tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post6329986416365603965..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Standing Corrected, at least in part... a good discipline for Holy Week.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-242437160335344992008-03-15T21:49:00.000-04:002008-03-15T21:49:00.000-04:00Well, the legal precedents for civil courts are pr...Well, the legal precedents for civil courts are pretty clear that only a church can interpret its own rules -- since the vote was basically to acknowledge what these persons have already claimed, I don't see the problem with the rightness of the vote.<BR/><BR/>But as I said at Fr Jake's, for many General Conventions the House of Bishops has been trying to get rid of the voice & vote for retired bishops because a strict construction of the rules makes it essentially impossible for the House of Bishops to have a quorum -- the House of Deputies either keeps voting against it or never getting around to it -- all of Title IV needs to be redone anyway, but The Episcopal Church has to have some mechanism to acknowledge that some bishops have left The Episcopal Church in a hostile manner that intends harm -- obviously the current canons were never designed to cope with the tactics of the Chapman MemoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-11579665299617219952008-03-15T15:00:00.000-04:002008-03-15T15:00:00.000-04:00For Mr. Carey...from U.S. Supreme Court PRESBYTERI...For Mr. Carey...from U.S. Supreme Court <BR/>PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH v. HULL CHURCH, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) <BR/>393 U.S. 440<BR/>"A determination whether such decisions are fraudulent, collusive, or arbitrary would therefore not answer the questions posed by the state standard. To reach those questions would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. Even if the general church had attempted to apply the state standard, the civil courts could not review and enforce the church decision without violating the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits a State from employing religious organizations as an arm of the civil judiciary to perform the function of interpreting and applying state standards."<BR/><BR/>I would doubt that any court would intervene based on Presbyterian v. Hull (even fraud is alleged ala Gonzalez EPfizHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-27183587879618144012008-03-15T14:29:00.000-04:002008-03-15T14:29:00.000-04:00I find Fr. Jake's reading to be quite persuasive. ...I find Fr. Jake's reading to be quite persuasive. <BR/><BR/>Title IV contains a whole section (Canon 15) devoted to the definition of terms used in that Title. "All the Members" is there defined as the term to be used when everyone (not just those present) is to be counted. When Title IV, Canon 9 sets forth the procedure for deposition, it does NOT say that a majority of "All the Members" is required.<BR/><BR/>I therefore think that the Chancellor's position is correct, even though his statement sounds a bit like "because we said so, that's why."<BR/><BR/>Doug+Sailorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05185068601066087185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80377234154129264332008-03-15T13:35:00.000-04:002008-03-15T13:35:00.000-04:00Then I hope that those concerned should file a pro...Then I hope that those concerned should file a protest against this action taken by the House on the grounds of procedural irregularity.<BR/><BR/>Actually what I found wrong was that the final vote was taken by voice. Would it be more appropriate, given the gravity of this decision, that each bishop should be called to vote in order that he or she should take responsibility for their action? After all, it's ousting a bishop that is being done here.Renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14539229600863141024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-23207867309869940532008-03-15T09:06:00.000-04:002008-03-15T09:06:00.000-04:00Ren-Like that is an unbiased source, and furthermo...Ren-<BR/><BR/>Like that is an unbiased source, and furthermore a source that would be embarassed if he was wrong. That has no credibility with many of us. <BR/><BR/>And yes- I attend a non-Network, mainstream TEC church in the non-conservative diocese of Delaware.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-62693182145962918732008-03-15T08:52:00.000-04:002008-03-15T08:52:00.000-04:00I was just wondering, in response to the news that...I was just wondering, in response to the news that the Chancellor of The Episcopal Church has deemed the vote to be valid, could these deposed bishops bring civil lawsuits against TEC for "wrongful deposition" or something? I realize that the secular/civil courts are involved with property disputes, but could they take up this type of lawsuit? hmmm, we live in interesting times!<BR/><BR/>Peter+Peter Careyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006134824557299678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-84530283263362705542008-03-15T04:05:00.000-04:002008-03-15T04:05:00.000-04:00The Chancellor has issued a statement on the matte...The Chancellor has issued a statement on the matter here:<BR/><BR/>http://episcopalchurch.org/79901_95735_ENG_HTM.htm<BR/><BR/>So it should be official now, I suppose.Renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14539229600863141024noreply@blogger.com