(Please note: this is posted here because of website issues elsewhere so that the resource may be available–KSH).
MEMORANDUM TO: Working Group April 21, 2008
FROM: [Redacted]
RE: Canonical Violations
You have asked for advice as to 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.
I. Canonical Violations By the Presiding Bishop
This memorandum does not address the possibility of charges against the Presiding Bishop for “[h]olding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” under Canon IV.1(c) or the “open renunciation” of the discipline of the Church under Canon IV.9.1, both of which have different procedures than those discussed below. This memorandum is limited to whether the Presiding Bishop has violated the constitution and canons of TEC in recent actions she has taken against Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Canon IV.1 provides that:
“A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon of this Church shall be liable to
Presentment and Trial for the following offenses, viz.:
”¦
(e) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention.”
This memorandum outlines several violations of the constitution and canons that would provide a basis for filing charges against the Presiding Bishop. For purposes of discussion, these violations are considered in three groups: first, those related to Bishop Cox; second, those related to Bishop Duncan; and third, those related to the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Bishop Cox
Because the issues related to Bishop Cox involve a close reading of Canon IV.9, this canon is quoted here in full for ease of reference:
Sec. 1. 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, or to administer on behalf of such
religious body Confirmation without the express consent and
commission of the proper authority in this Church; it shall be the duty
of the Review Committee, by a majority vote of All the Members, to
certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send
a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment,
which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding
Bishop. 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.
Sec. 2. The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith
give notice to the Bishop of the certification and Inhibition. Unless
the inhibited Bishop, within two months, makes declaration by a
Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts
alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon
IV.8 or Canon III.12.7, as applicable, the Bishop will be liable to
Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the
statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or
acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a
good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed
the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the
advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting
to Inhibition, terminate the Inhibition. Otherwise, it shall be the duty
of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops
at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by
a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give
its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the
Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more
Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.
Facts Relevant to Bishop Cox
The Review Committee identified in Canon IV.9 certified to the Presiding Bishop on May 29, 2007, that Bishop Cox had abandoned the communion of TEC. This certification was based on a letter from Bishop Cox to the Presiding Bishop offering to resign from the House of Bishops. Upon receiving the certification from the Review Committee, the Presiding Bishop did not confer with the three senior bishops of TEC or seek to inhibit Bishop Cox as required by the canon. She took no action until January 8, 2008, seven months later, when she sent Cox a letter advising him that he would be deposed under Canon IV.9 absent a retraction or denial within two months. Unlike the cases of Bishops Schofield and Duncan, none of the above facts was disclosed publicly by the Presiding Bishop.
On March 12, 2008, the Presiding Bishop presented the Cox matter to the House of Bishops and requested its consent to the deposition of Bishop Cox. Considerably fewer than half of the bishops of TEC were present when the resolution of consent was considered by voice vote. Either the resignation offer was never disclosed to the House of Bishops and voted on or it was rejected. No explanation was offered. Following the vote on consent to deposition, the Presiding Bishop pronounced Bishop Cox deposed and advised various parties, including TEC bishops and Primates of the Anglican Communion, that he had been deposed. Bishop Cox, in his late 80’s at the time of these events, was reportedly the oldest living bishop in TEC.
Violation #1 with respect to Cox
The Presiding Bishop failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by IV.9.1.
This canon provides that, following certification by the Review Committee, “[t]he Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said Bishop.” Although the inhibition itself is clearly subject to the consent of the senior bishops, the mandatory terms of this provision require the Presiding Bishop to take the steps under her control to impose the inhibition.
This she failed to do. According to The Living Church, the Presiding Bishop acknowledged that she did not seek the consent of the senior bishops and this fact was confirmed by one of these bishops. The basis for the certification of “abandonment” by the Review Committee was Bishop Cox’s stated intention to continue his episcopal ministry in the Anglican Communion following his move to the Southern Cone. To the extent this was harmful to TEC and its polity, it was imperative that he be inhibited so that these episcopal acts would not be performed under color of TEC authorization. That the Presiding Bishop took no action to inhibit Bishop Cox as required by the canon, and indeed, no action at all for seven months, belies the notion that this type of episcopal ministry is harmful to TEC and demonstrates the punitive nature of his eventual deposition by the Presiding Bishop.
As discussed further below, there are grounds for concluding that this was an intentional rather than a negligent omission on the part of the Presiding Bishop. Nor is this a technical issue that could be waived because it worked to the benefit of Bishop Cox. This requirement of inhibition is an important procedural protection that is integral to the application of this canon.
Violation #2 with respect to Cox
The Presiding Bishop purported to give notice to Bishop Cox under IV.9 commencing a two-month period for retraction or denial without the inhibition and consent of the senior bishops as required by the canon.
That canon only permits such notices to be given, however, of “certification and Inhibition” and the succeeding sentence makes clear that the two-month period applies only to an “inhibited Bishop.” The Presiding Bishop is attempting by these actions to create new procedures for deposing bishops under this canon that are analogous to, but inconsistent with, the explicit terms of Canon IV.9. It should also be noted that the new ad hoc procedures thus created remove procedural protections afforded to the charged bishop under the canon.
Violation #3 with respect to Cox
Assuming for the purpose of argument that the Presiding Bishop was permitted to give notice to Bishop Cox under Section 2 of Canon IV.9, she failed to do so “forthwith” as required.
The canon states that the Presiding Bishop “shall forthwith give” the Section 2 notice. In fact, the Presiding Bishop waited over seven months after receiving the certification from the Review Committee, dated May 29, 2007, before serving notice on Bishop Cox, which was finally done by letter dated January 8, 2008.
There is no precise definition of “forthwith” in the canons, but its meaning cannot contemplate a delay of seven months. This is made clear by the subsequent provisions of Section 2, which require (“it shall be the duty of”) the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at its “next” meeting. Indeed, the Presiding Bishop’s processing of the companion case of Bishop Schofield demonstrates the time frame contemplated by the duty to give notice “forthwith.” The Review Committee’s certification of Bishop Schofield was made on January 9, 2008. The Presiding Bishop then obtained the consents of the senior bishops and inhibited and gave the Section 2 notice to Bishop Schofield within 48 hours on January 11, 2008.
Once again, the available evidence supports the conclusion that the delay in giving notice to Bishop Cox was intentional rather than inadvertent. Had the notice been given in any reasonable time after the May 29 certification as required by the term “forthwith,” the requirement in Section 2 that the matter be considered at the “next” meeting would have put the Cox matter on the agenda for the September meeting in New Orleans. For obvious reasons related to the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the worldwide attention given to that meeting, that was undesirable so the canonical requirements were ignored.
Violation #4 with respect to Cox
Because Bishop Cox was not liable to deposition the Presiding Bishop presented the Cox matter to the House of Bishops in violation of canon law.
