ECUSA’s progressive-revisionists talk a great deal about the democratic polity of General Convention, but when it comes to ECUSA’s canons, they prefer to impose a dictatorial theocracy upon ECUSA. 

The statement

“...The procedural difficulties in bringing this matter to adjudication were formidable, the paper argued, as the “ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the [Title IV] Review Committee.”

merely confirms the invulnerability of ECUSA’s progressive-revisionists to canonically valid accusations.

General Convbention put the progressive-revisionists in the driver’s seat and only GC can remove them.  A grass roots revolt against ECUSA’s current progressive-revisionist theocracy at future General Conventions is rquired to remove them from that driver’s seat.

This won’t happen.

Therefore, we see one more justification for the departure from ECUSA and the return to the Anglican expression of the Christianity by those Episcopalians who still follow “the Faith once given.”

I’m not holding my breath on this. The deck is so corruptly stacked in the places where such decisions must originate and be moved forward that the organization will be content to wallow in its filth. And the sheeple remaining in the pews will not even notice.

There are far too many passive pew-sitters, and this is the main reason why Schori won’t be disciplined.  But she HAS been “put on notice” to “mind her P’s and Q’s.”

One might have hoped when the PB came into office that the Anglican thing to do would have been to pour oil on the waters; instead of which she has inflamed the situation in the Communion by liberal applications of gasoline.

No chance that anything will come of this but at least it’s encouraging to know that some bishops in the HOB, however few, are taking issue with the PB’s “leadership” and conduct. This is no small step. It would be fascinating to know which bishops are responsible as that is the only support the orthodox can have any confidence in. This also explains the letter the PB sent to the HOB explaining the procedural compliance in the deposition process which was obviously authored by Beers, Esq.

Since when do tyrannical rulers follow any rules?  They don’t.  They make them up as they go along.  This is EXACTLY what she is doing -playing “##### foot” with verbiage around the “interpretation” of the rules…EXACTLY as they (“revisionists”) did when they began watering down the Bible to make it an utterly meaningless, shelved, reference document.  They are following the template people.  Wake up.

Well, first of all the GC is about as “democratic” as the old Soviet politburo was.  Delegates to the diocesan convention select the lay and clergy delegates to the GC.  Secondly, these are delegates, not representatives.  That is they are not obligated to vote as those who sent might want them to vote.  The entire system has only a veneer of “democracy”.  It is in fact the same legal and democratic veneer that Robert Mugabe is using to hold onto power in Zimbabwe.

#5:

it’s encouraging to know that some bishops in the HOB, however few, are taking issue with the PB’s “leadership” and conduct.

As you note, Thomas, this is no small step. Participation in this step by any bishop, orthodox or not, will earn him or her the undying enmity of the PB and those who pushed her into office (+Los Angeles comes to mind). Following this up with action will require the calling into question of the actions of the current Title IV Review Committee, earning the undying enmity of a larger circle of bishops, priests, and laity.

This is a task for a Jeremiah.
The Rabbit.

on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders

Interesting.  A consortium only needs to be 2, but they do pluralize bishop.  I’d like to see this put pressure on ++Katharine to adjust her pogrom.  In addition, this explains why she wrote the letter to the HoB.

Wow, BfromT19:

I’d like to see this put pressure on ++Katharine to adjust her pogrom.

Do my eyes deceive me?

No robroy, your eyes are fine.  While I still agree that the proper procedure was followed, I do not necessarily agree with the “cleansing” going on.

Sounds like this memorandum memorandum will be important even if ECUSA never gives these charges a fair hearing.

First, these arguments can help us delegitimize KJS in the eyes of pewsitters and other sheep who have not yet made up their minds.

Second, the charges should give pause to those HoB members who are not revisionist zealots.

Third, when we speak to secular reporters about KJS’ abuse of power, it’s helpful to have a document demonstrating how she violateschurch rules.
up the ante by making the case for removing KJS from office.

Fourth, the report ups the ante by making the case for removing KJS from office.

Bravo!

And (fifth), Irenaeus, couldn’t this be used as evidence by conservative dissenters (defendants) in property cases and lawsuits in court; i.e., in the suit against +Schofield?

(I ask this as a genuine question, not as a rhetorical one.)

Todd:  I think the ACI legal memo (http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/138/1/) very much can be used in court arguments.  The ACI leaders are well respected members of the Anglican Communion (expert witnesses, anyone?) and have just laid out an extremely convincing case that the PB did not follow the canons on several critical issues.  This memo makes a very good case for denying Jerry Lamb any standing to bring his law suit against the Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin.

I would characterize this as a necessary, but futile gesture.
Many will recall the reverse kangaroo court of the Righter “trial”. The PB (Browning) stacked the court with bishops nearly all of who (all but 1?) had also ordained gays, the accusation against Bp Righter. One bishop apparently had the integrity (something increasingly lacking in the HoB) to recuse himself. The court then dismissed the case finding that no violation of “core doctrine”. Strange, but I don’t believe any bishop has ever been consecrated, swearing to uphold the “core doctrine, discipline, and worship of [TEC]”.

Of course, the TEC system is even more “stacked” today than it was 15 years ago. So no, this will be ignored. But it does provide notice that people are watching. And remember that even the Soviet Union and China have, on occasion responded to public pressure.

#15 Yeah, but China responded to public pressure with Tiananmen Square.

You should know the ACI as the think tank of several theologians highly respected throughout the Anglican Communion and by the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have generally been pretty circumspect ( although pointed) concerning their criticism of TEC the past 5 years. This, however, is a bombshell. From a lawyer’s perspective, this is excellent work product to put it mildly. The Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor must be shell shocked, both because of its content and its source. Regardless of whether or not anything will ever come of a presentment against the PB if it is in fact initiated, the credibility, character and honesty of the PB has been called into question and substantiated. In my humble opinion, she will not be able to put that genie back into the bottle. Hats off to the “ACI guys” for stepping way out of their comfort zone on this one.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this is that it strikes at the very basis of Dr. Schori’s reign—canonical legitimacy.  In both legal and public perception fora it shows that the Canons are being used for a kind of legal fiction to cover the destruction of those who disagree with her.

The phrase “hoist on her petard” comes to mind.

Islandbear+

As I read this, the ACI is neither the author or client of this memo…they simply have it on their web site listed as a memo passed along to them…and Radner’s response in the Living Church article simply says we are in a mess…but doesn’t commit himself one way or another…nor does he take any credit for being related to this document.

The most desparing aspect of this good brief is that it was commissioned by a group of bishops who don’t make themselves known…and who I doubt will do anything with it…

The reign of terror from 815 has silenced most everyone left in TEC—-what does she have on these bishops? I believe that they will never raise these points in an authortative and decisive way…and she will never be forced to respond.

We could only wish that they would, but they won’t…decades of electing bishops who get along well with others has given bishops who get along well with others…and who simply don’t have it in their bones to confront each other, roick the boat, or do anything more than look good at parish picnics…

Funny thing, Dr. Harmon’s Headline in the next posting down says this:

“I am Trying not to get Too Excited, but…”

Sorry, just couldn’t help it…  I’m with the rest, probably nothing will come of it, sort of a Jerimiah Wright “thing”, but kudos to Dr. Turner, for telling it like it is..

Gloria in SC