I write, therefore, to ask that you take immediate action in suspending the Episcopal Church from any further participation in activities of the Anglican Communion and in calling a meeting of the Primates to give formal recognition to a new Province in North America, as desired by the Common Cause Partners Federation. At that meeting the Primates must give guidance as to the future conduct of the Episcopal Church so as to enable it to return to the full fellowship of the Anglican Communion .
The action of Archbishop Gregory Venables in receiving Bishop Duncan as a member of the House of Bishops of the province of the Southern Cone should not be seen in any way as interference in another province, but as a fraternal act towards a brother who has, for a long time, been speaking out for biblical truth in a church which, by its teaching and actions, has been gradually separating itself from the rest of the Communion. He deserves our gratitude and full support.
You are in my prayers and those of many others, that you will have God’s wisdom and despatch in dealing with this further tear in the fabric of our Communion, especially in view of your own pleas for holy restraint at the Lambeth Conference.
Does anyone believe the ‘Artful Dogger’ Williams will really do it, if so I have a bridge for sale.
[b]Cross post from Stand Firm:[/b]
As an aside, it’s interesting how this illustrates the beginnings of Pittsburgh’s relationship with global Anglicanism. Although in the 1990s, Africa came to occupy a more prominent position in extra-diocesan affairs (especially as the Southern Cone began to consecrate indigenous bishops), our diocese began its foray into the wider Anglican world with Chile. Indeed it was John Guest who first encouraged members of St. Stephen’s, Sewickley, to work for SAMS and today the US branch is headquartered in Ambridge.
From a purely personal point of view, if we are going to realign I would prefer to be under Drexel Gomez (who did sign that letter of support for +Duncan) or Henry Orombi, but one can’t deny the historical precedents for deepening the relationship with the Southern Cone.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
From Bishop Bazley’s letter:
[blockquote]
I understand on good authority that the process of his deposition has run counter to the canons of that church.
[/blockquote]
Bishop Bazley should consult better authority: for example,
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf
#3 – “better” would be purely in the eye of the beholder.
I’m betting that Rowan Williams will begin to recognize both the Southern Cone bishops Schofield, Duncan, Iker, Ackerman, etc., and whatever flunkies TEC replaces them. But he won’t say or do anything until he has to – which means no discipline of TEC.
It really doesn’t matter whether the ABC does or does not do anything. What matters is that the abuse and misuse of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church are made clear to all in TEC and the AC. We are called to be faithful not win the war. Each battle matters.
[blockquote]
3. stabill wrote: . . .
Bishop Bazley should consult better authority: for example,
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf
[/blockquote]
A plain reading of the referenced document says that the process of deposition was not done according to the Canons. Therein is laid out a process which must be taken. The process is not simple or easy because removing a bishop from his seat should not be simple or easy. The misreading of the Canons by Dr Schori, is almost impossible to understand. Under her rules all it takes to remove a bishop is for 51 percent of the bishops at a meeting to agree.
There is one positive in the action of Dr Schori. She has put the Episcopal Church in the United States, in support of the Bush Doctrine. Attacking it is acceptable based upon intent and you need not wait for action. Thank your Dr Schori.
Scott (#7),
[blockquote]
A plain reading of the referenced document says that the process of deposition was not done according to the Canons.
[/blockquote]
Despite the disinformation campaign mounted last Spring after the deposition of Bishop Schofield, a deposition under Title IV.9 must be an action of the House at a meeting of the House. Given that context the voting requirement is a majority of the bishops entitled to vote including suffragans, assistants, and retired bishops who attend. Without provision for absentee ballots or provision for taking the entire vote by mail, a bishop is not entitled to vote without being present at the meeting. Surely you would not want to give an automatic negative vote to an ill bishop tied to life support equipment in a hospital.
If you don’t like the rules, work to change them.
#8 The canon in question can just as easily be read to require a positive vote by majority of eligible bishops, including those not present or those abstaining, in order to indicate an episcopal consensus on the abandonment. This latter is just the converse of the way you are reading the canon, and there is little precedent to say which way it must be interpreted. I would suggest that your prescription to change things applies to your position as well, as the current situation could be reversed by another HoB meeting on a simple legislative majority vote. That is one heck of a way to determine who is out and who is in, at least with any finality.
