Total visitors right now: 89

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Breaking: Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority (+Cox and +Schofield)

Friday, March 14, 2008 • 1:23 pm


Just in from The Living Church Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority
Posted on: March 14, 2008

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

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.

...more


291 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

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.

[1] Posted by Phil on 03-14-2008 at 02:30 PM • top

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

[2] Posted by dl on 03-14-2008 at 02:32 PM • top

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

[3] Posted by Violent Papist on 03-14-2008 at 02:39 PM • top

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.

[4] Posted by Karen B. on 03-14-2008 at 02:40 PM • top

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.

[5] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 02:41 PM • top

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

[6] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-14-2008 at 02:43 PM • top

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!

[7] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-14-2008 at 02:45 PM • top

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.

[8] Posted by Karen B. on 03-14-2008 at 02:46 PM • top

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

[9] Posted by j.m.c. on 03-14-2008 at 02:47 PM • top

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

[10] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 03-14-2008 at 02:52 PM • top

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?

[11] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-14-2008 at 02:54 PM • top

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.

[12] Posted by wildfire on 03-14-2008 at 02:56 PM • top

Widening,
If it were only so.

[13] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-14-2008 at 02:57 PM • top

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

The arrogance.

[14] Posted by Peter O on 03-14-2008 at 03:00 PM • top

“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?

[15] Posted by rreed on 03-14-2008 at 03:00 PM • top

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.

[16] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 03-14-2008 at 03:01 PM • top

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

[17] Posted by Ralinda on 03-14-2008 at 03:04 PM • top

If nothing else it gets the ABC out of the hotseat

[18] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-14-2008 at 03:06 PM • top

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.

[19] Posted by TomRightmyer on 03-14-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

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.

[20] Posted by Dallas Priest on 03-14-2008 at 03:08 PM • top

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…

[21] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-14-2008 at 03:09 PM • top

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

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

[22] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 03-14-2008 at 03:10 PM • top

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.

[23] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 03:13 PM • top

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.

[24] Posted by Ian Montgomery on 03-14-2008 at 03:16 PM • top

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.

[25] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-14-2008 at 03:19 PM • top

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.

[26] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 03-14-2008 at 03:19 PM • top

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?

[27] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-14-2008 at 03:24 PM • top

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.

[28] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-14-2008 at 03:26 PM • top

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)

[29] Posted by Bill+ on 03-14-2008 at 03:27 PM • top

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.

[30] Posted by Connecticutian on 03-14-2008 at 03:32 PM • top

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+

[31] Posted by Rudy on 03-14-2008 at 03:33 PM • top

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.

[32] Posted by The Pilgrim on 03-14-2008 at 03:35 PM • top

“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.

[33] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-14-2008 at 03:35 PM • top

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.

[34] Posted by Geosez on 03-14-2008 at 03:39 PM • top

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?

[35] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-14-2008 at 03:40 PM • top

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

[36] Posted by ewart-touzot on 03-14-2008 at 03:40 PM • top

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!

[37] Posted by our eyes are upon Thee on 03-14-2008 at 03:41 PM • top

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.


Did they waste the time and the travel expenses of 131 bishops on a powerless meeting because they had not made sure in advance that they would have a quorum? That is such poor management of resources.

[38] Posted by Deja Vu on 03-14-2008 at 03:41 PM • top

Rules are rules.

[39] Posted by Dr. N. on 03-14-2008 at 03:42 PM • top

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.

[40] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-14-2008 at 03:45 PM • top

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

[41] Posted by hanks on 03-14-2008 at 03:46 PM • top

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.

[42] Posted by Vintner on 03-14-2008 at 03:47 PM • top

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.

[43] Posted by Greg Griffith on 03-14-2008 at 03:49 PM • top

##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.”

[44] Posted by wildfire on 03-14-2008 at 03:50 PM • top

#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.

[45] Posted by Karen B. on 03-14-2008 at 03:51 PM • top

“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.

[46] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-14-2008 at 03:54 PM • top

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.

[47] Posted by deanreed on 03-14-2008 at 03:55 PM • top

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.

[48] Posted by Phil on 03-14-2008 at 04:04 PM • top

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!

[49] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 03-14-2008 at 04:05 PM • top

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.

[50] Posted by Geosez on 03-14-2008 at 04:05 PM • top

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

[51] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 03-14-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

“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.

[52] Posted by BillS on 03-14-2008 at 04:10 PM • top

“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.

[53] Posted by Violent Papist on 03-14-2008 at 04:10 PM • top

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.

[54] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-14-2008 at 04:13 PM • top

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.

...

[55] Posted by Runes on 03-14-2008 at 04:14 PM • top

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.

[56] Posted by Jeffersonian on 03-14-2008 at 04:17 PM • top

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.

[57] Posted by SteveinOHIO on 03-14-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

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

[58] Posted by Forever Anglican on 03-14-2008 at 04:21 PM • top

“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?

[59] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-14-2008 at 04:22 PM • top

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

Who arbitrates a question like this?

[60] Posted by Paul B on 03-14-2008 at 04:24 PM • top

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?

[61] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-14-2008 at 04:27 PM • top

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.

[62] Posted by Hemphill on 03-14-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

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

[63] Posted by AndrewA on 03-14-2008 at 04:29 PM • top

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

wink

[64] Posted by tired on 03-14-2008 at 04:29 PM • top

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

[65] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-14-2008 at 04:31 PM • top

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.

[66] Posted by no longer an episcopalian on 03-14-2008 at 04:31 PM • top

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

[67] Posted by RedHatRob on 03-14-2008 at 04:35 PM • top

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?

[68] Posted by Milton on 03-14-2008 at 04:36 PM • top

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.)

[69] Posted by Deja Vu on 03-14-2008 at 04:42 PM • top

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

[70] Posted by MasterServer on 03-14-2008 at 04:44 PM • top

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.

[71] Posted by JustOneVoice on 03-14-2008 at 04:45 PM • top

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.

[72] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-14-2008 at 04:46 PM • top

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.

[73] Posted by 0hKay on 03-14-2008 at 04:55 PM • top

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

[74] Posted by Bob Livingston on 03-14-2008 at 05:08 PM • top

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

[75] Posted by Phil on 03-14-2008 at 05:09 PM • top

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?

[76] Posted by merlenacushing on 03-14-2008 at 05:09 PM • top

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

[77] Posted by illinisouth on 03-14-2008 at 05:14 PM • top

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.

[78] Posted by Dr. N. on 03-14-2008 at 05:19 PM • top

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

[79] Posted by illinisouth on 03-14-2008 at 05:19 PM • top

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. 

wink

[80] Posted by tired on 03-14-2008 at 05:19 PM • top

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.

[81] Posted by Vintner on 03-14-2008 at 05:20 PM • top

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.

[82] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 03-14-2008 at 05:26 PM • top

Conservative ploy, Mr. Smuggs??

[83] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-14-2008 at 05:29 PM • top

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

[84] Posted by JimmyMac on 03-14-2008 at 05:29 PM • top

#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.

[85] Posted by wildfire on 03-14-2008 at 05:30 PM • top

#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.

[86] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-14-2008 at 05:31 PM • top

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

[87] Posted by robertf on 03-14-2008 at 05:42 PM • top
[88] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-14-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

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)

[89] Posted by Pegg76 on 03-14-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

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?

[90] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

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?

[91] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 06:01 PM • top

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

[92] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-14-2008 at 06:02 PM • top

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.

[93] Posted by JRandall on 03-14-2008 at 06:04 PM • top

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.

[94] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 06:07 PM • top

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] Posted by Vintner on 03-14-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

#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}

[96] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-14-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

#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.

[97] Posted by Brother LeRoy on 03-14-2008 at 06:23 PM • top

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.

[98] Posted by oscewicee on 03-14-2008 at 06:23 PM • top

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

[99] Posted by Intercessor on 03-14-2008 at 06:23 PM • top

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).

(;-)

[100] Posted by 0hKay on 03-14-2008 at 06:29 PM • top

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.

[101] Posted by Vintner on 03-14-2008 at 06:33 PM • top

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

[102] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-14-2008 at 06:34 PM • top

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.

[103] Posted by AnglicanXn on 03-14-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

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.

[104] Posted by hanks on 03-14-2008 at 06:39 PM • top

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.

[105] Posted by Vintner on 03-14-2008 at 06:42 PM • top

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?

[106] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 06:43 PM • top

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.

[107] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 03-14-2008 at 06:44 PM • top

From today’s lectionary:

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

  Ironic, given 815’s focus on polity. 
Our God is an awesome God!  Today’s prayers on Lent & Beyond:  here and here.

[108] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-14-2008 at 06:48 PM • top

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.

[109] Posted by 0hKay on 03-14-2008 at 06:48 PM • top

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.

[110] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 03-14-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

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!).

[111] Posted by CaptainBob on 03-14-2008 at 07:00 PM • top

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

[112] Posted by Deja Vu on 03-14-2008 at 07:05 PM • top

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.

[113] Posted by jamesw on 03-14-2008 at 07:08 PM • top

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

[114] Posted by PadreWayne on 03-14-2008 at 07:08 PM • top

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.

[115] Posted by jamesw on 03-14-2008 at 07:13 PM • top

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.

[116] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 07:15 PM • top

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.

[117] Posted by hanks on 03-14-2008 at 07:15 PM • top

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?

[118] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-14-2008 at 07:22 PM • top

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!

[119] Posted by Milton on 03-14-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

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”.

[120] Posted by rreed on 03-14-2008 at 07:32 PM • top

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.

[121] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-14-2008 at 07:32 PM • top

Michael Curry’s email address is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[122] Posted by Greg Griffith on 03-14-2008 at 07:52 PM • top

You can just about use this kangaroo court to illustrate a Holy Week sermon about the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus.

[123] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-14-2008 at 08:05 PM • top

I say let the depositions stand.  This whole affair makes me sick to my stomach.  We’ve made our move out of TEC, and I for one AIN’T GOIN’ BACK!