Canon IV.9.2 specifies when a bishop is “liable to Deposition” under the abandonment canon. It is only when an inhibited bishop, duly notified under Section 2, fails to make a specified retraction or denial within the two months. The Presiding Bishop then “presents the matter” to the House, which “consents.” A bishop who has not been inhibited is not “liable to deposition” under this canon. By “presenting the matter” of Bishop Cox to the House of Bishops for deposition, the Presiding Bishop was acting beyond her authority and subverting the provisions of Canon IV.9.
It has been suggested that the Presiding Bishop is authorized to present for deposition bishops that have not been inhibited by the following sentence in Section 2 of Canon IV.9: “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.” Such a strained interpretation of the canon is completely without merit. Canon IV.9 contains a series of mandatory duties in considering the possible abandonment of communion by a bishop of TEC. First, “it shall be the duty of the Review Committee” to certify the abandonment to the Presiding Bishop in precisely defined circumstances. Next, the Presiding Bishop “shall then inhibit” the bishop after obtaining the consents of the three senior bishops. Then, the Presiding Bishop “shall forthwith give notice” to the inhibited bishop giving him two months to issue a retraction or denial. Then follow two sentences specifying what is to happen at the end of the two-month period. The first provides for terminating the inhibition if a retraction or denial is offered: “If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting to Inhibition, terminate [sic] the Inhibition.” But if there is no retraction or denial: “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.”
To suggest that this sentence gives the Presiding Bishop authority to depose bishops who have not been inhibited is not only nonsensical in the context in which this sentence occurs, it renders nonsensical the entire canon. There is only one sentence in the canon authorizing the Presiding Bishop to present a bishop to the House of Bishops for consent to deposition. If that sentence applies to uninhibited bishops, there is then no provision in the canon specifying what is to be done in the normative case arising under this canon: that of an inhibited bishop who fails to make the necessary retraction or denial. A canon that is replete with mandatory duties at every step then becomes inexplicably silent at the crucial step of the typical case. Put differently, if the “Otherwise” sentence deals with uninhibited bishops such as Bishop Cox (and Duncan), there is no provision under which the Presiding Bishop is authorized to depose an inhibited bishop such as Bishop Schofield. No rule of legal interpretation permits such a nonsensical result.
There is also the possibility that misrepresentations, either overt or implicit, were made to the House of Bishops in the course of “presenting” the Cox matter. Did she represent to the House that Bishop Cox was “liable to deposition”? Did she disclose to those voting any of the canonical irregularities outlined above? Was there, by her disclosure or otherwise, any discussion of these issues by the bishops present? Although much of the information discussed here was in the public domain prior to the vote, it was not disclosed to the public by the Presiding Bishop, who is canonically charged with presenting the matter, but by others, including reporters. Indeed, although the notices sent to Bishops Schofield and Duncan were made public by the Presiding Bishop, that sent to Bishop Cox was not. (In this regard, it is noteworthy that warning letters previously sent to Bishops Schofield, Duncan and Iker were also promptly made public by the Presiding Bishop.) The notice to Bishop Cox only came to light because he reported it to David Virtue. This together with the avoidance of public scrutiny that would have accompanied this matter had it been considered in New Orleans as required suggests a pattern of concealment and withholding of information. The deposition resolution voted on by the House is notably vague in its recitation of the facts, particularly omitting the date of giving notice to Bishop Cox and the fact that he had not been inhibited as required by Canon IV.9. (It should be noted that the resolution regarding Bishop Schofield tracks that of Bishop Cox in omitting these facts. Was counsel slavishly following a precedent from ten years earlier or attempting to obscure material facts from the bishops? Surely the first instinct of any lawyer would have been to include in the Schofield resolution the recitation that he had been inhibited with the consent of the senior bishops on January 11, 2008.) To what extent was any of this made known to the bishops pursuant to the Presiding Bishop’s “presenting” of the Cox matter?
It must be emphasized that “presenting” for deposition a bishop who is not liable to deposition is a violation without regard to misrepresentations, but absent such misrepresentations, questions will arise as to whether any canonical violations were waived or “cured” by the actions of the House. Before discussing this issue further, this memorandum will address the final violation with respect to Bishop Cox.
Violation #5 with respect to Cox
The Presiding Bishop deposed Bishop Cox and pronounced him deposed without the necessary consent of the House of Bishops.
Under the terms of Canon IV.9.2, it is the Presiding Bishop who “deposes” after receiving the consent of the requisite number of bishops. The necessary consent was not obtained. The canon requires that the House of Bishops consent “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” At the time the vote was taken on March 12, 2008, substantially fewer than half the bishops were present and some of those who were present voted to deny consent. This is the majority vote issue that has been widely discussed.
The conclusion that the requisite consent was not given is irrefutable. First, in interpreting legal documents, one always starts with the plain meaning of the words. The phrase “whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” not defined to the contrary anywhere in the canons, is to be understood in its ordinary meaning of all members of the House of Bishops. (Article I.2 of the constitution provides that “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.”)
Any doubt that might otherwise exist that the consent requirement in Canon IV.9 specifies a majority of all members of the House of Bishops is removed by considering other voting provisions in the canons. First, the key phrase, “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote,” also occurs in Article XII of the Constitution (relating to amendments) in a context that makes clear that absent bishops are included within its parameters:
No alteration or amendment of this Constitution shall be made
unless the same shall be first proposed at one regular meeting of the
General Convention and be sent to the Secretary of the Convention
of every Diocese, to be made known to the Diocesan Convention at
its next meeting, and be adopted by the General Convention at its next
succeeding regular meeting by a majority of all Bishops, excluding
retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled
to vote in the House of Bishops, and by an affirmative vote by orders
in the House of Deputies in accordance with Article I, Section 5, except
that concurrence by the orders shall require the affirmative vote in each
order by a majority of the Dioceses entitled to representation in the
House of Deputies.
This constitutional provision utilizes the same concept, “whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” as is found in the “abandonment” canon, IV.9, except that IV.9 is even broader in that it does not exclude retired bishops not present. The fact that retired bishops not present are explicitly excluded from the “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” in the constitutional provision indicates that they would be included otherwise. And it is quite clear that active bishops not present are included in the “whole number of bishops entitled to vote.”
Thus when the same phrase appears in IV.9 it is clear that “whole number of bishops entitled to vote” includes both bishops present and absent, and for a vote on abandonment, absent retired bishops are not excluded from the total for purposes of calculating the requisite majority. This constitutional provision is conclusive for the interpretation of Canon IV.9. It is a fundamental principle of legal interpretation that language is to be interpreted the same way when it occurs repeatedly in the same instruments.
