Title IV from the Blue Book 2009

In a previous post, I urged you to download a copy of the Canons and Constitution of The Episcopal Church. I felt that this would be beneficial as we move toward General Convention this summer.

The blue book has been released - at least that portion that deals with Title IV. Of note to me is Canon 16 - Of Abandonment of The Episcopal Church. The proposed section regarding bishops states:

(A) By a Bishop

Sec. 1 If a Bishop abandons the Episcopal Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than the Church or another church in communion with the Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as the Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in the Church, it shall be the duty of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, by a majority vote of all of its members, to certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment, which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop shall then place a restriction on the exercise of ministry of said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. During the period of such restriction, the Bishop shall not perform any Episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.

(A) By a Bishop Sec. 1 If a Bishop abandons the Episcopal Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than the Church or another church in communion with the Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as the Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in the Church, it shall be the duty of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, by a majority vote of all of its members, to certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment, which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop shall then place a restriction on the exercise of ministry of said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. During the period of such restriction, the Bishop shall not perform any Episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.

I am not an expert in canon law, and to be honest, I barely have a working knowledge of canon law. But to me it would seem that the word discipline is the key factor in dealing with the schismatic bishops.

Title I Canon II specifies the role of the Presiding Bishop.

Sec. 4 (a) The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church, and shall:

(1) Be charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention;

(2) Speak God's words to the Church and to the world, as the representative of this Church.

As I understand this Canon, the Presiding Bishop is the senior pastor of this church. As such, all bishops are subject to the authority of the Presiding Bishop.

If any bishop states that s/he is not answerable to the Presiding Bishop, or that the Presiding Bishop has no authority over said bishop, I cannot see that as anything except abandonment of the discipline of The Episcopal Church. It would be a repudiation the above canon.

I believe my opinion is confirmed by the following sections:

Sec.2 The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and restriction on ministry. Unless the restricted Bishop, within sixty days, makes declaration by a verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon III.12.7, the Bishop will be liable to Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, shall terminate the restriction. Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

Sec.2 The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and restriction on ministry. Unless the restricted Bishop, within sixty days, makes declaration by a verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon III.12.7, the Bishop will be liable to Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, shall terminate the restriction. Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

If the Presiding Bishop is not the canonical authority over all members of the House of Bishops, why then, is the Presiding Bishop charged with implementing the above actions? If the disciplinary action comes from the Presiding Bishop, then the Presiding Bishop is, in effect, the "boss of the bishops."

Is there a reader who is more expert on Canon Law who can show my how my reasoning is incorrect? That's not "fighting words," but a genuine request to show my how I misunderstand the canons. I welcome new and correct understanding.

I believe that General Convention should be much more explicit concerning the role of the Presiding Bishop. And, I go so far as to state that the authority of the Primate should be expanded slightly to allow the Presiding Bishop to deal with renegade bishops of any flavour. Not exactly "archbishop power," but certainly some teeth to go with the charge of office.

My next post will deal with the the section of IV which deals with errant priests and deacons as stated in the blue book recommendations.