Good Lord.  Unless I’m completely misreading this, this is anarchy.  I struggle to see how even the lynch mob at Fr. Jake’s could support this, if true.

Umm, where are the grown-ups in the HOB?

If this is true, KJS is in SERIOUS LEGAL TROUBLE.  This is an outrage.

Boy I will forever be grateful that we read Orwell in high school.  I mean how on earth would we ever understand the daily TEC/Anglican news without reference to his works?!

Repeat after me:  “All canons are equal.  Some canons are more equal than others”

Yup.

From all the messed up consents for Bishops to this, honestly these people are wantonly careless or complete idiots. I would think even reappraisers would separate from these people based on incompetence alone.

Oh for the love of Pete.  I hope this is someone’s “Let’s play an April Fool’s Joke Early” Joke.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.

In other words, the HOB as currently constituted is worth nothing.  Period.  The canonical precedents set here are mind boggling.  In this deposition debacle it has been shown - in as crystal clear a manner as any could want - that the canons of TEC can and will be set aside, abused, mis-interpreted, or re-written on-the-fly at the whim of the Presiding Bishop and at any time without even a scintilla of ecclesial due process.  Not really anarchy, Phil (#1), rather an oligarchy is demonstrably in force now.  Note to the HOB - Blind guides!

After the required Orwell citation, my second thought is this:  Will NO one have the guts to stand up against these lawless thugs?  Sorry, I try to be charitable in most of my comments, but I just cannot find any other apt description.

Will ANY bishops take a stand and call for presentment of +Katharine Jefferts Schori?  And is there any way to get rid of David Booth Beers?  This is beginning to feel like the French Reign of Terror, frankly. 

Has there been any further news on who voted NO and who abstained?  The silence is deeply troubling.  I don’t think I’ve seen one pastoral letter on the depositions.... One would have hoped that some of the orthodox bishops would have spoken up by now.  Oh well, I’m mostly out of this mess, so I guess I’ll not fret, but I am praying for all of you for whom this is still a daily and deadly battle.

Wow, with this news it seems like Livingchurch.org is experiencing what it means to be ”slashdotted."

so many connections attempted at the Living Church site that one cannot get through to read the article.

This needs to be pressed to its extent (even if it causes an extension of difficulty for those in TEC San Joaquin).  Who can do so effectively?

Think about the driven agenda vehicle which forgets to check if the wheels are on.  “Prove yourself in the little things first......”
Here is the planned and well publicized deposition of two bishops in situations that have become high profile.  I don’t know about you, but even in situations in the local parish that are “high Profile” only to us, we check and double-check and triple-check the bylaws, the diocesan Canons and the TEC Canons to make sure we are proceeding properly.
1) Will the excuse be from the PB or the Vice-President or the Chancellor of House, or the House Parliamentarian be that they presumed a simple majority of only those who were actually present (without the consideration of dotting the i, and crossing the t’s)?
2) Is there some sort of procedural fog that has settled on the entire HOB, that none of the more experienced bishops - or even any of those bishops who were known prior to consecration as the “Canon Sticklers” at their home diocesan conventions - would not raise the question at all - just to ask?
3) Is there some sort of “interactive fog” on the HOB floor - outside of the small groups - that severely dampens raising the issues of right cause for all?  Is this the “hostile environment” that has been spoken of by some bishops, and that even affects those bishops who are willingly or unwillingly generators of that kind of environment?

What the heck is going on?  (I have my conclusions)

My first thought was of the consequences of making use of the “Cone of Silence” that Maxwell Smart so often demanded in conversation with his boss.  Remember who the arch-rival was?

At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.  Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought…. Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox’s case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting “due to the press of business.”

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Widening,
If it were only so.

It’s quite simple isn’t it. They thought we wouldn’t notice so they carried on regardless.

The arrogance.

"If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the bishop from the ministry.”

From Title IV, Canon 9. Sec 2.

With 294 voting bishops, to depose a bishop seems to require 148 yes’s.  Only 116 Bishops were even present, some of which voted “no”.  How are they going to spin this?

Got to the site. I am as speechless as the PB. Some news story. Next up? The real HoB meeting was on a different day or the Executive committee forgot to send out the news concerning the letter of intent to Bp. Cox last mid-summer. And this, the week before the western Church recalls the Passion.

Schoria law in action!  My thanks and congratulations to George Conger and Steve Waring for exposing this.

If nothing else it gets the ABC out of the hotseat

My father, the Rev. Dr. Nelson Rightmyer, taught church history and canon law at the Divinity School in Philadelphia 1947-52. I remember him saying that every time the Episcopal Church had occasion to try a bishop the rules for the trial of a bishop were changer either shortly before or shortly after the trial. 

This appears to be a case where malice interferes with fairness.

I got it.  Those present were entitled to vote and there was a majority.  Simple to figure out if you try to think according to Schoria Law.  Scary.

Will NO one have the guts to stand up against these lawless thugs?  Sorry, I try to be charitable in most of my comments, but I just cannot find any other apt description.