[124] Posted by Cennydd on 03-14-2008 at 08:18 PM • top

The HOB is behaving just like Congress, who also never read a bill before they vote on it. Why am I not surprised?

If contempt of Congress is a crime, I belong in prison. If contempt of HOB is worthy of deposition, I had better hang up my alb.

[125] Posted by Paterricardus on 03-14-2008 at 08:37 PM • top

I am so happy. First this story, then I looked at the Moses toe-ses dance seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_OKzzZhw8

Now, I am doing a Happy Feet, Pump it Up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l9D1UMu9Po

[126] Posted by robroy on 03-14-2008 at 08:42 PM • top

Have all the happy feet you want. This latest travesty is nothing unless action is taken. Bishops need to get up, gird their loins for battle and engage the enemies of the Church.  Passive aggression, conversation, meetings and statements are not for this moment. 

Windsor bishops need to meet Monday.  They need to decide on a course of action that begin by Wednesday.  They can go home for the rest of Holy Week, celebrate Easter Mass and then get back to the fight.

I am not holding my breath on this.  They didn’t even know the canons well enough to recognize a railroad job when it hit them, let alone mount anything more than a few nos in a voice vote.

As for those who were not there or left before the deposition vote, they have some splainin’ to do.

[127] Posted by frreed on 03-14-2008 at 08:57 PM • top

I don’t think you need many Bishops, one member of the House should be sufficient. I know it’s a very busy time but perhaps +Iker could find time to send a letter off questioning the proceedings?

[128] Posted by Rocks on 03-14-2008 at 09:06 PM • top

As others have observed, the issue here is not a quorum.  It is the lack of sufficient votes.  This means that there was a vote taken, with a quorum, and that the vote FAILED.  That’s a good thing, as the lack of a quorum would permit a re-vote.  The failure to get sufficient votes would generally NOT permit a re-vote.  Basically there was no procedural error, although I’m sure there’s a frantic effort to find a way to characterize it thus.  No, there was a vote, and the Presiding Bishop lost: that simple.  It is a mistake to get fixated on quorum.

The question I have for anyone out there who knows the canons—what happens when a vote to depose fails?  Is it not the case that the bishop is in the position status quo ante, the equivalent of having been acquitted?  And is there not an analogue to double jeopardy that precludes a re-vote?

[129] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-14-2008 at 09:13 PM • top

Smuggs- At how many diocesan conventions do you use a voice vote when YOU ARE PUTTING SOMEONE ON TRIAL?  A new heating system for St. Botolph’s is not a matter of due process; an individual’s reputation, connection to the church and ability to earn a livelihood is.
I would have been horrified if such lax procedures were used against Bishop Spong, notwithstanding his blatant apostacy and his devastation of the diocese in which I live.
If you are prepared to dismiss as inconsequential, then you are obviously willing to side with tyranny, provided the tyrant holds views that you support.

[130] Posted by In Newark on 03-14-2008 at 09:26 PM • top

Anyone who wants to vent some steam over this travesty, please feel free to continue.

However, RomeAnglican… Irenaeus… Ryan… Phil… Rob… and anyone else who fits the qualifications outlined in this post, please head over there and let’s get this worked out. Jeffersonian is invited for comic relief.

[131] Posted by Greg Griffith on 03-14-2008 at 09:31 PM • top

Rocks,

One is sufficient.  Many shows the bishops are serious about being defenders of the faith and good shepherds.  This is not a procedural issue.  It is an attack on the Church of Jesus Christ.

[132] Posted by frreed on 03-14-2008 at 09:35 PM • top

This carnival sideshow is getting more and more interesting!
The Rabbit.

[133] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 03-14-2008 at 09:44 PM • top

I don’t know about Cox, but with Schofield all they should have done was accept his resignation.  Instead they may a big show of firing him, and manage to flub it.  I’m patiently waiting for this story to be covered by Episcopal Online.  You there, Scott?

[134] Posted by AndrewA on 03-14-2008 at 09:46 PM • top

I think that Mousestalker has a good suggestion above, about joining the HOBD listserv. Let’s all go watch our learned betters and see who among them behave like Christians, who among them speak honorably and wisely. And let’s let them know that there are a lot of us watching. They’d be able to tell that by a rise in subscriptions.

[135] Posted by oscewicee on 03-14-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

HOBD listserv is toxic. I’ve been there. Be prepared.

[136] Posted by 0hKay on 03-14-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

Maybe we need to know how toxic these good churchmen are. And maybe they need to know that we know.

[137] Posted by oscewicee on 03-14-2008 at 10:01 PM • top

Please remember any “strategy” on this blog is being monitored by those who will use it against us and give them more ideas.  Be careful.

[138] Posted by Dallas Priest on 03-14-2008 at 10:31 PM • top

#93: You said:  “She declined to identify a nominee for provisional bishop.”

Possibly she was having trouble getting one from the ‘renta bishop’ store.

I think the HOB are just canon challenged!

[139] Posted by Bill C on 03-14-2008 at 11:53 PM • top

[59] Irenaeus,

You wrote

When did you last fire your rector by voice vote?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but, unless I have been misinformed by my past Rectors, a Vestry does not have the authority to “fire the Rector,” that authority resides solely with the Bishop.

The recourse the Vestry has to “encourage the Rector to seek another parish” consists of making life materially unpleasant, or actually miserable, for the Rector. Examples cited in discussions at which I have been present include such steps as authorizing no raises, or even reducing the Rector’s compensation, and other such limitations on the entitlements and perquisites of the position. Thus, another alternative for the Vestry, given just cause and a just and understanding Bishop, is to appeal to their Bishop to remove the Rector.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[140] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-15-2008 at 12:20 AM • top

“I hate to be the one to break this to you, but…a vestry does not have the authority to ‘fire the rector’”—-Martial Artist [#59]

I know that. And it’s all the more reason for not to draw inappropriate, Smuggsian analogies between vestry business as usual (“vestries operate like this all the time”) and an action as extraordinary as deposing a bishop.

[141] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-15-2008 at 12:40 AM • top

[105] hanks,

You wrote

…due process is not an irrelevant concept in a society that greatly values the rule of law.

Aye, there’s the rub. Who here is prepared to say that the progressives who appear to dominate the HoB of TEC fit your description of “a society that greatly values the rule of law?”

In the past year and three months, I have seen noticeably more evidence that they do not than that they do. The proposed changes to the canons that are addressed in the Goosestepping Through the Canons thread being yet one more unambiguous example that they are not.

Have you some evidence counter to my observations to offer which support a contrary interpretation?

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[142] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-15-2008 at 12:47 AM • top

[147] Irenaeus,

You wrote:

And it’s all the more reason for not to draw inappropriate, Smuggsian analogies….

I would suggest that there is a much more obvious and accessible reason than you have adduced, to wit, when one is drawing analogies, one needs to be capable of sufficiently objective ratiocination to ensure that the resulting analogy is apt. wink

Having followed selected threads on this site for something on the order of 15 months, and in the process having read a number of analogies by the person referenced, I strongly suspect that such capability on his part is not to be taken as a given.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[143] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-15-2008 at 01:19 AM • top

Schoria Law - that’s brilliant. So that’s actually that’s what Rowan was talking about and he was in fact misquoted.

[144] Posted by Hopeless Percy on 03-15-2008 at 01:42 AM • top

I can vouch for the toxicity of the HOBD listserv.  There are probably a couple of dozen digests unread in my e-mail that I don’t have the stomach to open.  But by all means subscribe as a kibitzer if you want to read just how dark and hardened are the hearts of TEC’s reappraiser leaders.

[145] Posted by Milton on 03-15-2008 at 01:43 AM • top

So, assuming I wanted to be a “kibitzer” on the HoBD listserv, how would I go about doing so? I have seen many references to it here at SFIF, but I don’t recall ever seeing a hyperlink to a page on which one can subscribe.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[146] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-15-2008 at 02:04 AM • top

Martial Artist (#152),

Use this link. Caution:  I hope your blood pressure is good, as some of the revisionist remarks from this listserv bear the capability of causing BP spikes.  I was a kibitzer for years and of late had to give it up due to the venom and vitriol that emanate thencewards.

[147] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-15-2008 at 02:38 AM • top

Just in.

Episcopal News Service
March 15, 2008

House of Bishops’ votes valid, chancellor confirms

[Episcopal News Service] The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’
secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern Ohio.

[148] Posted by Bob Livingston on 03-15-2008 at 02:52 AM • top

David Beers,
Your statement,
“because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting”  does not mitigate the need for the vote to be held and counted as stated in the Canons.  What difference does this attempt at justification make?  All votes happen at a meeting, whether face to face, or now, if approved, electronically, or by mail, as in consents. 
And I agree that this vote would be at a physical gathering.  Despite no provision for a trial in the case of Abandonment, there is still the provision for a review of the charge at “the next” HOB meeting, especially when inhibition has been applied.  You can’t do that my mail.  Nor by simple email response.
Are you suggesting that it is simply and categorically impossible for enough bishops to show up at a meeting to fulfill the requirements of eligible bishop-voters such as the canons state for this?  I hope you are not so suggesting.
If this vote “had to be taken at a meeting” was this the one and only meeting that this vote had to be taken?  No.
You and the parliamentarian should have simply announced there were not enough bishops to make the vote valid, and consulted with the Presiding Bishop to schedule a Special Meeting of the House for that single purpose (or throw a few other things in their to make it economically feasible), and then beat the bushes to make sure the number of voters would be there.
And (probably) I’m assuming you would want to do that before Lambeth.
You are over-ruled by a clear stating of the Canons.

