Confusion over HOB Vote to Depose Orthodox Bishops

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7934

[Virtue Online] 18 Mar 2008--Virtueonline consulted a number of canon lawyers on how to read the various canons that relate to the recent actions of the HOB at Camp Allen.

John H. Lewis, Jr., attorney for Bishop Duncan, stated: "With respect to voting by Bishops, the Canons clearly distinguish between a majority of those present and a majority of the voting members of the HOB. Canon III.12.8(d), referring to resignations by Bishops, provides that the HOB will accept or refuse a resignation of a Bishop "by a majority of those present.

"On the other hand, Canon IV.9.2, referring to the deposition of a Bishop for Abandonment of Communion requires a "majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote." Not only is it clear from the Canons that deposition requires a majority of all voting members of the HOB, it is also logical that a greater majority would be required for involuntary separation (deposition) than for voluntary separation (resignation)."

According to Wicks Stephens, Chancellor to the Pittsburgh-based Anglican Communion Network, the vote to depose Bishops Cox and Schofield was insufficient to meet the canonical requirements for consent of the House of Bishops to Mrs. Jefferts Schori's deposition of those bishops. It requires a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.

Article I.2 of TEC's Constitution sets forth who has a seat and vote in the House of Bishops. The Article says "Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity...has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and vote in the House of Bishops," said Stephens.

"This paragraph establishes who makes up "the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote - that is, all of the Bishops entitled to a seat and vote in the HoB. For Beers to rule that only a majority of those present was needed for the consent is clearly inconsistent with the plain meaning of the applicable provisions of TEC's Constitution and Canons, and is plainly wrong."

"If one takes a careful look at the TEC's Constitution and Canons one can contemplate various scenarios for majority votes, and they are not all the same. However, each is very clear in stating what is required. I believe that TEC did not have an effective vote to consent to the deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield, and that any deposition based on the vote is without effect and is null and void."

"This is just another case of Beers disregarding the law and the canons and saying 'it's so because I say it's so'," Stephens said.