Karen B. (#8),

I and others have asked this question numerous times over the last 5 years at many times in the history of the Current Unpleasantness here on StandFirm, on T19, on Drell, on the old AAC blog, and several other media to practically no avail.  I can only conjecture that the ersatz Windsor Bishops are adopting a strategy of absorbing withering fire (along the lines of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients - or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the furnace of fire), in hopes that something, somehow akin to a lightning turnaround will happen.  In my view, BTW, no need to apologize for the bluntness on your part, as saying the behavior of 815 and the HOB is beyond the pale is a wild understatement.  Further words fail…

"Canons? we don’t need no stinkin’ canons!”

I’m gonna make some popcorn. This should be interesting.

Actually Dallas Priest you are right. the only way they can spin it is to suggest the word “House” in the canon means a meeting of the HOB and not the entire body. A very dangerous precedent.

What I would wonder is what is required for a quorum of the HOB?
It would seem to me anything that came out of the meeting is meaningless if no quorum was present. They had less than 50% of the Bishops eligible to vote to begin with.

It seems to this greatly devastated priest as my bishop voted to depose +Cox, that the actions of ++Schori are increasingly taken regardless of canons, regardless of decency and regardless of Gospel imperatives.  It is comforting to know that she cannot get a quorum for these votes - however she presses ahead regardless. Her actions regarding the standing committee in SJ, she failed to get an inhibition for +Duncan and is now trying to circumvent that.  Her violation of canonical process regarding +Cox is pitiable.  Her actions all speak of vendetta.  I had not heard that this was a New Testament value nor an MDG goal.

Meanwhile her haste to prosecute is the essence of mean-spiritedness.  Her haste to prosecute and vilify reminds me both of our Lord’s responses in Luke 6 to those who criticized the disciples and he for “working on the Sabbath.  Even more he goes on to cite David taking the show bread from the Tabernacle - surely a canonical offence?  In the other relevant gospel passage we see Jesus responding to the legalists who place their traditions above the compassion required of Gods people (the corban passage of Mark 7).

My prayer is that the legal missteps and her inability to get a quorum will so backfire as to hold up to ridicule her actions in the sight of the whole Communion. 

Possibly I must dream on and take some cold comfort in my devastation that she has failed canonically in her canonical fundamentalism.  GHod is good - all the time.

How can anyone read the Living Church article and not be appalled? Never mind trying to follow the Gospel (our church has largely abandoned that), what about fairplay and common decency? Has the institution shed those as well?

815 has some of the best legal talent in the nation at its disposal. I don’t think it’s possible to argue that they acted out of ignorance in this matter. The language of the canon is in fact quite clear and unambiguous.

Pondering whether “Interior Desecration” is the new thing being taught these days.

Makes me reflect:

Laws work by making people WANT to do something.

When this doesn’t happen, the law gets ignored, and dies the most ignominious death.

rreed,
thanks for getting to the Canon.  As at other times, the answer will be given in the definition of the term “entitled to vote”, whether that is as a body of the whole, or whether as I said above, it will be defined only as those PRESENT who are entitled to vote.
Personally, I believe the seriousness of any intended deposing of a bishop is revealed in defining “entitled to vote” as referring to the entire House of Bishops who are entitled to vote, and not just those present.
You agree?

What a telling inconsistency!

--- When dealing with consents to Bp. Lawrence’s election, 815 is strict as can be.

--- When KJS has a House of Bishops retreat vote to depose Bps. Schofield and Cox, 815 is as lax as can be.
_ _ _ _ _

Some of us have accused ECUSA’s revisionist rulers of Canonical Fundamentalism.

We should instead say “One-Eyed Canonical Fundamentalism.”

Or for the politically correct, “Differently Abled Canonical Fundamentalism.”
_ _ _ _ _

“Where are the grown-ups in the HOB?”

Not clear. And you’d think that if any of our orthodox bishops showed up at this event, they’d be primed to insist of strict enforcement of the rules, including a recorded vote.

These canonical irregularities are a major misstep on the part of 815.  And this misstep will compromise their balance and make them very vulnerable to a good counter-attack.

IV. 1. Sun Tzu said:  The good fighters of old first put
themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then
waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our
own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy
is provided by the enemy himself.

Let the good times roll!

Bill+
(Fort Worth)

Is it time for a peaceful but vocal demonstration on the sidewalk of 2nd Avenue?  I’m lousy at organizing, but let me know and I’ll be there… It’s time to make noise in front of the TV cameras, perhaps.

Maybe the Presiding Bishop and her advisors in canon law have breathed in too much of the methane produced by the cows described in her so-called Easter Message.

Rudy+

I think I have finally figured out how they run 815:

On even days they use scripts by Joseph Goebbels and Machiavelli.

On odd days they use Firesign Theatre and Monty Python.

"If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the bishop from the ministry”

“A majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” requires more than a majority of those present. It requires a majority of the entire voting membership of the House of Bishops.

And well it should. Deposing a bishop is a serious matter. Requiring a majority of the entire membership provides a safeguard against sneakeroo tactics.

Can anyone tell me why something this serious was taken by voice vote?  I mean, I understand the practicality (read “sneakiness") of it—like when our state legislature votes itself another unearned raise.  But it seems something like this should require votes to be recorded.

Can’t we find some orthodox bishops to show up and demand strict enforcement of the rules?

Many of us would be glad to provide a checklist and a set of talking points.

The checklist would points like verifying the presence of a quorum, demanding a recorded vote, and ascertaining whether the revisionist lynch mob has produced the requisite number of votes.

