Is there anyone out there who can show, based on the language of the canons themselves, and the language of the history and explanation of the Canon in White and Dyckman, the standard reference work on the canons, that the canons were followed in these two depositions?
I have seen much special pleading, dodging, and sophistry, but I have seen not one case of such a defense from anyone including the presiding Bishop’s Chancellor.
People who claim to speak for justice and polity continue to undermine their own witness and credibility in this matter and the clock is ticking–KSH.
Kendall, Sadly the clock is ticking in different directions for different dioceses. For you, it is ticking to liberation and for me in Upper SC it is ticking to destruction.
I would love to see the relevant canons briefed (which is what you are asking). Such an exercise would at a minimum add clarity to the discussion. At best it could actually lend credibility to the House of Bishops’ actions.
“Special pleading,” “dodging,” and “sophistry” don’t add any credibility to your pronouncement. These words are simply name-calling, which anyone can adopt to cast aspersions upon a differing opinion. As a reader who considers you both a gentleman and a fair-minded spokesman for your conclusions, I believe you are in this instance playing “cheap and dirty.” I hope it won’t continue.
Kendall+
This has been done by several reappraisers. You simply refuse to accept our view. The challenge is a red herring.
“Special pleading,†“dodging,†and “sophistry†are descriptions of statements, not derogatory names given to those making those statements. Canon Harmon might be inaccurate in his descriptions of reappraisers statements (I think he is quite accurate, fwiw), but he has impugned no one’s character or intelligence.
Wolfstan,
As a reader of this blog, I am open to how you would respond to the moderator’s series of questions. IMHO, your response makes the moderator’s point; redirecting this to be about his language rather than the issues on the table is an example of the “dodging” to which he refers.
Brian
I might take these “descriptions” more seriously if those giving them had not already made up their minds that anything coming from the “reappraising” side is automatically deceitful, heretical, and anathema to God.
The other thing that makes my point is that people are talking about what the post doesn’t say and the poster rather than the issue at hand.
Is there a defence with citations? If so, please direct us to it.
Hey, folks, it’s a challenge to produce a justification for the deposition that is straightforward [i]and[/i] based on law and precedent. Stop complaining about labels, and give it your best shot.
Yes, Kendall #7, the whining in place of answering the question does stand out.
The bottom line is, even some of the staunchest defenders of the action, Mark Harris and Fr. Jake, work their way around to a) saying +Cox and +Schofield deserved it, anyway, and that’s all that matters, and b) the canons will, of course, have to be “cleaned up” at GC09 – lame excuses if the propriety of the process is so unimpeachable.
FatherJake’s feeble attempt doesn’t work at all, and Mark Harris is rightly taken to task by fellow reappraiser D.C. Toedt (who is enhancing his stature in this). Brian from T19 lost all credibility by not even knowing the most basic facts when he started posting.
Surely there must be something more than this?
It is interesting,too, that the majority of reappraisers are silent on this matter.
Wolfstan, Kevin & others,
Don’t worry about what certain words may mean or whether our minds are made up. Please address the question at hand. You might be surprised at the reaction to a well reasoned arguement.
Might I suggest, fellow reasserters, that we refrain from additional comment on this thread to avoid further opportunity for “special pleading, dodging, and sophistry” by our worthy opponents, and let them fill the comments with their well-reasoned canonical arguments?
#12, West Coast Cleric. Agreed. As I stated above, I would like to hear the argument in favour of the actions being proper, especially with reference to the sources mentioned. As others have stated here and elsewhere, there is no need for any name calling by anyone. Just a statement of facts and an explanation of the reasoning drawn from those facts.
