The Laws of Ecclesiastical Impossiblities

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2441/

[Stand Firm] 3 Mar 2007--1. the fact that we are technically speaking not a democratic church. At best we are a terribly inefficient and unrepresentative republic (think Articles of Confederation);

2. that our bishops, at least in practice, have essentially unchecked power and authority to do as they please in their dioceses. How long, for example, has it taken the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania to reign in Bishop Bennison? How long, has it taken the church to act upon the presentment charges brought against Bishop Smith in the Diocese of Connecticut?

3. that in the three years between conventions the Episcopal Church is essentially run by the members of the executive council: about half of whom are elected by delegates to the various provincial synods who are themselves elected by delegates to diocesan conventions who are themselves (finally) elected at parish annual meetings. The other half are elected at General Convention by deputies elected at diocesan conventions by delegates elected at parish annual meetings. Just how many degrees of separation from the hoi poloi before a “democratic” body ceases to have any discernable representative function?

Having set all of that aside, any claim that the House of Bishops cannot act as a matter of polity is indefensible. The House of Bishops is, in fact, the best place to effect at least one of the moratoriums called for in the Communique.

It would only require a simple majority of bishops to push through, and uphold a resolution shutting down the possibility of future consents to the election of non-celibate candidates to the office of bishop. That would be it. Done. Finished. Resolution B033 “clarified” and affirmed.