The Living Church: Memo Says P.O. Should Receive Presentment For Violation of Canons

At the risk of crowing with the rising sun this morning, I've been saying for some time now (1) that the Presiding Oceanographer is herself guilty of multiple canonical violations, and (2) wonder when the House of Bishops, or at least part of it, would decide to jump off the P.O.'s bandwagon?  There is little question that the P.O.'s threatening letter to the HOB of yesterday (see earlier posts below) was in direct response to this memorandum.

According to an article in The Living Church here , there is now a 7,000 word memorandum circulating  amongst the HOB setting out the case for a presentment against the P.O., because of her “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor.”  The memorandum reaches its conclusions based solely on the actions of the P.O. in connection with the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, the attempted inhibition and deposition of Bishop Duncan, and her actions toward the Diocese of San Joaquin.  That being the case, one has to wonder how many more violations would be piled up were questions of doctrine and other canonical violations added to the mix?  Her deposition in the Virginia Eleven case alone could be chock-full of such evidence.  Her interference in property negotiations in multiple Dioceses, which should be the exclusive province of the Diocesan Bishops, would be one point in contention, IMNSHO.

But back to the memorandum.  It notes that the P.O. has failed to comply with Canons, has created new procedures not authorized by Canons, and has used interpretations of the Canons which are "nonsensical."  Specifically with regard to the P.O.'s assertion that she can seek deposition of a Bishop who has not been inhibited, the memo states "No rule of legal interpretation permits such a nonsensical result.”  With regard to the vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox, TLC says: 

The Presiding Bishop’s deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield was done without the “necessary consent” of the House of Bishops. “The conclusion that the requisite consent was not given is irrefutable” as the “plain meaning” of the words of the canon, as well as voting procedures detailed in other parts of the Constitution and Canons do not permit the interpretation interposed by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, the paper said.

The memo also strongly condemns the P.O.'s actions regarding the Diocese of San Joaquin:

“The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop,” the legal memorandum concluded.

Once these conclusions were made, however, the memo apparently, and correctly, observed that the difficulty in pursuing these violations is found in the form of the Title IV Review Committee, which the author(s) believe would form a roadblock to any serious effort to bring charges against the P.O. to any sort of disciplinary proceedings. Nonetheless, the memo contends that the effort should be made to hold the institution of TEC and the Presiding Bishop's office accountable.

Needless to say, if anyone out there can obtain a copy of this memorandum, I would love to see it and have the opportunity to provide further description and analysis.  This is a significant event and at minimum provides some hope that some within the HOB are growing tired of the scorn and embarassment being heaped upon themselves because the P.O. is running amok.  From observation of the HOB, it is equally likely that some within its membership see an opportunity to use the P.O.'s mistakes to wrest power from her and into their own hands, even to the point of elevation of a new Presiding Bishop.  After all, her election was hardly an overwhelming mandate and the other candidates from GC2006 have to be wondering "what if I had been elected"?

Oh, and it's probably a good thing she has the oven mitt, because there is little doubt that the existence of this memorandum has burned the P.O. pretty well.  There is also little doubt that her Inquisitors are even at this moment seeking out those who perpetrated this memorandum so that the P.O. can put them to her ecclesiastical stake.

Comments

After more than five years of reading all the excellent Anglican blogs on a daily basis,I firmly believe the true and final meltdown has come.Praise God.It just goes to show you NEVER know...

[Jacksonian]

Jacksonian