The “Sentence of Deposition” does not reflect, however, her interpretation of the canon. It includes the recitation “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented to this Deposition at a meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City , Utah , on 18 September, 2008”¦.” That is, the Sentence does not read, following the Presiding Bishop’s own memorandum and ruling, “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops present,” nor does it recite the actual language of the relevant canon. Instead, the Sentence adopts the plain reading of the canon the Presiding Bishop overruled: “a majority of members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented”¦”
Surely one thing all parties can agree on is that this did not happen in Salt Lake City . There are close to 300 members of the House of Bishops “entitled to vote.” Only 88 consented to the purported deposition. Far from a majority, this is fewer than a third of the bishops entitled to vote. So why does the “Sentence of Deposition” now concede the legal point made by bishops and others who requested canonical integrity? Is it because an accurate recitation, one using the Presiding Bishop’s own words, “a majority of bishops present at the meeting,” would be invalid on its face? This Sentence of Deposition only confirms ACI’s stated concern that the legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question by this proceeding.
Mark: Did the HoB even have a quorum present for the deposition vote? Under Canon V-3, a quorum generally requires a majority of the membership of. Does any different rule apply here? Did Schori and her gang satisfy the rule.
There was a quorum present because the quorum is defined as a majority of the HoB entitled to a vote less retired members. (The actual language is different, but that is the gist of the quorum definition).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
BTW, I noticed this too. Since the “because” statement is false, doesn’t it logically follow that the “therefore” statement is null? Perhaps +Duncan should frame this “sentence” along with the definition of “the whole number of bishops entitled to vote” and the roll of the HoB at the time of his alleged deposition and then continue to function as a bishop since the deposition failed to meet its canonical requirements.
Wouldn’t this be like a law requiring a jury of 12 persons to convict a defendent and then sentence being passed, but after sentencing, discovering that the vote of one person was not registered and the jury actually deadlocked?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I can’t help but think that the apparent lack of caution with regard to the phraseology of Mrs. Schori’s letter is a reflection of an essential dishonesty at the heart of this entire affair. Neither the Presiding Bishop, her attorney, her Parliamentarian, or any other advisors can have been unaware of the lack of ambiguity in the Canon she cites as the basis of this action. The textual and legal analyses that have been undertaken by the Living Church, the ACI and others are too well known and too compelling for any of these luminaries to think that their proferred “interpretation” would withstand honest review, even by the interpreters themselves. By the time of the vote, none of the assembled bishops can have been unaware of the unambiguous language of the cited Canon. No rational person can honestly believe that a Canon that clearly and unambiguously requires inhibition as a prerequisite for deposition can somehow say the opposite.
One thing follows: the Presiding Bishop is lying. In addition, her lawyer lying. Her Parliamentarian is lying. The bishops who voted with her are lying. These people may be lying to themselves as much as to Bishop Duncan, the wider Church, and everyone else, but nevertheless, they are lying.
I do not doubt that the lot of them are sincere in believing the necessity of the action taken. I do not doubt that they sincerely believe that they are authorized to take it. There is surely a rational argument to be made for both assertions. However, this Canon is being cited for reasons other than that it provides such authorization, since, not having been followed, it cannot possibly do so. Insofar as Mrs. Schori and others continue to cite this Canon as the basis for the action, they are lying. That her description of the lie is itself swathed in falsehood should come as no surprise. Disturbing and sad.
Phil [#2]: I still don’t see how a quorum was present.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Canon V.3 specifies that a quorum shall, except as otherwise provided in ECUSA’s constitution and canons, “be a majority of [the] members.”
Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution states:
[blockquote]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. A majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.[/blockquote]
So, if there are 150 active bishops in TECUSA and 50 retired bishops (or, as this constitution determines them, “resigned” bishops), the quorum number is 75 bishops, not 100. However, it takes 101 bishops to depose under IV.9:
[blockquote]If the House, [b]by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote[/b] (see Article 1, section 2 above), 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. (emphasis mine) [/blockquote]
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil [#6]: Thank you very much for the clarification.
There was some case in Panama of some bishop departing the communion some years ago that was cited as precedent if I recall correctly. Any comment on that? Yes, I agree the whole thing is a sham and an example of the dangerous human tendency of people putting up with stuff that corrodes process if the decision goes their way.