[149] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-15-2008 at 03:09 AM • top

For C at #99.  Sorry, I too am concerned about the issue of those “eligible” to vote vs. those eligible and present.  Apparently Robert’s Rules does make provision for such super majorities but there are additional concerns, Robert’s Rules addresses “all the membership”.  But here we are not talking about “all the membership” we are talking about members eligible to vote”  (e.g, a “resigned” bishop retains membership but not vote)  In addition, apparently no one questioned the ruling from the chair.  Do I think there is a potential problem with the numbers? yes.  Do I think a super-majority was needed? Yes.  Do I think that whoever was responsible for telling the chair of the potential issue and making certain of both a proper quorum and the super-majority was present and voting, screwed up? Yes.  BUT, will it matter?  ..Ultimately no.
If Matt+ is correct and +KJS is planning to “try” +Duncan (and I wish he hadn’t used that word because it really isn’t accurate), in May, she can add +Cox and +Schofield at the same time for a re-do.  What she has is an excellent straw vote.  +Cantuar knows how a re-do will go and the percentages by which it will go.    It also makes such a special meeting for +Duncan more likely for 2 reasons.  First, because +Duncan chose GAFCON over the HofB when he knew both its date and agenda and Second because it would create the opportunity for the “do-over”

[150] Posted by EmilyH on 03-15-2008 at 07:01 AM • top

I think jamesw and others have conclusively proven that the canons require a majority of the HOB, not a majority of the HOB present at a meeting, to depose a bishop.  Since the language of the canons clearly distinguish between these two scenarios it is impossible argue that the former actually means the same thing as the latter.  Beer’s lame defense is totally illogical.  The fact that the vote was required to take place at a meeting presents no conflict with the requirement of the canon at all!

[151] Posted by Nevin on 03-15-2008 at 07:14 AM • top

You don’t have to worry anymore EmilyH.  Beers has proclaimed that All is Well. 

The whole thing is silly.  Neither Schofield or Cox have any desire to stay in TEC.  My problem is not that they were kicked out, but that they were kicked out in a way that demonstrates that the PB, Beers and company will read the canons in such a way that it will justify whatever action they may wish to take against bishops that have not left TEC.  Duncan, for example, has not left TEC, nor will he have left TEC by May or even by September.  Other bishops such as the Bishop of South Carolina have no intention of leaving TEC, but I can’t help but think that this little display was intended in part to intimidate dissenting bishops into submission. 

Combine TEC’s MO with the proposed changes in canons that will go through in GC2009, and many of us are expecting the functional equivelent of the Night of the Long Knives.  No more living into pluriform truths or celebrating the value of diversity.  Someone dissents for any reason, and they will be gone.

[152] Posted by AndrewA on 03-15-2008 at 07:15 AM • top

For all of you Canon lawyers;

The chancellor of TEC, Beers, says that the depositions met all appropriate canon law. Assuming that we all agree that canon law was grossly violated, is there any mechanism that allows the depositions to be challenged? Other than righteous fuming, what practically can be done about it?

My understanding is that secular courts will not touch an internal Church canon law dispute.  If a courageous Bishop or two were willing to take up the cause, how would he proceed?

[153] Posted by BillS on 03-15-2008 at 07:17 AM • top

BillS, a court won’t get into theological disputes, but this is not that, and a court has absolutely no impediment in deciding whether an organization followed the plain language of its own rules.

David Booth-Beers knows he screwed up.  You can tell that in the ENS press statement when he says “Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order.”  That is an advocacy line, what one says when one is merely taking a position (like the PB’s mantra that it was “her position” that dioceses couldn’t sell property to other Anglican churches).  He knows very well: don’t think for a second he doesn’t.

[154] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-15-2008 at 07:26 AM • top

Since the TEc Ministry of Truth and Light early this morning released a statement by the chancellor (and backed up by the parliamentarian)  affirming the vote. It seems we all were reading the canons incorrectly. They don’t mean what they say at all.

I’m glad TEc has such a bright and good chancellor who can correct us about these things that are so complicated and beyond us simple laymen.

It’s also good that there is no superior review process to muddle the facts with a potentially overriding decision.

This news from TEc makes me feel so much better.

[155] Posted by Dilbertnomore on 03-15-2008 at 07:35 AM • top

Beers, in a very close paraphrase of Humpty D.: “...it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” This is clearly rule #1 in TEc’s M.O.

[156] Posted by 0hKay on 03-15-2008 at 08:00 AM • top

EmilyH If you go to the other thread on this topic, you will see the appropriate conon quoted.  All bishops, inlcuding those who have resigned their see for reasons of health or to take a missionary position, have a vote in the HoB.  It is true that these bishops are not counted for a quorum to do normal business, probably because for many of them it is difficult to attend meetings.  However, the deposition of a bishop is not normal business and for that this “super majority” is required.  Furthermore, you state that Bishop Duncan’s choosing to go to the GAFCON planning meeting is cause for his deposition.  Clearly there are a good number of bishops who knew the date and genda of the HoB meeting and did not attend for various reasons.  Are they going to be deposed also?  Is attendance now mandatory at all HoB meetings?

[157] Posted by Ann Castro on 03-15-2008 at 08:32 AM • top

As if Schofield and Cox really care.  This is like being traded from a team that’s lost the last 100 games to one that’s undefeated.

[158] Posted by The Templar on 03-15-2008 at 09:50 AM • top

Does this mean that Schofield and Cox are not deposed?  Last night Bishop Lamb became provisional bishop. Does this mean that Jerry needs to leave Fresno and go back to where he came from?

[159] Posted by The kat on 03-15-2008 at 09:50 AM • top

Mad Potter, I believe the the presiding litigator would say that it matters a lot to her pending lawsuits as well as her intention of pressing the ABC to withdraw the invitation to Lambeth.

[160] Posted by robroy on 03-15-2008 at 10:07 AM • top

Three words:

Global.  Thermalnuclear.  War.

[161] Posted by bigjimintx on 03-15-2008 at 10:08 AM • top

#167 I agree it does matter - it is now impossible for the ABC to withdraw +Schofield’s invitation, were he even minded to do so which I have no reason to believe he is, without appearing to be capricious.

Whether +Schofields wishes to come is another matter and he may well follow his Primate.

Presumably notice has been given that the there may be another kangaroo court organised for the House of Bozos.  It is an extraordinary aspect of TEC’s isolationism and arrogance that they either do not know of do not care that this will impact the attitude of the Communion and of us - they have made it so much harder for those trying to keep them in and I am now of the view that this is a good thing.  We have absolutely nothing in common with these people.

This now appears purely driven by Beers and his not particularly Christian but avaricious law firm.  That is why TEC has no money for mission or if they could have got away with it, an editor for ENS.

[162] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 10:23 AM • top

The question is… Was Robinson elected and later approved by a voice vote????

Could be a double standard here…

[163] Posted by Tom Dennis on 03-15-2008 at 10:27 AM • top

House of Bozos

I wish we wouldn’t use this term; it makes Bozo look bad.  How about something else?

[164] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-15-2008 at 10:38 AM • top

I can’t draw… even my stick-figures are unconvincing. So here are the captions/descriptions for a 3-frame comic strip… someone else can adapt them and do the pictures.

(Frame 1)
* A crowd of bishops, standing about on a deck, some of them with their hands raised. Two stand to one side. Dr. Schori is saying:
“Aha! A majority. We vote you two off the ship! Muhahaha!”

(Frame 2)
* Someone (perhaps Bp. Cox, perhaps a bystander) says:
“Um, hang on, your votes are completely illegal. You’ve violated even your own precious canon law in your rush to apostasy.”

(Frame 3)
* Bp. Schofield saying
“Hey, don’t worry about it; it’s okay… we were just leaving anyway”
* Frame has panned back to show the two of them next to the lifeboats and to reveal the fact that the other bishops are all standing on the tank of “TEc Titanic”, already half-submerged.

[165] Posted by LP on 03-15-2008 at 10:39 AM • top

After following the arguments over at T19, I have to agree that there is a problem here and that the depositions didn’t happen.  Beers & Co. will continue to maintain what I thought they would maintain, but the language is pretty specific.  They goofed.  And my regret is I wasted a glass of good wine to celebrate the deposition.  Oh well…there’s another bottle in the cellar….

[166] Posted by Vintner on 03-15-2008 at 10:46 AM • top

Ok, let me see if I have this right. TECusaCorp pays no attention to:
1. The Bible
2. 2000 years of Church Tradition
3. Lambeth 1.10
4. The requests of the Primates Meeting after GC03
5. The Windsor Report
6. The Dromantine Communique
7. The requests of the ACC meeting
8. The Dar es Salaam Communique
9. Roberts Rules of Order
and now [insert drumroll]
10. Its own Sacred Canons

It is clear to me now. TECusaCorp is suffering from an advanced case of Attention Deficit Disorder. Ritalin will now be dispensed at every Eucharist.

the snarkster

[167] Posted by the snarkster on 03-15-2008 at 11:31 AM • top

Anthony (#176), you don’t appeal from a nullity.  You treat it, wherever and whenever it rears its head, as the nullity it is.  The ABC is entitled to do so in considering whether to “disinvite” anybody; the Standing Committee Six are entitled to do so (if they wish); and Bishop Schofield is entitled to do so, if he wishes, since it would throw a huge monkey wrench into TEC’s plans to replace him with +Lamb.  The burden will be on TEC, when and if +Lamb becomes the plaintiff in a suit against +Schofield, to show that +Lamb is the duly designated representative of TEC, entitled to claim the assets of DSJ back.
Since a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote did not consent to the deposition of +Schofield, he is no longer inhibited from being Bishop.  And since TEC did not accept his resignation, he remains the Bishop with jurisdiction over the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin notwithstanding his attempted resignation.  As he said in his letter, “The door to reconciliation will always be open.”  Maybe—-just maybe—-+Schori, Beers et al. are now humbled enough so that process could start?

[168] Posted by Chancellor on 03-15-2008 at 12:26 PM • top

#172 Athanasius Returns
“House of Bozos”

I wish we wouldn’t use this term; it makes Bozo look bad.  How about something else?


