Fits the situation at hand perfectly, does it not? By the actions of his diocese, Bishop Wantland has been “removed from the jurisdiction of this Church to the jurisdiction of a Church [the Province of the Southern Cone] in the Anglican Communion.” This Rule lets him ask to remain affiliated with the House of Bishops as an honorary member, with seat and voice but no vote. (There will be be taken up for second reading at GC2009 next June a proposed Constitutional amendment [Res. A020 at GC2006] to confine the right to vote in the House just “to all bishops with jurisdiction, Bishops Coadjutor, Bishops Suffragan, Assistant Bishops and every bishop holding an office created by General Convention.” This amendment, when passed, will deprive all “resigned” [i.e., retired] Bishops of their present right to vote.)
Thus it will be most interesting to see how the Presiding Bishop treats his request. I do not mean to ask what will happen if Bishop Wantland gives the required notice that he plans to attend the next meeting of the House, because the Rule states that no action on the request is required unless and until he actually shows up for the meeting in question. (Should he do so, the Rule provides only that the Presiding Officer of the House at the meeting “nominate” him for honorary membership; it is unclear whether a vote on the nomination would be taken.) No, what I see taking place is something more important: by sending the letter and announcing his desire to assume the status of an honorary member, Bishop Wantland has cut the procedural legs out from any move to depose him as a bishop for “abandonment of communion”.
Not to be crass, but somehow I think the Presiding Bishop will “interpret” that clause to mean whatever she wants it mean.
The clause allows her to ignore his request. She doesn’t *have* to nominate him as honorary bishop. It may be customary (in ordinary circumstances), but it certainly is not mandatory.