Total visitors right now: 91

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Dean Robert Munday: Railroaded

Sunday, March 16, 2008 • 5:37 pm


The blogosphere is buzzing with stories and comments indicating that the deposition of the Rt. Rev. John David Schofield and the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox (about whom I wrote in my last post) may have been out of order; that is, it did not actually comply with the requirements of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

I am going to reproduce the most salient comments I have run across because this story needs to be documented as many places as possible. The most thoughtful thread on the subject is the one at Stand Firm entitled, Let’s Get to the Procedural Bottom of This.

Canon IV.9. states that there are requirements that must be met before one even gets to the point of a vote on deposition of a bishop. The first of these requirements is that, a Review Committee of the House of Bishops must conclude that there are grounds for the deposition. Next the Presiding Bishop must get the consent of the three most senior bishops with jurisdiction (i.e., active diocesan bishops). According to a report in 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.”

This, by itself, is sufficient to indicate that the deposition of Bishop Cox is null and void. I do not know whether the consent of the three senior bishops was sought in the case of Bishop Schofield, but this should be investigated.

The question as to whether the vote to depose Bishops Cox and Schofield was legal hinges on Article 1(2) of the Constitution, Canon I.2.4(4), Canon III.12.8(d), and Canon IV.9.

Section 1 of Canon IV.9 states that once the three senior bishops have given consent, the Presiding Bishop shall inhibit the bishop in question “…until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon.” Section 2 contains the requirements for the actual deposition. If the inhibited bishop does not recant, “…it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. 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.”

Section 2 of IV.9 also sets forth what constitutes consent by the House of Bishops. Specifically it declares that the consent must be “…by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.” The question is what this means. Some have suggested that it means simply a majority of bishops at the meeting in question. However, 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.” Article 1(2) of the Constitution specifies what “the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” means


3 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

I love Dean Munday. If you read his blog regularly, one can tell that despite all the troubles and travails, he remains joyful. I think that in my next (third) career, I will attend seminary at Nashotah House. That career, will be very short lived because my wife will then kill me.

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.

[1] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 09:01 PM • top

Hank has suggested that if we are publicizing the shenanigans of Schori/Beers cabal to the pew potatoes that we use Dean Munday’s article because it is a good summary. (And we are publicizing it, yes?) I agree and actually had already posted it on some news blogs.

[2] Posted by robroy on 03-16-2008 at 11:57 PM • top

Robroy, thank you for the kind words.  They served as the inspiration for another post to my blog dealing with (what else?) being joyful!

Robert S. Munday+
To All the World
and Anglican Revivalist

[3] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 03-17-2008 at 02:13 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.