A generic term: some will have been malicious; some feckless; and some merely spineless.  Perhaps you may have a better term.

[169] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 01:01 PM • top

#179 House of Blunderers

[170] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-15-2008 at 01:13 PM • top

What’s all this fuss about anyways? Who cares whether the bishops were duly or unduly deposed? They both resigned! Do you think they even care about any of this?

[171] Posted by Saturnius on 03-15-2008 at 01:49 PM • top

If you resigned from a company and they then purported to sack you, give you a bad reference and stop you from practicing your trade would you mind Saturnius?

[172] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 01:52 PM • top

#181:  Whether they care or not is up to them.  However, their resignations (did Cox resign?) were not accepted.

[173] Posted by Vintner on 03-15-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

#183 Is that true - from what I read Beers screwed up

[174] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 01:59 PM • top

#184 a resignation does not stop a new appointment being made - always in accordance with law; however if an ex-employer is seeking to stop you attending an industry trade body conference, it does matter surely?

[175] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 02:02 PM • top

#183 Further if a resignation has not been accepted and that is a requirement and there has been no deposition - is there an argument that the person is still the office-holder under the company’s internal regulations - remember of course that the inhibition which is now presumably discharged only affected ministry acts, not administrative acts of the office-holder.

[176] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 02:08 PM • top

Thanks Mad Potter - that may be right - had they done the graceful thing and accepted the resignation.  But they didn’t - we don’t see much grace these days.

[177] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 02:29 PM • top

It has been said elsewhere that being a minister does not mean you surrender your civil rights.  There is evidence of conspiracy and tortious conduct in the attempt to deprive a J. D. Schofield of Fresno Ca. of his property and liveliehood. That he has confounded this conspiracy in no way excuses their attempt to destroy him. If you fire a shot an someone, and he ducks, you will still be prosecuted for attempted muder.
I understand that State Tortious Interference Statutes and the Racketeering and Corrupt Practices Act provisions could also be called into question. Mrs. Schori and her associates seem to be of the opinion that they have carte blanche for abusive conduct towards those who disagree with them simply because they are clergeymen.  These are not issues of Church/State Seperation, but of possible attempted violations of the civil rights of Mr. Schofield.
It is foolish to assume that Mr. Schofield cannot avail himself of excellent legal talent (pro bono I hear), and novel strategies, when his rights as an American are possibly violated.
God knows (really) that TEC has a rich history of manipulation of the law to its own means. We should thank them for having shown the way.

[178] Posted by teddy mak on 03-15-2008 at 02:46 PM • top

#190 Just taking the arguments advanced by TEC to their logical conclusion from their point of view - which has now given them a problem; we have a term for that: ‘hoist with their own petard’.  I am sure this is not a problem for the individuals concerned in their continuing ministry or perhaps for dio San Joaquin.

[179] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-15-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

Interesting reading all.

Re: [168] Posted by bigjimintx on 03-15-2008 at 09:08 AM:

“How about a nice game of chess???”

[180] Posted by Summersnow on 03-15-2008 at 03:04 PM • top

This will probably get whacked quick, but I have to say I’m glad I had set my iced tea down before I read Ann Castro’s phrase, “take a missionary position.” That goes with the historical origins of the word SNAFU (Google it) to sum up the “position” of traditional believers in TECtanic.

[181] Posted by Gator on 03-15-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

For those in TEC - I see you outrage and anger at this gross misrepresentation of the canons and abuse by 815. Can I kindly ask what you are going to do (as in action)  besides point out the obvious?

[182] Posted by Festivus on 03-15-2008 at 03:08 PM • top

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see this going to criminal court and to succeed in civil court I think there there needs to be material damages.  Since Bishop Cox was already retired and Bishop Schofield is already part of another province, there are no material damages that I can think of.  When TEC goes after the property, that is when this might matter.  When they go after Duncan, before he retires and before he goes to another province, then there would be material damages that would interest a criminal court.

[183] Posted by JustOneVoice on 03-15-2008 at 04:08 PM • top

Mad Potter, a bishop can’t simply quit. His resignation has to be approved. The powers that be specifically rejected his resignation so that they could depose him. Thus, no resignation and no deposition, implies that Bp Schofield is still Bishop of San Joaquin - TEc and San Joaquin - Southern Cone. Lamb is an interloper.

[184] Posted by robroy on 03-15-2008 at 04:26 PM • top

#191 Teddy Mak Re: separation of church and state   Whether rightly or wrongly, I do not think that a civil court will touch +Schofield’s “civil rights” re employment or personal property? at issue here.  I base my thinking on
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH v. HULL CHURCH, 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
393 U.S. 440, Wolf v. Jones, Gonzalez and Watson v. Jones but I like your thinking regarding RICO, (I actually thought of that re: +Duncan, the Network et al.) but I think that TEC can play the 1st amendment card and it’s a winner over a RICO “club”.  The “corporation sole” thing in California, according to the 4th district 3rd division appellate (I’m going from memory but it was the 77pg. ruling in the Episcopal Churches cases including St. James Newport now being appealed to the Supreme Court CA), noted that the “corporation sole thing” was a device that simply made things easier and proper legal theory in the case was following precedent along religious lines (Watson v. Jones) and NOT CA corporations law.  So regardless whether the property involved is personal or corporate (i.e. belonging to the diocese and he “corporation sole”), there would be no attempt to take property from “him”.)
U.S. Supreme Court

[185] Posted by EmilyH on 03-15-2008 at 04:31 PM • top

Mad Potter, it was the Presiding Bishop who wanted to argue that Bishop Schofield had not left the Episcopal Church.  She would not accept his resignation, and the HOB did not take action on his resignation, even though he proffered it.  That was all so they could have the satisfaction of deposing him. But that failed as well, so now they are stuck unable to argue (with straight face) that Bishop Schofield is no longer Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin—by their own choice.  And the implication of the insufficient vote is that the HOB in fact voted that what he did in affiliating with Southern Cone did not amound to abandonment.  So the argument (and the result) that Bishop Schofield is still the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin is one wholly belonging to the Presiding Bishop and her fellow revisionists.  They managed to do this without any help from the reasserters or the Windsor Bishops or anyone else.  This was entirely self-inflicted.

[186] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-15-2008 at 04:31 PM • top

Rome Anglican….in your response to MadPotter.  Actually no.  Had TEC accepted his “resignation” letter as written it would have 1. Allowed him to remain a member of the House. and 2. Accepted the possibility of a bishop “resigning” without resigning jurisdiction and TEC would not do that.  The “resignation” was very carefully crafted, and, had TEC accepted it as written, it may have compromised its own canons and some potential legal arguments that it may wish to make in the property fight that is sure to follow.  Clearly, the letter was prepared with the advice of good scribes.  It was not a “gift” to save TEC time and trouble unless you believe that the good citizens of Troy received a “gift”

[187] Posted by EmilyH on 03-15-2008 at 04:45 PM • top

All the more reason, then EmilyH, that they should have minded their p’s and q’s with respect to the vote to depose.  815 could hardly have been in worse shape than now had the resignation been accepted.  Now they’re stuck with him as Episcopal Bishop AND they have to embarrass themselves in court defending their ignoring the canons to get the result they wanted quickly.  I don’t doubt for a moment that this could have been (and still can be) done properly.  No doubt the votes can be found.  I know you all are doing your best to put a happy face on this, but this one will not impress any judge I’ve ever known.

[188] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-15-2008 at 04:53 PM • top

Rome Anglican.  My belief is the CA cases that have been appealed have been on the the record and are not being heard de novo so whatever had happened since is probably not relevant to the CA Supreme Court’s decision.  But, I would agree that this is surely not TEC’s finest hour, or rather its “whip” or parliamentarian or chancellor.  But I do beleive it is important for TEC to follow through with its procedures even if, in their zeal to follow them, they botched it.  It is beyond my pay grade to make that judgment.

[189] Posted by EmilyH on 03-15-2008 at 05:45 PM • top

EmilyH, I understand that some of the issues are on appeal now, with respect to whether so-called neutral principles will control.  But there is not to my knowledge yet any litigation over the San Joaquin situation, and while the issues on appeal with undoubtedly have a bearing on any case brought, those won’t be the only issues.  I appreciate that you see the problem here.  But frankly this is not such a hard problem to fix, although it will delay a few months having the result that KJS so desperately wants.  There is great benefit to being squeaky clean in how she handles this—to everyone involved.  And while I disagree totally with using this canon for this purpose, if it’s to be done, for goodness’ sake at least sake the time and care to do it properly.

[190] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-15-2008 at 06:37 PM • top

Careful, Mad Potter, our worthy opponent…

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

[191] Posted by robroy on 03-15-2008 at 07:51 PM • top

Emily H, Post 201,
You said “and, had TEC accepted it as written, it may have compromised its own canons and some potential legal arguments that it may wish to make in the property fight that is sure to follow.”

As I read this you are saying that TEC compromised its own canon in order to avoid compromising its own canon. 
Am I missing something here?

[192] Posted by Betty See on 03-15-2008 at 08:58 PM • top

Heh, good point Betty See.

[193] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-15-2008 at 09:02 PM • top

Now MP, surely you will recognise that some on the orthodox side cannot acknowledge a woman as a true bishop presiding or otherwise, nor can they acknowledge females in any clerical order. It is a matter of principle, I think, not spite.

[194] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 03-15-2008 at 09:05 PM • top

Mad Potter:

++KJS is a Bishop in the Anglican Communion and a Primate. She is due her title and that title is due respect

She might have gained the title - but she must EARN the respect - to date, she has done little to create, maintain or continue it.

So, let’s quit quibbling about such little matters - when larger matters - like her illegal deposing of bishops, for example - are at issue.

[195] Posted by Eclipse on 03-15-2008 at 09:45 PM • top

Matt, some also believe that apostolic succession requires not just who laid hands on who, but carrying on the teaching of the apostles. 

