Amen and amen!
(IMO, Conger was missing the forest, while bean-counting the trees)
Guys, this is completely OT, but I really need your prayers.
I can't believe how ignorant and basically stupid I am. My brother is kind enough to let me use his jeep on the weekends, so that I can grocery shop, etc. Tonight, pulling out of the driveway, I felt a bump. I went on to work, thinking to call my brother, and I found I had hit my nephew's car. His first new car of his very own. My brother is furious, but refused to call the police, as I would've been leaving the scene of an accident. I honestly had no intention of such, but went to call my brother. If the bumper can't be repaired, I don't know how to pay for it.
I can lose my church, and certainly my life, but not my family, and, I believe, I may have. They don't forgive or forget, and, worst of all, I don't know how to make amends.
I haven't been either so close to drinking or to suicide in two years. Please pray for me. Please. Please.
First you should calm down.
These kind of things have a way of working themselves out.
Edited By Siteowner
Oh Mark I am so very sorry to hear of your troubles... prayers coming your way.
I know it is stressful, but it works out somehow... always does.
---------
As for knee jerk reactions, I try real hard not to do that and frankly think this is a bunch of hoohaw.
He's deposed. I hope they can adjust. They must not be taking this so lightly after all... eh?
Thanks, Jake for all that research. I must go get a ream of cheap paper and print out the C&Cs - oh, probably an inkjet cartridge, too.
----------
I'll contribute my usual to move things along:
Gerald Hirigoyen's Rack of Lamb
Two 7- or 8-bone racks of lamb
5 to 6 sprigs of fresh rosemary
8 cloves of garlic, halved or whole
1/4 cup olive oil for marinade
1 - 2 tablespoons of olive oil
Salt
Freshly ground pepper
Removing Excess Fat: Using a sharp, boning knife, first remove the sinew. Then turn the rack fat side up and remove the fat on top. Then make a slice across the middle and scrape or cut off the fat. Leave on a little fat; otherwise the meat will become too dry during cooking.
Frenching the Rack:(remove excess fat from the bones and to clean them up before cooking.) Turn the rack fat-side down; make a long, horizontal cut about halfway down the bones; then cut between the bones, removing the fat halfway down. Then scrape both sides of the bones with the knife to clean them.
Marinating: Place the racks in a shallow pan (set them with the bones overlapping in the middle). Cover with the garlic, rosemary and olive oil. Cover with plastic wrap and let sit 2 hours or overnight in the refrigerator.
Searing: Preheat the oven to 450 degrees. Season the racks with salt and freshly ground pepper. Heat a small amount of olive oil in a large roasting pan and place the racks in the pan (with the bones pointing outward). Sear until brown on both sides, about 2 to 3 minutes for each side.
Roasting Add the garlic, rosemary and olive oil from the marinade and place the racks in the oven for 20 minutes, or until golden brown. Let the racks rest a little while before serving to let the juices redistribute. Note: when you remove the lamb from the oven, the internal temperature should be just about 130 degrees F. (Use an instant read thermometer)
There's even a video! http://www.cooking.com/technique...dtech.asp?
id=33
Anyone who frequented Fringale in San Francisco while still owned by Chef Hirigoyen - you know why I love this recipe!
No.
They've given me so much, and now, I've done this. I'm sorry. You're right. My problems are nothing. Forget it.
I'll do what I've got to do.
Mark,
You're in my prayers.
Don't define yourself by one accident. Try God's definition; you are the Beloved of God.
Just promise you won't drink tonight. Things might seem different in the light of day.
Then tomorrow, get an estimate on fixing the bumper. We'll figure something out.
haven't been either so close to drinking or to suicide in two years. Please pray for me. Please. Please.
Mark I | Homepage | 03.15.08 - 12:51 am
Mark, suicide, don't even think that. It isn't necessary for a lot of reasons.
Drinking - well, a drink isn't going to help. It won't deaden anything, make you happier, change the course of events. Nothing.is.worth.the.risk.
Your brother is angry, and that happens, but those things don't last forever. He is allowed to be a little angry, at it is at the situation, not so much you. I'm sure he's had an accident before. He lets you use the jeep because he knows you are responsible.
Now - be sure to discuss this with your brother calmly tomorrow. Let him know you are sorry, but don't make the "forgiveness" be the issue. Promise. And ask him how you can repay him in non-financial terms for repairs - helping around the house, etc. There may be things they would hire someone to do, that you can do with sweat equity.
Don't go buy the booze. If there's some in the house, and you can't flush it away because it is not yours, ask that it be put in a safe place.
But you won't need too much help, get your mind with all the good things about not drinking. I'm NOT a Pollyanna. I'm a stubborn teetotaler.
Repeat after me - how's a drink gonna help this?
Then say - sh*t happens, sometimes all at once, and this will work out.
Repeat both again until you believe it. I'm not checking for typos, so take this as it is.
God's estimation is trash! I'm trash! Look what I've done to a nephew whose been there at every turn!
What am I? What good am I? Nothing.
And Mark - a wallop of prayers coming your way.
Close your eyes, sit still. Did you feel a hand on your shoulder? He is thee with you.
Mark when did you quit?
And Mark - if you want to take this over to the chat area, I can try help you out of the drink part. And a bit of the mental cul-de-sac. If you are serious about suicide, if it's a part of your nature, I'm out of my league and I want you to call your local hot line.
Mark,
I'll probably remove this in a few minutes, but I want you to see it first...
Note: so others aren't confused, what followed were some personal details intended for Mark, but not the general public, so they have been removed; thus the support being offered by other commenters....thanks for that support, btw!
J.
Mark,
Accidents are called accidents for a reason. None of us plans an accident. Even when we contribute toward their happening, that is not what we intend. Accidents happen to all of us. Some are trivial and some are huge.
You did not set out to do harm. Vehicles are not persons. A damaged vehicle is not the end of the world.
You are a beloved child of God--that is your deepest reality, whether you feel it or not (and I am sure you are not feeling it right now, but trust us).