Why did Bp. Howe, lately so mindful of canons, let this go through by voice vote?

so can this all be overturned and the SJ disciplined..or can she now do anything she wants?

I’m with you, but the fact is that Bishop Schofield HAS stood up against these lawless thugs, and is still standing up to them! Yesterday at St. James Anglican Cathedral in Fresno, Bishop Schofield presided over the annual Mass of Chrism for his clergy, and the joy among them was palpable. And when the clergy were asked to reaffirm their ordination vows (including their vow to support Bishop Schofield), the response was a very loud, “I DO!!” It was a hair-raising and historic moment for those who attended the service. One priest said to me afterward, “I will not bend my neck to these tyrants and heretics!” The fire and determination in his eyes thrilled me. We are seeing true heroes of faith rise up and put everything on the line for Jesus’ sake, and for the Body of Christ. Like the Apostle Paul, we can rejoice in persecutions and all kinds of adversities. We know our Redeemer liveth!

I like [23] Rocks

What I would wonder is what is required for a quorum of the HOB?
It would seem to me anything that came out of the meeting is meaningless if no quorum was present. They had less than 50% of the Bishops eligible to vote to begin with.

Rules are rules.

Irenaeus,
You, me, rreed, Bill+, frianm, Rocks, Connecticutian (I think), etc., agreeing on the definition of who is “entitled to vote”, and thus the TEC Canonical definition of majority.....
the rest of you, quit wasting your breath with useless complaints and get on board here....let’s get this consensus rolling along..... this is called pressure, when pressure is due, and on such a clear issue with large consequences.

Wow, this is breathtaking!  The arrogance of KJS is right up there with Elliot Spitzer.  Schoria Law indeed.

Methinks all this is simply a matter of interpretation.

1) Was enough of a quorum present so that votes on matters could be taken?

2) If so, and if a majority of those who were entitled a right to vote on matters such as these voted yes, the bishops are rightfully deposed.

C’mon, vestries operate like this all the time.  As long as enough vestry members are present to make a quorum, a meeting can be held and DECISIONS MADE regardless of the absent members.  I think, and am open to being proved wrong, that someone is interpreting HOUSE to mean the whole darn HOUSE being present as opposed to having a majority of the bishops of HOUSE present and voting.

Yes, Smuggs… I’m sure this is all much ado about nothing. how silly of us to get all worked about something so inconsequential as polity.

Oh wait.

##15 and 27

Article I of the Constitution provides as follows:

Sec. 2. 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, orfor 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.

Note that the constitution uses the phrase “entitled to vote” to define a quorum (which they did not have, BTW) so that term cannot refer simply to those present.  Elsewhere in the canons the term “present and voting” is used, which indicates that that concept is not intended by the phrase “entitled to vote.”

#37, Yes, indeed; +Schofield, +Duncan, +Iker and a few other courageous bishops have stood up to KJS.  And I and many many others are thankful for them. 

I was thinking primarily of those bishops who were present at Camp Allen this past week in wondering why no one apparently took a stand.  At least not one that was public enough to have been reported widely.

"Can anyone tell me why something this serious was taken by voice vote? ... [S]omething like this should require votes to be recorded”

Geosez [#34]: Recording the vote should be mandatory in a case like this; otherwise there’s no way to know whether the requisite number of bishops voted in favor.

But there’s an even more basic problem: that no one DEMANDS that major votes be recorded. Same thing happened at the late-September HoB meeting in New Orleans.

I don’t know what accounts for this passivity (e.g., despair, lack of gumption, desire to be liked by one’s revisionist colleagues).

But letting revisionist dirty work (and in the case of the New Orleans meeting, defiance of the primates) sail through on voice votes squanders an opportunity to obtain more transparency and accountability.

Yes Rob+, I agree.  As I read, considering the seriousness of this issue, it is a majority of all bishops who are entitled to vote.

Absolutely stunning.  Some will think I’m going too far, but, if this is true, it’s a scandal on par with the Gene Robinson affair.  Just for starters, Schori and Beers need to resign.  Then, the investigations need to start - led by people far afield of this crooked body.  Obviously, +Schofield and +Cox remain 100%, full and complete members of the HOB, just as fully as John Chane or Jon Bruno, and their cases - for that matter, nothing related to San Joaquin - should be touched until the investigation is complete and all of the people in any way involved with this have either resigned or been deposed.  A true disgrace from an institution that has brought it to an art form.

Postmodern understanding of words to the rescue!  Schoria law reigns.  This is the scene straight out of THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH at the N.I.C.E.  Good Lord, deliver us!

Thanks, Irenaeus—I just wondered if there is some, um, “canon” or maybe one of Dr. N’s “rules that are rules” that allow this travesty of everything that is decent.

Whoa! Iron Lady of Litigation is loosing her grip on the HoB? Not everyone like beating up on 80 year olds?

"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.”

Regardless of how the canon is interpreted, only 131 Bishops out of 294 eligible were at the meeting, therefor there was no quorum. No quorum, no deposition, even under Shoria law.

