UPDATE
Canon III.12.8(d) makes clear what language is employed when a simple majority of those present is required, and that language is “by a majority of those present".

Quite clearly, when the canons want a simple majority of those present, they signal so.

If you follow all things Anglican you cannot fail to have noticed the current discussion surrounding the deposition of Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) of America. An article by The Living Church summarises the issue neatly:

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.

The problem, you see, is that the canons of TEC [pdf], and specifically Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2, require a majority of those entitled to vote, not just those present. Here's the actual text of the canon:

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, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

OK, that's fair enough. Except that TEC are now arguing that it was all legal after all. A good example of such argumentation is a piece entitled "A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On: The Canons and Deposing Persons" by Mark Harris on his blog, Preludium. Here's what Mark is arguing:

Here is the wording from the Constitution: Article 1, Section 2 regarding quorum for the House of Bishops Meetings as part of General Convention.

"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."

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."

With it so far? Good. Now consider how Harris continues:

Every session of the House of Bishops, either at General Convention or otherwise, determines to do business on the basis of the bishops entitled to vote and determines that there are enough present to conduct business by determination of a quorum. At that point the "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" consists of those present and the "whole number" makes it clear that bishops other than those with jurisdiction may vote on the matter. To read "whole number" as meaning a reference back to all the possible bishops (300 or so) absent or present would provide the parliamentary boondoggle of making some votes based not on those present but on those possibly present. One might suppose it would be a virtue of any democratic system to insist that a majority vote ought to be on the basis of the whole body of voters on the rolls, but it would be a virtue that would either require compelling voters to be present or it would be increasingly unmanageable.

This is a good point. To read "whole number" as meaning a reference back to all the possible bishops does lead to a boondoggle (I don't know exactly what that word means but I get the sense of it entirely). But that's the problem that TEC has for, curiously, they have decided to use exactly the same language in one place as in another, namely

Bishops entitled to vote

Why does it mean one thing in one place but something different in another? It's surely a principle of intelligent reading that terms are used consistently thus aiding understanding and dispelling confusion.

But more than that. Consider this -

Harris says:

The argument that deposition is a matter so great that a supermajority is required may or may not have merit, but none is to be found in the canons. Those who believe that the Constitution and Canons have this in mind need to show it.

Well, I'll have a crack. The quorum is calculated as

a majority of all bishops entitled to vote

but the deposition is calculated on the basis of

a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote

The language of the latter is, by any fair reckoning, not just the same as the former but actually more expansive, if that were possible.

One more thought. We quite expect these days to see bishops twist scripture. We've been used to that for quite some time and it no longer shocks us. But to now see the TEC hierarchy twisting the sacred polity of TEC. Well, they must be desperate.

UPDATE
jamesw makes a very important observation on the "Let's get to the Procedural Bottom of this" thread:

Canon III.12.8(d) makes clear what language is employed when a simple majority of those present is required, and that language is “by a majority of those present.”

Indeed, that language is used time and time in the canons. Here are the instances:

The House during its session shall accept or refuse the resignation by a majority of those present. (III.12.8.d p.111)

The House during its session shall accept or refuse the resignation by a majority of those present. (Rules of Order, House of Bishops, Daily Order, VII p.188)

If passed by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, members of the House will... (HoB General Rules for Meeting V p.189)

ditto 190; XIV, XV, XVII , XVIIIa, p.192, etc (another 6 identical usages - all concerning the business of the House of Bishops)

Thanks for that encouragement to further research, James. Quite clearly, when the canons want a simple majority of those present, they signal so.

44 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

It’s a measure of their lack of competence that they can not even manage a show trial. That is good news for anyone who is not a bishop in the Episcopal Church. The mask has slipped and we’ve seen what little lies underneath.

The church I belong to seems to have confused Palm Sunday with palmistry

[1] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-16-2008 at 05:35 AM • top

Excellent analysis. Are there any other references in the canons to the “whole number of bishops entitled to vote?”