I will go to bed holding you in prayer tonight.
And you too, Jake.
Love and prayers to both of you, and to all who are hurting tonight, or frightened, or yearning to be numb.
Grace to you and peace.
Mark -
....
Jake can probably help you more, but I'm telling you this so you know it's not b.s. from me. Guys just somehow do better with guys sometimes, the wiring and all - so you tell me to scat and I won't be offended. You too, Jake. Results are what matters.
Edited By Siteowner...at commenter's request
I'm at work, so the drinking isn't likely. But, I find myself so obsessed with the idea that, if I were my family, I'd way rather have the money for my house and belongings than me.
I stopped - even the two years was a lie! God! - in October of 2006 - I got out of hospital on October 5. Given what my body had become, drinking was suicide, really. With the way my body is reacting, my stress my anxiety, my heart may save me the trouble.
Suicide - we look down on it, but for some of us, it would be the one brave, definite, useful thing we've ever done.
And now I've made everything about me. Why? I'm nothing.
Mark, prayers. Earnest prayers.
Jake, my deepest sympathies. And prayers for you too.
As much as suicide feels like the useful thing to do, it is not, especially for those left behind.
I know all too well the feelings of worthlessness that lead one to contemplate suicide, because I struggle with those thoughts everyday of my life.
Please Mark, don't try it.
If not for yourself, do it for those who will have to deal with it for the rest of their lives.
Because it can traumatize those left behind.
Jake - you will be in my prayers as well. I have received confirmation that He is with all of us tonight. Oh, maybe more than just tonight, but I didn't ask about tomorrow. Not worried about that, though.
I'm something of a lurker, but I feel I have something to share:
"Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices." (Luke 15:4-5)
Mark, you asked "What am I?" You're of infinite worth to God, just like the sheep in Christ's parable from Luke. Ever the good shepherd, God is searching for you.
"And out of darkness came the hands / That reach thro' nature, moulding men." (Tennyson)
Jake: My sympathies at this trying time.
I'll be praying for you both.
Blessings, peace, and all good –
:-)
Mark,
Pick up your telephone book, look under suicide hotline, pick up the phone and dial that number. Do not let another moment pass. Let the prayers that are being offered for you this very momnet carry you to the phone and dial the number. Wait, your voice will be found when the perosn on the other side answers. Please call now!
Why? What answers will they have? They'd just tell me all the stuff I've heard before.
But, in the end, I'm an abortion that should've been. Even the Good Shepherd knows when to write off a bad sheep.
Mark,
Let's do this one step at a time. Please pick up the phone and call. Talk with them. You have everyone praying for you but you have to pick up the phone and call. Why will be answered later, now just dial.
Mark:
Call a hotline. Do it now. Keep the computer on if you want, and keep checking the messages here, but reach out for a better lifeline.
1-800-273-TALK
Do it now.
Mark - I'm putting you into the loving care of the West Coast crowd. But you will be in my prayers. And you too, Jake, and thanks.
Mark, prayers coming from El Camino Real. Hang in there my brother.
Jake - don't know what's up with you, but prayers for you, too.
about the "Take a pill" article, you've done a really good job putting things in perspective. i can't belive how everyone went nuts over this non-issue.
Finally, God bless us all.
Jake et al., You are mistaken. The phrase "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" goes back to 1904. Before that, as adopted at the GC of 1874, the phrase was even more explicit: "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled at the time to seats in the House of Bishops . . ." The words "the whole number of Bishops" thus long predates the language that you are basing your position on, and has a meaning established well before the phrase "all the members" was introduced in connection with the Review Committee by amendments to the canons after 1981.
The deposition of a bishop of the Church has been regarded as such a serious matter that it has always required a majority of the full House of Bishops ever since the first version of Canon IV.9 was adopted in 1854. You (and the current TEC leadership, should they try to insist that they acted lawfully) will succeed only in proving how meaningless the canons are under the current agenda if you (and they) continue to claim that the depositions of +Schofield and +Cox were valid based on the numbers that actually voted.
Prayers all around...particularly Mark and Jake...
Guide us waking, O Lord, and guard us sleeping; that awake
we may watch with Christ, and asleep we may rest in peace...
"The whole number of bishops entitled to a vote," with the addition of "at that time to seats" or any other such language, still doesn't change that it obviously is referring to those present at the meeting, as is clear from the sentence that precedes that statement.
"The whole number" would include all bishops at the meeting, active and retired, and clarifies that the separation of the two, as is allowed in the calling of a quorum, is not appropriate in a matter as important as deposing one of their members.
As always Jake, THANK YOU. And prayers all around for those who requested them.
This is what I like about the Episcopal Church. No matter what, we will cope, we have the ability to laugh at ourselves, we will do whatever it takes to make things right, and we can sing any words to any tune. (lol) And just FWIW if in any circumstance our PB ends up with egg on her face, I am ready to squash an egg on my own face in sympathy and solidarity with her.
Peace, love and blessing to all as we start Holy Week.
To Mark: If I am hearing what I think I am hearing, the answer is very simple: go to a meeting, don't drink and talk to your sponsor. Problems have a way of working out if we don't do things to make them worse. I know the truth of these words.
Mark: all will be well, and all shall be well, and all will be well. You are loved unconditionally; God made you by loving you into being.
Your brother and your nephew will forgive you; a bumper can be replaced, but you cannot!
Now that it's morning, you and your family will be able to calmly assess what needs to be done and work out a solution. It was night, and you didn't realize. Your brother didn't call the police, OF COURSE, because he loves you, although understandably he's not happy, perhaps thinking about even higher insurance premiums for your nephew.
Is it better today? I hope so. Prayers will go up for you.
They are desperate. The owner of T1.9 just checked into the HOBD list saying that of course the system is defensive and is justifying its action with no words. Er, ah, just who is being defensive right now? Who is stirring up the waters?
+
Mark, prayers for you in the morning. I don't have good words, just prayers for you coming from the Green Mountains of Vermont.
thank you for that up-date. Now perhaps those who regocinze illegal activities by bishops will have a cup of tea and calm down.