Second, the interpretation given to the key phrase by the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor, that “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” means simply a majority of “those present,” is untenable given that the canons clearly use the term “a majority of those present” when that understanding is intended. See, e.g., Canon III.12.8(d), (requiring that a bishop’s resignation be accepted “by a majority of those present.”) (Ironically, Bishop Cox offered his resignation, but his offer was never accepted by TEC.) It is a fundamental principle of legal interpretation that when a concept is clearly stated in one place, other language is not to be twisted to convey what the drafters knew how to state clearly when that was their intention. (Note that Rule V of the General Rules of the House of Bishops specifies that a proposal to recess during a debate “to form small groups for a ten-minute conference” “to define and clarify the issues of the debate” requires a “two-thirds vote of those present and voting.” The Presiding Bishop suggests a bishop can be deposed from the church on a lower voting threshold.) Thus, in pronouncing Bishop Cox deposed, the Presiding Bishop acted without the consents required and without canonical authority.
The Presiding Bishop has defended her action by claiming that no objection was made at the time and irregularities therefore waived. Leaving aside the fact that it is Bishop Cox who was most prejudiced by this action, not the minority of bishops present at the time, this question of waiver is irrelevant as a purely legal matter when considering disciplinary action against the Presiding Bishop as distinct from that against Bishop Cox. Because there is no precedent on whether a Presiding Bishop can be subject to disciplinary charges in this context, it is instructive to consider the result in civil law in analogous cases. There the answer is quite clear. A lawyer charged with misconduct in the course of a litigated matter is subject to disciplinary action regardless of whether the conduct is penalized, condoned or ignored in the underlying lawsuit. The rationale for this result is obvious when one considers that the public interest in the lawsuit is ensuring justice for the parties to the suit, but that the public interest in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is protection of the public at large from unethical or incompetent lawyers and justice for the lawyer involved.
Although this issue of waiver would not be a bar to pursuit of discipline against the Presiding Bishop in any case, the gravity of the case against her is strengthened by evidence that she failed to disclose to the House of Bishops material facts regarding the canonical issues. Although the bishops present and voting could be charged with constructive knowledge (“should have known”) of these issues, that does not absolve the Presiding Bishop of failing to make the disclosures necessary to ensure actual knowledge by those voting. It is her canonical duty to “present” the matter to the bishops and to ensure that they have all necessary information.
Summary with respect to Bishop Cox
Although the canonical violations are presented above individually and in detail, they should also be considered together as a whole. Taken together, they demonstrate a pattern of willful violation, an intention to repeat the violations and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor. On this last point, it is significant that the Presiding Bishop gave different and mutually inconsistent accounts of the Cox process after the vote when questioned at the press conference by The Living Church. The fact that the violations were willful rather than merely negligent is indicated by the obvious motivation for them, the number of individual violations in one proceeding, and the determination to repeat them. The likelihood of repetition is demonstrated by the fact that some of these violations have already been repeated in the cases of Bishops Schofield and Duncan, and the Presiding Bishop herself has stated in a broader context that she intends her recent canonically questionable actions to be a “pattern” for future cases.
Bishop Duncan
Facts Relevant to Bishop Duncan
On December 17, 2007, the Review Committee certified, at the request of the Presiding Bishop and others, that Bishop Duncan had abandoned the communion of TEC. The certification did not specify “the acts or declarations which show such abandonment” as required by Canon IV.9. The Presiding Bishop attempted over the succeeding weeks to obtain the consents of the three senior bishops to inhibit Bishop Duncan. But having been notified by January 11, 2008, by two of the bishops that such consent would not be given, she nonetheless sent Bishop Duncan a letter on January 15, 2008, advising him that he would be deposed absent retraction or denial within two months. Unlike the similar letter sent to Bishop Cox on January 8, the letter to Bishop Duncan was promptly released by the Presiding Bishop and publicized by the Episcopal News Service.
Violation with respect to Duncan
The Presiding Bishop purported to give notice to Bishop Duncan under IV.9 commencing a two-month period for reply without the inhibition and consent of the senior bishops as required by the canon.
The reasoning here is identical to that involved in Violation #2 with respect to Bishop Cox.
Although this memorandum does not identify further violations with respect to Bishop Duncan at this time, the Presiding Bishop has demonstrated through specific statements and actions that she intends to present the Duncan matter to the House of Bishops and to depose him in violation of Canon IV.9. There is ample precedent in the law that repudiation of a specific future duty is a current breach of that duty. The threat to engage in future ultra vires (unauthorized) actions could be viewed in that light, but this memorandum follows the more prudent course of relying on actual violations or repudiations of specific duties.
Again, although it is not a basis for a charge, the Presiding Bishop with the consent of the Review Committee has abused Canon IV.9 in the case of Bishop Duncan by using it for a purpose for which it was not intended. The certification by the Review Committee, which in any event is defective under the plain terms of the canon, was made at the request of the Presiding Bishop. That certification may foreclose action against the Presiding Bishop for abuse of this canon in the case against Bishop Duncan, but it does not absolve her for failure to comply with the canon’s procedural terms.
Diocese of San Joaquin
Facts relevant to San Joaquin
In December 2007, the Diocese of San Joaquin convention voted by an overwhelming majority to disaffiliate with TEC and to join temporarily the Province of the Southern Cone. Subsequent to that decision by the DSJ convention, Bishop Schofield and the majority of parishes, clergy and laity elected to join the Southern Cone. By January 2008, however, it had been disclosed publicly that the majority of the duly elected DSJ Standing Committee had remained in TEC. The Presiding Bishop was notified of this fact by the members of the Standing Committee. In January 2008, the Presiding Bishop announced that she would not recognize the duly elected Standing Committee of DSJ, including the majority who then remained in TEC.
On January 9, 2008, the Review Committee certified that Bishop Schofield had abandoned the communion of TEC. By January 11, 2008, the Presiding Bishop had obtained the consents of the three senior bishops to inhibit Bishop Schofield and advised him that he was inhibited and subject to deposition absent retraction or denial within two months. Unlike the letter to Bishop Cox of January 8, the letter to Bishop Schofield of January 11 was promptly released by the Presiding Bishop and publicized by ENS. Pursuant to the inhibition, Bishop Schofield remained a bishop of TEC, and under TEC’s interpretation of events in DSJ, the diocesan bishop with administrative, but not sacramental, authority in the TEC diocese.
On March 12, 2008, the Presiding Bishop presented the Schofield matter to the House of Bishops and requested the consent of the bishops present to the deposition of Bishop Schofield. Considerably fewer than half of the bishops of TEC were present when the resolution of consent was considered by voice vote. Following this vote, the Presiding Bishop pronounced Bishop Schofield deposed.
