This memorandum evaluates whether the Presiding Bishop has violated the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church and what procedures would be applicable for charging her with a presentable offense. This memorandum identifies at least eleven violations of TEC’s constitution and canons by the Presiding Bishop in her dealings with Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin. Taken together, these actions demonstrate willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor. In the case of DSJ, the fundamental polity of TEC as a “fellowship of duly constituted dioceses” under the ecclesiastical authority of the diocesan bishop has been subverted. The memorandum then addresses the procedural requirements for filing charges against the Presiding Bishop.
Have any of the bishops issued a statement of support for her depositions, particularly the deposition of Bp. Cox?
Very important read.
I can hear the excuses now. “It was unintentional. I was in the kitchen making cookies.” If the errors listed were intentional then…
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott
The writing is on the wall for the 815 crowd. They will pay the Piper sooner than later.
I hope someone will help me out here. Is Schori now forced canonically to respond? Is the HOB canonically required to act in some manner, and if so, what is required of them? Can this memorandum simply be left hanging in the air? Larry
Larry #4: I have no insider knowledge, but none is required to answer your questions. At this point, the memorandum is an informal (and anonymous) document that is circulating informally. The Presiding Bishop is not required to respond in any way, nor is the HOB. If the canonically required number and combination of bishops, priests, and laity file a presentment (which they would do with the presiding officer of the HOB, since the respondent would be the PB), then it would go to the Title IV Review Committee (already constituted, with its bishop members appointed by the PB [or her predecessor] and clergy and lay members appointed by the President of the House of Deputies [or her predecessor]), which would then determine whether the charges have merit. If they do so determine, the case would proceed to trial, and the PB would then be invited to respond.
Fr. Dan Martins is correct. And to answer your last question, yes. This memorandum can be just left hanging in the air.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Thanks, #5.
But, #5, surely the PB knows whence cometh this memorandum, which is, for all practical purpose, a threat. Surely such a thing cannot be kept secret. In short, the memorandum is not REALLY anonymous. i The Anonymous authors, however, must be men/women of substance; anything less than this would carry no weight. The PB then must search these authors out immediately and move to counteract their charges.
Merely denying them will make her look vulnerable/oblivious. Since the memorandum seems to show just cause, the HOBs must also act to keep others from joining the action, for clearly, this must be the great threat, that others will join this action and make it snowball.
Larry
If you want to know who wrote it, just wait until KJS issues her next round of inhibition statements. 😉