Jake and Mark - I'm off to make a holy hour for you two. You'll both be in my heart during my little Tęte ŕ Tęte with Jesus.
I am afraid (though I would rather not) that I agree with those who think this was not in order.
The expression "majority of those entitled to vote" (or similar expressions) is used in various places in the Constitution and Canons. It seems fairly clear, if you look at all those places, that it is intended to ensure an "absolute" majority, and not merely a majority of those present:
(A) It is used in defining the quorum, where it MUST mean a majority of those who could be present, whether or not they are.
(B) It is used in Article X of the constitution, where it seems very likely that it signifies an absolute majority (partly because of the subject-matter, partly because of the way the HOD votes are dealt with there).
In other provisions, there is reference to a "majority of those voting" or to a "majority of those present", or to variations on these themes. The most pertinent instance is Canon III.12.8 (d) (resignation of a bishop). In other cases the instruments simply talk of a "majority vote", which would probably be construed simply as a majority of those present and voting.
So one puts the following data together:
(1) As a matter of "plain meaning", "majority of those ENTITLED to vote" means a majority of those who could, if they chose to do so, attend and vote, not of those present--though the expression is not wholly without ambiguity.
(2) That meaning is, if anything, somewhat strengthened by the adjective "whole".
(3) In the other places in the Constitution and Canons where the same expression is used, it is either absolutely clear or very strongly likely that the expression means "all the bishops who could vote", whether present or not.
(4) The expression "majority of those present" stands readily to hand if that is what one means to say, and is used elsewhere in the constitution and canons where that is what is meant.
(5) There are good reasons why a special majority might be required.
Put together, I would regard (with enormous regret, in this case) those arguments as highly persuasive. Sorry.
If the one line is taken out of context, perhaps. But the progression of events is rather clear. The PB presents the matter at a meeting. What follows seems to clearly be referring to what occurs at the meeting. All bishops present ("the whole"), regardless of their qualifications in other matters, will vote. If there is a majority, the bishop is deposed.
This appears to be the way Chancellor Beers is reading it. By the sentence that precedes the reference to "the whole," it is implied that it is referring to what occurs at the meeting.
There are always judgement calls to be made. We all know all the volumes of laws in the books that continuously bring about arguments by lawyers and experts about what is right and what is fair.
Statments were made by the chancelor to the Presiding Bishop about their understanding of the law and the actions taken. I believe the actions were taken in good faith. I still believe we need more information about precedence. Other bishops have been deposed. Were there 300 bishops at the meeting when it happened? It is likely that the attendance of bishops at their meeting was as it usually is, given the fact that so many of the total number of bishops are retired, or are currently inactve.
Does anyone not see what Schofield has done? He has decimated a diocese.
It's time to rebuild.
The secretary of the HOB, Bishop Suffragen of Ohio (I am blanking on his name right now, Kenneth Price?...) also signed off on there being a quorum. And, as Walter Righter has observed, the same lot that are protesting in this situation did not protest when write-in votes were accepted to proceed with a heresy trial against him in 1995.
Basta. Time to get on with Holy Week preps.
Y'all in DSJ are in my prayers this week... that you might walk the way of the cross in a redemptive rather than destructive way (i.e., reach into the mystery of it rather than be subjected to the machinations of people).
OK it's Saturday morning.
Bugger the HOB. They can take care of themselves.
What's up with Mark today? Is he ok? Has anyone heard anything from him?
I got into a fender-bender last week with my own new car (well, I bought it new in 2005) and I can be very good at punishing myself when I mess up. No one was hurt, and my car sustained the most damage (a big honkin' pickup hit me and only one tiny bit of plastic fell off his truck, which was repaired on the spot).
So, um, I hope he's ok. I know what it's like to castigate oneself very harshly, sometimes just for breathing. Been there, done that.
Yes I'm a crazy Heathen but my heart goes out to him. I don't think prayer is ever wasted, no matter who it comes from...
I'm back from my holy hour. As I was kneeling there in the church, pondering things, a quesion came to me:
Do we know how many bishops with jurisdiction attended this meeting? And, if not, why?
They had months to clear their schedul for this historic meeting.
It was a HOLY WEEK healing last night at Holy Family in Fresno. We had the opportunity to meet with a panel of representatives, had all of our questions answered, prayed and went home to a restful sleep.
This morning, things keep popping in my mind from the event. The one glaring statement that signals the largest breath of fresh air is the attitude of our Bishop Nominee Jerry Lamb. More than once he encouraged those in attendance to ask any question of a Bishop they may have always wanted to ask. What a departure from the past.
We in the Dio SJ may now be vacant of a Bishop but if you ask me we have been vacant of the Episcopal Church for 20 long years.
just wondering | 03.15.08 - 12:06 pm |
I hope you feel better. The Lords blessings upon you. Happy Easter and soon we will be chanting “Christ has risen, indeed he has risen”. I hope this chant will bring you great joy and peace, in this short life we have here on earth. Please lets not waste it picking on each other.
Dusty, will you post a more "detailed" report?
As forthe breaking wind in the room, it's amazing that they focus on "that poor 80 year old man eing persicuted" while they laud the theft of funds from other 80 year olds by their patron saint of fraud.
It's only mid morning here in California, but the need for recipts is already appearing.
Mark, I'm praying for you, friend. You are loved and valued by God.
I have never liked eggplant but while recovering recently, my one remaining neighbour brouht me Eggplant Parmesan. I loved it.
The trick to Eggplant Parmesan is to drain the eggplant slices of excess moisture first.
2 lbs (about 2 large) eggplants
Kosher salt
1 28-oz can whole peeled tomatoes
1 clove garlic, peeled and minced
Olive oil
Freshly ground black pepper
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 cup fine dry breadcrumbs
4 large eggs, beaten
1 1/2 lbs of fresh mozzarella cheese, sliced into 1/4 inch rounds
1 cup grated high quality Parmesan cheese
1 packed cup fresh basil leaves
1 Cut eggplants lengthwise into 1/4 inch slices. Arrange one layer in the bottom of a large colander and sprinkle evenly and generously with salt. Repeat with remaining eggplant, salting, until all eggplant is in the colander. Weigh down the slices with a couple of plates and let drain for 2 hours. The purpose of this step is to have the eggplant release some of its moisture before cooking.
