM!
Those who are siding with the argument that there has been a serious canonical violation include virtually all practicing attorneys and legally trained individuals – liberal and conservative – who post to TitusOneNine or StandFirm.
Uninterested parties not connected to this system. And virtually all attorneys – I am one and I disagree. But I am not connected to this. How many bishops are attorneys or are legally trained and have not objected? Makes one wonder.
Brian: If you are suggesting a very realpolitik subjective view that within TEC, the canons mean exactly what the PB and her minions say they mean, no matter how absurd, unless the bishops speak out, then you are correct.
If you are suggesting that there is an honest, objective argument that Canon IV.9 means what you are suggesting, then your argument is beyond absurd. I might as well be arguing with someone who claims the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. Or perhaps I could argue that the Episcopal Church doesn’t really exist outside of your imagination. These arguments have about as much merit as your interpretation of Canon IV.9. You are twisting words beyond any semblance of grammar, flow and the English language, all to achieve a pre-conceived result. Either words, grammar, sentence arrangement and logical arrangement of sections have meaning or they don’t.
However, we do agree that neither you nor I can influence the interpretation – other then our roles in education and lobbying. And that I will continue to do, because I believe that this was the bridge too far on the part of KJS.
Brian: A few other questions: How many Enron executives objected to what went on there in its dying days? How many mortgage lender executives and experts objected to what went on prior to the housing crash? How many of Napoleon’s generals objected to the march on Russia? How many of the educated people in Jonestown objected to drinking the Koolaid?
History is full of examples of educated people keeping quiet in the face of tyranny or when they think they are getting a cut out of it. The real question is what will the recriminations be if this canonical abuse forms the basis of a series of catastrophic legal defeats in the civil courts.
Brian:
All of us in the Anglican Communion are interested parties. Bishops are created for the whole Church, not just one national manifestation of it. That Church is defined as those national bodies whose bishops are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
While the actions of Bishop Cox are publicly admitted and are outside the territorial imperatives claimed by TEC, his actions are not those of a bishop who has abandoned the larger Church. Attempting to depose him using the abandonment canon, thus declaring his ordination vows to be invalid, seems to be the very height of vindictiveness.
The gracious solution for Bishop Cox would have been to accept his resignation from TEC’s house of bishops and to send a strongly worded protest to the Archbishop under whose authority he currently serves to cease and desist from these border crossings. I am certain that Archbishop Venables would accept this admonishment and act upon it in the same spirit that TEC accepted the advice to refrain from installing Bishop Robinson.
Bill, we may be interested parties, but what is important is that we are impotent parties. Deposing Bishop Cox is pointless from where we stand and it is illegal, counterproductive and all the other things. But what difference does this make? This is not a rhetorical question. Schoori is expanding the scope of her power to disrupt, to break the circumference of Business As Usual, to demonstrate that Anglicans are helpless to alter what TEC does. To teach this lesson is of vital importance to her, and we are learning it, because out anger is turning to hot air, not to action. The more this happens, the less likely it is that we will ever act in concert. Larry
#109. Larry Morse
“… we are impotent parties.” I would agree, if we were not followers of a God of awesome power. It is true that the comments on a thread like this can make us look as if we are “all talk and no action”, but I would remind all of us that if a certain lawyer had not issued a letter demanding a retraction of defamatory comments (the letter being a very strong action), this particular thread filled merely with talk would not exist. I would suggest that we could do the same analysis on many prior threads that seemed endlessly to be discussing some action by an orthodox person or group. They were initiated by some faithful action, which may have future impact that we, as observers merely of today, are completely unaware. GAFCON comes to mind. Even Bp Howe’s (at long last) strong objections to the invalid depositions were faithful actions, not mere words of “impotent parties”.
As I have said before on other threads, I am glad that not all the strategies and plans of the Lord’s faithful leaders are laid out for all to see in advance. We are told that He certainly keeps his own council and does not expose all his plans to us in advance. I do trust that His church will prevail and that the faithful Anglican portion of that church will continue to be part of those who are obedient to the Great Command and the Great Commission. That is not a vision that consists only of “impotent parties”.
Elves:
While I don’t doubt that my comments were among the “very fine comments- all directly related to this comment” which were deleted, I think that they should have stayed in along with Brian’s comments.
I do not necessarily agree that Brian was hijacking the thread, or if he was, he was representing a lot of TEC officials with his comments. I personally think it important to demonstrate to readers of the comments how supporters of KJS’s actions re:Cox justify their actions. I have seen the arguments Brian made (since deleted) being made by others in situations where they have not been challenged. This was the first discussion I have seen in which Brian’s interpretation (which is apparently shared by the majority of the HoB) of the inhibition/deposition issue was challenged in depth. As such, I think the posts were educational.
I believe that I had concluded my last post with something along the lines of “either words, phrases and grammar have meaning or they don’t” and I will admit that I had come to the end of the line in my discussion with Brian in this discussion, because we had arrived at a point where (I thought) further discussion was counterproductive. But I believe the process in coming to that point was educational.
With all respect for your sensible answer, Bill, but we are impotent because there is no on and no means for stopping Schori at al. Her concern for a civil suit is obviously a small matter, nor will civil actions halt TEC depredations. I suspect that this sense of being helpless is part of the reason that there is such acidity in many lengthy blogs.
What is needed is leadership, I submit. We clearly lack it presently. We require leadership that will clearly and unequivocally declare TEC outlaw and disenfranchised, which will resolutely turn its back on TEC without waffling, and which will turn its attention to bringing the disparate units of American Anglicanism into some kind of coherent whole – and this means bringing American Anglicans to council. Without leadership, talk. With leadership, action. Larry
Actually jamesw, this is quite typical. Once I bring up on-point topics that the moderator can not answer, he sends in Elf Lady to use the “hijack the blog” excuse. Then he will delete this saying it is a “personal attack” on Elf Lady. Been through it before.
It seems to me that, while Bishop Cox may have abandoned communion with The Episcopal Church, he did NOT abandon communion with any other province of the Anglican Communion, did he? Therefore, doesn’t it stand to reason that since TEC is in fact still in communion with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas, under whose protection he is now functioning, he is still an Anglican bishop?
I doubt very much that his supposed “deposition” would be accepted as fact by most of the other primates. They’d treat it as a purely internal matter of The Episcopal Church, while ignoring it as far as they are their provinces are concerned.
And so it would seem, Cennyd, insofar as +Cox is still recognized as a Bishop in the Southern Cone. I pray that his health and that of his dear wife remain such that he can continue to perform Confirmations and Ordinations.
Dan in #104, that is a very commendable comment, good for you.
Can you explain why so many other reappraisers are not willing to say so publically, and, is it not incumbent upon you all to do something about it? I would hope saner minds could prevail and that some sort of reconsideration/reworking/redressing of the clear violation of the canons could be done.
There is a lot at stake for those who speak so often of justice and of the importance of “our polity.”