Five Dioceses Oppose Depositions of Schofield and Cox

They Accuse Presiding Bishop of "Abuse of Power"

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/28/208

The Standing Committees of five dioceses have come out condemning the actions of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and her attorney, David Booth Beers in deposing two orthodox bishops, John David Schofield and William Cox, arguing that the canons of the church were either misused or not followed.

Deposition is the ecclesiastical equivalent of impeachment and formally removes the bishop from office. Deposed members of the clergy are no longer allowed to exercise their offices in The Episcopal Church. In the eyes of The Episcopal Church, they are laicized. The canonical process for deposition is complex and usually involves a formal trial. In the case of "abandonment of communion" (where no trial or hearing is provided for), the process is designed to require a very high level of support in the House of Bishops before the deposition can be carried out.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori set aside the rules that govern "abandonment of communion" and deposed two orthodox bishops without trial or even a hearing. She is also bent on deposing the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, without a formal trial.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana roundly condemned the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox saying that it is the harshest punishment that can be handed a bishop.

"It is essential that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed since, in this case, the rights of the accused are protected, in part, by the extraordinarily high level of involvement and concord called for within the House of Bishops by Canon IV.9.2." wrote the Standing Committee.

"As others have pointed out, the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church at various times distinguishes between a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, from a vote by a majority of the whole. Mr. Beers was incorrect in his assertion, reaffirmed by the Presiding Bishop in a letter to the House of Bishops (April 30, 2008), that the Canonical language of "the whole number of bishops entitled to vote" can be taken to mean only "those in attendance at a particular meeting."

"This makes deposition an action with no higher standard than any matter of routine business. We agree with the analysis provided by the Bishops and Standing Committees of the Dioceses of South Carolina and Central Florida that the Canons plainly require a majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, not just those in attendance at a particular meeting.

"We call upon the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops to revisit those decisions and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in this and all future House of Bishops decisions," concluded the statement.

The Standing Committee also ripped the Presiding Bishop over her pending actions against Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan saying that they noted, with "alarm", her publicly stated intent to bring deposition proceedings against the orthodox bishop at the September meeting of the House of Bishops for abandoning the communion before the diocese votes to do so in November.

"We plead for calm and prayer in the face of temptations to escalate abuses of power in this way. We agree with the Standing Committee of Central Florida and others who insist that depositions are an unnecessary and unfortunate way to deal with disagreement, dissension, and even division within our Church. We believe it also borders on unchristian."

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina also protested the Presiding Bishop's failure to follow the Canons of the national church and wrote her saying they "strongly protest(ed)" her failure to follow the Canons of the Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox. "We respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops revisit those decisions, refrain from the planned selection of a new bishop for the Diocese of San Joaquin, and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in all future House of Bishops decisions."

"We believe that deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop. Consequently, it is most important that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. In this instance, it is clear that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed."

They said the language of the Canon has consistently required that a majority of all bishops entitled to vote, not just a majority of those present at a meeting, must give their consent to the deposition of a bishop. "It is only logical that a greater majority of Bishops should be required for involuntary separation by way of deposition than for voluntary separation by resignation.

The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Western Louisiana wrote to Jefferts Schori saying they refused to recognize the deposition of the two orthodox bishops.

In a resolution authorized by the diocesan Standing Committee and endorsed by the bishop, D. Bruce MacPherson, and Diocesan Council, the Diocese went on record as not recognizing the depositions of (Episcopal) Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin and former Bishop Suffragan William Cox of Maryland because the requisite canonical votes were not obtained for the deposition of a bishop.

The Western Louisiana Standing Committee motion says: "The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church have been held up by some church leaders as part of the way forward for our broken church, in that these governing documents provide a procedural basis for our common life together. One of the main justifications for the actions taken at General Convention 2003 regarding the consents to the Bishop of New Hampshire was that the Diocese of New Hampshire had followed the canonical process in electing a bishop. We also note that the Diocese of South Carolina was held to an exacting standard in obtaining consents for the consecration of Bishop Mark Lawrence, while such exacting standards as to form of consents have not been applied to any other Episcopal election to our knowledge.

"However, such documents cannot provide the basis for our common life when they are ignored for expediency's sake. Selective enforcement of canonical requirements breeds mistrust in the church, which can preclude reconciliation. Moreover, we find that the uncanonical actions taken in the matter of the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield erode confidence in the church and its canonical processes and delegitimize subsequent actions taken by the Presiding Bishop and others in attempting to reorganize the Diocese of San Joaquin."

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Springfield wrote to the Presiding Bishop rejecting the "purported depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox" saying they were not validly procured. They said that if the HOB wanted to continue to seek depositions in these questionable circumstances, they should revisit this issue at a future meeting of House of Bishops. The Rt. Rev Peter H. Beckwith endorsed the letter and actions of his Diocesan Council.

Bishop John W. Howe of the Diocese of Central Florida and Anthony P. Clark, President of the Standing Committee, sent a letter to the Presiding Bishop "strongly protest(ing)" what they believe was a failure to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox.

"Since deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop, it is critical that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. The Canons intentionally provide for an exceptionally high level of participation and agreement from the Bishops in order to impose a sentence of deposition. In this instance, it seems clear to us that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed."

They concluded their letter by saying that the depositions were an unnecessary and unfortunate way to deal with disagreement, dissension, and even division within our Church. "Those Bishops (or other clergy) who, for sake of conscience, can no longer minister as part of The Episcopal Church can be transferred at their request, or permitted to renounce their vows and join with other Anglican Provinces without vindictiveness or punitive measures."

The Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, Chief Operating Officer for the Anglican Communion Network, also condemned the actions of the Presiding Bishop and David Booth Beers. "It will have no practical effect on the ministry of these two godly leaders, but instead makes crystal clear the scorched earth policy that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church intends to prosecute against those who cannot in good conscience follow them out of the Christian mainstream."

"This is a bit like saying 'you can't quit, you're fired!'" he said.

"There is no question that both Bishop Cox and Bishop Schofield remain bishops in the Anglican Communion and will continue in ministry. We at the Network are thankful for their willingness to witness for the truth of the Gospel and fully intend to support them in their ongoing ministry," he added.

END