As for Mad Potter, I hardly find the term “delusional fool” to be the equivelent in respect and prestige to “Ms”.

[196] Posted by AndrewA on 03-15-2008 at 10:00 PM • top

The Kat (165),
+Jerry Lamb did not become the “provisional bishop” last night.  Where did you hear that?
The clear buzz (since no other bishops are on the docket at this point!) is that he’ll be “elected” (that’s on a flyer or two, but I don’t think that’s how you do things with interims) at a March 29 meeting in Lodi.
Here’s the problem like you were getting at.  No deposition in hand, and Bp Lamb is treading on thin ice of being in somebody else’s diocese without their permission. 
Sure, the PB doesn’t see it that way.  But, this is the canonical loose string that she’s been waiting to tie up, so that - canonically - Bp Lamb could be here now without any real complaints.
So…. and back to your point again, Bp Lamb probably should not have been here in that case.  I understand he’s leaving Sunday in the early afternoon.

[197] Posted by remaining on 03-15-2008 at 10:04 PM • top

Mad Potter, if you bought me a beer, I would gladly accept (and I would buy the second round). But as Matt+ points out, many don’t recognize Ms Schori. I really don’t mind if you write Mr. Schofield. But I know that “delusional fool” would be far beneath your level of dignity.

[198] Posted by robroy on 03-15-2008 at 10:12 PM • top

Mad Potter has a valid point. Whether we feel that KJS has earned the title of PB or not, she *is* PB. Whether we recognize her as PB or not, that still is her title. If one isn’t seeking to be deliberately offensive, simply calling her KJS seems to be acceptable without going into the issue of titles.

[199] Posted by oscewicee on 03-15-2008 at 10:12 PM • top

I was visiting Jake’s place. He is taking a hammering from lawyers, e.g.,

I’m not a 1st year law student but I have been practicing contract law for 38+ years. I’ve served on numerous canons committees and have done some canon law. While conservative, I’m still an Episcopalian and I do have a dog in this race. Whatever we do, needs to be done right. James W, ADW and Paul Stanley have it right. The depositions are nullities. They can be ignored. Quorum is not the issue. There was a quorum to do business but there were insufficient votes to do this particular business; so the vote failed.

Over on SF, another Chancellor put it succinctly :
“The sequence of abandonment—-certification—-suspension (inhibition)—-period to deny abandonment—-convening House of Bishops to vote on deposition if no denial, has been followed in the changes to this canon made ever since. Moreover, the requirement for a full majority of those entitled to vote in the House of Bishops to consent to the deposition before it can take effect has been maintained consistently since the first version of the canon was enacted in 1853. In 1904, the 1874 language was changed from “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in the House of Bishops” to read as it does at present: ‘a majority of of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote’, and has remained the same ever since.”

As always, Thanks
John1
John1 | 03.15.08 - 3:16 pm | #

Gravatar BTW, I’m not sure Bishop Cox was properly before the HOB for deposition. I may have missed it but I don’t think the PB had all the necessary consents from the senior bishops to inhibit him, a necessary step in the sequence of events leading up to deposition for abandonment

Of course, she most definitely doesn’t have the consents of the three senior bishops to depose Bp Duncan.

[200] Posted by robroy on 03-15-2008 at 10:28 PM • top

And another reappraising) lawyer at Jake’s:

Jake,

It’s not the “whole of those present” but the “whole number of bishops ENTITLED to vote”.

Just ask yourself this question: What was the “whole number of bishops entitled to vote”. The answer is: every bishop to whom the Constitution gives a “vote and seat” in the HOB, not only those who were there. What is a majority of THEM. Answer, whatever number you came up with first, divided by two. It’s horribly simple.

For those asking for first year law students ... sorry I can’t name names! I don’t actually think it’s sensible to decide legal questions based on the opinions of randomly selected first year law students. And FWIW, there’s really no “law” in this at all—just a matter of interpretation, which all are equally competent to do. So although I am a lawyer, I don’t claim any special expertise. (Even if I were a canon lawyer, which thank goodness I am not.)

What I can say is that law is (contrary to most lay opinion) hardly ever 100% black or white. It’s always shades of gray. But FWIW my own view is that this one is really not very hard and it’s quite clear that you need an absolute majority of the bishops who could vote, not just of those who are there.

One often advises clients in terms of percentages: If you fought this case 10 times, you’d win X times and lose Y. I’d say that if you fought this one 10 times, Schofield would win 8 times and lose 2. In legal terms, those are incredibly strong odds.

It gives me, I should add, no pleasure whatsoever to say this. Schofield richly deserves deposition. This is a poorly written canon, and one that was not even directed at the sort of situation here in issue. But facts are facts. And rules, as they say ...
Paul Stanley | 03.15.08 - 3:54 pm | #

With a response from a concerned reappraiser:

I would agree that it has to be done properly. To say that we can play loose with the rules because other have done so, is to lower ourselves to their level. Deposition - so necessary in this case (and a few others) - is serious, and must be taken seriously, and carried out absolutely by the rules.
Denbeau | 03.15.08 - 4:21 pm | #

And Tobias Heller pipes in:

Paul Stanley has it right. Otherwise the language is meaningless, since it just means a simple majority of those present. The deposition of a bishop without trial is one of the most serious acts a church can undertake. That is the reason for the unique wording here—which emphasizes the supermajority needed. To suggest a simple majority of the quorum is adequate is not in keeping with parliamentary law and justice, which almost always requires a supermajority for the excision of a member….There is a practical point here: if a civil suit is brought, and JDS can show he was deposed illegaly (and all it will take is a judge reading the canon as Paul Stanley and others do) there may well be hell to pay. Better safe than sorry, and do a mail ballot.
Tobias Haller

As I pointed out somewhere in all these discussions, Hills of the North has a nice discussion of why the usurpers would not want a do-over. (Hills of the North blog is now linked in the left column!)

[201] Posted by robroy on 03-15-2008 at 10:38 PM • top

I have written several anti-takeover provisions with similar language; in our cases it is certainly intended to require a percentage of total shareholders, not just those who attend a shareholders meeting.

However, in this case it is all a tempest, becuase in the end it won’t make any difference.

[202] Posted by Going Home on 03-16-2008 at 12:56 AM • top

It is hard to believe that the above quotes are actually from Jake’s blog.  I have rarely read anything sensible over there, and in fact, have avoided the site for the past few months, so as to keep from pulling my hair out.

It sounds as though there are actually a few thoughtful people posting measured thoughts there, instead of the usual vitriolic, nasty, arrogant snipers one is used to reading there as Fr. Jake “stops the world.”
(And though I’m sure others have considered this——what is with that title?  Is he a huge narcissist or am I just missing some clever allusion?)

[203] Posted by HeartAfire on 03-16-2008 at 01:10 AM • top

Heartafire, I agree with your assessment of Jake’s place. The discussion thread had someone threatening suicide because he got into a fender bender, people exchanging recipes, people saying “lets quit talking about this subject”, people talking sensibly like above, and Jake and few others denying reality. Kind of surreal but actually informative. The fact that Jake allowed debate instead of squelching it makes me believe that he is worried. I see a re-deposition in Bp Schofield’s future.

But will they do it in time to make RW have to sweat about a decision to rescind the tea part invitation?

[204] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 04:17 AM • top

HeartAfire,

Despite having been banned by Jake, an honour I will wear proudly to my grave, occasional rational thought does slip through from time to time.

This most recent debacle in the House of Bishops has several components. As has been noted, the depositions were very likely non-canonical and therefore a nullity. Hills of the North/RomeAnglican has has much to say on that point.

815 is publicly in spin mode, asserting that ‘All is Well’. Privately, I suspect their analysis is that the parties concerned, Bishops Cox and Schofield, will not be objecting to the lack of due process. Therefore there is no need for a ‘do over’.

From the perspective of the Episcopal Church, such an attitude is troublesome. First, the smart money is on litigation in San Joaquin in the near future. That means that a court will be hearing some of this stuff, and the odds are not good that the Episcopal Church will prevail on some of the necessary points of its case as a result of this.

From the perspective of the pew sitters, which is where I am, the more one looks at it the more it smells.  There is a very strong case for deposition. But to do it without any sort of trial, without any due process and under questionable circumstances seems unfair.

I have no illusions about the moral qualities of clergy. They are sinners much as the rest of us. But the church ought to behave better. One of the recent debacles at Executive Council came from the EC’s insistence that one of the companies it invests in be ethnically diverse. The company patently was, and the Episcopal Church hadn’t bothered to check its facts. That imbroglio arose from the perception that the Episcopal Church ought to be setting an example.

Now, when it matters, it is apparent that the Episcopal Church is not setting an example. Very few of the people in the pews are theologians. They can not or will not spot bad theology. But the Episcopal Church does have an inordinately high number of attorneys as members. Speaking as one, attorneys love due process and are not happy when it is denied, as it was here.

Also, we like to think of ourselves as ‘nice people’. We are God’s frozen chosen. We will rarely show affection or warmth, but we are always cordial and polite. There is no way that what happened at Camp Allen can be played out is behaving well.

So, what’s to be done. or those of us who are Christians that are still members of the Episcopal Church, I think we need to publicize this. When leadership misbehaves, then leadership needs to be called to account. IF the active bishops see no problem with their behaviour and processes, then we, the laity need to have some dialog with them to adjust their attitudes in that regard. This must not be swept under the carpet.

In all of this, if anyone needed any proof that 815 is not really Internet savvy, here it is. If they even reflected upon how dodgy the attempted depositions were, they probably felt they could get away with it. Now, it’s out in the open. And the damage done likely will not be going away.

Were I the Chancellor of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, I would recommend a ‘do over’ without conceding that one is necessary. It lloks as though the Bishops will be deposing Bishop Duncan in the near future, presumably by meeting in May or some other time. I would have that meeting in some lovely place, Palm Beach or maybe Hawaii. All that would need to be done would be to pay for a sufficient number of retired bishops to travel to the meeting. The necessary supermajority being in place, one could have a vote reaffirming the prior vote.

