Episcopal Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh was (supposedly) deposed at the House of Bishops meeting in Salt Lake City. Nearly any disinterested and/or clear-thinking person recognizes that Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori has run roughshod over the canons in what has become a series of purges.
The Anglican Curmudgeon (who graciously lists this website among his various links) continues to critique devastatingly and irrefutably the anti-canonical actions of the House of Bishops in general but of the Presiding Bishop in particular. Read Why the Vote was Wrong.
The Living Church has the report under House of Bishops Claims to Depose Bishop Duncan (my headline – not theirs). You do not need to register.
In the report at Stand Firm in Faith by Sarah Hey is an interesting pair of details:
- There was a formal – as well as numerous informal – challenges to the relevant canonical violations/rulings of the chair, including the attempt to depose a not-previously inhibited bishop – required by the canons – and the fact that deposing requires a majority of all bishops entitled to vote
- A voice vote was taken and the challenge failed clearly to achieve the necessary 2/3 votes to overturn the ruling.
Get that? Someone says, “You cannot do this. You are violating the canons and have not followed proper procedure to depose a bishop”. The chair – Presiding Oven Mitt Katharine Jefferts-Schori – says, “No – I am interpreting and applying the canons correctly”. The objector(s) call for a vote to overrule the decision of the chairperson. That vote fails the necessary two-thirds majority. The interpretation stands.
Slick eh? You want to do something clearly against the rules of your organization. You chair the meeting where this action will take place. At the meeting someone objects. They try to overrule you. The vote fails – and your way prevails. And it all looks legal because after all you followed parliamentary procedure.
And that boys and girls is how you can break your own rules – legally.
Clever.