In January and February, the Presiding Bishop appointed vicars and representatives to act in DSJ without the consent of Bishop Schofield or the Standing Committee. Without consulting Bishop Schofield or the Standing Committee or following DSJ canons, the Presiding Bishop and her representatives announced that a special convention would be held on March 29, 2008, to give approval to Bishop Lamb as provisional bishop and to elect a new Standing Committee and other diocesan representatives. On March 28-30, 2008, the Presiding Bishop entered DSJ without consulting Bishop Schofield or the duly elected members of the Standing Committee and met with members of the clergy and laity, presided over what purported to be a special convention of the diocese and installed Bishop Lamb as provisional bishop. The special convention, which was not called in accordance with DSJ canons, purported to “waive” any canonical violations. One duly elected member of the Standing Committee and members of the laity objected to these actions.
Violation #1 with respect to San Joaquin
The Presiding Bishop announced that she does not recognize the duly elected Standing Committee of the diocese in violation of Articles IV and II.3 of the Constitution and in repudiation of her duty under Canon I.2.4(a).
Article IV of the Constitution provides that:
In every Diocese a Standing Committee shall be elected by the
Convention thereof, except that provision for filling vacancies
between meetings of the Convention may be prescribed by the Canons
of the respective Dioceses. When there is a Bishop in charge of the
Diocese, the Standing Committee shall be the Bishop’s Council of
Advice. If there be no Bishop or Bishop Coadjutor or Suffragan
Bishop canonically authorized to act, the Standing Committee shall be
the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese for all purposes declared
by the General Convention. The rights and duties of the Standing
Committee, except as provided in the Constitution and Canons of the
General Convention, may be prescribed by the Canons of the
respective Dioceses.
Article II.3 of the Constitution provides that:
A Bishop shall confine the exercise of such office to the Diocese
in which elected, unless requested to perform episcopal acts in another
Diocese by the Ecclesiastical Authority thereof, or unless authorized
by the House of Bishops, or by the Presiding Bishop by its direction,
to act temporarily in case of need within any territory not yet organized
into Dioceses of this Church.
Canon I.2.4(a)(3) provides that:
The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate
of the Church, and shall:
”¦
(3) In the event of an Episcopal vacancy within a Diocese,
consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority to ensure that
adequate interim Episcopal Services are provided;
The firing (nonrecognition) of the Standing Committee undoubtedly violated their rights under the diocesan canons (and thereby the TEC Contitution) and constituted an attempted exercise of jurisdiction in DSJ without the permission of the Ecclesiatical Authority (Bishop Schofield and/or the Standing Committee). She also thereby repudiated her duty to consult with the Standing Committee in the event Bishop Schofield were to be deposed.
Violation #2 with respect to San Joaquin
The Presiding Bishop appointed representatives and vicars to act in DSJ on her behalf in violation of Article II.3.
Violation #3 with respect to San Joaquin
The Presiding Bishop deposed Bishop Schofield and pronounced him deposed without the requisite consents of members of the House of Bishops as required by Canon IV.9.2. This is the same issue concerning a majority vote that was discussed under Cox Violation #5.
Violation #4 with respect to San Joaquin
Assuming for the purpose of argument that there was an episcopal vacancy in DSJ, the Presiding Bishop failed to consult with the Standing Committee as required by Canon I.2.4(a)(3).
Violation #5 with respect to San Joaquin
The Presiding Bishop entered DSJ on March 28-30, 2008, and convened a purported convention in violation of Article II.3 and applicable DSJ canons, consulted with clergy and laity of DSJ in violation of Article II.3 and Canon I.2.4(a)(6), and installed Bishop Lamb as provisional bishop in violation of Article II.3 and Canon III.13.
Canon I.2.4(a)(6) provides that:
The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate
of the Church, and shall:
”¦
(6) Visit every Diocese of this Church for the purpose of: (i)
Holding pastoral consultations with the Bishop or Bishops
thereof and, with their advice, with the Lay and Clerical
leaders of the jurisdiction;
Canon III.13 provides in part that:
Sec. 1. A Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of its Convention,
and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop, be placed under the
provisional charge and authority of a Bishop of another Diocese or of
a resigned Bishop, who shall by that act be authorized to exercise all
the duties and offices of the Bishop of the Diocese until a Bishop is
elected and ordained for that Diocese or until the act of the
Convention is revoked.
Sec. 2. Any Bishop may, on the invitation of the Convention or of the
Standing Committee of any Diocese where there is no Bishop, visit
and exercise episcopal offices in that Diocese or any part of it. This
invitation may include a letter of agreement, shall be for a stated period
and may be revoked at any time.
Again assuming for purposes of argument that there was an episcopal vacancy in DSJ, pursuant to these canons, the designation of a provisional bishop could only take place by act of “its Convention,” i.e., the convention duly called according to the canons of DSJ. That was not done as demonstrated by the objection made by Fr. Rob Eaton, a priest of the diocese and member of the Standing Committee at the purported convention. And on the assumption of an episcopal vacancy, episcopal acts could only be performed by the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Lamb without violating Article II.3 and Canon III.13.2 “on the invitation of the Standing Committee,” which was not given. Under Canon I.2.4(a)(6), consultations with lay and clerical leaders could not take place without the advice of the bishop or Standing Committee, which was not given. This constitutes a violation by both the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Lamb.
Conclusions with respect to San Joaquin
The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to DSJ, however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a “fellowship of duly constituted dioceses” governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop. Hereafter it will be difficult to speak coherently, whether in the councils of the communion or a court of law, of the integrity of TEC’s polity or the inviolability of diocesan boundaries.
As a matter of logic and consistency, it is impossible to charge the Presiding Bishop for her most egregious acts in DSJ without also charging Bishop Lamb. This raises certain procedural questions to which this memorandum will now turn.
II. Procedures for Making Charges Against the Presiding Bishop
There is no canon dealing specifically with offenses or presentments against the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop is a bishop, however, and is subject to the same provisions in Title IV of the canons as any other bishop. In particular, Canon IV.3.49 removes any doubt that might otherwise exist as to this question by specifying that “if the Presiding Bishop is the Respondent [defendant], is disabled, or otherwise unable to act, the duties of the Presiding Bishop under this Canon shall be performed by the presiding officer of the House of Bishops.” Therefore, the general provisions of Canon IV.3 related to charges against bishops are applicable.
Section IV.3.23 provides in part that:
A Bishop may be charged with any one or more of the
Offenses other than Offenses specified in Canon IV.3.21(c) [related to doctrinal issues] by
(1) three Bishops; or
(2) ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of
this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall
be Priests. One Priest and not less than six Lay Persons
shall be of the Diocese of which the Respondent is
canonically resident;
It is clear that the violations outlined above do not relate to the diocese in which the Presiding Bishop is now canonically resident. Given her responsibilities as bishop with jurisdiction for the Convocation of American Churches in Europe and possible questions about her canonical residence, it is appropriate that charges should be brought by three bishops. Note that they need not be (ten) bishops with jurisdiction as is required to bring doctrinal charges. Additional parties could be signatories as well, and it would be desirable to have priests and others from DSJ if charges related to that diocese are made, but they are not necessary. While it might be desirable for other reasons to have additional bishops as signatories, as well as prominent clerical and lay leaders, this is not required.
