On Aug 26, attorneys for Bishop Schori submitted a 64-page indictment to the Title IV Committee. Bishop Schori believed the Anglo-Catholic leader had “so repudiated the doctrine, discipline and worship” of the church by his “persistent position that the Diocese may choose whether or not to remain a constituent part of the Episcopal Church,” that he should be found to have “abandoned the Communion of this Church.”
Bishop Schori’s lawyer, David Booth Beers added the “presiding bishop would appreciate consideration of this matter on an expedited basis, specifically, if at all feasible, before the next meeting of the House of Bishops on September 17, 2008.”
The Title IV Committee declined to deliberate at an expedited pace, and on Sept 12 Mr. Beers provided further documents in support of its contentions. A third memo to the committee was mailed on Oct 3 by Mr. Beers with clippings of an article written by Bishop Iker entitled “10 Reasons Why Now is the Time to Realign.”
In his Oct 3 letter, the presiding bishop’s attorney said that his client “has asked you consider again the evidence” against Bishop Iker. Mr. Beers noted the deposition of Bishop Duncan had now set a precedent that permitted a bishop to be deposed for bad thoughts, without recourse to having committed bad actions.
We’ve known all along that 815 had dear faithful Bishop Iker in its sights and now we must pray that their weapon backfires.
I still don’t understand. Why try to depose him since he is already gone out of their grasp? Have I missed something? Larry
Sweet:
[blockquote]On Nov 15, Bishop Wantland—the Episcopal Church’s leading canon lawyer—wrote Bishop Schori asking that he be granted an honorary seat in the US House of Bishops.
As he was now a bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone and disqualified from membership in the US House of Bishops, he resided in the jurisdiction of the American Church. “I therefore request that I be admitted as an honorary member of the House of Bishops, in accord with the provisions of Rule XXIV of the House of Bishops, as provided in paragraph three of said Rule, as a “Bishop of this Church who removed from the jurisdiction of this Church to a jurisdiction of a Church in the Anglican Communion”.
As an honorary member, Bishop Wantland would be given voice, but not vote, in the affairs of the House of Bishops—a status soon to be shared with all retired bishops pending the second reading of a constitutional amendment at the 2009 General Convention.
However, by appealing to the rules of the House, Bishop Wantland may have short circuited disciplinary proceedings against him, as the rules specifically provide for the course of action he has requested. [/blockquote]
Larry,
simply — revenge and to make an example. Sour grapes and all that.
It’s purely a power play “I’ll get you Iker, and your little diocese, too!”
“…permitted a bishop to be deposed for bad thoughts …”
Is that really what he wrote? Bad bishop … bad, bad, bad orthodox thoughts bishop … no soup for you!
This is really pretty funny, in a twisted, evil kind of way.
Reasserters would argue, I think, that since a TEC bp traditionally petitions to be released from his office in TEC that +JLI is still a bp in TEC, not in Province of the Southern Cone – and that they can, therefore, depose him. I don’t agree with this argument, but that is what they would say, I should think.
It has seemed to me that for a while now the Office of the Presiding Bishop of TEC has had to rely on novel interpretations of the canons to justify untrammeled preemptive strikes on those it regards as opponents and malefactors. This is, of course, a virtual definition of the word Tyranny. In fact, the Dioceses of SJ, Quincy, FW, and Pittsburgh have made it considerably easier to impose its will on the rest of TEC by their absence. The PB and her friends ought to be grateful, rather than annoyed, and wish the departing dioceses Godspeed with grace rather than with pouting and threats of ecclesiastical thunderbolts.
Oops – that should have been “reappraisers”, not “reasserters”. Its easier if I just say “those &*%@#; lefties”. 🙂
I don’t understand Bishop Wantland. It’s no honor to be in the House of Bishops.
In this case, the Notice of Deposition is sort of like visiting the zoo and being spit at by a chimpanzee. It’s annoying and unpleasant, but has no real consequences…
At the rate she is going, by the end of her term in office, there will be only two people left in the Episcopal Organization: the Presiding Bishopess and Mr. Beers. Hope they don’t get to feeling too lonely.
Alice, the serious weight of upcoming lawsuits notwithstanding, I think the LORD will turn 815’s “weapon” into a stage prop that makes a loud noise, emits a puff of smoke, and unfurls a flag that says “BANG!”. 🙂
nwlayman, I think Bishop Wantland simply wanted to throw a spanner into PB Schori’s machinations. I’m sure they were annoyed as heck when they got his letter!
#11 David+ – thanks! that comment made me laugh out loud. This deposing frenzy is ridiculous. He already left the building. Reminds me of olden times in England where they would disinter an enemy and hang, draw and quarter him posthumously!
[blockquote]Mr. Beers noted the deposition of Bishop Duncan had now set a precedent that permitted a bishop to be deposed for bad thoughts, without recourse to having committed bad actions.[/blockquote]
This is exactly why I was greatly disturbed at the course of events in the Duncan deposition, in that he was both guilty until proven innocent, with the guilt apparently being something more along the lines of conspiracy and not an actual action.
Are we to understand that Schori’s attitude seems to be one of “I want to get rid of Bishop Iker RIGHT NOW? So hurry up and find a way to tell me I can kick him out!?”
Does anyone remember the deposition of C.I. Jones?
64 pages of of trumped up charges? Wow. I think that that is pretty hilarious.
Depositions for “bad thoughts.” Thought crimes like 1984?
And I thought it was only “Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid….”
We will have to add the BP now.
This C.I. Jones?
http://www.wfn.org/2001/05/msg00097.html
Perhaps some legal scholars will assist me. How in the world can an illegal deposition be used to set a precedent? Being only the holder of a mere AA degree and not having sat for the Bar Exam I may have missed the wrinkle in common sense that allows for such an event.
Oh by the by I am now this minute inhibiting all of you. I know you are thinking, no make that beaming, disloyal, subversive, rebellious, seditious and mocking thoughts of the beloved PB (Praise and Blessing Upon Her) and the most glorious canons and constitution of the Ecclesialand. Stop smirking right now!!!
Reminds me of old Clancy I. who said “I may not walk the way I talk all the time, but you can thank God I don’t walk the way I think,”
A very sick and desperate women who is in way over her head — theologically, legally, and on every other relevant level.
Delusions of grandeur here? It certainly seems that way!
I think #6 is on the right track on this one. Bishops cannot just resign, according to the canons. They have to seek authority from the HOB to resign. Thus, if they leave their post as diocesan without petitioning the HOB to allow their leave taking, it can be said that they have abandoned the communion of TEC (though not necessarily the AC). In this case, clearly there is still a D. of Ft Worth in tact in TEC, just smaller than before realignment. So clearly Bp Iker has abandoned TEC’s D. of Ft Worth, without asking permission from the HOB; so he is in effect still Bp of the D. of FW and will remain so until a new bp is elected, and TEC, therefore, has the authority to depose him as a Bp of TEC (but not necessarily of the AC).
And BTW, it is believed that the resignation of the Bp of Quincy before that diocese’s realignment vote was an effort to keep himself from being inhibited and then deposed. He will undoubtedly be elected a bp in So. Cone, but he will not have abandoned his TEC diocese before that election occurs. Thus, he may save himself from deposition in TEC, as bishops have often gone from one communion to another within the Anglican Communion, with authority from their respective HOBs. What happens with this bishop may be interesting to watch as there are bound to be many machinations on both sides in trying to determine how he is to be dealt with, especially if the HOB wants to look magnanimous and not small and petty.
Actually, Bp Iker did not leave his diocese. The Diocese left TEc, which has left the orthodox Christianity of the Anglican Communion already.