I give that advice freely. It would fix their legal problem. It is also the wrong thing to do, if one is attempting to lead a church. But I have absolutely no confidence that our bishops will collectively ever do the right thing. The right thing to do would be to accept Bishop Schofield’s resignation and proceed on rebuilding an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin without litigation.

I know that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and the vast majority of our bishops do not believe in any sort of final judgment, but I hope that they receive mercy and not justice when they approach their Lord, whom they do not know (Matthew 25:31-46).

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

[205] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-16-2008 at 04:29 AM • top

That is a very important point that I hadn’t thought of is that there are many lawyers and judges in the pews, and they tend to be on vestries and the like. I agree with mousetalker that we need to publicize this. I have been contacting the reporters who have done stories on this saying you need to post a correction that Bp Schofield is not deposed. We need to inform the lawyers in the pews locally, too.

[206] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 04:44 AM • top

Jake has closed down this discussion with his conclusion that the language of the Canon about deposition is ambiguous about the reference number for calculating a majority. E. Kaeton has thanked him for putting the matter to bed.

Jake has turned his site toward Sunday and Holy Week and will be going tomorrow (Monday) for the funeral of his abusive step-mother. Perhaps some of you who aren’t banned can go over and wish him the peace of God.

[207] Posted by 0hKay on 03-16-2008 at 05:34 AM • top

One last thought. I think after this past meeting of the House of Bishops, our ecclesiarchs all now qualify to be termed ‘Camp Allen Bishops’. What a pity it is that they have also managed to redefine that title to a term of disgrace.

More bad metaphors and even similes here

[208] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-16-2008 at 05:47 AM • top

On the interpretation of the canon, whether or not a super-majority was needed…  Mark Harris has an interesting take.  He quotes the relevant canon: 

“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.”  But then he refers to a discussion of quorum at the last general convention:

“At the last General Convention in 2006 (Journal pg 81) a understanding of the meaning of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and how to count the quorum was given in a note. It reads, ‘Note: A quorum is defined by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution as “a majority of all bishops entitled to vote (281), exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdictions or positions (156)’ Thus the present quorum is 63.’  ”

And then he follows up:

“The total membership able to vote includes all bishops. The quorum is based on the list of those who have not resigned their jurisdictions and who are present. The actual voting membership of a meeting of the House consists of all those present who are empowered to vote.”

Regardless of the position one advocates, there is clearly meat for a scribe v. scribe debate.  In such circumstances, a civil court would very likely defer to highest judicatory of the denomination.  Even if there were evidence of fraud, collusion, etc., they would probably defer to the decision made by the denomination.

[209] Posted by EmilyH on 03-16-2008 at 07:44 AM • top

But, Emily, the issue is not quorum, it is what is the requirement for the actual vote.  To focus on quorum, as even some here did early on, is to miss the point.  You can make quorum, for example, and even take a vote—and still not have sufficient votes to pass a matter if the “denominator” is defined by something other than total votes casts in a particular meeting (the usual default).  Here the denominator is something larger—the whole number of bishops eligible to vote.  So there may be quorum, and a vote may be taken, but if the numerator isn’t greater than half of the proper denominator, the vote fails.

[210] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-16-2008 at 08:39 AM • top

Exactly, the issue is not the quorum - it’s the membership.  To illustrate the reasoning - one can imagine what would happen if the the House of Representatives could impeach a President of the United States with the majority of a quorum.  No, they must have the majority of the entire membership - that’s why they call the roll (and why their votes are counted, especially on something as severe as that).  To impeach a president is a grave thing to do and leads to a trial in the U.S. Senate.

We are now faced with something as serious as that in the Episcopal Church - the actual removal from ordained ministry of a seated Diocesan Bishop with Jurisdiction.  What the Presiding Bishop attempted to do was impose an ecclesiastical-version of a death penalty sentence on the ministry of a Diocesan Bishop of the Church.  What is more severe than this?  Tell me?

The Bishop of San Joaquin’s resignation was rejected and was not recognized by the House of Bishops. 

The fact remains that the Presiding Bishop’s lawyer, David Booth Beers, told her she could basically depose an opponent with the simple majority of a quorum - and then on top of that she went and did it with an unaccountable voice vote.  Shameful.

Kangaroos anyone?

Imagine such a thing in the United States Congress - well, I can’t and thank God. But there is no way that the Episcopal Church House of Bishops can claim that its deliberations are based on open and free democratic principles, at least under the direction of this particular Presiding Bishop.

The issue here is moral principle.  And hasn’t that been the issue all along?

bb

[211] Posted by BabyBlue on 03-16-2008 at 10:01 AM • top

EmilyH, Mark Harris’ arguments are taken apart by D.C. Toedt here who, in particular writes:

Brian [#119], I greatly admire Mark Harris. And it pains me to be arguing that +Schofield wasn’t deposed, because he so richly deserves deposition.

But in this case Mark appears to be abandoning judgment in favor of wishful thinking.

Mark Harris and Jake both state at the end of their “wishful thinking” arguments, “that takes care of this controversy, let’s move on.”

The one comment (and only?) left at Mark Harris’ site referenced the ENS article of the last abandonment of communion deposition here, that of an Ecuadorian bishop in 2004. In particular, ENS writes,

Consent to the charges was obtained from the three senior bishops of the House: Peter James Lee of Virginia, William Swing of California, and Leo Frade of Southeast Florida.

Now, one of the senior bishops states that he wasn’t even asked about Bp Cox’s deposition. That’s recent precedence (which is being iignored with Cox and Duncan)!

[212] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 10:54 AM • top

Emily, I find it vastly amusing to refer to this one as a “decision made by the denomination” - rather a decision made by a small group of people acting, apparently unknowinginly in some cases, in violation of *their own* rulues. Is there anything KJS won’t do? Any rule she won’t stand on its head to gain her ends? I’ve seen no evidence that she answers to the rules of her church and wonder if she answers to anything.

[213] Posted by oscewicee on 03-16-2008 at 11:56 AM • top

...and wonder if she answers to anything.

We can rest assured that there will be an adjudication of this someday, before the same Judge we will all answer to.  And I don’t think the canons of TEC will have much bearing on the decision.

[214] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-16-2008 at 12:38 PM • top

“A civil court would very likely defer to highest judicatory of the denomination. Even if there were evidence of fraud, collusion, etc., they would probably defer to the decision made by the denomination”
—-Emily H [#231]

Note what Emily is saying (whether she realizes it or not):
A secular court probably wouldn’t overturn ECUSA’s action, so what the canon means doesn’t really matter. If you can get away with it, it’s OK. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

[215] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-16-2008 at 12:40 PM • top

Thanks for point that out so plainly, Irenaeus. I think we’ve seen a lot of this attitude coming from the revisionist side. My hat is off to the folks, like D.C. on Titus One Nine, who are showing moral principle, who, although they would have liked the depositions to have been successful, believe they should have been done canonically and not just in any way the PB decides to do it today.

[216] Posted by oscewicee on 03-16-2008 at 12:44 PM • top

Just as a point of information:

To date, has any primate or house of bishops of any other Anglican province recognized the deposition of +JDS?  To the best of my knowledge, for the time being, he retains a Lambeth invitation.  Oddly, this would be one case where the ABoC’s early invitations work to the advantage of orthodox Anglicans.  TEC can do whatever it wants, canonically or non-canonically.  But the recognized ANGLICAN bishop of San Jaoquin- or any other diocese in the US, is whoever +Rowan Williams recognizes as the bishop.  The current rather ridiculous canonical violation certainly gives him reason for pause in any decision of +JDS invitation.

[217] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-16-2008 at 01:12 PM • top

TJ - so far no one has made a peep including the office of Canon Kearon and the Episcocrats - indeed as of today +Schofield is still the Bishop of the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin as indeed under TEC canons he may well be.

I don’t see anyone supporting the latest outrages by the Committee of Public Safety, indeed one liberal UK bishop notes with bewilderment the sue sue sue attitude we see.  One has to remember what happened to Robespierre when even his own people were so sickened with the bloodshed that they gave him the chop.

[218] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-16-2008 at 01:29 PM • top

One wonders why the powers that be in The General Convention Church don’t realize how they are coming off to the world.  No. 1 issue is that they are Hypocritical - An agenda that makes social justice their God BUT only for those from whom they decide are deserving.  Of course I should not rule out that they do realize and just don’t care.

Maybe we should start calling it the Animal Farm Church - you know, where all are equal, just some more equal than others.
And EmilyH, thank you for pointing out that 815’s idea of justice is no justice at all.  What a wonderful reminder all their hype about being a democracy is just plain crap.  KJS and DBB have given us so many examples for our memory book - let’s see, there is the election of the bishop of S.C. vs. the bishop of Va.  The handling of the SC of San Joaquin.  Bishop Schofield and Bishop Cox.  These are just a few.  Possibly we need to start scrapbooking them so they are saved for future generations.  This way the faithful remnant who survive the daily desecration of the Church will have a colorful reminder of the pitfalls of the many heresies of TAFC’s (formerly PECUSA and ECUSA and TEC and TGG).

[219] Posted by JackieB on 03-16-2008 at 01:32 PM • top

Oh - and let’s not forget the justice in church buildings being available for sale to any strip club that comes along BUT NOT FOR ANYONE WHO STILL CLINGS TO SCRIPTURE.

[220] Posted by JackieB on 03-16-2008 at 01:34 PM • top

Well, are they really “coming off to the world” in a particular way?  We may be absorbed in this travesty, but has ANY media picked this up?  It’s actually a great story, since it’s sooooo clear-cut what happened.  But I haven’t seen any articles in the mainstream press—not even Ruth Gledhill’s blog—pick up on what to us seems absolutely amazing.