[2] Posted by BillK on 03-16-2008 at 07:33 AM • top

It is important to realize what is really going on here. There is a full-court press, which started with the lame ENS statement yesterday, to create the appearance that there is at least “ambiguity” such that this becomes a matter of interpretation. In fact, whether one looks at this as a parliamentary law matter or under any notions of statutory or contract interpretation, there is no debate: the vote failed. DBB knows this, ergo his retreat to language of “our position is.” But if they are to keep the courts in California from calling this the lawless sham it was, they don’t really have to win the argument—they simply need to create the illusion there is a legitimate one. That way they can say this is a matter of interpretation of canon law, and TEC interpreted it, and you—the court—must therefore accept our interpretation or else you have violated neutral principles by inserting yourself into an ecclesiastical matter. So what is happening now is pure theater. Whether this works is another matter entirely. So far almost every explanation offered is extremely weak, most trying to focus on quorum, when that is not the issue at all.

They either deliberately did this, not wanting to bother with what was required and confident no one would notice or no one would stop them, or they displayed a breathtaking degree of incompetence. But what matters most now in their damage control is that they try to create a sense that there is a legitimate argument that can be made for their side and so keep a court at bay. I think that’s foolish (and very lazy—they could cure this simply enough), but that appears to be what they’ve chosen to do. Whether such dishonesty is worthy of a Christian church is apparently a judgment that was also made some time ago by the current leadership.

[3] Posted by RomeAnglican on 03-16-2008 at 07:49 AM • top

“Majority” is a collective term with respect to new-age bishops, just as quail form a covey, owls a parliament, or crows a murder. Whenever two or three are gathered together they constitute a “Majority”. Made bold by the title, they may validate anything that pleases them, and the body of truths, thus expanded, serves to diminish the memory of those truths so long held by the faithful.

[4] Posted by SkyFox on 03-16-2008 at 10:30 AM • top

I don’t know why a number of people are using the term “supermajority.” The canons do not call for anything above 51%. That is a mere majority, not a supermajority. The Diocese of Tennessee requires a supermajority to elect a bishop—60% of both lay and clerical orders, if I recall correctly.

But the canons only call for a majority of those entitled to vote, not a higher percentage of those voting. Of course, gathering sufficient bishops together so that there is a possibility that the yeses will be 51% of all the bishops entitled to vote may be a difficult thing—but one hopes that the bishops will take their responsibilities seriously and show up for a called meeting, the dates of which have been available for many months.

[5] Posted by AnglicanXn on 03-16-2008 at 10:44 AM • top

It is ironic. Remember when they invited Rowan Williams initially. They stated that they needed to educate him on the TEc polity! I hope that Rowan Williams is soaking up this lesson on TEc polity.

BTW, EmilyH brought up Mark Harris’ arguments. I referred her to D. C. Toedt summarily point by point take down, dismissing them as “wishful thinking.” See my discussion on another thread here.

[6] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 11:30 AM • top

TEC is saying that 50% + 1 Bishops call a meeting (or show up for a meeting) of the HOB, and they vote out the other 50% minus 1 Bishops and it’s canonical and legal?

[7] Posted by Paul B on 03-16-2008 at 12:04 PM • top

AnglicanXn - actually, here in the Dio of Tenn, we had to get a 2/3 supermajority to elect our new bishop, not just 60 percent. On one of the votes in one of the orders (I think it was lay), we actually got to 66 percent, but we were just short of the .6 percent extra that was needed, so the vote failed.

[8] Posted by Greg Sample on 03-16-2008 at 12:25 PM • top

AnglicanXn: “Supermajority” is merely informal shorthand for anything requiring more than the normal majority vote. And a “majority vote,” the default under Robert’s, is more than half of those voting in a meeting. The common sort of votes that demand more than normal majority votes (and are thus colloquially called “supermajorities,” are two-thirds votes (or fractions greater than “more than half”), majority of members present (frowned upon since it empowers abstentions), and majority of the entire membership (what the deposition vote required). You are correct that here a majority (i.e., more than half) was required, but it was more than a normal majority, since it required half of the whole number of eligible bishops, not just those in a meeting. It’s not inappropriate to call it a supermajority.

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

2, there are, and they make it even clearer that it means what numerous posters have said that it means—an actual majority of all members of the House of Bishops. Look, for example, at Article X of the Constitution (amendments to the BCP):

The Book of Common Prayer, as now established or hereafter
amended by the authority of this Church, shall be in use in all the
Dioceses of this Church. No alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless the same shall be first proposed in one regular meeting of the General Convention and by a resolve thereof be sent within six months to the Secretary of the Convention of every Diocese, to be made known to the Diocesan Convention at its next meeting, and be adopted by the General Convention at its next succeeding regular meeting by a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops, and by a vote by orders in the House of Deputies in accordance with Article I, Sec. 5, except that concurrence by the orders shall require the affirmative vote in each order by a majority of the Dioceses entitled to representation in the House of Deputies.