"Absolutely stunning.  Some will think I’m going too far, but, if this is true, it’s a scandal on par with the Gene Robinson affair.  Just for starters, Schori and Beers need to resign.  Then, the investigations need to start - led by people far afield of this crooked body.  Obviously, +Schofield and +Cox remain 100%, full and complete members of the HOB, just as fully as John Chane or Jon Bruno, and their cases - for that matter, nothing related to San Joaquin - should be touched until the investigation is complete and all of the people in any way involved with this have either resigned or been deposed.  A true disgrace from an institution that has brought it to an art form.”

Actually, I think its far, far worse than the Robinson affair.  There is now the prospect of having TWO Bishops of San Joaquin claiming the same see, and it may very well be the case that much of the mushy middle and even some liberals could side with John-David - at least in the interim - since now NO ONE in the Episcopal Church from bishop to layman is safe from being railroaded by a malicious Queen of Hearts.  This is how churches die.

Smuggs,
That is what is being said here in this thread already.  You are not the first:  “How did this Canon get interpreted?” The problem is that Bp Curry meeting with reporters as a spokesman for the HOB could not answer the question himself, and deferred to the (sorry- OZ like) canonical expert whom he presumes informed the chair on the necessities of the vote.  If nothing else, there is the basis of “assumption.”
But to your illustration of the parish vestry at vote.  Our bylaws are very clear about what makes a quorum.  I don’t know about YOUR experiences with vestry, but every time we have a vestry meeting I call around to find out whether we can do business at our meeting by making sure there will be a quorum.  Everybody knows that a simple quorum will cause business to go forward, no matter what is on the agenda!  So the call is a reminder to show up, and it is notice that we need a quorum.  But even then, if there is a matter of heightened seriousness, or as in our parish as a whole recently when a congregational vote was required, we have gone out of our way to get as many of those who can vote there, so they can vote, and it is a representative as possible. 
Our bylaws and the diocesan Canons specifiy for us those who are “qualified” to vote, and the minimums of a quorum.  It is clear.
In this case the initial canon is clear to ME, and others, but is now demanding definition.  Who is entitled to vote to depose?  Active and retired, or just active?  Is the quorum for this vote mitigated by the roll call of those present, or not?  Does the canon not stand alone, or does it need a further sentence that says, “....all other stated requirements for quorum in the canons notwithstanding?”
Yes, it has been spoken already in the thread: “House?” or “House?”
But the declaration must be based on the initial Canon (the one rreed quoted above), not on what makes up a quorum.
This - despite the spin that it was only business as usual (or as expected) - was a matter of seriousness and consequence for the whole Church.  This should not be downplayed to a business-as-usual quorum.

quoted from above: Is it time for a peaceful but vocal demonstration on the sidewalk of 2nd Avenue?  I’m lousy at organizing, but let me know and I’ll be there… It’s time to make noise in front of the TV cameras, perhaps. ...They had less than 50% of the Bishops eligible to vote to begin with. end quotes.
.........
My priest lied to my wife and I and we accepted it.  Then he became our bishop and lied again.. several times… and we spoke up.
Now he supports Schori and lies routinely.  My happily married and very capable 34 year old son asks about the true value of organized religion. I wonder if my answers to him are lies.  I have God and Christ and the Holy Spirit - anything after that is luxury.

I wish Jeus would stride through the Temple at 815 and smash it to smithereens.

...

Wait, people, let’s think here.  This is actually good news.  It means that +Ackerman, +Duncan and +Lawrence can meet at a Denny’s in Columbus, declare a quorum and expel every heretic bishop in TEC.

WOW… I know ++ Cox and for the HOB, or what ever small group of them, kicked this Godly man under the bus, should send a loud message to S. Carolina, Springfieild, Quincy, Dallas, Kansas, and even C. Florida. Get out now before the rules all change at GC. If they don’t follow the rules now they will after they rewrite them to lock all the doors on the property. Pittsburgh better move up their dates. This woman is dangerous.

Maybe the deeper issue is why no one stood up to voice a challenge to this abuse of the canons. I would think that even a moderate liberal would be appalled at this miscarriage of justice. Where are those who always trumpet RIGHTS at now?

And where are the likes of the Windsor Bishops--Howe, Albany, W. Louisiana, Quincy etc. The silence is deafening.  Lawlessness is lawlessness whether from the Left or The Right. It is just plain Wrong.

How infuriating and grieviously sad this debacle is--Low how the Mighty have Fallen.----FA

"C’mon, vestries operate like this all the time” ---Smuggs [#42]

Most vestry business does not require a majority of the entire membership of the vestry. The normal rule is that you need a majority of those voting at a meeting where a quorum is present.

When did you last fire your rector by voice vote?

Okay, but what does this MEAN?  What does it change? 

Who arbitrates a question like this?

The vote is a nullity under any notion of parliamentary procedure or law: that’s plain.  As far as what the Windsor bishops were doing, and why they did not object--well, if they knew what was happening they did exactly what they should have, which is to say nothing at all and let the meeting end.  The nullity of the vote is not dependent on any objection.  Had they objected, it simply would have permitted KJS to regroup somehow.  This way she’s left with nothing.  They didn’t even accept the bishop’s resignation, so there’s now reason he shouldn’t be invited to Lambeth.  And all of the (extra-canonical) plans for the putsch in San Joaquin can’t really go forward, either, since there is still a bishop as she’s interpreted the canons.  Rather nifty, eh?

When Jesus suffered the greatest injustice of all, part of the drama also included turning a blind eye to the legal procedures and laws of His day.  A wonderful book - that I would commend to all during Holy Week - is Jim Bishop’s The Day Christ Died (see http://www.amazon.com/Day-Christ-Died-Jim-Bishop/dp/0060608161), which details all of the legal injustices.  I appreciate #44 post above.  I was very saddened, though not surprised, to see the HOB take this action against two Godly bishops, and, IMHO, to do so without a record vote on such a serious matter (but a voice vote) is the epidomy of cowardice.  I had the same sense on the voice votes in NO.

If this is the type of “good value” that Madame Schori is getting for her legal advice…

Oh, and if Scott of Episcopal Life is reading this, if you really want us to take you seriously, make this story front page.  The House of Bishop violates all its own canons.  Also, while we are at it, print the letter that the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of SJ gave in response to Madame Schori’s attempt to depose them

Schori supposes to depose;
those that she opposes;
Schori supposes...erroneously.

And they sure are getting their money’s worth from those lawyers, aren’t they??

Sometimes people with knowledge of the law (canons) use that knowledge to mislead others into thinking that they are adhering to the law (canons), when they know full well that they are trying to slip something through without close scrutiny.  While there are many Episcopal bishops today who are also lawyers, there are also many who are not and who obviously are dependent on the advice of the chancellor as well as the parliamentarian for following the correct procedure. 
On second thought- perhaps this is a red herring...what else did they vote on that they did not have enough bishops present to vote on in the first place?  This has certainly caught our attention enough to take our eyes away from anything else.

Schori supposes some bishops despos-ed’
But Schori supposes erroneously…

(cue the Singin’ in the Rain number here...)

Moses supposes his toes-es are roses
But Moses supposes erroneously

-RedHatRob

Well, Smuggs, I might just take you up on your interpretation.  I think +Duncan should call a HOB meeting and only send invites to +Iker, +Schofield, +Beckwith, +Lawrence, +DioAlbany(can’t remember the name), +MacPherson and a few other like-minded folks, repeal all the revisionist teachings and canons including the Denis Canon, depose +KJS, +Bruno, +Chane et al and declare all of TEC under the temporary oversight of ++Venables until we straighten out our mess and have believing bishops and clergy filling the ranks instead of these Gnostics and pagans that have sprung up as tares choking off the wheat.  How about it?

Does anyone know, of the 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote, how many would be classified as having “resigned their jurisdictions” per the cannon quoted by [44] Mark McCall on determining a quorum?

(I am agree with the interpretation that the deposition requires 51% of all eligible bishops, not just 51% of those at the meeting. But it would be interesting if they didn’t even have a quorum, and that is not merely 51% of all eligible bishops. See [44] Mark McCall.)

Hey, it’s all just polity - you just don’t understand the polity of the Episcopal Church!

Is this the first HOB meeting not to have a quorum?  Were there items voted on at earlier HOB meetings that also did not have quorums?  Is this a possible way of halting the HOB from doing anything.  If enough Bishops don’t show, they cannot do anything.

Will somebody please get on to the house staff at Lambeth and see to it that +Rowan is not holding anything liquid in his hand as he reads the morning news reports tomorrow.

This is such a good laugh, that I suspect it is too late to save the laptops of ++Henry Luke and ++Peter. 

It would appear that the canons have misfired.

It remains now for one bishop, and not necessarily one who was present, to formally raise these questions and to demand an answer. Otherwise 815 will wait out the blog storm.

The only question is: What was the roll call total (They sound it out at GenCon)? Did KJS declare a quorum wrongly? If so, the rest is math. The plain language of the canon cannot be twisted by Beers and all his best legal buddies.

Deposing a bishop is supposed to be a solemnity, marked by the precautions well noted in many comments already.

Those who have actual or kibitzer access to the HOB/D listserv should go take a look at the chatter on the quorum fiasco. This one has even the liberals shaking their heads. I’m sure the spin doctors will get their act together and throw our some disinformation but when Tobias Haller and Michael Russell are outraged, maybe something will come out of it other than rewriting the Canons so that the PB and Chancellor can kick out anyone they please without consent from the HOB or the house on the corner..
Bob

LOL Jeffersonian - I’ll buy the Grand Slam breakfasts all around for them.

Thanks for the comic relief, TJ! (72) Think we needed a breath of fresh air, if only for a moment.
Well, we’ve been asking for more clarity. Think He is showing us something here? Now, how would He like the troops to rally?

#64
Thanks for the “Singin’ In The Rain” reference.  The “Moses Supposes” is one of my favorite scenes too.

no longer an episcopalian [66] and 0hKay [73]. Great points. There needs to be an audit of the parlimentary procedure. Who knows what else was passed without quorum in recent years, and what votes should have been recorded. Also, there needs to be an audit of the use of church funds. It seems like money is being used for a political agenda.

My earlier comment “rules are rules” follows from her response to Kendall Harmon during her visit to South Carolina and her tightness over +Lawrence’s vote. If she is so tight in these instances, that same detail needs to be applied to her. The membership needs to know what is really being done with their money at 815.

This really smells. Without full disclosure, it appears that they acted in contempt of the canons.

But seriously, #40 Rob Eaton, what would you suggest we do to “get this consensus rolling”?