[221] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-16-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

If anyone here thinks that the world is not paying attention to the example the Episcopal Church is setting, you may be in for a big surprise.  And it won’t be a good one.

[222] Posted by JackieB on 03-16-2008 at 01:56 PM • top

Anthony and RomeAnglican, I have written every newspaper reporter that has written on the so-called deposition of Bp Schofield about the deficiencies in the process. Have you? It would be helpful in the spokesman for the true diocese of San Joaquin to speak out. But then again, suppose a stink is made and the usurpers bite the bullet and accept the downsides of a re-do deposition as outlined by RomeAnglican on his blog. This would lose the issue for the eventual lawsuits.

[223] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 02:08 PM • top

RobRoy, I’m intrigued.

Can you give an idea of what you wrote the newspapers?


Admiringly,

Sarah

[224] Posted by Sarah on 03-16-2008 at 02:32 PM • top

Sarah, almost all the newspaper have a “Contact us” link or they simply give the reporter’s email address at the end of the story. I simply check google news for “Episcopal”, find the stories about +JDS and write to the reporter stating the the reporter needs to print a correction stating that +JDS was, in fact, not deposed and give them a link to the living church website article. Pretty easy thing for all the flag-planters out there.

[225] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 02:48 PM • top

Being somewhat new to this forum, can someone please tell me in 20 words or less who “Father Jake” is.

[226] Posted by The Templar on 03-16-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

He runs a liberal blog and participates here, and encourages participation there.  He’ll probably answer your question himself if he is tuned in.
EDS

[227] Posted by aacswfl1 on 03-16-2008 at 03:17 PM • top

Jackie, pray tell what you mean by your tantalizing tease of a comment!  What makes you think the world is looking at this and that those of us who don’t think so have a surprise coming?

[228] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-16-2008 at 03:24 PM • top

And encourages participation there??? Most of us who tried to participate at his site are banned after one or two postings. (A badge of honor, that I wear proudly.) You can google “Fr Jake” to find him.

[229] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 03:26 PM • top

I found the webpage but it looked pretty boring so I’ll pass.  If I want sarcasm and negativity I’ll watch the political debates.

[230] Posted by The Templar on 03-16-2008 at 03:39 PM • top

I was Banned By Jake on my first post there.

I don’t think he posts here anymore. He tried very hard to get banned here and after failing he just Banned himself I think.

[231] Posted by Rocks on 03-16-2008 at 03:40 PM • top

[177] Chancellor,

I believe that you have it exactly correct in your statement that

You treat it, wherever and whenever it rears its head, as the nullity it is.

Given the fatuity of Beers statement concerning the meaning of the canon, the onus now falls on TEC to attempt to reclaim the DioSJ. +Schofield can simply proceed as if nothing has occurred, because, in law, nothing (i.e., a nullity) has indeed occurred, it is a non-event.

To pursue reclamation of the physical property, or take any other action, TEC will have to go to court in an attempt to get the court to agree that the nullity is not a nullity, which the canons clearly indicate to be an erroneous conclusion. I wish TEC luck (not of the good variety) in that pursuit, although I doubt such a wish is necessary after this collosal farce. However, we must also remember that an attorney with a sub-par IQ is frequently referred to as “Your Honor,” even if not all judges fit that description.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[232] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-16-2008 at 04:55 PM • top

The Diocese of San Joaquin is most likely going to base any legal claim on the fact that the diocese changed its constitution and corporate bylaws in a manner consistent with its own rules and in a way that invalidated any claim TEC had over them.  The deposition, therefore, according to their argument, has no effect whether or not the canonically required number of bishops voted.  I doubt it will even come up in court.  What is important is whether or not the diocese had the right to leave TEC.

[233] Posted by AndrewA on 03-16-2008 at 05:13 PM • top

[227] mousestalker,

I must respectfully disagree with your formulation that

(n)ow, when it matters, it is apparent that the Episcopal Church is not setting an example.

I rather strongly suspect that what you intended was that “the Episcopal Church is not setting a good (or Christian, or moral, or proper) example,” however, that is not what you have written. In fact, its actions in this instance have been a sterling exemplar of the raw exercise of illegitimate power, i.e., power exercised outside the bounds of law.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[234] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-16-2008 at 05:14 PM • top
[235] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-16-2008 at 05:20 PM • top

Mad Potter, I honestly wouldn’t care if there is an Episcopal diocese and a Southern Cone diocese.  It doesn’t really matter to me who gets listed on the ACC website or who gets invited to the tea party in Lambeth, as long as there are clergy and laity working for Christ in San Joaquin.  What bothers me is the prospect that a Episcopal diocese will no doubt sue the Southern Cone diocese to take away the entirety of the property of the majority that wish to have nothing to do with TEC, even though Schofeld is not in turn disputing property ownership of those parishes that wish to stay in TEC.

[236] Posted by AndrewA on 03-16-2008 at 05:26 PM • top

Well, it was a glorious Palm Sunday at the Cathedral this am with Bishop John-David leading the serivces and to all’s surprise and wonderment at the audacity of Jerry Lamb sitting up in the front row!!!!!  When during the annoucement time our Dean made a clarification reference about our beloved Bishop not being deposed due to a “mistake” on the HoB part and the fact that we unlike them who go about saying “we follow our own interpretations and meanings,” but rather we in this Anglican Diocese follow God’s word, written rules, and essentially our own Bishop, John-David Schofield.  Then he asked if we would like to express our love for our Bishop and show him how much we appreciate his godly leadership in putting Jesus Christ first no matter what and following Him, our Lord and Savior! And the crowd that was there this am stood in applause for Bishop John-David right in front of Jerry Lamb! One would think that that standing ovaition would send a very clear message…..We will follow Jesus Christ the lover of our souls and we will follow Jesus Christ and our Bishop and you Jerry Lamb are not one we will ever follow!

[237] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 05:28 PM • top

BTW, the news media was there and I am quite sure that the Remain Episcopal people called them to make sure they were there to record us being taken over by Jerry Lamb. Alas, that didn’t happen and quite frankly as usual their attempts to disparge us Orthodox Christians in San Joaquin and our Bishop have yet again back-fired on them.

[238] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 05:36 PM • top

#246 Jackie,
Can you expand just a bit on your comment? I’m not fully following your meaning….!
Thank you in advance
ODC

[239] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 05:39 PM • top

ODC that is really something. I think Lamb pretty much defines chutzpah if he thought he was going to stand up, at Palm Sunday service yet, and declare +JDS deposed.
I wonder what possessed Lamb to even be there?

[240] Posted by Rocks on 03-16-2008 at 05:56 PM • top

#262 Mad Potter - thank you for your response.  As you say following the alleged inhibition, ACNS took it on themselves to reflect the 815 official line by amending the diocese of San Joaquin entry, much as someone has been adding to and amending Wikipedia entries to reflect the same.  As I remember it Canon Kearon and the Episcocrats at the ACO were heavily criticised for the overt partizanship they were showing, as distinct from the covert partizanship which continues.  There was some rapid backpeddling and a ‘clarification’ issued by them.  Usual stuff, administrative oversights, computer problems, time differences, you know the sort of thing.

Well interestingly, the ACO’s current reporting of the current 815 failed depositions has been as hands off and distant as they can make it here and presumably they have been keen not to be seen to be making the same mistake again.  They are presumably aware that many for obvious reasons regard them as fatally compromised as well as unrepresentative.

I expect like many people they are waiting to see how this all pans out.

Btw I agree with you that we should preferably use the titles people have been given by their organisations if using their personal name.  It costs nothing and means that one can deal with debating the issues.

#266 ODC What a wonderful joyous Palm Sunday service it sounds as though you had and good that you were also able to offer ministry to Canon Lamb who I gather has been lying down with the wolves these days so probably needed it.

[241] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-16-2008 at 06:03 PM • top

#269 Rocks,
That’s the million dollar question isn’t it? But, I have to say that our Bishop was on target with scripture, as he always is, and had a profound message this morning about the life that Christ gives when we surrender our lives to Him totaly and truly trusting in only Jesu Christ and not just say we believe in Him, but really Trust in Him! He, Bishop John-David, was in a very happy, steady, unshaken, rock solid mood and mode. It was awesome!

[242] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 06:03 PM • top

I see the ENS is claiming that Lamb was applauded by the church.  I’m doubting this account.  True or false?

“Applause erupted during the introduction of Lamb, who retired as bishop of the Diocese of Northern California in 2007 and most recently served as interim bishop in the Diocese of Nevada.” (ENS today)

[243] Posted by Paula on 03-16-2008 at 07:00 PM • top

Different church, different date.  The ENS is talking about a meeting on March 14th at Holy Family.

[244] Posted by AndrewA on 03-16-2008 at 07:04 PM • top

ODC - I was referring to the perception that others outside the Episcopal Church have of who we are as a religious organization.  Watch for a post tomorrow expanding on this.

[245] Posted by JackieB on 03-16-2008 at 07:07 PM • top

Thank you Jackie! I am quite sure it is not a great preception by any stretch of the imagination! We are all guilty and all sinners. Human-ness is a horrific disease that affects us all!

[246] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 07:09 PM • top

Please excuse my post (#273): I did not notice that the applause for Jerry Lamb was at a different location and different event.  But I see that now.  (I had supposed that the ENS was just fabricating again!)  Does anybody think is it significant that Lamb made no attempt to assert himself in the cathedral service?  Or, more likely, there was no way he could do so?  I wonder what he was thinking when he heard the announcement of the MISTAKE in the vote.

[247] Posted by Paula on 03-16-2008 at 07:40 PM • top

“Jake does not favor the rough and tumble adversarial argument that takes place here” [#258]

It might be more accurate to say that Jake doesn’t like “rough and tumble arguments” if you disagree with him.