2 While the eggplant is draining, prepare tomato sauce. Combine tomatoes, garlic and 1/3 cup olive oil in a food processor. Season with salt and pepper to tasted and set aside.
3 When eggplant has drained, press down on it to remove excess water, and lay the slices out on paper towels to remove all the moisture. In a wide, shallow bowl, combine flour and breadcrumbs. Mix well. Pour beaten eggs into another wide shallow bowl. Place a large, deep skillet over medium heat, and pour in a a half inch of olive oil. When oil is shimmering, dredge the eggplant slices first in the flour mixture, then in the beaten egg. Working in batches, slide coated eggplant into hot oil and fry until golden brown on both sides, turning once. Drain on paper towels.
4 Preheat the oven to 350°F. In the bottom of a 10x15 inch glass baking dish, spread 1 cup of tomato sauce. Top with one third of the eggplant slices. Top eggplant with half of the mozzarella slices. Sprinkle with one third of the Parmesan and half of the basil leaves.
5 Make a second layer of eggplant slices, topped by 1 cup of sauce, remaining mozzarella, half the remaining Parmesan, and all of the remaining basil. Add remaining eggplant, and top with the remaining tomato sauce and Parmesan.
6 Bake until cheese has melted and the top is slightly brown, about 30 minutes. Allow to rest at room temperature for about 10 minutes before serving.
Serves 8.
James 1 | 03.15.08 - 12:15 pm |
Your message is unclear to me. Please clarify.
Sorry, Dusty, I'm really good at being unclear!
I wondered what type of questions were asked, if any from parishes who "left" attended or was it only those faithful parishes/missions that participated.
James 1 | 03.15.08 - 12:36 pm |
YES! There were people from parishes that said they were leaving. The largest contingent was from St. Paul’s Visalia. Several of their 100 that will remain were in attendance.
All of their questions were answered fully. Since we are traveling in somewhat uncharted waters, some questions could not be answered definitively. Further, I don’t think it is proper to answer questions about some of the more sensitive legal questions in a public form. Further if I tried, I’d probably start a horrible rumor because I didn’t explain it correctly.
The one clear message from the evening is we in TEC have been and will always be all about healing. Everyone (those leaving or not) will be welcome at the convention later this month in Lodi.
James 1 | 03.15.08 - 12:36 pm |
BTW where are you in Central California?
Thanks for that report, Dusty. It's wonerful that there were people from parishes whose ongregations "walked." I understand not wanting to post the questions/answers and I know all too well how rumours can start and grow!
It will be a wonderful day when the majority of those who walked come home.
I'm near Paso Robles an the Central COAST of California. We are about 20 miles north of San Luis Obispo.
By the way, it never occured to me that there would be 'legal' questions asked! I would have been asking more important questions like "we aren't going to be using loaf bread for Communion, are we?" LOL
Fr. Jake - heh, it's up to you whether you want to take it seriously, but any first year law student would agree with those who are raising serious issues about this.
And its not a conservative vs. liberal issue. Actually, this result is probably the best possible result for Schofield. At some point, KJS will need to sue JDS, and she will need to argue that he was deposed. Except that he wasn't - not canonically anyway. And, believe me, no court will accept Fr. Jake's rationale here.
Lets assume A and B have a made a contract. A ignores the contract and engages in a pattern of repeated violation. B then breaks the contract, and is sued by A. The court will look to A's repeated violations and hold that A has no standing to sue B.
Same thing here. It is very much in the interest of the liberals that things be done canonically and in order.
I know that KJS could very easily get another abandonment charge against JDS. And she could easily get the inhibition and could easily ensure that the canonical number of bishops would be present at the next HOB meeting.
But if y'all want to ignore this, go ahead. But when you lose in court in California on this issue, you will have nobody to blame but yourself. (and if that happens Fr. Jake, will you be sure to post this comment as a lead story on your blog???)
JamesW -- you'll supply us with the names of say 10 1st year law students who back you up on your statement?
To add to Dusty's comments (I was there as well) the info that encouraged me the most is that ALL congregations in this Diocese have been notified/invited into this process of rebuilding; those whose clergy believe they have "left" for the Southern Cone as well as remaining, re-organizing and new mission parishes.
The one thing that JDS has been quite good at (as everyone here knows) is division and isolation. One of the first acts of undoing this isolation has taken place this week. Notices about convention were sent to all clergy at their home addresses, all congregations at the church address, and this months edition of Episcopal Life with the special wrap around page about convention has been sent to EVERY household on every mailling list of every congregation. For the first time in decades, simple and reliable information has been sent to every person who claims to be part of the Diocese of San Joaquin (whichever version they claim).
Several folks voiced concern about friends who attend St. XXX who don't really know what's really going on, but have gone along with their priest because they haven't had good info, or whatever reason. Well, here's the chance to begin asking our friends in these congregations to take a look at what the rest of TEC is about.
I've only lived in this Dio for 3 years. One of the things that has saddened me in the course of being a member of two different congregations (as I figured out where I was going to settle down), is that folks here have been cut off from the richness of life that comes from being in fellowship with the rest of TEC. I am thankful that the blessings I have received from the various people, congregations, programs, missions, outreach etc. of TEC is finally being experienced by folks here.
We here are all very thirsty for the love manifest in the WHOLE Body of Christ.
OK, Jake. I think I'm ready to move on...Thanks.
Mark I - Hugs and more hugs - God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change......
While the poor aged Conehead suffers from the abusive liberal conspiracy that is leading TEC to Hell and ruin; he is hiding the church's gold under is cape and festive holiday head gear while walking to South Ameica.
From Rocky Horror Picture Show:
"But, I see blue skies through my tears, I'm going home..." sang The Conehead on his journey south of the border.
The poor Conehead isn't at all happy about the un-biblical lawsuits that will come about as a result of his actions. However, he has no problems having his allies set the stage for the court cases ahead of him.
Coming soon to a court in California:
"Your Honor, he isn't deposed because the Canon Law for TEC clearly says......"
I fell for the initial story, thanks Jake for the clarity.
If a vestry requires a unanimous vote for something and, say, two vestry members are absent, would someone argue that the vote taken was void? Doubtful. I may be simplifying a bit here, but I don't think this is as cut-and-dry as some naysayers are claiming.
One, most eighth graders wouldn't have a clue what any of the language from the canons means. Two, I'm with James 1... show me ten first year law students who would argue that point. Also, I agree with Beryl...precedent will speak volumes.
I'm not trying to delude myself here. It just seems that the realistic thing is more in line with Jake's explanation here.
Now...I hope Mark will check in soon. My prayers are with you, Mark. I can't add much to what has already been said so eloquently above. Read through those comments again. You are a child of God and He loves you. Peace be with you.
I cannot fathom the +KJS was acting scurrilously. That's a shameful thing to say.
It is possible, however, that they weren't being as canonically careful as they might have been. Canon lawyers for the Southern Cone, it seems to me, haven't been too careful of late either.
Ah, Just Wondering, you certainly prove the bible is correct particularly the bookof Proverbs which says....
"the fool runs up and down the street advertising his/her ignroance."
just wondering--There are some websites (which will remain unnamed) whose message of the day is "Crucify Them." I think you would be happier posting with them. They would probably relish your company. As for me, Happy in TEC for many years and marching into Holy Week with awe, wonder and great thanksgiving for God's love.
Just Wandering,
If you have all the answers why bother discussing with "no nothings" that have lost our way. While your profound sense of certianty is laudable your constant badgering is growing tiresome.
As Bonnie has indicated, perhaps you can find another group blog that is more in keeping with your "train" of thought.
OCICBW
(((Mark)))
Prayers for you. Surrender all to Christ, Our Infinitely-Loving Higher Power.
*****
Sometimes, it's really difficult to ready the cries of someone like this, in such pain---but I'm grateful, Jake, that your site is here at such times.
I wish EVERYBODY posting here, kept in sight the Big Picture: Love God, Love our neighbors as ourselves [Whereas the minutiae of canon law will all come out in the wash]
The woman, and her dying church, are a pile of crap.
You can cut the bitterness with a knife. I will pray for you. It sounds like you have some issues to work through.
If the gossip is true and there will be another HoB meeting in May to depose +Duncan, I hope 815 makes sure there are enough people in attendance to depose him properly and, if necessary, redepose the others.
I have no sympathy. These men know the rules and what happens if they violate them. If they have family problems, they get prayers but still no sympathy. The illness they have bestowed on TEC because of their lack of compassion for others is forgivable but they still must bear the consequences of their actions.
James1 and James W.,
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
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
I am quite sure you are mistaken, John 1. That is not theobvious reading of that canon, regardless of the precedent. So they got it wrong in the past...is that a surprise?
But let's just say for the sake of argument that there was something wrong. The time to bring that up was before, not after. The vote has been taken, the depositions have been issued, its a done deal. If you disagree, take it to court. Otherwise, learn to live with it.
I certainly hope they don't have a "do over." That would justify all the hysteria over nothing, which would assure it'll happen again.
One down, two to go. I understand Bp. Duncan is up next, with Bp. Iker to follow?
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 ...
Jake,
I am a lawyer who has served on a diocesan Committee on Constitution and Canons, and I agree with your interpretation of Canon IV.9.2.
When the General Convention wanted to make it clear that a vote of ALL of the Bishops in TEC was required, it knew how to do so. For example [EMPHASIS ADDED IN EACH EXAMPLE]:
"a majority of ALL Bishops entitled to vote, exlusive of Bishops who have resigned" (Art.I.2.);
"a majority of ALL Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present" (Art.I.3.);
"two-thirds of THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS" (Art.I.3.);
"a majority of THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH exercising jurisdiction" (Art.II.2.);
"a majority of THE BISHOPS OF THIS CHURCH entitled to vote in the House of Bishops" (Art.III);
"a majority of ALL Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS" (Art.X);
"a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS" (Art.X);
"a majority of ALL Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote in THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS" (Art.XII);
"every Bishop OF THIS CHURCH excercising jurisdiction" (Canon III.11.4.(a).);
"every Bishop OF THIS CHURCH having jurisdiction" (Canon III.11.10.(c).(6).);
"every Bishop OF THIS CHURCH exercising jurisdiction" (Canon III.8.(a).); and
"every Bishop OF THIS CHURCH" (Canon III.8.(d). and (e).).
The common thread here is reference to "all" Bishops, Bishops in "the House of Bishops," or Bishops "of this Church."
There is no such reference in Canon IV.9.2. That canon says, "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote...." It is a much more limited reference, and quite logically and reasonably means, the Bishops at the meeting specified in the prior sentence. It would have been very easy, and quite consistent with the language used in other provisions of the Constitution and Canons, to say "a majority of all Bishops in this Church," or "a majority of all Bishops entitled to vote in the House of Bishops." But, the canon doesn't say that.
Indeed, Canon IV.9.2. was specifically amended to eliminate a prior reference to a majority of the whole number of Bishops ENTITLED TO A SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS at the time the deposition was to be voted on. Obviously, that WOULD have required a majority vote of all TEC Bishops. But the canon no longer reads that way, and the General Convention must have meant SOMETHING in enacting the change.
What DOES "whole number" mean, then?
Canon V.3.1 says, EXCEPT WHERE THE CONSTITUION OR CANONS PROVIDE TO THE CONTRARY, a quorum of any body (i.e., the House of Bishops) is a majority of its members, and that "a majority of the QUORUM [emphasis added] so convened shall be competent to act."
Article I.2 of the Constitution provides that a quorum of the House of Bishop is a majority of its members, EXCLUDING resigned Bishops.
That would mean that, unless Canon IV.9.2 provided otherwise, a majority of a QUORUM in the House of Bishops (which would exclude resigned Bishops) could vote to depose. But Canon IV.9.2. DOES provide otherwise. It provides that the vote of a majority of the WHOLE NUMBER of Bishops entitled to vote, (which INCLUDES resigned Bishops), rather than a majority of a QUORUM (which EXCLUDES resigned Bishops), is necessary to depose.
The General Convention wanted to require a higher number of votes to depose a Bishop, so it included resigned Bishops in the equation. That's what "whole number" means.
It clearly DOESN'T mean a majority of all of the Bishops in TEC. If it did, it would have said so.
We can all argue this here, and to what avail? We are not the ones who will make final decisions on these issues and I thank God for that.
I know what I have lived with in the Diocese of San Joaquin. I lived with many years of animosity, disrespect, and disregard heaped on the Episcopal Church. I watched while churches were closed and while the feelings of people who had worshipped there were disregarded. And yes, Just Wondering, many elderly people were hurt by what was done, including my own elderly parents who can't just drive down the road in any direction looking for an "Episcopal" church. No pastoral care was provided when these churches were closed. No one sat down with them, discussed their options, acted like they were of any importance. Also, many, way too many churches in this diocese have become divided over Schofield's choice to leave the Episcopal Church and take the diocese and all the churches with him. I know all the bitter details about the reasons for his choice, and I have a mind, too, and I do not agree with him. The Episcopal Church, of all churches, allows different views, has many different voices.
Actions have been taken that allow us to move toward the restoration of our Episcopal Church is this diocese. There are more reasonable people than unreasonable people out there in this world. I intend to get on with the work in faith and hope.
Paul Stanley: I'll bow to your knowledge of the law, but not to your present reasoning. The canons state that the vote is to be taken at a meeting, and it makes no provision for voting in absentia or by proxy. Those who are not there are not "eligible to vote." All of them were invited, but many elected to remain away, in the full knowledge that these depositions were to be considered. Perhaps the canons should be revised to compel attendance ???
I hope Robert's interpretation is correct; he certainly has documented his case well. Prior to reading his note, I was feeling sick about the whole mess, because - as liberal as I am - 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.
I think Just Wondering's problem is primarily with grammar: an inability to distinguish between "mine" and "thine." It is, of course, possible that the translation he/she is using has Jesus saying, "Take up thy church and walk." That seems to be the motto over at Stuck Fast.
What I'm not understanding is, since the "other side" has said all along that the deposition was meaningless and changed nothing, why are they up in arms and screaming their lungs out that "this was not done according to the canons"? And, why did the canons not matter when their bishops were/are violating them?
I think they just have to have SOMETHING to kvetch and moan about all the time. how unhappy they must be.
No, James1, they are happy when they are kvetching and moaning so they kvetch and moan about everything.
Good point James I. And totally OT, I did get "I Remember Mama" in my Christmas stocking. Not to the point where I need a really, really good laugh yet. So it is still on hold.
Robert,
I'm not sure that gathering together all the uses of the word "majority" helps a lot. I tried it this morning, using an electronic search of the canons, and got nowhere very useful. Many of the examples don't relate to the HOB at all, and many don't relate to decisions to be taken at meetings, but to those taken between meetings.
The other trouble is that the canons and constitution are so badly drafted, and have grown up so piecemeal, that there are numerous instances of inconsistent terminology.
It's certainly the case that there is one form of words "majority of ALL BISHOPS" which clearly would resolve the question and is used elsewhere (but might have raised other questions). It is also, however, the case that there is another form of words "majority of those present" which would equally resolve the case clearly the other. It might just as well be said "if the drafters wanted to make it clear that it meant only a majority of those present, then they equally had a form of words close to hand that would achieve that."
Instead they chose words which are somewhat ambiguous. FWIW of your collection the only formula which seems to come close to the one used in the canon we are interested in is the one in Article 1.2 of the constitution, which is dealing with quorum and certainly doesn't mean "present", and the one in Article X, which you seem to accept has the effect of requiring an absolute majority and which seems to my eye to be nearly identical.
There is certainly no other case where anything like the "majority of the whole number ... entitled to vote" is used in a context which shows that it is intended to be equivalent to "majority of those present". There's not much point in adding any reference to entitlement to vote if that is what is needed, since it rather goes without saying that the votes of anyone who is not entitled to vote are to be disregarded.
I find it hard to make "the whole number of bishops entitled to vote" mean "the bishops present".
Another way of testing it. Supposing you were setting out to draft a rule which was intended to require a majority of all the bishops who were entitled to vote in the HOB, whether or not they actually attended or voted. Wouldn't the form of words "majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote" rather neatly fit the bill? Conversely, if you wanted to draft a provision which worked for a majority of those bishops present, wouldn't that be a very odd choice of words indeed?
Wolfstan, granted the vote has to be at a meeting. But it's quite clear (not least from Article 1.2 and Article X of the constitution) that in the Constitution and Canons it is used to mean a person who is "entitled to vote" whether or not they are present at the meeting. You don't lose your "entitlement" (which is a sort of status thing) by not putting yourself in the place where you could exercise it. Bishop Duncan, for example, did not attend the HOB meeting, as I understand it. But if one asked "Was Bishop Duncan entitled to vote at the HOB" the answer was (and there is really no doubt about this) that he was. To exercise that entitlement he had to take the trouble to attend. But he had the "right" or "entitlement" to vote, if he chose to exercise it.
If someone said "Bishop Pointyhat was not entitled to vote at the HOB meeting, because he was in hospital at the time" the right answer would be quite obvious: he did not lose his entitlement to vote because he was in hospital, just the practical ability to exercise it.
The clearest example of this is the quorum provision (Article 1, sec 2.) It talks about those "entitled to vote". It can't mean to exclude absentees, or by definition there would always be a quorum, because (by definition) 100% of those "entitled to vote" would be there. That would be absurd, and shows that "entitled to vote" does not mean to cover only those present.