But notwithstanding anything herein above contained, the General
Convention may at any one meeting, by a majority of the whole
number of the Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops, and
by a majority of the Clerical and Lay Deputies of all the Dioceses
entitled to representation in the House of Deputies, voting by orders
as previously set forth in this Article….

Note the two different formulations with respect to Bishops here—(1) a majority of everyone, excluding retired Bishops not present, and (2) a majority of everyone. Note that the second formulation applies to to the House of Deputies too. It’s crystal clear what’s meant.

And then look to Article XII of the Constitution:

No alteration or amendment of this Constitution shall be made
unless the same shall be first proposed at one regular meeting of the
General Convention and be sent to the Secretary of the Convention
of every Diocese, to be made known to the Diocesan Convention at
its next meeting, and be adopted by the General Convention at its next succeeding regular meeting by a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops, and by an affirmative vote by orders in the House of Deputies in accordance with Article I, Section 5, except that concurrence by the orders shall require the affirmative vote in each order by a majority of the Dioceses entitled to representation in the House of Deputies.

Again, you exclude retired Bishops not present but then require an actual majority of everyone else.

What do all of these (depositions, BCP amendments, and Constitutional amendments) have in common? That it would be good to have actual majorities doing them. And that’s why actual majorities are required.

The bottom line is this. For Beers or anyone else to win an interpretive battle here, they need to equate “entitled to vote” with “present”. They can’t. I give Mark Harris credit for a pretty coherent attempt, but it isn’t convincing. As RomeAnglican points out, TEC is probably just trying to persuade people that it’s unclear. Here’s a partial cross-post from Fr Jake in response to that, however:

Let me try to say it this way. I think there’s plenty of moral authority in following the rules. But when you routinely tell people that following the rules is all you’re doing (e.g. the PB in South Carolina; TEC’s position in every court case re: the Dennis Canon), yes, I think it undermines your authority considerably if there are clear instances where you have not followed the rules.

Even if you ultimately conclude that this one’s unclear, it’s a real problem that there has been a lot of unclarity by 815 recently. Summarily dismissing the San Joaquin Standing Committee. The issue of how Bp Lawrence’s consents were handled. There are only so many times you can give 815 the benefit of the doubt.

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

The problem with Beers, Harris, et al’s reasoning is the use of the word “whole”. For “whole” to describe only those present and voting they would have to show there could be a vote at a meeting where not the “whole” of those “entitled to vote” can be used to conduct ANY business, not just this. There isn’t. There is no legal way for the chair to deny the vote to a member of a body present with that right. So, the only possible interpretation is the obvious, “whole” refers to the “whole” body and not just those present.

It’s lunacy basically and I am sure they are planning to redo the entire thing at the next meeting of the HOB at this moment….in the interest of fairness of course. This farce is simply intended to affect Lambeth, as too with Duncan. Rehnquist was right, Arbitrary Lawlessness is the perfect description. When someone eventually sits down to write the history, or more likely epitaph, of TEC, Arbitrary Lawlessness should be the title.

[11] Posted by Rocks on 03-16-2008 at 01:18 PM • top

Of course, this majority issue ignores the need for the consent of the three most senior bishops. This was definitely not obtained in the case of +Duncan because +Wimberley rejected it. So to avoid this situation, they simply ignored this requirement in the case of +Cox and also (I believe) of +MacBurney.

[12] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 01:38 PM • top

In terms of overturning these depositions, all the arguments about what constitutes a majority of bishops eligible to vote are moot. TEC gets to decided how they want to interpret their polity/canons/constitution. Who is going to discipline them or make them admit their interpretation is wrong? The bishops in question have no legal recourse. This is the position TEC is taking and I do not see how it will be overturned. I do think, however, that this is a potential public relations disaster for TEC in the court of worldwide Anglican opinion.

I am going off topic here, but IMHO, I fail to see how anyone can stay in TEC anymore by saying “well, we are prophetically called to speak out for TEC reform.” Most of the people staying in TEC are far too quiet, especially the clergy. If they truly want to be prophetic, let them act like the prophets of the Old Testament and publicly (like in HOB meetings and diocesan meetings) call down the wrath of God on TEC if they do not repent and turn away from their “new thang” religion. Respectfully working within the system to bring about reform of an apostate and heretical institution has no Biblical basis of which I can think.