I suppose the lack of quorum might also kill the resolution on waterboarding and the statement about Lambeth.  Well, at least the HoB had the opportunity of a vacation to ride horses in the piney woods of Camp Allen. 

Is the HoB up to the task of fixing this any time soon? 

“[W]e are willing to face challenges that precipitate struggle as a means towards reconciliation.”

Before they go face things that precipitate, I’m heading out “to focus and celebrate our unity in the comprehensiveness of diversity” - because after all, it is Friday afternoon. 

Milton, if you knew procedure at all, you’d know that what you’d suggest would not be permissible although I will grant you that I don’t know how many bishops it takes to call a HOB meeting if the PB doesn’t call it herself.  Our diocesan bylaws are very clear on what it takes to call a parish meeting and how many parishioners it takes should the clergy/vestry object.

Rob, I do the same thing prior to MY vestry meetings as you do for YOURS (why did you feel the need to capitalize?) insofar as making sure we have a quorum.  All bishops can vote for some things, only bishops with jurisdiction can vote for others.  Since they took away the vote from retired bishops, I hardly see how they would count in this matter.  So I grant you, it may boil down to what quorum is called for and who had to be there to vote.  If Howe was there, being the canonical lawyer he is, I suspect it was on the up and up.  I suspect too that Curry didn’t say anything because he may not have looked it up himself.  Lastly, I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole thing wasn’t some conservative ploy.  I certainly wouldn’t put it past the reasserters to pull something like this to insure Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth isn’t rescinded.

Next to one of the several verses mentioning those who fall into the pits which they themselves dig ought to be a group photo of The Episcopal Church House of Bishops.  That might be too risque for a Children’s Illustrated Bible, however.

Conservative ploy, Mr. Smuggs??

Smuggs, it’s always the conservatives isn’t it? Somehow conservatives are simultaneously ignorant rubes and evil geniuses.

#69

Notwithstanding my parenthetical in #44, I think it likely that there was a quorum for reasons stated by Brad Drell on T19.  We don’t know who was present and what the quorum number is, but we should assume there was a quorum.

But that is not the real issue.  The phrase “entitled to vote” in the quorum requirement proves that this phrase does not mean “present and voting,” which is used elsewhere in the canons to mean what it says.  That resigned bishops are explicitly excluded from the quorum requirement but not the deposition vote under IV.9 is further proof of the meaning of the phrase in IV.9.

#74. The discussion on the HoBD list is mostly focusing on whether a violation actually took place, with some discussion as to how to fix it if one did. Everyone seems to agree that the new proposed rules would ‘cure’ the problem. The problem is what to do in the meantime.

I remain amazed at the lack of reading skills in our leadership. The rules of the HoBD do not allow me to quote or name names, but I strongly urge anyone even remotely interested in the Episcopal Church to subscribe as a ‘kibitzer’. You won’t be able to post, but you will gain much respect for those who can and defend the Christian faith.

It is also very, very depressing.

Get Bach to where you once belonged.

A conservative ploy, Smuggs? Nahhh. I think your had it right earlier. You know, when you sugested that maybe it was simply a matter of interpretation and that maybe they had “enough of a quorum” after all - which I suppose is something akin to a “partial quorum” or maybe a “near quorum?” How about a “sub quorum” or a “differently-abled quorum” or a “not really a quorum but who’s counting anyway quorum?”

I, Claudiaus
I, Katherine
I, Quorum

Pity the bishops never watched schoolhouse rock.

More bad metaphors and even similes here

Two things.

To The CT (#30) - I’ve been thinking the exact same thing about a protest in NYC.  I can’t organize the whole thing but I might be able to organize a few carloads from Pittsburgh.  I say let’s roll!

To OEAUT (#37) - Thanks for sharing your experiences at worship—it’s great to hear from the folks who are there on the front lines. Many blessings to all the faithful in the SJ diocese.  I was just about to ask who is leading worship at the SJ cathedral this Sunday, but it sounds like from the above the PB has shot herself in the legal foot and the deposition won’t stand.  Am I reading this right? (i hope i hope)

I wouldn’t assume a quorum. If 294 is the number then there would have to be 33 Bishops either ineligible or with a vacant see for 131 to be a quorum. And the 2 Bishops to be deposed don’t count as the 33 as they were in good standing at the start of the meeting. Is 294 correct? Are there 33 not eligible for some reason or another?

I see the Canon states retirees have a vote but are exclusive to the count for a quorum. Do we know who attended? How many were retirees? How many of the 294 are retirees?

The Lord moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.
To him be the glory.

This is the ENS quote in the aftermath of the vote to depose:

The Presiding Bishop, during a telephone press conference after the conclusion of the March 7-12 Camp Allen meeting in Navasota, Texas, said she will personally convene the special convention in San Joaquin. She declined to identify a nominee for provisional bishop.

“As of today he is no longer a bishop in the Episcopal Church,” she said of Schofield.

Bishop Schofield resigned from the House of Bishops, so can’t a provisional bishop for the “Remain Episcopals” still be appointed?

More obfuscation and nothing more will come of this.  I hope I’m wrong.

I’m not sure but I don’t think they accepted his resignation. If that’s true then even according to TEC he his still Bishop.

Smuggs, it’s always the conservatives isn’t it? Somehow conservatives are simultaneously ignorant rubes and evil geniuses.