"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.
You are spot on. I, too, am distressed that not several experts in canon law were consulted about the majority required to depose two renegade bishops before the HoB's vote was taken.
When the reaction from Lambeth Palace left open the possibility of ex-Bishop Schofield attending this year's Lambeth Conference, I thought that +Rowan Cantuar was wacko and playing politics, once again pandering to the GS bishops and throwing TEC under the bus. But he may have been more astute, having listened to canon law experts familiar with TEC's C&C.
815 needs to dot its "i"s and cross its "t's to retain its global respectability and not undermine people's trust further and needlessly.
Mark, my favorite icon is the Good Shepherd. Many times I have been grateful for being rescued by the Good Shepherd after falling into whatever hole or filth. Please let us know that you are OK. Thank you for reaching out to the folks at Jake's. I hope that you have called your sponsor, the suicide hotline, someone.
Many prayers.
Jake, prayers for you and all who desire them.
Paul Stanley | 03.15.08 - 4:57 pm |
Do you or does anyone else here know for sure if there are precedents for the ruling of the parliamentarian at the HOB and the Chancellor with regard to this matter? Who else has been deposed, and how was the phrase "whole number of bishops entitled to vote" (according to your interpretation, Paul) interpreted in those cases?
Thanks,
With regard to mine above, please disregard the parenthetical comment. It clouds the question I am asking.
Thanks,
So, if it has to be every single bishop who could vote, present or not, even if in a coma, a bishop who deserved to be deposed, but had enough fraternity brothers (Say Delta Tau or Skull and Bones) in the HOB, those friend bisops could simply stay away from every HOB meetings until kingdom come and the guy would never be deposed.
I'll bet we see some wording cleaned up at the next GC.
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.
The canon does not say the matter has to be voted on at the meeting. It says it must be presented to the meeting. It would still be possible to hold a mail ballot of the absent bishops to rectify this, and I've urged that action. (Shades of Michigan and Florida!) We need to be scrupulous in the exercise of justice even against -- perhaps especially against -- those with whom we disagree.
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.
Perhaps one of the agenda items for the next General Convention will be a resolution to completely rewrite the Canons of the church. It seems that a great deal of it needs to be cleaned up
An extremely important question for the clergy/laity is how to deal with rogue bishops. Bishops are responsible to the uphold the legislation of the General Conventions and not just the goodwill of their own order in the church. If the Duncan's and Iker's can go for ages without attending these meetings then they should be deposed by move of the Executive Council for failure to 'consult' in the governing of the church. That is a vow to the clergy/laity as well as their peers. We pay for them to perform their job as executives in a corporation. The Executive Council should be able to press charges based on any failure in performing their responsibilities as executives faithfully acting as an employee of TEC.
If the Executive Council were able to bring charges against any bishop for misuse of church resources (like planning to leave TEC) there might be more order in our church. Let's work to fix Canon Law to hold bishops accountable for their corporate duties as well as their spiritual duties. Let the clergy and laity have equal power in dismissing rogues from the House of Bishops.
We are the ongoing reformed Catholic church. Let us stay true to are Reformation heritage and remember these spiritual leaders are also executives in a worldly corporation. As they serve Christ, they also serve us as our paid corporate administrators. They are as accountable to us as they are to Christ. It is our moral duty to keep them aware and fully accountable to us for their 'worldly' obligations.
Due process matters because without it there is no fairness built into the system of justice. Remember the consents for Mark Lawrence? The rules had to be followed even if it meant another go.
Even a guilty man is entitled to a fair trial and anyone who can read can see what the Canon says.
"...a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote..."
Title IV, Canon 9, sections 2
There was not a majority of the _whole number_ of Bishops who were entitled to vote. There just wasn't.
It wasn't fair, even if you think the outcome was right. It wasn't fair.
Paul Stanley | 03.15.08 - 4:57 pm |
Having read this about deposed Bishop Donald Davies...
http://www.stpetersanglicanchurc...om/
aboutus.html
...I would be very interested in knowing how this matter was decided in that case. I would look it up myself, but I doubt that I could find it on the net. The record of the deposition is probably archived by the HOB?
Thanks,
Tobias Haller | Homepage | 03.15.08 - 5:34 pm |
I, too, would be more comfortable if this procedure were followed, Tobias.
But I would still appreciate information about the precedents.
Thanks,
Another observation, cross posted at TA in response to Dr. Primrose:
The problem is that the history of canon IV.9 shows this supermajority going back long before the "Terminology" canon was added. The part of canon IV.9 where "All the members" is used is new, as the Review Committee was a recent introduction.
"Whole number of bishops entitled to vote" is not the same thing as "All the Members" because there are non-voting members in the House of Bishops. (The house has collegial and honorary members without vote.) So this is a different thing, unlike bodies to which "All the Members" refers.
Moreover, as the introduction to the "Terminology" Canon IV.15 states, "Except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires, as used in this Title the following terms and phrases shall have the following meanings..."
That is exactly what we are dealing with here.
This does not require that "All the members" *must* be used throughout the Title; nor does it determine the meaning of "the whole number of bishops entitled to vote" which, as the canonical introduction makes clear, is a different "express provision" with a different "context."
Is this thread discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I want to send a note of encouragement to my friends in DiocSJ, who must be in quite a state right now over this discussion.
Just me talkin', but I would think if this matter is not clarified by the time of the convention upcoming, that convention could still receive the recommendation regarding the proposed provisional bishop and refer the decision to accept the recommendation to an elected body of the diocese. I do, however, believe that this matter will be clarified, one way or another.
Blessings,
Yup.
Questions:
What authority would a civil court have over the decisions of an ecclesiastical court? And if they are interested in anything would that not be J-DS's various and sundry statements that he is not a bishop of TEC?
If people feel uncertain about this decision shouldn't we just go ahead and Fed-X ballots to all of our bishops. If the number is 294 and we are already certain of at least 100 votes the other 50 votes are probably out there. If I read that right we need a majority. Or 148 votes.
