The following editorial originally appeared on page 10 of the April 13, 2008 issue of The Living Church, an independent weekly magazine supporting catholic Anglicanism. It is reprinted by permission. If you wish to cite it, could you please include this heading and this blog as a source–KSH.
Inconsistent Treatment
The unusual occurrence of the House of Bishops voting to depose two of its members [TLC, April 6] has pointed out some inconsistencies in the application of canon law. Following the decision by the bishops to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox, questions arose as to whether canon law was followed correctly. At issue is whether there were enough bishops present to be able to take action against these two bishops. The matter is complicated. Title IV, Canon 9, Section 2 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church states that a vote to depose requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote.”
Because only 131 bishops registered for the gathering held last month at Camp Allen in the Diocese of Texas and at least 15 of them left before the vote to depose took place, and because there were 294 bishops entitled to voted on March 12 when the decision was made, it would appear that the depositions are invalid, for those in attendance were only about a third of the number of those entitled to vote.
Since the voting took place, several bishops have said that those present on March 12 were told that canonical procedures were being followed, and that there were no challenges to the procedure that was used. Later, David Booth Beers, the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, said the vote conformed to the canons. He said the canon meant a majority of those bishops present rather than all of the bishops eligible to vote.
We are concerned about an apparent inconsistency by some church leaders in dealing with canons. When the Diocese of South Carolina sought consents for its bishop-elect to be consecrated, the canons were applied with great detail when it was decided that procedures had not been followed correctly. The same diligence to canon law should have been given to decisions as important as these depositions.
The casual treatment of canon law in the depositions does not bode well for the future. With the possibility of similar action to be taken against more bishops and other clergy, it is necessary that all involved have a clear understanding of how the Title IV canons are to be applied. If the canons are unclear in their language, then someone needs to take the lead in getting them clarified, for there is much at stake.
It is lawlwssness under the color of law.
Some are more equal than others.
This is a direct result of the breakdown in faith and unity. Without a common faith, then unity is strained. Without unity, the only discipline is power. Now the reappraisers are in ascendency and their will to power is what drives their “interpretation” of the Canons.
While this is wrong and unjust, I expect nothing less. While I am saddened, I am not surprised. It will do no good to appeal to their conscience or to the rule of law. The reappraisers in power respect neither justice nor law. If they did, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote]The following editorial originally appeared on page 10 of the April 13, 2008 issue of The Living Church,[/blockquote]
Surely you mean April 13, 2007, or perhaps April 3, 2008, or some other non-future date?
Following the link shows a date of March 14, 2008.
Milton, we are quite confident Kendall has the date correct. It is common practice of many weekly magazines to date their publications based on the final date of the week of publication.
I.E. the current issue of Time Magazine, about to be published tomorrow, April 8, carries the date of April 14. See here if you don’t believe me.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine
Milton, the link with the date of March 14th is an *earlier* story which the brand NEW editorial is referencing. There is no link for the new editorial because it is not online. Thus Kendall’s note about explicit permission to publish it and the note that this is a T19 exclusive. This was a specific favor to the T19 community from the editors of The Living Church and we thank them very kindly for allowing Kendall to make sure a broader audience sees this.
–elfgirl
[blockquote]…someone needs to take the lead in getting them clarified, for there is much at stake.[/blockquote]
You can count on someone taking the lead: DBB has almost certainly already drafted the changes that will “clarify” the Kangaroo proceedings after the next General Convention. It is Red Queen justice with no appeal. Since there is no appeal, there is no hope for any clergy (and lay leaders for that matter) against the whims of bishops. Sad indeed; get ready for more of this.
Makes sense to me. The word “appeared” threw me, perhaps “upcoming” would have been clearer. Says a lot for Kendall’s well-earned stature in the Anglican blogworld to get a scoop like this.
As I see it, the true significance of this story is that news of the proceedings broke out of the world of cyberspace and, in some way, into the open. That may provide an opportunity for newspapers to pick up on it. I do think, however, with the general breakdown of the church that objective news of church proceedings is very hard to come by unless actively sought by persons in the pew willing to use computers and sift facts.
Deacon Phil, when is your bishop going to complain about this offensive story? He has to be pretty ticked off that there was an end around him and his duties as a senior bishop.
I would ask the same question of Brad Drell. When is +MacPherson going to speak out?
Anybody in West Texas to talk to Lillibridge?
I’ve come to the conclusion that any of the senior bishops who may be troubled by these actions are either cowed or are simply company-men with no resolve (minus +Howe who alone spoke out against it to his colleagues).
It also occurs to me that Katherine Jefferts-Schori was well schooled to lead the American house of bishops by spending years studying the behavior of invertebrates.
I have never been a big fan our our Presiding Bishop, but Christian charity has always guided me to give her the benefit of the doubt in these continuing issues. The longer I look at her Method of Operation, especially in this case, the more dubious I become of her agenda.
[blockquote]minus +Howe who alone spoke out against it to his colleagues[/blockquote]I may be mistaken, but I heard that Bishop Ed Little also objected.
#14 – I’m referring to the sarcastic letter to his colleagues in the HOB that +Howe made public around Easter. As far as I know Ed Little hasn’t objected publicly but don’t know for sure. Both bishops need to be asked why they didn’t call for a recorded vote, and why they didn’t question the lack of enough votes to depose, based on canons. This vote did not come out of the blue – there was plenty of advance warning.
Meanwhile, one of the three senior bishops, supposedly orthodox +Wimberly, remains completely silent privately and publicly which I gather to mean he supported the depositions or at minimum abstained. I’ve come to expect little leadership (pardon the pun) from our bishops and from +Wimberly in particular.