A “Charge” shall be in writing and verified (notarized) and contain a clear and concise statement of the nature and facts supporting each alleged offense. Canon IV.3.49 provides that in a case where the Presiding Bishop is the respondent (defendant), the charge should be addressed to the presiding officer of the House of Bishops (vice chair) or secretary if the presiding officer is unable to act.
The presiding officer forwards the Charge to the Title IV Review Committee. No time limit is placed on the presiding officer except that IV. 3.26 provides that the presiding officer “shall” do so after 90 days “when requested in writing by the Complainant or Respondent.”
The presiding officer thus has the discretion to delay sending the Charge to the Review Committee for at least 90 days. It is at this point that the question of bringing charges simultaneously against Bishop Lamb becomes significant. The expectation is that Bishop Lamb will very shortly file civil litigation against Bishop Schofield for control of DSJ assets. That litigation likely would be stymied, if not dismissed without prejudice, while ecclesiastical charges are pending against Bishop Lamb questioning his authority as provisional bishop of DSJ. The institutional incentives therefore would shift from delay to expedition in the handling of the disciplinary charges. Although this reasoning applies primarily to Bishop Lamb, it is likely that the charges against the Presiding Bishop would be dealt with simultaneously by the Review Committee since they involve the same facts and legal analysis.
A Charge against Bishop Lamb has the same procedural requirements as those already discussed with respect to the Presiding Bishop. It could have the same complaining signatories, i.e., the same three (or more) bishops. A question would arise whether it should be sent to the Presiding Bishop or the presiding officer. Canon IV.14.13 provides that:
Any Bishop exercising authority as provided in this Title shall
disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the Bishop’s
impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
And Canon IV.14.24 provides that the presiding officer shall exercise the duties of the Presiding Bishop in the event the Presiding Bishop is disqualified. Because the conduct of the Presiding Bishop is necessarily challenged in a charge against Bishop Lamb, her impartiality is necessarily questioned. In light of these provisions, a Charge against Bishop Lamb should be addressed to the Presiding Bishop with a request that she disqualify herself as provided in IV.14.13.
Once the matter is forwarded to the Review Committee, time limits become lengthened and more flexible and mandatory duties are largely replaced by discretion. Time periods of over six months are clearly provided in Canon IV.3 and discretion is provided to extend these periods further. To generalize, the canonical language often becomes “may” rather than “shall.” When the Review Committee finally considers the merits, Canon IV.3.43 provides that:
The Review Committee may issue a Presentment for an Offense
when the information before it, if proved at Trial, provides Reasonable
Cause to believe that (i) an Offense was committed, and (ii) the
Respondent committed the Offense.
The ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the Review Committee. What the complainants do have, however, is the ability to hold accountable the Review Committee and the official processes of TEC.
Three outcomes are possible from the Review Committee. It could issue a presentment and send the matter to the trial court. Second, it could decline to issue a presentment and produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers. Third, it could decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the Respondent. For the matters discussed above, recent history would suggest that the third outcome is highly likely, but even in that event the institution of TEC and its processes are held accountable.
Addendum in light of the Presiding Bishop’s April 30, 2008 Letter to the House of Bishops:
A defense now proffered by the Presiding Bishop and her supporters is that the same procedures were followed in the recent cases of Bishops Davies and Moreno. Past violations of the canon’s clear provisions are said to justify current ones. In considering this defense, it is necessary to distinguish three senses of “precedent” in legal usage. One is the well-known sense of precedent as a formal ruling on a legal issue by a competent juridical body. This is clearly not the case here as no one has suggested that the prior cases were determined to be canonical by any body reviewing the canonical issues. These cases are not offered as reasoned legal rulings, but as a fait accompli.
A second sense of precedent is that in which the actions of parties to a contract are used to interpret terms that are vague or ambiguous. In civil law this concept is referred to as “course of performance,” and this type of precedent is often used as an aid to interpretation for vague or ambiguous contractual terms such as those relating to timeliness or quality. For example, terms like “promptly” or “standard grade” are ones that can sometimes be interpreted by the parties’ performance. The applicability of this principle can be seen in the present context by noting that the meaning of the vague term “forthwith” in Canon IV.9 is given meaning by the Presiding Bishop’s own action in giving notice to Bishop Schofield within 48 hours of receiving the certification from the Review Committee. But the requirements of inhibition in IV.9 and for consent by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote are not vague or ambiguous terms. They are expressed in mandatory language using precise terms that are clearly defined and used elsewhere in the canons. Express terms control when in conflict with arguable interpretations based on prior actions.
The third type of precedent is one that is often encountered in commercial litigation and corporate law. This is when clear contractual or legal duties are repeatedly violated. Here the past misconduct is to no avail absent an explicit waiver. Especially relevant to the current context is a pattern familiar to any corporate lawyer: that of a closely-held corporation that does not follow its own bylaws. Such corporations, owned by one or a small number of shareholders, have many of the same duties in terms of corporate formalities and procedural regularity as public corporations traded on national stock exchanges. Corporate law requires that proper procedures be followed in order for an enterprise to receive legal recognition and protection as a corporation. Often the sole shareholder of a corporation pays no attention to these formalities or the requirements of the corporate bylaws. The business is simply run as the shareholder sees fit.
But when the litigation arises and a hostile party asks the court to disregard the corporate form and permit a suit directly against the shareholder, those past “precedents” of ignoring the corporate rules are to no avail. In fact, the naked “we’ve done it this way before” becomes evidence for the other side, the primary evidence that the corporate form is a sham. The frequent result in such cases is that the law disregards the corporate form –it “pierces the corporate veil”– and the shareholder’s assets are no longer protected as intended by the corporation. Corporations that seek the law’s recognition must follow the legal requirements and their own rules. Past malfeasance is not a defense; to the contrary it is proof of a pattern of abuse that exacerbates the current violation. It is a supreme irony that Bishop Lamb is now petitioning the California courts to defer to TEC’s polity and recognize him as the bishop of San Joaquin when the clear provisions of TEC’s canons indicate Bishop Schofield has not been lawfully deposed.
Although this memo is quite thorough and mostly convincing (for me, anyway), forgive me if I am skeptical that this will go anywhere.
Kendall, there is an addendum to the Memorandum [url=http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/141/1/]here,[/url] which takes into account the Presiding Bishop’s “defense” of the depositions that “we’ve done it this way twice before.” Also, see the three-part legal analysis of the situation in San Joaquin beginning [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-follow-canons-in-san-joaquin.html]here.[/url]
How can the substance of Schori’s canonical violations be transmitted to the pew-sitters?
