I say “the canon lawyers have been unanimous” that Canon IV.9 must be so read, because every lawyer’s opinion I have seen on the Web reads it that way, while I have yet to read a single legal opinion, signed or otherwise, either on the Web, or published elsewhere, that defends the Presiding Bishop’s reading of the Canon (with the exception of her own recent letter to the House of Bishops, which was presumably written by, or with the help of, her Chancellor, but which she alone signed). There have been some differing opinions about the requirement in the Canon that a vote to depose be approved “by a majority of the whole number of the Bishops entitled to vote”, but there has not been a single dissenting view expressed , with reasons and logic to back it up, that the Presiding Bishop is justified by the Canon in proceeding as she proposes to do.
Thanks, Kendall, for posting this.
For those who have ears to hear, this is devastating evidence of an obvious scofflaw (our “PB”), but I wonder if anyone amongst the HOB has the necessary ‘stones’ to act on it!
Stuart
Acting on it means inhibition and deposition, so I doubt that you will see that many people stand up for what is right. The Church has surrendered absolute power. It will take a large number of people acting as one to to take it back.
To do list for anybody with a spine:
1. Take this public to the secular media. (Bill O’Reilley?)
2. Take this public to the secular media.
3. Begin insisting on corruption reviews of the senior bishops, starting with Lee.
4. Get a diocese to sponsor a GC resolution which will construct a separate Judiciary in TEC. Hello: SC, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh…! Join together and DO IT.
5. Take this public to the secular media.
SQUAWK, HOLLER, DO IT NOW.
subscribe
I’ve notices a strange silence on the HOB/D Listserve on this. Much discussion on polgamy/polygny, but chirping crickets on this.
The HOB reminds me of the eunuch’s of the Forbidden City who stole treasures sold them and burned the wharehouse to cover their crime. The majority of the HOB have stolen the true gospel and are attempting to “burn” the faithful bishops to cover their crime. They do not believe in Christ or they would dread the final judgement, A old saying I once read says as follows: “The streets of Hell are paved with the skulls of unfaithful bishops.”
The Presiding Bishop’s “program” is not a program at all. It’s a POGROM.
This post, if rewritten (almost as is) into an amicus brief, and filed in any of the current or pending court cases (Virginia, San Joaquin, California’s supreme, etc.), could be devastating to KJS, Beers, et al. It documents the present lawlessness, tyrrany, and chaos in the power structures of TEC — strong influence against pro-hierarchical disposition.
w.w.
EXACTLY, w.w.! Right on the money.
It remains that a hundred or so Bishops who were present voted for deposition with no question of either the correctness of that action or any concern for consistency of that action with the Canons. All of them are surely familiar with the Canons especially in this case. All of them are good men (and women?) who by and large believe in their ultimate judgement by God in determining the “rightness” of their actions. And you do not get to be a Bishop without a certain amount of “strong personal self image” and a willingness to differ with others on matters of import. So, the bloggers are free to have an opinion to the contrary, but that opinion is going nowhere.
What is required to file a complaint against Mrs. Schori and her Chancellor? There are no bishops willing to stand against her abuse of the canons, no lay persons? No canon lawyers or lawyers of any kind? What is alleged is a grievous abuse of ecclesiastical authority. Will no one hold her to account?
I have no doubt about what would happen to such a complaint once it reached 815 – but her intent and behavior and that of her advisor would finally be exposed for all to see.
#11. “Will no one hold her to account?” The yes to the question is certain..Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
#3. I would add to sing the great old hymn:
Rise up, O men of God!
Have done with lesser things.
Give heart and mind and soul and strength
To serve the King of kings.
Rise up, O men of God!
The kingdom tarries long.
Bring in the day of brotherhood
And end the night of wrong.
Rise up, O men of God!
The church for you doth wait,
Her strength unequal to her task;
Rise up and make her great!
Lift high the cross of Christ!
Tread where His feet have trod.
As brothers of the Son of Man,
Rise up, O men of God!
Will no one hold her to account?
