The Presiding Bishop’s memo (see below) is a fascinating read. I do not wish to engage the issue of whether Bishop Duncan should or should not be deposed. I am concerned that he or any other Bishop facing deposition should be treated fairly.
The difficulty facing the PB and HoB is clearly, and I think fairly, presented by our Presiding Bishop. “Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a ‘regular or special meeting of the House’ and, second, be ‘by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.’
Problem: these days it is difficult to get “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to attend an interim meeting of the HoB. And even if that goal were achieved, then a motion to depose would require an almost unanimous vote by the Bishops present.
Pierce’s translation: taking the two requirements together (vote at an actual meeting and a super majority is required), it is difficult to depose a Bishop for abandonment.
Pierce’s observation: I think that was the intention. Note the additional requirements for deposing a priest or a deacon (see Canon IV.10)
What do to do? The PB speaks:
“In these circumstances, I concur with my Chancellor and the Parliamentarian that any ambiguity in the canon should be resolved in favor of making this important provision work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied because a majority or nearly a majority of voting bishops are no longer in active episcopal positions in the Church and their attendance at meetings is hampered by age, health, economics, or interest in other legitimate pursuits.”
In secular law any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant or the accused. The general principle is that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be punished. Here, however, exactly the reverse is being argued. In order for “this important provision [to] work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied,” the three in authority have decided to reduce the majority required to the absolute bare minimum, ie a majority of Bishops present and voting. In other words, the bar has been set high, discipline may be stymied, therefore lower the bar.
The PB then states: “I concur with this advice, and that will be the ruling of the Chair. Any member of the House may appeal the ruling of the Chair, which may be overruled by a two-thirds vote pursuant to House Rule XV, p.192.”
If there be any integrity remaining in our House of Bishops, the ruling of the Chair will indeed be successfully appealed.
–The Rev. Nathaniel W. Pierce is an Episcopal pirest and blog reader who lives in Trappe, Maryland
[i]In secular law any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant or the accused. The general principle is that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be punished. Here, however, exactly the reverse is being argued. In order for “this important provision [to] work effectively and that the discipline of the Church should not be stymied,” the three in authority have decided to reduce the majority required to the absolute bare minimum, ie a majority of Bishops present and voting. In other words, the bar has been set high, discipline may be stymied, therefore lower the bar.[/i]
I find this observation very interesting and I ponder whether the justification for “pushing” +Duncan’s deposition is due to the fact that the PB thinks TEC is a victim of +Duncan (and his like) b/c he is “robbing” TEC of assets, etc…?
Nevertheless, I find the situation is flipped. The power differential b/t +Duncan and the PB is drastic and IMHO +Duncan is being clearly bullied by the PB. Unfortunately, that is part of our spiritual DNA as descendants of the COE. Look what history says about how the Puritans were treated or any other theological movement out of the status qou for that matter. Just my thoughts.
I have resigned myself to being a member of a church led by a lawless individual whose goals are shared by too many in power for her lawlessness to be called into question. Postmodernism tends to be about results and correct process be damned – unless that process can assist the results desired. Witness the canonical fundamentalism that greeted Mark Lawrence on his first attempt to gain consents and the “ambiguity” that is now found in the canons when it comes to getting rid of a problem bishop.
I wish the bishops who were charged with guarding the faith of the Church would do their job. If they can’t guard the faith, then can’t they guard the unity of the Church. If they won’t guard the faith or unity of the Church can we please ask them to guard the discipline of the Church?
If the bishops had guarded the faith and the unity of the Church, then +Duncan, +Schofield, +Iker, et. al. would not be seeking to leave. Now that the faith and unity have become “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes,” the discipline of the Church has become and exercise in power politics rather than a means to lead the flock of Jesus Christ.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“In secular law any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant or the accused. The general principle is that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be punished. Here, however, exactly the reverse is being argued.”
=========================================================
In Russia, when any possible opponents of the Communists were being pursued by Lenin and his henchmen, Lenin said something to the effect [not an exact quote], ‘If 100 innocent people have to die in order to ensure that a class enemy dies, then that is worth the sacrifice of the innocent 100 lives.’
I cite this historic statement of radical extremism in order to underline the extremism that I see being expressed and acted upon by Schori and associates.
If ECUSA is truly hierarchial in its deliberations and governance, then there is no justification for Schori’s radical interpretation of and apparent partial nullification of ECUSA’s rules and canons.
If ECUSA is truly democratic, as it claims when it cites the ‘rule’ of the General Convention over such matters as changing doctrine, then there is no justification for Schori and company “bending the law” by excluding the vote of all bishops eligible to vote in order to achieve a secular and political goal of getting rid of Bishop Duncan.
By “ramming through” Bishop Duncan’s deposition, Schori and company are cutting off debate within ECUSA that must occur when a bishop, especially a diocesan, is deposed, if the integrity of ECUSA’s bishops in the eyes of ECUSA’s congregants and the rest of the Anglican Communion is to be preserved.
Integrity as viewed by others is important, it can “make or break” an organization when a lack of it causes a severe loss in its perceived trustworthiness.
For example, if you knew that a local town’s police department was selective in who it would arrest and not arrest and in how it treated its arrestees, would you continue to live in that town? Would you even visit that town?
When a “hierarchy” has in actual practice only two levels, the Absolute Unquestionable Ruler accountable to no one and a few handpicked henchmen, and then Everyone Else, who must obey without question or dissent or be terminated, then it has ceased to be a hierarchy and has instead become a sheep pasture run by wolves for the usual purposes of wolves toward sheep.
TEc: The dictatorial “church”
Phil, there is only one minor thing about which you and I differ here: Bishop Schofield and our diocese HAVE left TEC…..a slight correction, if I may. There is no ambiguity here, and I need to make that clear.
No. 2: “I have resigned myself to being a member of a church led….”
Why?
If +Duncan has so clearly abandoned the Episcopal Church, you would think that getting the permissions and votes would be easy for Ms. Schori. That she and her consigliari have to fold, spindle and mutilate the canons to get the result she wants tells us a lot about her respect for the polity she so frequently invokes, as well as the contempt both have for the rule of law.
One thing that repeatedly comes to my mind when I look at KJS’s appalling actions with regard to these purported depositions, is that she is acting from a position of weakness. We all need to remind ourselves of that.
Some may object and tell me that she is displaying hubris and arrogance that stems from having 100% control, and so is therefore acting from a position of strength. I disagree. If KJS was acting from a position of strength, she would have followed the canonical procedure, and it would have worked.
KJS sees TEC imploding on her watch and she is desperate to do something about it. Her only recourse is to assert tyrannical powers in direct contravention of TEC constitution and canons. What the pro-KJS liberals in TEC don’t realize are the immense consequences of these actions even after all of the “troublesome priests” have been disposed of.
Power grasped is not easily ungrasped. If KJS gets away with ignoring the canons this time, she will do so again….and again….and again. These depositions are a large step towards canonical chaos within TEC. And this canonical chaos, I believe, will have multiple impacts. At some point, it will be a liberal ox that will be gored by her tyranny (and probably the institutional liberal ox that will be gored). That may lead to a bitter and acrimonious fight. It will also impact the various secular litigations going on across the country. TEC cannot ask the court to enforce its canons if it is unwilling to abide by those canons itself.
As a conservative Anglican, I am at first horrified by what KJS is doing here – the craven denial of basic, elementary due process is shocking. But after my horror and disbelief at her actions, I find myself thinking that I am watching perhaps one of the biggest blunders yet in the Anglican church wars. As if Duncan and Schofield are bait to lure KJS into a trap. All I can predict is that TEC is now almost certain to descend into absolute chaos, and absolute chaos is not in the ruling elite’s interests.
#5 – You are right. I should have used both past and present and future tenses. SDJ is gone and only the hope of reunion is in the Grace of God given by and through Jesus Christ.
#7 – I am resigned because God has called me here. It would be easier to be a firebrand and wipe the dust from my feet and let TECUSA just walk away without any warning. But God has called some of us to continue to sound the alarm. Like the passage from Ezekiel a few weeks ago, God has called some to sound the alarm and woe to us who do not sound the alarm or leave our posts while God calls us to stay.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Eventually the Presiding Bishop and The members of the HoB will face the Ultimate Judge whose law has been clearly stated in scripture, which they have ignored or worse, contradicted. There will be no appeals from His verdict.
The wrath that awaits the HOB hirelings is too awesome to contemplate. Their arrogance blinds them. What they will do to this good man will pale to what Christ will say to them for their heresies and blindness.
Weep. They strut and fret on the stage for now, and will be no more.
I wonder if there are plans afoot to counter Dr. Schori’s machinations. I can’t believe that Bishop Duncan and the leadership in Pittsburgh haven’t planned for this eventuality.
Islandbear+