Deposition is a hard word to use. It is harder still because on one level I have considerable respect and owe a great deal to Bishop Robert Duncan. But it is the word to use.
Bishop Duncan is reported to have taken part in the ordination of bishops of a province that has declared itself not in communion with the Episcopal Church, ordinations with the specific purpose of establishing a new episcopate in the United States with the explicit mission to replace the Episcopal Church with what the ordaining parties believe is a truly orthodox Anglican community. If this is true he should be deposed as quickly as possible.
Bishop Duncan is bound by canon to exercise his ministry only within the bounds of his own diocese except with explicit permission of the Diocese in which he proposes to minister. (Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church). It is reported that he has exercised his ministry as an ordaining bishop in a service conducted for the Province of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion.) If he did he did so in Virginia, as a sitting bishop in the Episcopal Church and in the jurisdiction of another bishop, namely Bishop Peter Lee is.
In the case of Bishop John David Schofield the charges will be that he as abandoned the Communion of this Church. In the case of Bishop Robert Duncan the case, if he indeed did ordain, is it just as clear: He has violated the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.
It has been assumed that it would be necessary to wait for the Diocese of Pittsburgh to act as had the Diocese of San Joaquin and abandon the communion in order to bring charges against the Bishop. It may still be that charge that will form the easier route - abandonment of communion requires the affirmation of the bishops of the church for the fact that one of their members has gone. The charge of violation of the Constitution requires trial and that is a longer process. Still, the intention, action and content of the reported event is so clear that violation of the Constitution will be evident.
Bishop Duncan has been busy. He was in the Diocese of San Joaquin Friday and Saturday for the decision taken there, and he flew to Virgnia for the ordinations today. In San Joaquin he no doubt added his take on the history and activities of the Network, a take no doubt as riddled with inaccuracies as was the take of the Bishop of San Joaquin. In the best of circumstances we might suggest that Bishop Schofield took certain liberties with the facts, in the worse he blatantly misled his own flock. Apparently Bishop Duncan has misled his flock by his actions in Virginia which are, if as reported, in violation of his vows taken as a bishop in the Episcopal Church.
Does Bishop Duncan deny that he took part in the ordinations - that is that he did not lay hands on the four ordained? If not he needs to be held accountable.