As an attorney I represent Homeowners Associations. Each Association (like any corporation) has its set of By-Laws are different and typically reflect the views of the creator of the organization. All of them have different quoroms to have a meeting, remove a director, call for a special meeting or ammend the by-laws Most to ammend the by-laws call for a majoity of all the members not just those present and voting (this typically means an effort to collect proxies ahead of the meeting). To have a Cannon or a by law that calls for a majority vote of the membership to remove a member is not uncommon. It prevents factions from taking control and eliminating their opposition – which is in effect what is occuring in the Episcopal Church. The argument from the reappraiser side is in effect that to read the by-laws on their face would make it nearly impossible to depose a Bishop. They are correct in that it is nearly impossible (it should at least be very difficult) and arguably the threshold should be lower – perhaps that is why Spong was not summarily removed. But that requires a change in the cannons not merely a reinterpretation.
It’s pretty hard to take seriously the musings of an attorney who can’t spell the work “canon” correctly (in the ecclesiastical sense) the word “quorum” or the word “amend.”
These don’t appear to be typographical errors.
If you’re an attorney then I’m Napoleon Bonaparte.
For what it’s worth:
I’m not a lawyer, and certainly not a canon lawyer. Nevertheless (as opposed to TEC’s treatment of Holy Scripture) TEC did certainly create the canons and most certainly has the right to change them. This given, is there any extraordinary circumstance under which TEC might properly set aside its own procedural rules? (Side note: these do seem to be procedural rules we’re talking about here, don’t they?)
The United States Senate has quite a mountain of procedural rules restricting how it can go about its business. Yet, they regularly set aside these rules (by a supermajority) when they become inconvenient to getting their work done. I believe that other bodies have the habit or custom of setting aside procedural rules by unanimous consent; or else by a ruling from the chair upon hearing no objection.
A full answer, along with philosophical underpinnings, should address not only TEC’s un-canonical actions, but also the un-canonical action of the Provincia Anglicana del Cono Sur de América when they set aside their charter which says they comprise only South American entities in order to accept the Diocese of San Joaquin into their midst.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
#3: Speaking as a teacher of critical thinking, ‘sophistry,’ ‘special pleading,’ and ‘dodging’ are all terms used in logic. No aspersions have been cast.
#15: Thank you for a textbook example of ‘the dodge.’ Whether or not someone can spell is immaterial. Be charitable: there may be dyslexia involved or some other factor. The fact that you chose to concentrate on spelling, though, and not on the argument presented is really quite telling.
For those who might be curious, here’s my “feeble” understanding, based on simply reading the canon, and past precedents.
In Title IV, Canon 15, we find this definition:
“All the Members shall mean the total number of members of the body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies.”
That is the language you’re looking for, but it simply isn’t there. Instead, we have this:
“Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry…”
The matter is presented at a meeting. Not by mail. Not by phone. After making that clear, the canon goes on to describe what must happen at that meeting. A majority of the “whole number”…meaning, unlike the qualification for calling a quorum, in this case, all the bishops present at the meeting, retired, resigned and active, will vote.
It would have been clearer if the phrase “at the meeting” was in the second sentence. Instead, we have to recognize that it is clearly implied by the first sentence.
This is not something I dreamed up, btw. This is how past depositions have been carried out by the House of Bishops. An example would be the 1993 deposition of Donald Davies, at which a majority of 137 Bishops gathered for a meeting gave consent to the deposition. You can find the archived news item here:
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=93168
I cannot recall a time in my life at least in which there was ever a majority of the House of Bishops present for anything. Many of the retired Bishops don’t attend such events. To read that condition into the canons is a real stretch, it seems to me, especially in light of it never having been read that way before.
I challenge someone to give me an example of even one deposition in which there was the kind of super-majority present at the meeting that you are reading into this canon.
Otherwise, I’d suggest that it is quite astounding that you believe you are wiser than all those past Bishops who read the canon in the traditional way, and did their duty by deposing renegade Bishops.
Just as it’s hard to take seriously someone who can’t spell the word “word” correctly.
#16: I think there is a difference here between rules and canon. Rules of the meeting can be changed more ealisy on the fly. Canon cannot be set aside (ammended by extensive procedure, yes, but not simply set aside). I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) that this is a question of canon, not procedural rules. In this case, the canon specifies the procedure, and therefore must be followed.