[13] Posted by Daniel on 03-16-2008 at 01:41 PM • top

Repeating what I said on another thread on this: Beers is not stupid and this is not a mistake; it is purely a litigational position. It is arguably correct (well he thinks it is and it is obviously debatable). He asserts it and then waits to see what the two bishops involved will do (probably nothing in his estimation). He wins! He strenghtens his client’s perceived position in this matter of getting rid of troubling bishops.
The psychological and symbolic victory is worth this bluff to him. If challanged, they do over, and will get it right the next time.
They have the votes to complete the task, so it is a reasonable bet that the two bishops effected will not challange the actions. TEC has nothing to lose. Someone said on another thread that TEC credibility will be adversly affected; I think not.
EDS

[14] Posted by aacswfl1 on 03-16-2008 at 02:12 PM • top

Interesting thought, aacswfl1. If they get by without a vote by the ‘whole’ house this time, they’ll be able to do it for every subsequent deposition. This would make future depositions far easier. Certainly, ignoring the step of obtaining the consent of the three senior bishops makes it easier to depose. They denied Cox’s right to a speedy trial as well, thus setting a precedent of keeping inhibitions hanging over the head of other bishops due to ‘the press of business.’
I honestly don’t know what has been premeditated and what happened as an oversight. But it seems to me that if these precedents are not remedied, the balance of power within TEC would shift. 815 would gain; the HoB would lose.

[15] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-16-2008 at 05:45 PM • top

Fwiw, the budgeted expenses for the 2007-2009 triennium display $100,000.00 per annum for Title IV investigation and trials (line 12, page 8).

[16] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-16-2008 at 07:11 PM • top

David Ould,
Thank you for printing the actual text of the canon, it is very easy to understand it.

[17] Posted by Betty See on 03-16-2008 at 07:40 PM • top

10, The phrase regarding the whole number of bishops excluding the retired bishops who are not present —seems to explicitly include all bishops who are not retired who are not present. The way the TEC seems to be proposing would be the whole number of bishops excluding all the bishops who are not present. It is clear that the “whole number” is intended to include all (rather than present) voting bishops - otherwise it would not have to be qualified by excluding the retired bishops who are not present.

[18] Posted by BillK on 03-16-2008 at 09:04 PM • top

I am amazed that there are so many threads and discussions on this issue but the true amazement is that there is no resolve. What is being accomplished? It really sounds and seems like a hot air balloon swirling around with nowhere to land. What if anyting will come of this? Will KJS, DBB, and the HoB be brought to account? No! Will anything be done about their blatant mis-use & violations of canons and resolutions? No! Will anyone bring presentment charges upon KJS? No! Would or will anyone bring Bruno, Russell, Andrus, and host of many, many more up on presentment charges for abandonment of the doctrine of TEc in blessings same sex unions, particpating in open communion and a host of other things? NO! So, what are we accomplishing here? Just venting! That’s great but what about the lives and souls that are getting lost when we sit back and let these supposed Christians continue on this path and all the while suing brothers and sister in Christ for property and assets! When do we finally say ENOUGH! And bring them to account for their false teachings, erronous lawsuits, blantant disregard for Scripture and God’s Word, etc…etc…etc…! ???????????

[19] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 10:31 PM • top

Patience, my friend ODC. I have sent out about a gazillion blog posts and emails today to various secular sources. The lovers of darkness will have light shined upon their evil ways.

[20] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 11:06 PM • top

robroy….You’re the best! But it is true! I grow weary in the sitting back and watching these people get away with all the perversing they do! Alas! I’m back to being on my knees…it’s what I do best!

[21] Posted by TLDillon on 03-16-2008 at 11:12 PM • top

Friends, if you’re following this by email update please be aware that I’ve posted an update.

[22] Posted by David Ould on 03-17-2008 at 01:19 AM • top

they don’t really have to win the argument—they simply need to create the illusion there is a legitimate one.

This has been accomplished. Windsor Bishops, what say ye??