We've had enough depositions, necessary though they were. What I pray for is for Bp Duncan and Bp Iker to have a change of heart - and for all of us to pray that the mind of Christ will unite us.
As I understand it, the civil courts will intervene only to assure that churches follow their own bylaws -- that is, they will not enter into doctrinal questions, but will make churches enforce their own laws, which they will interpret according to neutral principles.
In NY, for instance, if a priest wrongly removed a number of voting members from the parish rolls, in order to influence a vestry election, the civil court could intervene, because the voting requirements are not doctrinal -- they are spelled out in the bylaws and corporate documents, and in NYS law. If a diocesan bishop wrongly dismissed a priest (that is for reasons not part of church law) you might have a civil suit on your hands.
This is why it is so important for churches to follow their canons and constitutions in matters such as the present.
Tobias and Paul, you really haven't explained how your interpretation of "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" differs from "All the Members." A difference of terminology means a difference is meaning. I think this is particularly true in light of Robert's laying out the other provisions of the constitution and canons above.
Another more important point is this. The secular courts are going to be extremely reluctant to second-guess any church on its internal ecclesiastical discipline -- there are number of cases around the country, including California, on this point.
Part of this reluctance is based on the Constitution. The "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment greatly restricts the ability of the secular government to interfere with a church's internal governance.
In addition, even outside the religious context, courts generally defer to any group in connection with the group's decision-making body's interpretation of its own internal law. So if the group's decision-making body says some ambiguous by-law means X, the courts will defer to the group's decision-making body's interpretation of its own by-law as X, even if the law could also be interpreted as Y or Z.
If you say, "Tomahto," and I say "Tomayto," but the HOB says "Potayto," the courts are going to go with "Potayto" and call the whole thing off.
JDS's supporters are going to have a huge up-hill battle getting any secular court to rule that JDS's deposition was improper under TEC canon law once TEC determines it properly deposed him under TEC canon law.
dr.primrose
Scott,
The convention is going to happen and EDoSJ will move forward. The deed is done and we continue. The problem with this thread is it scares folks unnecessarily who have already been battered and bruised.
Just so you know.
Thank you dr.primrose and Tobias Haller for your responses. I tend to agree with dr.primrose on the court interpretation expecially in light of J-DS's repeated statements that he is not a bishop of TEC. In light of this were we not just trying to give him his heart's desire?
But we might consider for the next one if it can be done by mail. It would be a lot more expedient. And where +/-Duncan and +/-Iker are concerned, the sooner the better.
Fred Schwartz | 03.15.08 - 6:49 pm |
I hear you, and I am very sorry for my participation in this discussion, except that I felt I needed to ask questions that might help with the clarification of this (non-) question. I agree with you. It will be cleared up. No question in my mind. There is no need to stop rejoicing, and I intend fully to rejoice with you in the very near future.
Blessings,
Bonnie | 03.15.08 - 6:52 pm |
Before I go silent again for a while, I want to add my voice to your confidence in Dr. Primrose's observations, to wit:
"JDS's supporters are going to have a huge up-hill battle getting any secular court to rule that JDS's deposition was improper under TEC canon law *once TEC determines it properly deposed him under TEC canon law*."
Blessings,
We won't be deciding this here.
We won't be deciding this now.
WE won't be deciding this. Thank God for that.
Some might be interested in a citation in the response over at Preludium by Gonzales Epfizh. He notes a precedent that may very well apply.
Prebyterian v Hill Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969) 393 U.S. 440
It was found that civil courts can't "engage in the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. ...The First Amendment prohibits a State from employing religious organizations as an arm of the civil judiciary to perform the function of interpreting and applying state standards."
As my wise older sister said recently, the trouble with us "liberals" is that we are always trying to be fair to everyone. We want to give the other guy every consideration, an attitude that often allows others to take unfair advantage because they don't play by those rules.
We begged 815 to step in and do something. We chastised 815 for not doing something sooner. Some of us noted that they were taking the proper steps, following the canons. Now, we who have no expertise in this area regard, are reading and re-reading the canons, and are allowing ourselves to be browbeaten again in the DoSJ.
This won't be handled by us. I continue in faith and hope for new life in the DoSJ, coming now, within the next few weeks.
Dr. Primrose, I explained that "All the Members" is not applied to the House of Bishops precisely because it has some members not eligible to vote. It is never used in reference to the House of Bishops for that reason. To use it, one would have to say, "by a vote of All the Members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote" -- and, of course, that robs the term of the meaning in the definition, which is "the total number of members of the body." Thus the canon uses the simple language, "the whole number of those eligible to vote." To use "All the Members" in this case would contradict the definition of that term.
As to the reach of civil courts, that will differ from state to state. While courts must defer to governing bodies on matters of doctrine, they can intervene in matters of discipline where a neutral reading could be applied.
It might be best to simply accept JDS' "resignation" -- whatever that means -- and move on to other matters.
Beryl Simkins | Homepage | 03.15.08 - 7:02 pm |
Breaking my vow of silence to say,
"You! Go Girl!"
Fred, you may share my most recent mail with Beryl.
Yes!,
Scott,
I don't know about the precedents. I'd be a bit surprised if there was one, or one side or the other would have trotted it out. But I'll look at the case you mention.
Bear in mind that one would have to find a case where a majority of those present voted to depose but they did not form a majority of those entitled to vote--and in which it was authoritatively concluded that the "deposition" was valid or invalid. Depositions being happily rare, there may well be no precedent at all.
One thing is clear: the canons are a mess.
BTW, is there an argument that--since Schofield tendered his resignation, which could be accepted by a simple majority of those present, and since a simple majority clearly thinks he shouldn't be a bishop--this could be taken as a vote to accept his resignation. Less exciting and humiliating that deposition, but in practical terms achieving the same result so far as San Joaquin is concerned.
That reasoning of course would not apply to Cox.
Paul Stanley | 03.15.08 - 7:16 pm |
Thank you, that is encouraging. Please keep working and ask for the records.'
Blessings,