[i]Deleted. Off topic. See warning by the elves below about any attempts to continue the off-topic tangent about others’ spelling and grammar.[/i]
Kendall,
This whole macination zoo by 815 and its staunch acolytes IS indefensible. This is probably the same maddening mindset of which Jesus was talking when he wanted the disciples to be as clever and shrewd as the those of his corrupt generation. Amazing how he said such things within eye-view and ear-shot of the Temple establishment of his time. Nothing you say will change them. The truth is not there. Corrupt is as corrupt does. Either take them on in secular court (much more righteous than our own) or ice them out. Either way don’t look for consistency or common sense.
Charley (and all!) – CEASE & DESIST about spelling now!
Thank you. Any other comments about spelling and/or attacks about other commenters’ grammar or typos will be deleted and the commenter may be placed in moderation.
–elfgirl
#18: So how many bishops voted for the deposition in that case? And was 137 a majority of the House (those entitled to vote) at the time? I have to say that when there is no qualification shown, it is more of a stretch to find one implied (merely by the topic of the section), than to find one absent. History would be your better case, but I would like to see more details of historical depositions before agreeing to calling this a “traditional way.”
#21: No, I don’t. I think that’s what secretaries are for. My great-grandmother was an English teacher with the most atrocious spelling. But she didn’t become an English teacher in order to teach spelling; she became an English teacher to teach Hawthorne and Melville.
But this takes us off-topic … you still haven’t responded to what #14. wrote, and he has a point worth considering.
Apologies, Elves. I pushed ‘submit’ before #21.
Elves, I think the comment about Napoleon Bonaparte in #15 is gratuitous and inflammatory and should be removed.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
While we’re at it Elves how about a note on Anglicized spellings like “defence” “realisation” etc. from folks born, raised, and educated in the U.S.?
Do we really need that kind of feigned sophistication?
To FrJake #18, this may be off-topic, but, then again, maybe it isn’t. It’s equally “astounding that you believe you are wiser than all those past Bishops who read the Scriptures in the traditional way.â€
If there’s to be innovation (I don’t concede it here, but for purposes of your argument), I suggest it’s better to engage in it with respect to man’s rules than God’s.
Beg pardon, but iis not this furious debate merely academic? What we think is of no consequence since we can have no effect on the case at hand. Yes, some of you want to understand precisely, but the case seems to be that there is no “precisely” in this matter. In fact, the only thing that matters is what Schori et al are going to do, and as far as I can see, they are going to do nothing but what they intended to do in the first place – a practice they have consistently followed. Is it not clear to you that matters of principle are of no consequence when they hinder Schori et al’s goals? The rule is expedience, and for them, it is a successful rule. No one can stop S. et al because no one has the power. The case at hand gives “impotence” new force and power. Larry
Kendall, it begins to appear that the days in which we could enter into civil discourse upon fact or fantasy, let alone discussing canon law, are drawing to a close. It may be that a forum such as we have known Titus One Nine can no longer survive in the maelstrom of the disintegrating Episcopal church.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
#18, FrJake. I read the news article you linked to. Do you happen to know how many bishops there were at the time (retired and active)? Also, how many of those present voted to depose?
And Elves, feel free to delete this, but whilst I am an American by birth and current residence. I learned to spell in Canada. So I tend to add gratuitous ‘U’s to words. I also often reverse ‘r’ and ‘e’ at the ends of words. Please do not blame the poster, [url=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=buSwRxvYPZI”]blame Canada![/url]
——
[i]You’re pardoned for your Canadian spelling!! This elf is also often guilty of misspelling words and/or using European spellings. (Our day job requires a lot of correspondence with organizations in England and also some reports written in French, and so that tends to mess up one’s ideas of how to spell.) Somewhere on another thread today I’m aware of having typed a word using a British spelling. Didn’t bother to correct it. But PLEASE, no more comments about spelling on this thread. It’s too important to be sidetracked, thanks! –elfgirl[/i]
Further to #30, as an addition to LM’s statement “…the only thing that matters is what Schroi et al are going to do ….” leaves open the obvious second part of that statement, which is: The only other thing that matters, is what Reasserters will do in opposition to the PB’s march to the sea.