[248] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-16-2008 at 07:51 PM • top

Bishops are paid by the local dioceses, therefore they are employees of that diocese.  They work for that diocese, they do not work for a “national church.”  If I worked for the IBM office in Dallas and I was going to resign, I wouldn’t write to the headquarters in New York, I’d tell my manager at the Dallas office that I was resigning. 
Now the trickey part….employees in most states (I think Wyoming is the exception) are considered “employees at will” meaning not only can the company terminate employees at its will, and without reason but employees can quite the company at will (unless of course there is a written contract).  Therefore if Schofield and Cox are considered employees of an organization (which they are), they don’t need “permission” to resign, they simply resign. 

Here’s where I think Schori and Beers are making a big mistake.  If Schori and Beer say that Schofield and Cox work for them, then in essence what they’re saying is “you can’t quit, I’m firing you.”  Can’t do that folks. Not only is it unethical, it’s illegal.  If Schofield and Cox were smart, they’d file a wrongful discharge suit against the Episcopal Church.  Plus, if both men are over the age of 40, I’d also sue for age discrimination.

[249] Posted by The Templar on 03-16-2008 at 07:55 PM • top

He did not QUIT! He and we realigned with aother Province.
If you say he “quit” then what of those like myself? Did I “quit”? Did the bulk of the diocese “quit”? No, we have moved to another Province that is in the Angliacn Communion just like TEc is in the Anglican Communion.

If I pick up and move my family to another city in the same county did I “quit”? No! I moved to another location within the county!

[250] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 08:59 PM • top

ODC (281), although to “quit” can mean “resigning from” or “to stop doing something” it can also mean to leave, to move away from, to exit from the program, or move out ~ i.e., “JDS quit (left, moved away from) the Episcopal Church.”  To use your illustration, if you moved from your former city then you would be seen as having “quit” that former city for a new one.  I think MP is saying here that JDS has quit the Episcopal Church in that sense.  I don’t think he is saying that JDS has quit being a bishop.

[251] Posted by Vintner on 03-16-2008 at 09:07 PM • top

Mad Potter—You have been repeating yourself for some time. I’m thinking we should stop feeding you and hope you get some sleep now.

[252] Posted by 0hKay on 03-16-2008 at 09:08 PM • top

#280, Mad Potter

How about this analogy instead-Let’s assume that you are the owner of a franchise of a large corporation, say Tennessee Fried Catfish, and at one of the corporate meetings it was decided that the price of catfish had become cost prohibitive and that instead of serving catfish, the restaurants would now serve something more readily available and certainly cheaper-cat.  There were clearly enough votes for a simple majority, but you were in the minority vote.  While in many parts of the country (indeed in many countries), the serving of cat might be considered a delicacy, in your part of the woods it just isn’t acceptable.  You decide to break the contract with the corporation and give up your franchise, rename your restaurant Georgia Fried Catfish and keep on serving the more expensive catfish that your customers have always expected of you.  Do you really think that the corporation owns your building and all its contents?  I doubt that a court of law (except an ecclesiastic one) would agree with you.

[253] Posted by no longer an episcopalian on 03-16-2008 at 09:28 PM • top

#286 Anthony,
I am with you on this one. I too, wish that TEc would have done this and would change its current path to do this. It would have been more of a Christian thing to do. But, the problem is, the leadership of TEc, is more interested in the money and the property and the assets.

Bishop Schofield, when we voted to realign told everyone that if they wanted to stay in TEc they could do so and take their property and churches with them so long as they are not leaving the diocese wth a huge debt owed. So far everyone of the churches that have chosen to stay in TEc has been able to do just that. In fact one that has a huge debt (Lodi) has been organizing with the Remain Episcopal’s and their headquarters, a church in Fresno Holy Family, to hold Remain Episcopal events, meetings, etc… Bishop Schofield has not done anything to barr them, nor to bring suit aginst them, nothing! Yet everyone of the liberal left and in these RE churches continue to demean him, ridacule him, dispagre him, and worse!

It could have been worse….he could have done what Andrew Smith did, and what bishop JJ Bruno did in coming back to sue parishes in LA that left to realign. But no, Bishop John-David said, go in peace and stay in TEc and take your property with you and go with God. But, please do not leave the diocese owing a large debt. That is Christian charity and is something that KJS, DBB, and those bishops who are engaged in lawsuits against their former brothers and sisters know nothing of and if they do they refuse to extend it.

No it for them is about the money, property and assets!

[254] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 09:35 PM • top

MP-  as far as I’m concerned, you can keep the great white elephant (and the heating bills, and the maintenance and the upkeep….).
After all the loony things that have gone on in St. John the Divine, no orthodox person should want it.

[255] Posted by In Newark on 03-16-2008 at 09:42 PM • top

Anthony,
Not putting anyone down just pointing out the facts as they are! If the shoe fits…....smile

[256] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 09:45 PM • top

For anyone interested here is the news story of todays Palm Sunday Service at St. James Anglican Cathedral!
<a >Palm Sunday Service St. James Fresno</a>

[257] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 09:58 PM • top

No MP, the debt is on the deed and their names are on that deed along with +JDS! smile

[258] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 10:04 PM • top

Very telling article.
“George Wade, Fresno Episcopalian, says “My feeling is for the first time in 20 years, we will see an Episcopal Church in the valley. Because the Episcopal Church is all inclusive, we say no to no one.”

But that is the heart of the problem, isn’t it?  Sometimes you need to tell people “No, you can’t do that.  That’s bad for you.”  Some people don’t like being told no.  If they are 4 years old, we call them spoiled, or brats, or misbehaving, or immature.  If they are adults, apparently we call them inclusive.

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, untill they stop saying no to NAMBLA, they lie everytime the claim to be inclusive of “everyone”.  But that’s not going to happen for at least 60 years.  In 30 years, I’ll be watching people like George Wade be mocked as reactionary bigots for failing to include the polyamorous.

[259] Posted by AndrewA on 03-16-2008 at 10:09 PM • top

#291 Mad Potter

Most Episcopal parish deeds for churches that were founded before the Dennis Canon (1979) are held in trust by the “Rector, Wardens, and Vestry” of the parish (unless they were originally a mission), unlike the Roman Catholic parishes which are held in trust by the diocese.  Most Episcopal parishes are also not for profit corporations.  Depending on the state, Episcopal parishes have historically been known to leave the Episcopal church and keep the property-that is, not turn it over to the Episcopal diocese or the national Episcopal church.  This is not unique to the Episcopal church,  but property disputes have occurred in almost all denominations (except Roman Catholic, although maybe I just don’t know about any of those).  The property dispute has been settled in favor of the individual parish in many cases, although it depends on how “hierarchical” the state’s courts interpret the national denomination to be.  Part of this exercise in the House of Bishops is to further emphasize that the Episcopal church is an hierarchical church.  Top down.  Bishops rule.  Not one Pope, but over 100 Pope wannabes. 

In my personal opinion, it is much better to leave the Episcopal church and walk away from the property.  God will provide abundantly for those who are faithful to Him and His Word.  It is a blessing to be out from under the tension of trying to “live into” the “listening” process, and the ten years in court and millions of dollars can be put to much better use focusing on and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And, yes, God has provided for my church abundantly!

[260] Posted by no longer an episcopalian on 03-16-2008 at 11:03 PM • top

“Episcopal churches…are property held in trust from generation to generation, from Episcopalian to Episcopalian”—-Mad Potter [#291]

This is known as an imaginary trust.

It is neither revocable nor irrevocable, nor express nor implied, nor inter vivos nor testamentary, nor public nor private. Wishful thinking knows no bounds.

[261] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-17-2008 at 12:09 AM • top

Just remember that Satan’s forces on earth (AKA - KJS, DBB, and that pack of idiots we call the HOB) cannot depose Christs’ TRUE ministers! Bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox are still ordained by God and it really does not matter what TEC thinks!!!!!!!

[262] Posted by revdrrayj on 03-17-2008 at 07:44 AM • top

T19 has closed comments; I hope SF will keep going. Stonewall Jackson was against fighting on Sunday, but if the enemy came at him, he put on his sword. We all want to observe Holy Week, but the Powers have engaged us. In part, Jesus’ Passion was for the Church-to-be, not just for individual souls. Let’s keep up the pressure about what is right and true for the sake of Christ’s Church.

[263] Posted by Gator on 03-17-2008 at 08:08 AM • top

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: rules are apparently only for the orthodox.  Revisionists are exempt.

[264] Posted by st. anonymous on 03-17-2008 at 08:58 AM • top

#304 revdrrayj

I really don’t care what they, KJS-DBB-& the HoB, think! I pretty much care what they do! For what they do and have done and gotten away with will continue and get worse if someone(s) doesn’t bring them to account for it. The liberal left revisionists are looking to clean house and rid TEc of all Orhtodoxy that stands in their way or re-writing the Bible, the BCP, and making noise about SSB’s, MDG’s, open communion, etc… The dirty laundry list is long!

[265] Posted by TLDillon on 03-17-2008 at 09:53 AM • top

Come on friends…why all the discussion here? These are the very same people who believe that the votes for JFK from deceased people in the Chicago area were legitimate votes…and that a punch card ballot in Florida (in which there were zero holes punched on the card)are obvious votes for Al Gore.

[266] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 03-17-2008 at 11:05 AM • top

“Why all the discussion here? These are the very same people who believe that the votes for JFK from deceased people in the Chicago area were legitimate votes…and that a punch card ballot in Florida…are obvious votes for Al Gore”

MidwestNorwegian [#309]: What a toxic, foolish comment. These are not all the same people. Don’t elevate your partisan political animosities to the same level as your Christian faith. Don’t treat the debate over ECUSA’s manifest disregard for its own rules into some imaginary continuation of secular election controversies.

[267] Posted by Irenaeus on 03-17-2008 at 12:14 PM • top

To be fair to Midwestnorwegian he may have just had in mind a thread which I have just seen linked at Captain Yip’s ‘Waiting for the River Wards’ but perhaps unfortunately expressed.

[268] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 03-17-2008 at 12:32 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.