If they get by without a vote by the ‘whole’ house this time, they’ll be able to do it for every subsequent deposition. This would make future depositions far easier. Certainly, ignoring the step of obtaining the consent of the three senior bishops makes it easier to depose. They denied Cox’s right to a speedy trial as well, thus setting a precedent of keeping inhibitions hanging over the head of other bishops due to ‘the press of business.’
I honestly don’t know what has been premeditated and what happened as an oversight. But it seems to me that if these precedents are not remedied, the balance of power within TEC would shift. 815 would gain; the HoB would lose.

Another “progressive” accomplishment; at least the perception has been created.

I am amazed that there are so many threads and discussions on this issue but the true amazement is that there is no resolve. What is being accomplished? It really sounds and seems like a hot air balloon swirling around with nowhere to land. What if anyting will come of this? Will KJS, DBB, and the HoB be brought to account? No! Will anything be done about their blatant mis-use & violations of canons and resolutions? No! Will anyone bring presentment charges upon KJS? No! Would or will anyone bring Bruno, Russell, Andrus, and host of many, many more up on presentment charges for abandonment of the doctrine of TEc in blessings same sex unions, particpating in open communion and a host of other things? NO! So, what are we accomplishing here? Just venting! That’s great but what about the lives and souls that are getting lost when we sit back and let these supposed Christians continue on this path and all the while suing brothers and sister in Christ for property and assets! When do we finally say ENOUGH! And bring them to account for their false teachings, erronous lawsuits, blantant disregard for Scripture and God’s Word, etc…etc…etc…! ???????????

Pretty much what I’ve said over here, especially #135. Enough procedural fuss, already; what are we gonna do ‘bout it, y’all? Let’s follow robroy’s lead and get the word out. It’d be good to hear some detailed suggestions on how to best do this. Make StandFirm a rampart at a little stone bridge, so to speak…

[23] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-17-2008 at 03:12 AM • top

Here is another suggestion. Anyone who might have any influence with one of the Windsor Bishops or the Communion Partners (which may amount to the same thing, I’m not sure) should lean on them heavily to make sure this fiasco is not repeated. They are the ones who claim that they can stay in TEC and work to reform it, so this would be a good place to start.

[24] Posted by Ann Castro on 03-17-2008 at 06:48 AM • top

Dean Robert Munday’s “Railroaded!” article on his blog site has an excellent summary of the issues. Much of it is taken from Stand Firm commenters, including Chancellor’s excellent historical analysis of the history of Canon IV.9. This link would be good to send to friends, news sources, Primates, etc to give them a good picture of the mafia-like methods of 815.

The direct link to Munday’s article is: http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2008/03/railroaded.html

Keep shining the bright light on the evildoers and watch them scurry into their holes.

[25] Posted by hanks on 03-17-2008 at 07:09 AM • top

Regarding your update.

The Canons incorporate the latest version of Robert’s Rules. Under Robert’s the default for votes on a main motion is always a majority of those voting. So to state “present and voting” as the canons do is really somewhat superfluous—unless the writers of the canons wanted to be particularly clear when there was a deviation from the norm. And that seems to be why that language is there. So the use of “present and voting” is very powerful evidence that “whole number of bishops eligible to vote” is something quite different. Even without the “present and voting” language (again, which is not necessary), it would be a slam-dunk—because of the plain language of “whole number of bishops eligible to vote,” and the use elsewhere in the canons of that same voting standard, and the history of that provision. But the extra “present and voting” language everywhere else negates the possibility of an argument that it means something else.

Moreover, Canon 3 also contains “unless” language with respect to whether the usual majority of a quorum is competent to do business, acknowledging that exceptions exist in the canons. Here, of course, is an example where the canons provide a clear exception.

[26] Posted by VaAnglican on 03-17-2008 at 07:10 AM • top

I don’t know why a number of people are using the term “supermajority.”

They are using obfuscatory language, that’s why!

[27] Posted by Piedmont on 03-17-2008 at 08:43 AM • top

In a sane world, and if the GCC were an honest organization, the headline story on Episcopal Lie wouldn’t be

“Presiding Bishop preaches in Jerusalem, shares in Palm Sunday celebrations”

but

“Quorumgate scandal deepens, pressure mounts for Schori, Beers to step down”

[28] Posted by Phil on 03-17-2008 at 09:50 AM • top

Please forgive my ignorance but does this mean that if only as few as 4 or 5 Bishops were present and voting they could depose a Bishop?
Isn’t there some method to establish a quorum?