IMO, probably not much more than moaning and regretful comments will take place in the main, much as has been taking place since Pike and Spong.
Aggressive defence is certainly not a normal, TEC virtue.
To respond to the substance of Fr Jake at #18: I can see some plausibility in your argument as long as the particular canon in question is exegeted in isolation. Where I think it breaks down, however, is when the larger context of [b]all[/b] the canons is considered. Other places clearly indicate that the canons are capable of specifying “those present and voting” when that is their intent. In the absence of such a specification, it seems self-evident–to me, at least, though I am not trained in law–that the phrase “whole number of bishops entitled to vote” should be accorded its plain literal sense, without eisegetically reading qualifying language into the canon.
Even if one were to take Fr Jake’s interpretation that “bishops entitled to vote” means those in attendance, the deposition would not be valid. If there are 294 bishops who have the right to attend and vote at a meeting of the HoB, then it would take 148 bishops to constitute a quorum. There were only 131 bishops registered at the March meeting.
Bp Schori’s talk about a ballot by mail is a smokescreen. I think that such a method was tried in the past (with Bp Cummins, who formed the REC, I believe), but that does not mean that a mail ballot is what the canons are talking about.
What is more likely is that the canons lay out the procedures: 1) An inhibition is given, with the assent of the three senior bishops. 2) A meeting of the HoB is scheduled if necessary, or it is noted that the next regular meeting will deal with the deposition. 3) The meeting occurs, and a vote is taken. Regardless of how many bishops show up, it takes a majority of all those entitled to seat and voice to pass the deposition. In this series of events, it is known that the deposition will be on the agenda, and may perhaps be the agenda if it is a special meeting. Having a deposition on the agenda tells all the bishops, “Show up!”
Deposing a bishop is a serious matter. The canons cannot be treating such an act as though it were ordinary business.
Hakkatan,
The requirements for a quorum are different. In that case, those who have resigned their jurisdiction (which I assume includes retired) are not counted. Only active bishops. There was a quorum.
To be more specific in regards to the quorum; From Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:
“Sec. 2. Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity, or who, under an election to an office created by the General Convention, or for reasons of mission strategy determined by action of the General Convention or the House of Bishops, has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and a vote in the House of Bishops. A majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”
By my count there are 132 Bishops who have not “resigned their jurisdiction.” My count could be off by a few. That means that 67 active bishops would have been needed at the latest House of Bishop’s meeting for a quorum to be present. Since over 130 were present, it’s fairly safe to assume that they had a quorum.
As I recall, mail and e-mail consents were declared invalid at the first approval for Bp. Mark Lawrence of South Carolina.
the same standard should apply here.
Jim Elliott <><
[i] Comment directed toward another commenter deleted by elf. [/i]
I’m not sure why a reappraiser would have an incentive to take Kendall’s challenge (I acknowledge Fr Jake’s posts but also suspect Kendall has something more scholarly and substantiated in mind). If they successfully show the depositions were canonical, what have they won? They have the outcome they want, and the fact that Cox was deposed at all underscores the degree to which PR-value or basic Christian charity figures into the their calculus (ie, not much). Maybe they win some goodwill among still-loyal reasserters, but such political capital is of small value, and its value decreases every day with GC2009 looming. If they reach the conclusion to that the depositions were canonically invalid, would their behavior change? Look at how Scripture is treated, or BCP, or ordination vows, or even simply public statements by many bishops. Why should the canons be any different? Sure, the canons and polity are invoked by many reappraisers (often in close proximity to the phrase “ancient traditions of the church”), but is this because reappraising individuals really do believe in them, or because these sources of authority can be invoked more effectively in the service of the outcomes they wish to achieve? If you believe the former, you haven’t been paying attention.
