Before I do so, however, there are other objections to my analysis that deserve a response. Bishop Whalon and others often argue that Dioceses are “created” by General Convention. This claim, however, is an example of wishful thinking that ignores the legal precision of Article V of TEC’s Constitution. This article is entitled “Admission of New Dioceses,” and not “Creation of New Dioceses.” The first sentence specifies General Convention’s role in the process. It is to “consent.” The wording indicates at the outset that the role of General Convention is secondary, not primary. It consents to actions initiated elsewhere.
The following sentences in Article V elaborate this process. The proceedings “originate” with a convention of “the unorganized area,” not with General Convention. It is the unorganized area that “duly adopts” its own constitution. Article V then describes the legal entity created by the duly adopted constitution not, as before, as an “unorganized area,” but as a “Diocese.” Then the “new Diocese” submits its constitution to the General Convention for consent; and upon receipt of this consent, it enters into “union with the General Convention.”
In this articulation of the steps involved in the creation of a new Diocese, Article V reflects the civil law. When an unorganized area adopts its own constitution, by definition it is no longer “unorganized.” It is a legal entity. In the terminology of Article V, this entity is called a “new Diocese.” This step, furthermore, occurs before the constitutional involvement of General Convention. What happens when the new Diocese obtains the consent of General Convention to its application is that it is “admitted” into union with the other dioceses in General Convention. The transformation from “unorganized area” to “new Diocese” occurs when the diocesan constitution is duly adopted. When General Convention gives its consent, another transformation occurs, but it is not the creation of a new Diocese. It is the transformation of unaffiliated “new Diocese” to member diocese of General Convention.
A good article.
It is worth stating the obvious that federal organizations, liked the US Government and the TEC, with multiple checks are deliberately designed “make hash both out of historical precedence as well as what good church governance requires.” The very idea of “checks and balances and competing centers of power “makes hash of ‘good governance’”. And of course the reason is to prevent an abuse of power. The founders know very well the attraction of power to sinful people and their solution was to fragment it. Ineffeficient governance, “hash†if you will, means that the system is working as it should. That is it is a feature and not a bug.
And his analysis of Title IV Canon 9 is spot on:
[blockquote] The obvious response is that the Canon was never intended to “work†in the circumstances in which it is now being employed. [b] It is confusing only when one is determined to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended. Its original intention was for use in cases wherein there was an uncontested abandonment of TEC for another body not in communion with this church.[/b] If anyone were to contest that abandonment for another body had occurred, be it the Bishop himself, the three senior Bishops, the Review Committee, or the House of Bishops (through failure to achieve a true majority) the Canon was not to be used. The point was to provide due process in cases wherein charges of violation of doctrine or discipline are contested. In short, one cannot rightly object to a Canon intended for use in uncontested cases on grounds that it gives three senior Bishops (on the basis of seniority alone) responsibility to review cases that are in fact contested. The procedural safeguards were put there for a reason. When they are invoked, the proper response is to use the appropriate procedure; not to object to the safeguards themselves.[/blockquote]
However this is all beside the point as the people violating the Canons are the persons who enforce and interpret them. No dictator or corrupt institution ever ruled that he, she or it was in violation of the law or rules.
Excellent response. It highlights that there is no equivalent of a “supreme court” in TEC polity which leaves it to a political solution. That clearly is dominated by those in power and with a majority in GC rather than any carefully adjudicated judgement. Hence appeals to the larger Communion and the need for a Covenant that can be effective. The Communion is also unable or unwilling to do the former and those in favor of the new agenda will never accede to the latter.
Good analysis, but it won’t stop the “new thang.”
And since when does he expect things to be done legally?
I wonder whether Bishop White’s ideas and the principles espoused by Pennsylvanian Anglicans as they prepared to associate themselves in the creation of a national Province were those which subsequently triumphed when the deputies to the formational meetings of General Convention settled their compact of unity during their first few meetings?