“Forgive me if I am skeptical that this will go anywhere”
—Scott K [#1]
Remember that there are many ways in which making these arguments can further the orthodox Anglican cause—regardless of whether the formal outcome within ECUSA is win, lose, draw, or cover-up.
Why redact the names?
I read the whole ACI article and I must say I am amazed at not only the the long laundry list of violations but the Papal snub by KJS! If she really wanted to show that she, being a woman, is capable of her office and collar to a church that has much problem with women in Holy Orders she missed her chance and fumbled so badly that her home team may not recover. I have always held to the notion that she really has no idea what she is doing nor what her central role as PB truly is! But, her actions seem to indicate a change in See.
The reason is attorney-client privilege, Brian. The recipient of the memo has released the memo’s contents and waived the privilege as to that, but by redacting the name(s) of the author(s), the client is signalling that he/she/it does [i]not[/i] waive any privilege with regard to the rest of the entire engagement which resulted in this Memo (and its Addendum, linked above).
I don’t know the answer to Brian’s question, but it does take the emphasis off the who is making the charges and focuses on what is being said. That is not a bad thing. Over at Jake’s place, they are trying to guess the source and ignore the substance. Not an unexpected development! ;^)
For some reason the ACI site causes my Internet Explorer to crash.
ODC, this is just another example clearly and unequivocally showing KJS’ abysmal ineptitude for an office which she has no business occupying. It’s unfortunate, but a presentment against her will go nowhere except into File 13. It will get deep-sixed. It’s also unfortunate that it won’t go to civil court, because if it did, I don’t think she’d survive.
The fact of the matter is, though, no one will go after the bishops who fast-tracked her into the episcopacy in the first place. What a sad state of affairs it is when such a small group of men can wield so much power over so many! Christ would NEVER have approved of His Church acting in such a manner!
Whoah! My respect for the writer of these articles (including the one linked by Chancellor) is deepening. His response to the [strike]Schori[/strike][u]Beers[/u] claim that “this is the way we’ve always done it” tears that argument to shreds.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
I am willing to guess that the mere existence of such powerful, comptetent memo’s (in contrast to the weak and pathetic rationalization represented by the PB’s letter) is taking its toll in certain quarters of the HOB. Now, we may not see the results of this at this time (we may never), but it is my guess that if the PB does lose in both California and Virginia (now appearing to be very possible, perhaps even probable), then these seeds of doubt planted in the HOB just may lead to something.
I am fast becoming of the view that the only way forward for TEC now is for the PB and her faction to be humiliated publically by significant failure in the courts, and for the “extremist-liberal” party which she heads to lose power in the HoB to the “institutionalist-liberal” party (represented by bishops such as Hollingsworth, Lee, etc.) who would be amenable to negotiated departures and/or a Dar-like pastoral plan.
Kendall … and the authors of this memo are …???????
#13
I’ll finish your sentence…………deadly accurate.
BigTex AC
Why do the authors matter? Isn’t the content that is important?
However, BigTex nailed it!
#12 I agree a loss in a major case or two would do wonders. TEC is an organization in massive and profoundly unhealthy denial.
Ms. Russell, if you can argue with the contents, why does it matter who wrote it?
Except tactically, of course.
I’d guess that should this go forward Susan would have her answer sooner than she wants it. Until then she’ll go on presuming that privilege (as explained in #7) doesn’t apply when the issue doesn’t suit her.
In the meantime, should the parishes in VA and CA prevail, the only interruption in “business as usual” — meaning heresy, denial, and abuse of the C&C;– will be sustained wailing and whining about their entitlements (the properties) and polity being denied.
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
[i] Please do not take this thread off topic with responses to #13. [/i]
~Elf Lady
Why do the authors matter? Isn’t the content that is important?
I think we can assume that the authors are subject-matter experts. Regardless, they make points that can easily be argued. You don’t need to be a chancellor or bishop to have a valid opinion;-)
The issue I have is why many (though certainly not all) reasserters need to do their work in the dark. Why not stand up and be proud of your work? To hide your identity dishonors those who had the courage to speak: +South Carolina, +Louisiana, Harmon+, et al. If the argument is that revealing your name puts you in some type of danger, what about those who have not only sopoken openly, but who have openly rejected the deposition and continue to recognize +San Joaquin?
[i] Again, we ask that this thread not be taken off topic. [/i]
Why redact the names? Because the deconstructionists would simply engage in their usual orgy of character assassination. This way, they’re forced to either engage the substance, or foolishly sputter about the sinister nature of it all. Naturally, most choose the latter.
[i] Additional discussion of the author will be deleted. [/i]
And Chancellor (#7) comes through while I was writing. As to Scott K’s question – I think that KJS and DBB will try, unsuccessfully, to quash the whole thing. They will be in large part successful in a legal sense, however.
Apparently, it is not that difficult to start the process of inhibition. The process has to go through, Bp Chang of Hawaii. Chancellor has written about the process over at SF. To start the process, we need three bishops or
[blockquote]ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of
this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be Priests. One Priest and not less than six Lay Persons shall be of the Diocese of which the Respondent is canonically resident.[/blockquote]
In Ms Schori’s case, we would be talking about Nevada. Craig Goodrich (or other Nevadans), can you find one priest and 6 laymembers willing to take a stand? Or perhaps we can get three of the vaunted Camp Allen bishops to sign on?
What will be the result? I doubt the charges will get past Bp Chang and if they do, there is no way they will get past the title IV review committee.
No result? No, there will be tangible results. Cries of polity and canon law violations by the usurpers will be laughable. The position of the TEO will be further abased in the eyes of the international community. (Yes, I know that is hard to accomplish.) They will add collusion (is that the correct legal term?) to their list of sins.
Will it bolster legal proceedings? See David Trimble’s analysis of that question, [url=http://stillonpatrol.typepad.com/still_on_patrol/2008/05/does-the-recent.html ]here[/url]. Bp Cox has retained an attorney and Bp MacBurney is apparently going to fight the deposition. I think that this memorandum will be very pertinent in those situations.
[#20] Brain from T19 wrote:
[blockquote] I think we can assume that the authors are subject-matter experts. Regardless, they make points that can easily be argued.[/blockquote]
Anything can be argued. People argue for the non-existence of the holocaust. One particular prominent Catholic apologist caused a little stir by arguing for geocentrism. Cub fans argue that their team will win a world series … someday. The mere existence of an argument does not imply the existence of a credible argument. And what this memo demonstrates is the complete lack of credible argumentation for the actions of KJS. She would earn a lot more respect if she would just tell the truth: “We decided we had to break the laws to save them.” That is the real motivation behind her actions. It’s also a tacit admission of tyranny. But we already know that.
carl
#20 I think you have a stronger case if you were to begin by directing it at 815 and demanding even to see the memos between the PB and her legal advisors.