Canons have been greatly ignored or obfuscated for at least the past 5 years. Why the surprise now? When Holy Scripture is relegated to a writing of men that can be rewritten, TEC has more to worry about than bishops who have voluntarily departed for other parts of the Anglican Communion. Besides, it gives true witness to the rest of the Communion as to their character and spirit. I doubt Cox or Schofield are lying awake worrying about what TEC thinks or says about them.
It appears to me that the gravamen of Fr. Jake’s argument is precedence. The argument is that this is how it was done in the past, so it is now practicable to interpret “the whole number of bishops entitled to vote” as meaning the same thing as “those present and voting”(although admittedly this stretches the plain meaning). In effect, Fr. Jake is arguing that the previous acts of the HOB meetings have established the meaning of the text.
The major weakness of the “precedent” argument is that, as far as I know, the prior HOB meetings neither decided nor even discussed the interpretation of the language in question. So, the actions taken by the previous HOB meetings were clearly not precedent in the strong sense that a precedent is a decision that contains in itself a principle(ratio decidendi). At best, it could be said that the actions of the previous HOB meetings set a precedent sub silentio. But why follow a precedent sub silentio that requires one to ignore the plain meaning of the text?
I concur, TWilson. I think I would add “precedent” to your list. Precedent is thin cover for a faulty process. Also. if I recall correctly, precedent did not help Bp. Lawrence in his first election.
So, if there were 132 bishops present, how many were bishops who had retired or resigned? If retired or resigned bishops are not counted in the number needed to have a quorum, they cannot be counted as helping to form a quorum.
I would bet that there were fewer than a hundred active bishops present.
Are there provisions for voting by proxy in the HOB?
Fr. Jake’s comments are classic special pleading. A quorum and a super majority are two different things. If you have a supermajority you have a quorum. If you have a quorum you may not have the required supermajority. Thay are apples and oranges.
Let me try to lay out TEC’s best argument. In so doing, I suppose I’ll admit to being a lawyer, though I’ll further admit at the outset that my proofreading generally is atrocious.
The operative language in Title IV, Canon 9(2) is, as we all know by now, “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.†I agree with my fellow reasserters that this language, read naturally, seems to refer to all bishops entitled to vote irrespective of their attendance at the meeting.
One point gives some pause: Title IV defines the term “all the members†as “the total number of members of the Body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies.†Title IV, Canon 15. In other words, the Title creates its own shorthand for “all the members regardless of attendanceâ€â€”and then fails to use that shorthand in Canon 9(2). When a statute declines to use a defined term, the natural inference is that the drafters did so to signal that they meant something other than the defined term. See, e.g., BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994) (Scalia, J.) (“It is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely when it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another, and that presumption is even stronger when the omission entails the replacement of standard legal terminology with a neologism.†(internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted)). Thus, one could argue by failing to use the term “all the members,†the drafters of Canon 9(2) indicated that the meant something else, namely a majority of those present.
In any event, the Canon is poorly drafted. The drafters should not have created the defined term “all the members†and then declined to use it, if indeed “all the members†is what they meant. Along the same vein, if they meant to deviate from that term, they should have done so in clearer language (e.g., “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote and present at the meetingâ€).
But in such case the language must be construed in favor of the accused.
Actually, Jake (#38), there are [url=http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/17/hob-secretary-no-one-challenged-pbs-ruling]sixty-eight [/url] active bishops needed to make a quorum, and by the time the resolution to depose came up for discussion, that is [url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/doubts-over-depostion-trial-cen-32108-p-7/]just the number[/url] who responded to the roll call (plus an indeterminate number of retired bishops). According to the Secretary, the voice vote was not unanimous, so you have less than half of the active Bishops voting to depose one of their colleagues—how can that be right?
For an example of how the House of Bishops once struggled to get a full majority of its members present to vote on a deposition, see the report in the New York Times linked in the discussion about the deposition of Bishop McCoskry [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/history-of-abandonment-of-communion.html]here[/url].
