This is the same reasoning that Bp Wimberley gave - I find it very weak as the inhibition is about what the bishop has done - lots - according to the Title IV Review Committee findings -- not what the diocese does or does not do.

Inhibition is about what the bishop might do, with the people and property under his oversight, before the House of Bishops gets around to deposing him.

This is like the code of silence the police use when it comes disciplining one of their own or the way physicians were loathe to criticize a fellow physician in years past. I guess it takes a spine to call one of your own club members on their behavior unless it's so egregious that to say nothing is tanamount to being viewed as being on the same side as or in agreement with the other person's bad behavior. What a shame.

--Richard Warner

I agree with Ann, the chain of reasoning here is weak.

With all due respect, it seems to me that Bishops Lee & Wimberley are interpreting "inhibition" the way they'd like it to be defined, rather than the way it is actually written in our Canon Law.

There is ample evidence of abandonment by +Duncan in the Title IV Review Committee findings.

This is how inhibition is defined by Canon IV under the abandon of communion: "During the period of Inhibition, the Bishop shall not perform any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of which the Bishop holds jurisdiction or in which the Bishop is then serving."

Thus inhibition is about what the Bishop might do in the period before the full House of Bishops hears the case for deposing the Bishop.

But it would not prevent administration of temporal affairs of the diocese (property changes? personnel changes including clergy transfers?). Nor would it prevent uncanonical acts (smile). And it does rely upon the Bishop to submit to the inhibition. (It certainly would have been interesting to see the fallout if Duncan had been inhibited and did not submit.)

None of the senior bishops questioned whether there was ample evidence to inhibit. Indeed, the Canon does not say what the basis for consent shall be. It could be that it is essentially what each believes is in the best interest of The Episcopal Church at this time.

Not withstanding lack of inhibition, the Presiding Bishop is taking the findings of the Title IV Committee to the House of Bishops for a decision. What I find notable is that none of the three senior bishops has spoken to that. Do they tacitly agree this is the next step regardless of inhibition?

The complaints were made by clergy and lay people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh who had previously sought relief in civil court. The material they presented had to do with actions of the Pittsburgh diocesan convention and not with any actions Bishop Duncan took in any capacity other than chair of the convention.

I think a case could be made that Bishop Duncan's participation in consecrations of bishops of foreign provinces to serve in the United States was a violation of the canon, but that case was not made.

I am grateful for the procedural protection provided by the requirement for the consent of the three senior bishops, and I think Bishops Lee and Wimberly acted with the grace and wisdom we pray the Holy Spirit will give them.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

It should be carefully noted that there are different legal opinions about the current situation. The canons are altogether unclear about what happens if the three senior bishops of the church DO NOT consent to the inhibition. An obvious conclusion could be that the whole process stops; How can the HOB act on something that hasn't happened? On the other hand, one could argue that the HOB is acting on the judgment of the Review Committee, but that's altogether unclear. Everyone get out your Canons and do some reading: Title 4, Canon 9, Section 1.

--Paul Cooper

Instead of using IV.9 (Abadonment of Communion) - which, by the way, was designed for Bishops who had joined a church outside of TECUSA - why not use IV.5 and show which canons (per IV.1) that +Duncan has violated? I am saddened that +Shori et. al. would not give +Duncan a fair trial and not give him the same chance to respond to the charges as +Righter was given.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder