Presiding Bishop writes to the House of Bishops

The following letter was sent to the House of Bishops at 10:30 am this morning.

April 30, 2008
For the House of Bishops

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Inasmuch as the past several weeks have involved some significant situations, I thought it
would be helpful to review and comment on process. First, regarding deposition for
“abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church,” it is important to remember
that such an act is not by definition punitive, but does give formal recognition to a reality
already taking place. Once the Title IV Review Committee has certified that a bishop has
abandoned the communion of this Church under Title IV, Canon 9, the bishop in question
is given sixty days to respond.

During this sixty day period, Title IV has a provision for temporary inhibition of the
bishop by the Presiding Bishop with the consent of the three senior active bishops of the
Church. These bishops who must consent to the temporary inhibition do not, however,
have a veto over consideration of the merits of the deposition by the House of Bishops,
any more than those who must consent to temporary inhibitions in other circumstances
have a veto over consideration of the charges by a trial court. This understanding of the
canon is held not only by my Chancellor, but also by members of the Title IV Review
Committee including an attorney who is an original member of the Committee, the
chancellors of several dioceses who have been consulted, and the former Chair of both
the Standing Commission on the Constitution and Canons and the Legislative Committee
on the Canons at the General Convention.

As the actual vote regarding deposition draws near, it is important to recognize what does
and does not constitute a relevant response by the bishop in question. A letter of
resignation from the House is irrelevant to the charges brought forward by the Review
Committee and the deposition proceedings, since deposition concerns a person’s
ordination in this Church, not simply participation in the House of Bishops. Resignation
from the House thus has no bearing on following through with the charges brought
forward by the Review Committee. Deposition in this situation makes clear in an official
way that the bishop in question is no longer permitted to exercise ordained ministry in
this Church.

Regarding how the vote is to be taken, the canon is clear that a vote on deposition must
occur at “regular or special meeting of the House.” Although we have other canonical
consent provisions where consents may be secured by written ballot through the mail,
that process does not satisfy the canons here. Every bishop entitled to vote is invited to
the meeting and given ample notice that there will be a vote on depositions. Materials
surrounding the deposition in question are posted in the “Bishops Only” section of the
College for Bishops website. The canon is read that a quorum be present and a majority
of all bishops present who are entitled to vote consent to the deposition, as was done in
the case of Bishop Davies of Fort Worth in the 1990s and Bishop Larrea of Ecuador
Central in 2005. In terms of parliamentary rules of order, any questions about the
propriety of a vote are to be raised before the meeting or, of course, during it.

These are weighty matters, and it is important that we take seriously our procedures, as
well as their purpose and intent. It is also important that we remember the reason that
such canons and procedures are in place. These matters with which we are confronted
have ramifications for many outside our House. For those who would like an alternative
to deposition, we already have one, in the form of renunciation of vows in this Church, so
that anyone may pursue his or her conscience and desires in another part of Christ’s
Body. This option makes clear and clean an individual’s departure from The Episcopal
Church. Resignation from the House is quite different, since it only deals with the
person’s relation to the House, not to The Episcopal Church. Thus, to resign from the
House while still claiming jurisdiction over a diocese with its property and assets is not a
viable alternative.

Some have misunderstood the impact and intent of deposition. It is this Church’s formal
way of saying to the world that the deposed cleric is no longer permitted to act as a
sacramental representative of this Church. If vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and
worship of this Church are not voluntarily renounced, how otherwise can a cleric take up
new vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of another Church?
These are indeed difficult decisions that we at times are called to make, and I have no
doubt that all of us would wish things were different. We must respond to the situations
with which we are faced, compassionately but not naively, knowing that we make these
decisions not for ourselves alone but for the people whom we are called to shepherd and
oversee. I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

Comments

[Don Townsend]

I've been an Episcopalian for 28 years...by choice...since age 26. I've belonged to Episcopal churches in Houston, San Francisco, Tulsa, Los Angeles, Dayton and Dallas. I've served on the Vestry in three of these parishes. So there, if you will, are my credentials. Now my comment. I am truly sick and tired of all the legal clap trap into which the Bishops seem to have descended. With almost every message I read, the appeal of the congregational model grows with me. In my twenty-eitght years in the Church, I've met only one Bishop that I would want to share a fox hole with. He died a couple of years ago.