I meant to add to my post (#50): in the case of Bishop McCoskry, there were 31 bishops (out of a House with 62 members) needed to make a quorum on the question of deposition, since Bishop McCoskry was not entitled to vote on his own deposition. They just got their quorum, and all thirty-one voted to depose. If Jake’s reasoning had been applied, they would have needed just sixteen affirmative votes to depose him!
#49, agreed. The rule of lenity requires that legal ambiguities be resolved in favor of the defendant. Because so few reappraisers had taken up Canon Harmon’s challenge, I thought I’d take a stab at finding a textual argument (i.e., one not based on prior practice) for TEC’s position. My post is best I could do. While not a ridiculous argument, I agree that it, at most, highlights some ambiguity in the Canon, and thus should not be construed against someone accused of abandoning communion.
If one takes the formula promoted by Fr. Jake and Mark Harris, the following can take place: a group of stragglers can be hanging around the meeting hall for the last few hours of the House of Bishops meeting. Others gave up and left. This group of perhaps 50 could be called upon decide the fate of everyone else and then be called “a majority” since they are the only ones present. THAT MAKES NOOOO SENSE, but it is the logical continuation of the failed argument that only those in attendance are entitled to vote.
And while at it, let’s recall that less than HALF of TEC’s Bishops even registered for this meeting. They only have TWO a year! Could it be that they are getting sick of themselves and loath going to these low tech lynchings and ceaseless whining forums? If less than half of the bishops attend, what does that tell the Church?
Pardon me, FrJake, but your use of the term “renegade bishops” really bothers me……especially in view of the FACT that the majority of TEC’s House of Bishops have chosen to distance themselves from the traditional orthodox views of the great majority of the world’s Anglican Christians. I therefore ask “who are the REAL “renegade bishops?”
I would really appreciate it if you could not sidetrack the discussion on the use of terms bu if you want to argue about that do it by email or off thread. The text of the canons and their history and White and Dyckman and Jakes argument is where I would appreciate it if the focus could be.
Thanks, too, to Jake for posting a response,
I genuinely appreciate FrJake showing up and attempting to answer (whether or not we are persuaded).
One difficulty I see in the “majority of those present” argument is [b]do we actually know exactly what the vote was?[/b] Was it not by voice? with specific votes by specific bishops not counted or recorded? Or am I mistaken?
Frankly I am surprised it takes a [i]mere[/i] majority to depose a bishop – whether or the quorum or all those “active” and eligible to vote on said issue. (But that is beside the point at hand.)
Here is what I don’t understand: Was it not made known to all the members of the House of Bishop’s that these depositions would be considered during their time together? If so, then why 1.) did so few bishops not show up for a matter of such grave importance? and 2.) Why did some (15 I think?) leave before the vote was taken? If there were indeed bishops who were opposed to these depositions why didn’t they attend and vote against the measures? Can we determine (generally) that if all those bishops had been there the outcome who have been different?
Q – Is there anyone out there who can show, based on the language of the canons themselves, and the language of the history and explanation of the Canon in White and Dyckman, the standard reference work on the canons, that the canons were followed in these two depositions?
A – No; no one who can show they were followed, because they weren’t.
Rick in Louisiana (#57) raises an important point (admittedly a moot point if the canons were not properly followed and there weren’t enough Bishops to form a majority vote in the first place): since the vote was by voice vote, no one knows how many of the bishops present voted aye, how many voted nay, and how many abstained from voting altogether. For a vote as important as charging a bishop with abandonment of the communion, is it not reasonable to expect to have some firm numbers as to how many bishops voted in favor of the claim of abandonment? Do we even have an exact number of bishops who were present when the vote was taken? I have heard claims made about the number of bishops present, then perhaps 15 left before the vote, but it seems to me there should have been an exact count of bishops who did actually vote. From what I am aware not one of the following numbers can be ascertained with any certainty: the number of bishops who actually voted, the number who voted aye, the number who voted nay, the number who abstained from voting. I would think that anyone interested in fairness and objectivity should be concerned with the fact that the vote was conducted in such a way to make it impossible to know with certaintly how the vote breaks down.