Br. Michael, get Mozilla Firefox. It’s free, and it works better than Internet Explorer. Google it, and download the one that suits your operating system.
The addendum does indeed demolish the “we’ve done it before” argument handily.
#22, robroy how to do you respond to that section of the memo which addresses the peculiar standing of the *Presiding* Bishop vis-a-vis priests and laypersons from her diocese (of Nevada) being the ones? (I know – this is a piddly detail.)
My guess is that all the damage that need be done is done. I suspect that even a number of pew sitters will get some wind of this and begin to think again. Moreover, I also suspect that many a parish, who feared to leave, may acquire a cause tht will move them out. The taint is now attached to Schori inescapably. Larry
#22 Rick, I would defer your question to the legal eagles. I would just like to repeat the closing of the addendum:
[blockquote]Past malfeasance is not a defense; to the contrary it is proof of a pattern of abuse that exacerbates the current violation. It is a supreme irony that Bishop Lamb is now petitioning the California courts to defer to TEC’s polity and recognize him as the bishop of San Joaquin when the clear provisions of TEC’s canons indicate Bishop Schofield has not been lawfully deposed. [/blockquote]
Might just have to frame that one!
Going forward with a formal presentment seems appropriate. It may well fail, but the strong opposition to these actions will be recorded for church historians. It also sends a clear message that everything being done at 815 is being scrutinized under an electron microscope. One would think they would realize that already, but if they did, one would guess that they would have acted differently.
Does anyone know if any of the HOB have specifically backed the decision to depose poor Bp. Cox? This action certainly is one for the history books. Have any of the Primates said anything?
Jesus: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:17-18)
815: “Just try and stay out of my way. Just try! I’ll get you, my pretty and your little dog too!” Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
Certainly, those who sign the presentment(s) should be prepared to face the consequences from a leadership that appears to be committed to 20th century fascist (or at least totalitarian) principles of silencing the opposition.
[blockquote] We need three bishops…
or ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall be Priests. One Priest and not less than six Lay Persons shall be of the Diocese of which the Respondent is canonically resident. [/blockquote] If this is going to go forward, it may be best to try to round up the three requisite bishops.
As I have posted elsewhere, there is 1 [one] (uno) orthodox clergyman left in DioNevada (you can find him via my Gulf Coast blog), and he serves an orthodox ecumenical church which is safely outside the reach of his bishop (although he personally, of course, could be deposed). Most of the DioNev orthodox laity have left TEC in disgust. I don’t think the members of the aforementioned priest’s congregation (there were 18 in attendance the last time I was there) would qualify as members of DioNev, although several of them may still be carried on the rolls of the revisionist parishes from which they fled.
The Diocese of Nevada is a pretty lonely place for an orthodox Epsicopalian.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Skimming this, from the careful wording and format it appears to me to be a geniune formal legal memorandum researched and written by a law firm, not just something done by an interested kibitzer. The giveaway is the first sentence: “you have asked for our advice.” This generally is the way a formal legal memorandum to a client starts. Interestingly, it uses the word “advice” rather than “opinion.” Advice does not have the strength of the word “opinion.” Lawyers are taught early on to be very careful how they use the word “opinion,” because an “opinion letter” can carry potential legal liability for malpractice if you are wrong on what you opine. Of course, this whole situation is in uncharted waters, so I’m not at all surprised they use the word “advice” rather than “opinion.”
My apologies, Kendall—I did not notice when I posted #2 that you had already incorporated the Addendum into the complete text.
Rick in Louisiana (#26), I gather from the language in the Memorandum that because the Presiding Bishop has the authority under Canon I.15.7 to assign Bishops to have the care of and responsibility for foreign congregations, that she might be deemed “canonically resident” in the Convocation of the American Churches in Europe—or that at least, there is some question about this. The concept of canonical residence is unique to the Episcopal Church among Anglican Churches; the others handle questions of authority through licenses. ([url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/75383_76451_ENG_HTM.htm]Pursuant to a directive of GC 2006,[/url] it’s currently being examined for recommendations to change it at GC 2009.)
There is no question that the Presiding Bishop was canonically resident in Nevada while she was Bishop of that Diocese, but she was required to resign that jurisdiction when she became Presiding Bishop, and presumably is not subject to the authority of its current Bishop. So if she is now in charge of the CACE, she may well be deemed to be “canonically resident” there, unless she has delegated all that authority to another Bishop. I am fairly certain she cannot be considered any longer to be canonically resident in Nevada, but the problem of finding orthodox complainants in CACE is probably on a par with the problem indicated by Br_er Rabbit of finding them in Nevada. That’s why the Memorandum recommends that the complaint be filed by three Bishops, who can be from any Diocese.
The redacted release of this legal memorandum is clearly a warning shot across the bow. It would not surprise me to see all or some of the memo’s claims fashioned into counterclaims when TEC sues Cox/Duncan/San Joaquin.
This opens the door for some very unpleasant discovery against the PB. Beers won’t be able to talk for her in a deposition. Even if he can guess at some of the questions she’ll be asked, he can’t answer for her. And as any attorney who has ever represented a client in litigation knows, during depositions, clients can make right royal fools of themselves.
[/i]Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war![/i]
Let it go forward!
This issue of the “author” is not entirely off-base. Yesterday, the ACI site was hacked into and deliberately destroyed, and the information on this memo taken. With great effort, and some expense, the site has been put back together again. Let me simply say that there is a reason, in the present circumstances of TEC and the Communion, why reputable professionals might wish to maintain confidentiality. (And thank you, Kendall, for putting this up during the time that the ACI site was being dismantled.) The bottom line, of course, is just what people here are rightly claiming: the issue is the substance and its arguments.
The previous post should have my name attached: Ephraim Radner.
It comes to this – cyber war. What kind of a state is TEc in?
It would seem awfully strange if the presiding bishop of the United States should be canonically resident in Europe. Would she then qualify as a “foreign prelate”?
Stephen
Feigning prelate, I believe, is more accurate, or, perhaps, primate, since Presiding Bishop is an elected, non-hierarchal, un-empowered office upon which presumption has lately visited and supped leading to imaginations of archbishop-ness or mini-papal-ity.
As a more-or-less typical child of the ’60s, I grew up with a healthy skepticism toward what we then called “the Establishment.” Power corrupts, after all. But while many of my contemporaries have
long-since disavowed this once-common view, recent events have actually strengthened it within my own soul.
I see a secular regime which utterly disregards world opinion as irrevelent, which ignores the law when it’s to the regime’s advantage (i.e., warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay and “secret prison” torture), and which labels the less-than-obedient as “unpatriotic.” At the very same time, I see an ecclesiastical regime which totally disregards Anglican world opinion as “irrevelent,” which plays loose and free with the Canons (which are bent and twisted at the power-brokers’ will), and which increasingly labels prophetic challenges to the status quo as evidence of the prophets’ having “abandoned the communion of this Church.”