The vote requirement issue was thoroughly and persuasively analyzed by Mark McCall, posted on T19 a few days ago. Stabill and 815 are just “fighting the facts”, resulting in a clear case of outcome-oriented jurisprudence.
Tom Roberts (#8),
[blockquote]
The canon in question can just as easily be read to require a positive vote by majority of eligible bishops, including those not present or those abstaining, in order to indicate an episcopal consensus on the abandonment.
[/blockquote]
No, not easily.
At the very least, to obtain the conclusion that a majority of all bishops is needed, one must argue that the Constitution and Canons hold in regard to Title IV.9 that a bishop tied to life support equipment in a hospital has, effectively, an automatic negative vote.
If one begins to look at what provisions are made elsewhere for the case of the very ill bishop, not to mention retired bishops simply unable to attend, then ask why Title IV.9 does not simply say “majority of all bishops” rather than the more complicated formulation used, and finally observe where the phrase “majority of all bishops” [i]is[/i] used, one comes to understand that inferring an extreme super majority requirement from the language of Title IV.9 in the overall context of the Constitution and Canons is a perverse interpretation.
Bill Matz (#10),
I’ve seen items from Mark McCall about “hierarchy”, but for interpretation of Title IV.9, perhaps you mean T19 [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/12932]item 12932[/url].
BTW, I’m just a person in the pews — the pews of TEC in Albany. It’s just that I don’t like to see my Church and its Presiding Bishop being swift boated.
#11 You have got to be jesting in confusing the relief of a bishop for health as opposed to abandonment of communion. I would not believe someone was seriously taking your position. Pursuing this line leads to the conclusion that a majority vote for deposition under the abandonment canon would be appropriate for failing to answer the mail or phone for a length of time.
Tom Roberts (#13),
[blockquote]
You have got to be jesting in confusing the relief of a bishop for health as opposed to abandonment of communion.
[/blockquote]
No.
I think you did not follow what I said. It’s about how the rules for voting treat the case of an ill bishop who cannot attend in regard to voting tally requirements.
#14 Indeed, I erred in my reading of what you were saying.
Re reading, I guess where I balk at your conclusion is in what appears to me your subjective assessment of a supermajority requirement as “perverse”. I don’t see it as such, rather as a “feature rather than a bug”. Unless you can bridge this gap in subjective assessments, I’d simply say we disagree, without precedent for saying that the HoB vote was conducted properly or not. At best, in my estimate, your argument is vox populi, vox dei. As a line of argument in a voting oligarchy (which is what the HoB is) vox populi is fine, but it starts to fade when the popular gods change over time. It certainly isn’t a prescription for discerning the Truth.
#12 interesting point, and not a quibble: it isn’t “my church”, unless you are talking about a consecrated roof and four walls that you somehow own, contrary to normal ecusa practise.
Tom Roberts (#15),
[blockquote]
Re reading, I guess where I balk at your conclusion is in what appears to me your subjective assessment of a supermajority requirement as “perverseâ€.
[/blockquote]
I did not say that a sensible supermajority requirement would be perverse. Look, for example, at the requirement for the second reading of an amendment to the Constitution. That is sensible.
With Title IV.9, for example, if absentee ballots were allowed or if the decision was taken through a mail ballot, then the requirement as now written [i]would[/i] be for a supermajority since all bishops given the vote under Article I would be entitled to vote, and that would not be perverse.
But as things are presently, the matter must be handled as an act of the House at a meeting of the House, and the set of bishops entitled to vote is limited to those at the meeting, and the “whole number of bishops entitled to vote” is limited by the number of bishops at the meeting.
(Do note, however, that quoting the last quoted phrase out of context changes its meaning.)
The perversity I cited is something that follows from the supermajority interpretation: the fact that a bishop tied to life support equipment in a hospital would, in effect, have an automatic negative vote under that interpretation.
Also if there was provision exempting bishops absent by reason of illness and retired bishops not present from the determination of the required majority, then I would not call the supermajority interpretation perverse.
Good night.