58: [blockquote] why 1.) did so few bishops not show up for a matter of such grave importance?[/blockquote]
I think some bishops did not attend because they did not want to lend any legitimacy to the proceedings by their presence.
No matter how thin Occam’s razor slices the voting at the recent HoB meeting, one thing is painfully clear.
This vote does not pass the small test. It stinks.
It is so cheesy and weak to go forward on voice vote only, for of course, there would be No recorded vote, so:
1) No one knows how many were in the house to vote on the motion.
2) No one knows how many in the house were entitled to vote.
3) No one knows how may voted for the motion.
4) No one knows who voted for the motion
5) No one knows if any of the bishops who were present but not entitled to vote, voted anyway, for one mumbled “Aye” sounds much like another.
6) Yep, the bishops there made sure that they have their political shelter of plausible deniability in place.
No, this action does not pass the smell test, except to announce to all downwind, that something was rotten upwind.
But, without push-back, it will stand.
Most things are decided “at a meeting†but this does not mean that “all qualified to vote” are automatically disqualified from voting because they are not “at the meetingâ€. In the real world proxies are sent out, or absentee ballots are sent in and every effort is made to insure that all qualified to vote are given the opportunity to vote on on issues that will be decided “at the meetingâ€.
If I stay home tomorrow, an election day here, am I still eligible to vote? I think that answers itself.
Not to set the argument back, but I think we also need to examine the purpose(s) of inhibition. Without inhibition, there is nothing to stop the PB from standing up at an HoB meeting, denouncing Bishop Abel, Baker or Charles as having abandoned the Communion and riding him out on a rail by virtue of a voice vote. Nothing.
As I pointed out on Jake’s site (prior to being banned for the sin of arguing), this is little more than mob rule in vestments.
I think I said this back when the topic first came up, but for the record, and speaking for myself as a reappraiser, I’ll say it again:
By a plain reading of the text, the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield were not in accordance with the governing canons. This is a bad thing.
I must disagree, however, with those who go on to conclude “…therefore they are not deposed.” In the final analysis, rules mean what they are interpreted to mean by the body that has the authority to so interpret the rules. In the secular U.S. government, that body is the court system. In TEC, there is so far as I know no such body other than the HOB or GC, and the HOB seems to have implicitly ruled that in the case of IV.9 “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” means “a majority of the Bishops present at the meeting.” Unless the HOB changes its mind or GC rules otherwise +Schofield and +Cox are indeed deposed so far as TEC is concerned.
Now, if the secular courts find themselves engaging the question whilst ruling on a secular matter — say, California property law, or a defamation case — then it may well be that they will find differently and the bishop(s) in question will not be considered deposed… for the purposes of the secular courts.
I haven’t followed the background of +Cox’s deposition enough to have an opinion on whether he ought to have been deposed. In +Schofield’s case, I think he really did abandon the communion etc. in the sense the canon means, and presented a pretty open and shut case for deposition. However, playing fast and loose with the canonical requirements for deposition has turned what was already a contentious and painful matter into an even uglier one, and this could and should have been avoided. I have to lump this together with the Mark Lawrence consents debacle as being a black mark for our side.
#65, Ross, why is aligning oneself to the Southern Cone (under Archbishop Gregpru Vemables) an “abandonment of the Communion”. Is not Archbishop Venables part of the Communion?
Perhaps someone can tell me what all the above are arguing about.
Isn’t there some point at which this debate become preciosity, a scholarly debate on matters of no consequence. Well, TEC has done wrong here. So what? Does TEC care? Can you do anything tht will alter TEC’s falsity, change TEC’s position — even get them to take you seriously? TEC is after all deposing bishops over whom it has no control or authority. How can you not burst out laughing? TEC is thrusting at shadows, and you are taking it all so seriously! There is an absurdity in the above arguments that really ought to be immediately evident. Larry
#66 Daniel Lozier:
If +Schofield believed that TEC was in communion with Southern Cone, then there would have been no point in leaving the one for the other.