[29] Posted by Betty See on 03-17-2008 at 12:33 PM • top

TEC is broken in every conceivable way. A PB with scruples would recognize that and act immediately to begin the repair process. Is that likely?

[30] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 03-17-2008 at 02:19 PM • top

Prayers for our opponents and for San Joaquin.

[31] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-17-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

Betty See:

I agree. If one does not have a quorum requirement, why doesn’t Bishop Schofield convene a meeting and vote the rest of the bishops out of the HOB? Under this rule, he could (go bishop! go bishop!).

[32] Posted by Eclipse on 03-17-2008 at 04:38 PM • top

#31 Jill - Thanks for call to prayer & upholding the biblical standards.

[33] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 03-17-2008 at 04:48 PM • top

It is important to note that none of the Windsor or reliably ‘orthodox’ members of the H.O.B. present for this vote has spoken publicly against the way the vote and counting of the votes was handled. Same for speaking out against inhibition without consent of the 3 senior bishops (I’d REALLY like to hear from +Wimberly about this - but have since come to expect nothing from him). I’d like to say that these ‘orthodox’ bishops are working behind the scenes for reform and internal discipline but I suspect they’ve simply caved in to peer pressure and are either waiting out retirement or hoping for some sort of Lambeth resolution to bring TEC to heel which of course will never happen. In light of this I would expect a unprecedented increase in bishops’ early resignations after the Lambeth gala is over.

[34] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-19-2008 at 07:58 AM • top

#34, I hope you are wrong. But you have nailed the most likely outcome. It might be interesting to keep a list of post-Lambeth retirements.

I fear His Justice. I pray for His Mercy.

[35] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 03-19-2008 at 08:24 AM • top

I had an experience several years ago as a diocesan delegate with members of the Constitution and Canons Committee in the diocese of Washington that I would like to share. David Beers was a member of that CCC. The CCC recommended deletion of an entire Diocesan Canon pertaining to the Powers of a Vestry in the Goverence of their Parish as an editorial change. When the CCC was challenged on the floor of convention, they claimed it was an editorial change, the diocesan canon was redundant because the rights of a vestry could be found in the National Canons. And that Mr. Hutt could be assured that this was a proper deletion as the CCC members had some 50 years of canon law experience.

My Point being what they will try to do…...........rewrite the canons or even delete them unless someone calls their hand.

By the way, their recommendation to delete the canon was defeated.

[36] Posted by bradhutt on 03-21-2008 at 04:31 PM • top

The TEC knows EXACTLY what they are doing!!! It puts them in the driver’s seat to go forward, even if they knowingly violate the Canons, because then someone has to challenge them, spend time and resources challenging them; meanwhile they finish the deposition and move forward with their twisted lives. Honestly, they are “in charge” - what is anybody really going to do about it? Why isn’t someone deposing the whole lot of these liars and theives? Because there isn’t a good, clear method for doing it - that’s why.

It’s the old “sometimes it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission”...

But it clearly shows how deviod of any integrity these folks really are.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to wash my hands now…feel dirty even talking about them…

[37] Posted by B. Hunter on 03-26-2008 at 03:40 PM • top

That didn’t work!

[38] Posted by Pageantmaster on 03-26-2008 at 03:55 PM • top

[39] Posted by Pageantmaster on 03-26-2008 at 03:56 PM • top

I wish ++s Venables, Akinola, Orombi and co. were able to come to the States and tour around their various parishes. I’d especially love to see ++Venables visit the diocese of SJ (by invitation of +Schofield, of course) for a week or two, visit all his parishes, and do a lot of preaching. Any very wealthy donors around?

Bill

[40] Posted by Bill C on 03-26-2008 at 04:20 PM • top

I can’t understand why most of you don’t understand that TEC will do anything they want, whenever they want, however they want now..it matters not that it is correct

[41] Posted by ewart-touzot on 03-26-2008 at 04:59 PM • top

Yep, and in this case, Schori et al have “laid an egg….a HUGE one,” and it is rotten!

[42] Posted by Cennydd on 03-28-2008 at 11:12 AM • top

A misplaced Easter egg, perhaps!

[43] Posted by monologistos on 03-28-2008 at 11:29 AM • top

A “Goose Egg”.....for all that the term implies.

[44] Posted by Cennydd on 03-28-2008 at 11:42 AM • 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.