No, JimmyMac, the other half of the time it’s the archliberals, i.e. Integrity, giving the church heartburn.  I simply suspect that this time, it’s the archconservatives who are raising a non-issue.  I further suspect that it will simply boil down to the fact that the HOB met, those that present voted, and the voices were loud enough to declare the two former bishops gone.  You don’t do a roll call on each and every vote at diocesan convention, do you?  Or at vestry meetings?  So why bother with all the tantrum throwing?

#95, It’s called due process. A shocking omission for a church that claims to value its polity so very highly.

{Sorry, no clever quip this time. Too steamed}

#44, thanks Counselor.  By the way, I’m older than modern math and my cypherin’ shows 294x51%=149.94, thus 150 to assemble for business.

Smuggs, quit pretending. Have you ever served on a vestry? When a major issue came up, did you just take a careless voice vote? When we deal with important things on my vestry, each person votes and we make note of who voted what. I can’t begin to count the good reasons for doing so. At least that much attention be given to something as important as deposing a bishop. That this was done by voice vote, let alone the possibility that it was done uncanonically, makes the HOB look like a bunch of rowdy kids.

I am waiting for EmilyH to set all straight as to why this kind of C**p is perfectly legal and binding within the boundries of the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal church.
Intercessor

I believe they formally call the roll at the beginning of each meeting of the HOB. The establishment of a quorum is a formal part of the meeting. The Secretary of the House has the list (unless it has been shredded).

(;-)

oscewicee, at our vestry meetings we do every vote, large and small, by voice vote.  Even with the number of folks on our vestry (and there’s quite a bit), we can tell what the numbers are and in 12 years have never, ever been contested by any vestry member whose viewpoint was on the losing in.  We do not take note of who voted for what as that serves no purpose.  When the meeting is over, regardless of what side we were on, everyone is on the same page and supports the decision.  You’re treating this as if we were impeaching the President of the United States and doing a roll call so that you can turn around and crucify the senators that didn’t vote your way.  I think it would be great if you never knew which bishop voted which way.  I think it would great if they would all support the decision that was made instead of continuing the fracturing which does nothing but feed the kind of behavior being shown by bloggers on both sides of the spectrum.

Perhaps this is what comes of reading canons with the same thoroughness with which you read the scriptures.

Smuggs, a voice of up to twenty people who see each other at least several times a month cannot be equated with a voice vote of over 100 people who only get together two or three times a year.  In a small room, you can count.  In a large meeting space, a close vote needs to be done in a way that is countable.

Smuggs, due process is not an irrelevant concept in a society that greatly values the rule of law.  It is ridiculous for the HOB to take the time to pass a resolution reflecting great moral outrage about waterboarding at the same time they are willing to run roughshod over godly bishops—ignoring thier own rules.  As someone noted above, when Kendall Harmon asked the PB why she was proceeding against Bishop Cox, she said:  “Rules are rules.” Her actions are those of a truly evil person who reflects nothing of the biblical qualities of a bishop—a shepherd of the flock.  Operating with threats, coercion, lies, lawsuits—she will have much for which to answer on the day of judgment.  Instead of the rule of law, it’s become Schoria law.  And all this for what?  Power, buildings, ego?  Shame on her and the gutless HOB.

Why should this charade surprise anyone.  This is the same crowd that took a meat cleaver to the Bible, hacking out entire sections of Holy Scripture, the same crowd that bastardized the 39 Articles, the same crowd that is merrily rowing themselves to Hell.  Good riddance to them and the fools that walk with the heretics.  Firewood for Hell is all they are worth, and Firewood for Hell is all that they will be.

Not necessarily so, AnglicanXn.  I’ve been at diocesan conventions with over five times the reported attendance of the recent HOB meeting and the chair was quite capable of determining votes on voice vote.  If it were close, he/she would ask them to stand.  If it were close, and he/she made a ruling, the ruling could be challenged.  There were no such reports coming out of this meeting.

All this being said, I read Mark McCall’s take over and T19 and I think he has some good points as well.  But as Brian from T19 has brought up, someone or some body will have to make a ruling.  And I think the ruling will say that the deposition stands.

Well if this page fro Louie Crew is current than there are 301 Bishops entitled to vote at this time. Of which 126 are active and 175 are retired. According to the Canon a majority of those eligible to vote, EXCLUSIVE of resigned, are needed for a quorum. Are Retired Bishops resigned? If true than 64 active Bishops are needed for a quorum.
If retired is not the same as resigned then 151 is needed for a quorum.
How many active Bishops attended I wonder?

Anyone know Bishop Curry’s email address?  I feel this overwhelming desire to counsel him on the folly of confirming to the world that he has not got a clue.  Better to leave the issue in doubt than to be quoted as he has been on this issue.

I think it’s very interesting, and darkly humorous, that KJS could not even get out enough bishops to come to her soiree in Navasota to conduct such business. 

So, +Schofield is not deposed, +Cox is not deposed, and +MacBurney and +Duncan are not likely to be deposed before Lambeth under these kinds of circumstances.

From today’s lectionary:

Let the wicked fall into their own nets, while I pass by in safety.  Psalm 141:10

Smuggs, et al: No one is questioning that there was a majority of the voice vote. The one question is: Was there a legal quorum. This can be settled by a simple statement from 815 giving how many fit the definition in the Constitution and how many answered the standard roll call at the beginning of the meeting.

