Proper procedures used in depositions
The Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls writes to the House of Bishops that the procedures used for consent to deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church were procedurally correct:
To: House of Bishops
From: Task Force on Property Disputes
Re: Proper Use of Abandonment Procedures for BishopsSubsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal Church and some commentators have suggested that we may have failed to follow our own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law, however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.
This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any additional such actions in the future.
Conclusion The House of Bishops followed the proper canonical procedure for consenting to the depositions of John-David Schofield and William J. Cox from the Ministry of The Episcopal Church as provided in Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) for the following reasons:
A.The intended meaning of Section 2 of Canon IV.9 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2006) is that the consent of a majority of the Bishops voting at a meeting of the House of Bishops constitutes valid consent for the deposition of a Bishop.B. Precedent establishes that the House of Bishops acted appropriately in considering and acting upon the Presiding Bishop’s referral to it of the abandonment of communion certified to her by the Review Committee.
C. Procedural safeguards assure fairness and justice in the case of Bishops accused of having abandoned the Communion of this Church.
The letter is available here in pdf.
We presently enjoy the pleasant opportunity of meeting Bishop Sauls as he is reading for a Law degree here http://www.diolex.org/Documents/Pastoral%20Letter%20060705.htm . Poor thing, I berated him about these unhappy events a few months ago over dinner in the College refectory – complaining that these procedures were anything but clear.
In this paper I think he makes a reasonable fist of some of the arguments. In the first part, while common sense would dictate that the majority required is of those present, the actual wording and history of its development hardly helps at all, even with Bishop Sauls’ commentary. If anything, the several changes just make the matter more obscure – perhaps a reflection of the bishops' discomfort at being on the receiving end of this ultimate sanction?
Precedent is indeed a formidable argument – but IF the process around this action was wrong twice before, it’s wrong now. A flawed process is not justified because it has happened before and been unchallenged – not even if those now at the sharp end were party to, consented to or did not object to the previous flawed processes.
The third part of bishop Sauls’ paper is perfectly reasonable, but if an accused thinks of a good argument to defend him self after conviction, or his lawyers think of a wheeze to bring the whole prosecutory process into doubt or disrepute – then our Christian charity must allow what a strict reading of the law might not. These depositions should be set aside and the process entered into again – the outcome will certainly be the same, but the process needs to be seen to be absolutely fair, open and just.
Indeed I think there might be some advantage to all if these depositions – and the evidence leading up to them – had a deeper and even more detailed airing.
Posted by Martin Reynolds![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 29, 2008 6:06 AM