Would you? Seriously, you work your whole life as Deacon, then Priest, then Bishop, you save up all of your money in Church retirement and pensions and then you lose it all by fighting a battle you can’t win? It is easy for us to sit back and say “Stand up for what is right.” but how easy is it for any of us to lose everything we have spent our entire life acheiving? Pragmatism exists for a reason – it prevents suicide.
#14 Brian from T19,
All I can say to your psot is this:
Matthew 19:20-22
The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” [22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And….
Matthew 8:22
And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
And…..Matthew 10:38
And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
And…Luke 14:27
Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
To Doug Martin at #10:
[blockquote]All of them are surely familiar with the Canons especially in this case.[/blockquote]
I don’t think we can make this assumption. In fact, I rather suspect that [b]none[/b] of the bishops present at the March meeting had more than a passing familiarity with the details of the relevant canon. Something of a herd mentality was operating. The bishops trusted the PB and her Chancellor to have gotten the details right, and they voted in good faith. I doubt there was any malice involved, no [b]intent[/b] to abuse the canon. Culpable ignorance, perhaps, but not malice. Nonetheless, their action was clearly defective, as has been demonstrated by A.S. Haley.
Fr. Martins (a better cousin no doubt)
It’s a good theory but I cannot accept that especially in this case. A remarkable number of our Bishops are “recovering lawyers”, notably our own + Dorsey Henderson, who was directly involved in the process. It is inconceivable to me that any lawyer would not know the Canons and would not speak out. It seems highly improbable that this would be true of any administrator of any significant organization, especially Bishops and especially in this instance. Given a hypothesis that the Bishops would have, or should have, voted differently if there were more present, how does one explain the large majority of Bishops who didn’t bother to show up at all. It is hardly a case for any body of support for those deposed. There seems to be no question that the Bishops in question would have been deposed, only a desire to complain (with questionable reason) about the process.
[blockquote]I don’t think we can make this assumption. In fact, I rather suspect that none of the bishops present at the March meeting had more than a passing familiarity with the details of the relevant canon.[/blockquote]
How awful to think that those in charge of making decisions in high profile leadership positions such as Bishops are not educated in their very own Canons & Constitutions! IMHO that should be a prerequisite before evden being considered for the episcopate much less an ordained priest!
Fr. Martin,
There was one bishop there whom you know quite well and even though he was a very new bishop to the HoB meeting in March he was there and he knows as you know he does the Canons & Constitutions very well and did not speak up at all! Yes, (sorry Kendall in advance) but South Carolina’s very own Bishop Mark Lawrence! (Yes, he did speak up well after the fact with a written statement released through his diocese website) Are you saying that he was “herded” that he has no knowledge of his own Canons & Constitutions? He along with quite a few that were there have the knowledge and could have and should have stood up and gone on record with a word of no support and pointing out the obvious! Their opportunity came and went!
Doug (#17),
I believe you are absolutely correct that the outcome was never in doubt. However, the great majority of those who are complaining about the process are not concerned with the actual outcome. That is quite beside the point. And I take issue with your assertion that it’s “only a desire to complain.” The process [b]is important for its own sake,[/b] precisely because, in a time of conflict and low trust levels, due process is the only [i]source[/i] of trust–i.e. even when we can no longer trust one another’s essential good will, we hope to be able trust our common commitment to the polity under which we have covenanted ourselves. Without that, the strife becomes terminal; chaos and schism ensue. There is a manifest widespread perception that the process has been abused, either intentionally or inadvertently, and it is essential that the basis of such a perception be removed.
As for whether even lawyer bishops (and I have great respect for yours, with whom I served on a GC committee) are “on the ball” in regard to technical awareness, I remain skeptical. The power of inertia (“we’ve always done it that way”) should never be underestimated.
So One Day Closer, you are saying that you would give up everything including putting your family’s welfare and jeopardy to challenge this decision? You would be willing to see your family starve? If so, you are one of the few.
No! I wouldn’t watch my family starve. There are other churches that one could go to. TEC is not the only demonination. There is the Roman Catholics, CANA, AMiA, REC….my family would not starve nor would they starve spiritually either.
Doug Martin (#17), with all due respect, I believe you have missed the point of the post: it is not to “complain” about past actions, such as the deposition of Bishop Cox, but to point out the ongoing lawbreaking that is openly announced and threatened in front of our very eyes. If the Presiding Bishop manages to carry out her intended resolve of bringing the deposition of Bishop Duncan to a vote in September, without any opposition or objection beforehand, then the House of Bishops is truly a lost cause. By September, there will be no excuse possible on the grounds of “inadvertence” or “inertia.” The question is: will the Bishops now let it go that far? Will they simply sit back and wait for the moment of truth to arrive at the meeting? Or will some of them start proceedings to bring this lawlessness to a halt?
I can tell you one thing: Bishop Duncan’s attorney is not going to let the Presiding Bishop proceed down her path without a real fight, and the Bishops are going to have to choose sides. By painting the issues in stark colors for them now, we will help them make the right choice.
For Fr Martins benefit I will gladly cede the issue of “just com-plaining” with apologies due in favor of recognition that the actual deposition of the respective Bishops was never in doubt. A phrase from an earlier day comes to mind, “maybe we should have hung them with a new rope but they still needed hanging”. I will grant that as I read the Canon as a layman I have doubts that the “process” was adhered to. On the other hand over years of working with lawyers I have learned that what I read in “the law” isn’t always what it says to those trained in the field. Even in our Bible differences in phraseology between sections is more a matter of change in author than change in meaning. When the Chancellor of the Church says it says one thing, the Bishops consent, and the only complainants after the fact are “sea lawyers”, I tend to go with those present at the time. Addressing the comments of both Fr Martins and The Chancellor, the issue should be resolved in some public way, and my guess is the next time it is done it will be with lots of Bishops present. Unfortunately I find the outrage with respect to violations of the Canons and Tanzanian Communique and many other issues to be remarkably one sided. Its ok to violate one’s Canons (on a temporary basis? it will be a cold day in hell before the ACC approves that change!) and the Communique to make incursions into the domain of other PB’s/Archbishops, not only without their consent but against their wishes, but the possibility of executing a foregone conclusion with not enough members present is a sin against humanity. It’s that scripture about seeing the mote in your neighbors eye and missing the log in your own.
Remarkable, Doug Martin (#24)—you have expressed what I imagine is the current sentiment running through the HoB while it allows the Presiding Bishop to impose her own contrary version of the Canons on Bishop Duncan: “Well, the other side isn’t following the Canons—they’re breaking their own right and left by making inroads into our territory—so that means we don’t have to follow ours, either!”
If there is no sense of injury at what is being done to Bishop Duncan, then I submit the man is being prejudged, without a trial or hearing of any kind, and despite the plea he made for his case as an Episcopal bishop who is doing his best to be faithful to his calling. If the majority is going to expel those who disagree with it, and without bothering to follow the procedures of its own Canons, then the majority will end up like a mob, subject to the whims and passions of the moment, with no one on whom to vent itself except the next hapless victim who strays across its path. What a shining future for this Episcopal Church!
Doug Martin wrote:
“It remains that a hundred or so Bishops who were present voted for deposition with no question of either the correctness of that action or any concern for consistency of that action with the Canons.”
Doug,
How do you figure?
Remaining #26-
Although I am inclined to ask “How do you figure-what”, basis for my comment is as follows. A 3-14 posting on T19 from The Living Church puts the number registered at the time of the vote as 116. I cannot readily find a source for the number “100 or so” but believe I have seen it in print. The Secretary of the HOB reported in a 3-18 posting on T19 that the voice vote was “overwhelming” in favor of deposition in each case handled separately although there were “no’s” and “abstentions”. Both postings address a period of prayer, silence, and small table discussion among the Bishops followed by a general discussion followed by the votes. The posting by the HOB secretary states that “no one challenged the ruling” or made note of special requirements for the numbers of votes required. Finally, having discussed, they voted to depose which is in my view prima facie and final evidence that they did not have concern for the correctness of that action or its consistency with the Canons (or they would not have voted affirmatively). Chancellor #25
You may come to this conclusion but it certainly was not mine nor my intent and I do not agree with your assessment.