The bozos have yet to learn that every action produces more than one consequence. 

Surely they cannot have thought about the message this telegraphs to ALL about the genuine nature of the ECUSA/TC/GCC HOB and their “committment” to truth and justice and proper procedure. 

Who has ears, let them hear.

First, he won a close election and had to lead a coalition with von Papen. Then he “persuaded” the Reichstag to grant him dictatorial powers with the ability to rule by decree; this made the legislature redundant.
Then he got rid of the Social Democrats, Communists, Freemasons and all others who might be seen as an enemy of the state--HIS state. Shortly after, he led his country out of the League of Nations ... and we all know the rest.
It took the total devastation of Europe to get rid of him and his ilk.
It looks to me that KJS, in light of the crisis within the church, will soon seek to be ruling by decree. Perhaps we need to practice up saying the old slogan so we aren’t also considered enemies of the church. Heil J.S., Sieg Heil (just in case we lose!).

Well over at T19

#22. Brad Drell wrote:
No, they did have a quorum - because you subtract from that number those that have resigned their positions or jurisdiction (aka. retired bishops).  But, they did not have enough to depose anyone.
March 14, 3:08 pm

So, what is the process for bringing a presentment against KJS?  What speciific individuals are needed to do what?  Let’s figure that out and then begin to attach real names to this list, and let’s get a presentment going.  Not only for this, but for the other canonical violations as well.

It’s hard to believe that y’all are actually giving credence to an article in TLC.

PadreWayne - like it or not, the canons and facts speak for themselves.  I really can’t believe folks like you that have such little concern for the integrity of due process.  Does it not bother you that a gross abuse of the canonical process has just occurred?  Just because you like the results, you are willing to hide behind such facile excuses?  Really!  I would think that both conservatives and liberals who truly love TEC would want the rules to be followed.  Otherwise the only thing left is a discredited, morally bankrupt tyranny.

Deja Vu,
I saw that from Brad Drell too. If that is correct then 64 ACTIVE Bishops were required for a quorum. The Canon states that the retiree/resigned are not counted towards a quorum....even if they attend. They can vote but can not be counted as a quorum.
131 signed up to attend. Is there any way to find out how many of these were active and how many retired?

I think Stand Firm may need to do another “Where’s your Bishop?” count. Only the active Bishops, including Assistant (but not assisting) and Suffragan, need be counted.

The issue of quorum and votes is only one measure of the violation of the canons.  In the specific case of +Cox, the failure of due process is astounding.  Just note this one sentence from the Living Church:

One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.

Under Canon IV.9, there can be no inhibition of a bishop without this consent, and no bishop can be deposed unless first inhibited.  So regardless of quorums and votes, there is absolutely no way in which the supposed deposition of Bishop Cox can have occurred if at least one of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction was NEVER even asked for his consent.

We need to let everyone we know of the outrage that TEC has attempted to perpetrate.  It is illegal and a lie.

If there were too many canon-literate bishops present to allow what happened to happen, then why isn’t this a deliberate muck up by the PB, perhaps, even, at the advice of her Chancellor?  She fails to follow the canons in a way that makes her look inept which in turn gives her some cover with her liberal allies:  and see how they are confounded.  She also manages to halt deposition proceedings against bishops whose heads are demanded in certain noisy quarters.  Isn’t the outcome just what Radner counseled:  don’t depose Duncan, among other things, suspend punitiveness under the canons, etc.?  Bring the careening priest-eating-Borg-creating-canon-law-detached-of-Christian-praxis-or-intention-machine to a well deserved sputtering end?  Hasn’t this been done and won an unlikely pause in hostilities?

I don’t know or like canon law but explanations for these events may not be found in the hyper-rational, but in some pre-canon-law state of affairs capable of recalling persons to their Christian vocations.

So I have to wonder if there are not a few too sly and clever priests commenting on this thread.  If so, why; might it not be cruel to do so?

Smuggs, you amuse me as much as you amaze me!  OF COURSE I was being facetious with my #68!  But it was meant to make the point that you are willing to let +KJS and anyone she can convince/coerce into showing up for an ecclesiastical hanging bend and break any of the sacred Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church (may they be blessed forever) that they please, and whatever she and a few friends say, goes.  #114 makes the same point, thanks CaptainBob.  Does ANYONE in the HOB (including +Bauerschmidt in my diocese) have the courage or even the common decency and respect for justice (sauce for the reappraiser as well as the reasserter) to press the point and call for EVERYTHING passed at this meeting to be stricken down as null and void and for disciplinary action against +KJS and everyone who pushed these depositions.  After all, +KJS can declare the DioSJ’s vote to leave TEC “null and void” and no one squawks!

Intercessor

Emily can’t respond until the official TEC spin has been put out by Sauls or Beers or Russell or Kaeton.  I’m waiting too.  Can’t wait to see how we handle this.  Jake’s response was to say “we can’t know what happened in the HOB meeting...blah, blah, blah”.

I’m more disturbed by the lies than the confusion over what constitutes a quorum.  The PB and her office are not only responsible for attentiveness to proper procedure for the deposition of bishops, but also for the proper use of $200,000,000.00 in trust funds.

Michael Curry’s email address is