Perhaps I’ve been right all along.
Well, I guess we’ll know who did the hacking when they start crowing about it, inadvertently let slip the identity(s) discovered or deposing the folks who wrote or requested it.
Of course the hack may be traceable as well if the resources are there. Happens all the time in the world of cyber sleuthing. Its also a crime depending on the circumstances. That’s nice to know as well about our church, eh?
[blockquote] It comes to this – cyber war. What kind of a state is TEc in? [/blockquote]
This is by no means the first time that reasserter sites have been under cyber attack. I think Binky’s site may have been the first, but there have been many since (including if I remember correctly Titusonenine on one occasion — but my memory may be faulty.)
Destroying the property of others seems to be an easy step for these folk to take — I do wonder why from a theological angle — but there it is.
Perhaps those responsible for the hacking are the same ones who’d benefit the most from the hacking…….and I’ll leave it for others to figure out who they are.
For the Anglican world, removing Schori may well be most unfortunate. At the present moment, we have someone in power whose incompetence we can count on, and who, in the long run, will be as ineffective as incompetence commonly is, if by ineffective we mean an inability to gain and hold power which is used to accomplish a set of goals. She has built chaos into TEC’s structure, and this will marginalize TEC’s ability to prevail.
However, the one who follows Schori may be a scorpion of a very different lethality, and I have a distinct feeling that we will do well to stick with the devil we know. I didn’t think I would ever say such a thing a year ago, but the world looks very different now. Larry
Dr. Radner, there’s something I don’t understand. Why would the hacking of the website have to do with this memo? There’s nothing in the text of the memo that would lead people to know who the authors were — it’s not a pdf file, I assume, on the server — it was in text.
So what would hacking accomplish?
Author, author.
The historical parallels to the American Revolution continue to accumulate. In 1776 the 13 Colonies declared themselves to be free and independent. The British Empire objected, with troops. The issue was not resolved until the British surrender under Cornwallis in 1783.
Meanwhile the newly free and independent Colonies had to figure out a way to survive; the Articles of Confederation were a bust. The arguments about the Constitution resulted in what are now known as [i]The Federalist Papers[/i], which at the time were anonymous.
The ostensible reason for the anonymity was so that readers would focus on the arguments, not the persons.
The list of violations of the Canons of TEC which heads this thread is similarly anonymous, and for the same reason: that readers might rightly consider the stipulations in the list, and make their own decisions on whether TEC has any Canons which can be relied upon.
We now appear to be in a time period similar to the period from 1776 to 1783: independence has been declared, but not granted. Instead of bullets and swords, the weapons of choice are inhibitions and property lawsuits, but it is still WAR.
May it also be noted that the Southern Cone may not get it right the first time; we are possibly a few years out from a truly workable Christian version of the Anglican Communion.
The hacking was an effort to get the document out of the public domain. That is why a decision was made to send the text in entirety to another public domain, and Kendall kindly complied. I suspect the hacking will continue, so it is good to have these documents in different places.
So ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS gets a new verse?
Hacking into data files
Moved by Breath of God
Liberalizing power “justly” uses rod?
Squelching opposition
To “prophetic” sight,
godheads, we!, proclaiming
In our might is “right”!
Of course, it might have been the FBI or NSA or ACC or teenagers…
Wanted: Senior Warden. Experience in 128 bit encryption required. Former NSA experience desirable. Please send resume and documentation of security clearance.
Kidding aside, once upon a time, there were people out to stop the dissemination of letters written by a fellow named Paul. People with revisionist agendas were quite concerned when this Paul fellow started writing to the orthodox Christians in their congregations- pointing out the errors being committed in their churches.
Mathman,
If it is a war, let us remember that it is not a war against bishops, priests, or institutions like TEC or 815, nor against any people at all. It might be better to refrain from militarizing our language at all – regardless of what others may do and say. We should remember that while human historical circumstances do decidedly call for us to act on behalf of what is just and good, Christians fight our most important battles on our knees; and we should always be afraid of deifying our own notions of what is right and orthodox to the point where we are willing to lay down our lives for our doctrines. It is a short step from that to being willing to lay down the lives of others for our doctrines. (I think that was done to Jesus once, wasn’t it?) Let us be willing to lay down our lives for others, and not against them.
Yours in Christ,
Laocoon
using military metaphor is a time-honored Christian tradition, from the time of the Bible onwards, especially since we ARE at war — against spiritual forces antithetical to Christianity taking over the denomination through priests and Bishops willing to follow a different commander-in-chief.
Priests and Bishops in the past have not been adverse to commanding their own armies and troops (Cardinal Richelieu, for example), and even Martin Luther had been known to request troops being sent in from the government to squash rebellion.
More recently, the music of Petra.
So don’t be too quick to dispel the need for militaristic language.
Jim Elliott <><
LibraryJim,
I never said it wasn’t a war, just that we should be circumspect in our use of militaristic language. Someone named St. Paul once said the same, and I thought his ideas worth repeating here in response to Mathman’s post, which leaves one with the impression that he might think that the enemies of Christ are other people. Pogo got it much closer when he said “We have met the enemy and he is us” (or something like that); or Chesterton, whose reply to the question “What is wrong with the world,” was “I am.” The world, the flesh, and the Devil oppose us as we seek to follow Christ; but that does not make TEC or its attorneys our enemies. It makes them sinners in need of Christ’s redeeming blood – just like you and me. Is there a need for militaristic language? Maybe, but our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces of darkness.
I hope you are trying to speak tongue-in-cheek in your examples. Surely you’re not so foolish as to think that we’re in a situation that calls for priests and bishops and laity to take up literal arms? If so, God save you, and God save us all. And if we are not in such a situation, then we would be well advised not to use the sort of language that would lead others to think we are in such a situation. Besides, if we pay too much homage to the weight of court battles, we run the risk of laying down our arms by failing to fall to our knees. If there is a battle to be fought, then count me among those who doubt that anyone but Christ can win it. All my hope on him is stayed, all my help from him I bring.
What we say in public will be used against us in lawcourts and in conventions alike; what we say in private will shape our souls. So I’ll say it again; we should be slow to militarize our language.
boy, when you miss a point, you really miss a point. When did I say anything in my examples about literally following an example? I was talking about LANGUAGE and the appropriateness of using military similies and metaphors.
IMO, they are quite appropriate for our present situation. The enemy may not be using guns, swords or granades, but they are instead using canons (LOL) and lawyers and inhibitions. And for the record, yes, they ARE the enemy of Christ as they are acting against the Body of Christ. But it is a war.
Does that mean we are any less the sinner in need of repentance? Not at all. But the lines HAVE been drawn and it is clear that one side is on the attack against orthodox theology.