Ross, that’s somewhat disengenious. By that reasoning there is no reason to move from one state to another since they are all part of the United States. Also you say: “I must disagree, however, with those who go on to conclude “…therefore they are not deposed.†In the final analysis, rules mean what they are interpreted to mean by the body that has the authority to so interpret the rules.” Except in this case they are also the prosecuters and not hardly neutral.
In response to #58 and #61 – by leaving or not showing up – for the purposes of the vote they are the same as a “no” vote – admittedly in a passive manner but the same effect. In response to Charlie above – my spelling and typing are both sub-par (luckily I have an assistant that does my real typing – she might object to typing my posts which I view as conversational) However, is there a way to use spell check (Microsoft) on this site – I have not fiqured it out?
#67 – Three words for your consideration that this is more than a tempest in a teapot:
– Pittsburgh
– Ft. Worth
Peace & blessings,
By not showing up to vote or leaving before said vote was taken…”silence denotes consent”
#69 Br. Michael says:
It’s true, and that’s a significant systemic flaw in the governance of TEC. It is, however, the system we have. So far as I know, there is no body in TEC that can overrule the HOB’s interpretations of this canon, so — however strained or self-serving it is — that interpretation will stand unless and until the HOB itself changes its mind.
Is it just? No. Is the system open to exactly this kind of abuse? Yes. Should we fix the systemic flaw, perhaps by creating an analog of the secular court system, so that if a situation like this arises in the future we have a means of resolving it? I think we should. But that, of course, won’t help us in this case.
#72
Actually in this case if a couple of the Nay votes had left there would not have even been a quorum
Actually – Paul may be onto the fix for the problem – the Orthodox should just leave the room everytime Schori tries to pull a fast one. Leave one or a couple to object to the lack of quorum.
It seems to me that we should expect more from our Presiding Bishop, especially since she is a woman, we do not expect meetings to be conducted as if they were sorority meetings. Even the Girl Scouts learn to conduct meetings according to “Robert’s Rules of Order” why should we expect less of her?
Sorry #71, I do not understand your comment. Please explain. I had hoped to hear someone tell the simple truth, that all this debate is toothless, and that Schori et al is untouchable. Have you information otherwise? Larry
Ross, in 73, writes:
“It’s true, and that’s a significant systemic flaw in the governance of TEC. It is, however, the system we have.”
And that doesn’t seriously disturb you? You just resignedly shrug your shoulders and claim, “Well, it’s obvious that the vote truly failed, but THEY say it’s valid, so what are we to do?” Have you no conscuious, man?
Every reappraiser who cherishes an ordered institution should be up in arms against this.
If I were a reappraiser, I think I’d be looking for a church that had at least a shred of integrity.
#77 All I’m saying is that the parliamentary issues remain. These will not be the last attempts by the ECUSA leadership to discipline bishops. Hence my mention of the two diocesans that are clearly within 815s crosshairs.
Question for the Canon law mavens, is there a provision for a quorum call during the proceedings or a provision to request a roll call vote?
Honestly, while I wish otherwise (following Civil War precedent note them as ‘absent’ until the mind of the communion is known), I at least understand 815’s view of the Scofield inhibition/deposition. They believe who controls the diocese, its properties, and its assets must be shown so that everyone can move forward with some certainty. What I especially don’t get is the lack of ECUSA working through the remnant standing committee. With the reappraser wing now controlling the major remnant voting block, they could have put their people in control within two conventions and seemed to have been quite open minded and conciliatory.
Also, the take no prisoners stance and ill will of going after retired bishops baffles me. What possible good comes of it? At most, present a quiet request of resignation of the HOB and be done with it. Not what I would do, but I could understand.
Peace,