The explanation is simple.  As in every human organization, there are those in the inner circle and those who are just members.  Those in the inner circle are treated like friends.  Those who are just members must follow the rules.

Let me begin by saying how deeply tragic it is that trust levels are so badly damaged in this church that whether or not a diocese used this or that “form” becomes such an issue.

To which the appropriate response is:

Let me conclude by saying how deeply tragic it is that trust levels are so badly damaged in this church that whether or not a consent form is returned by fax or email becomes such an issue.

The issue is not the short form.  The issue is consistency.  Although Fr. Lawrence had sufficient number of consents to be elected bishop of South Carolina the consents were not received according to the proper form.  The Presiding Bishop made it clear that any election that did not follow the precise letter of the canons was invalid.  It now appears that it has been long-time practice in the Episcopal Church to be rather lax about proper form after all.  And, as soon as the problematic South Carolina reactionaries were dealt with, TEC went back to being lax.  Since, on the face of it, the VA election violates proper form just as much as SC, one has to ask why SC is held up for the kind of technicality that has long been standard protocol for liberal dioceses. 

That is where the distrust comes in.  Fr. Lawrence obviously was not denied election because of improper format.

BTW, the above is not meant to be a criticism of Fr. Sanderson.

I actually believed that there would be a valid explanation for this continuing debacle.  I see now that there was not.

I’m taking bets now.  How much do you want to bet that there will be a full mea culpa, a quavering lip and tears-barely-restrained apology for these regrettable and dreadful inconsistencies, a jutting-jawed determination to “do better”, a promise to restore trust in the process, and total ruthless consistency with the canons involving bishop elections from now on out . . . beginning with the upcoming election of South Carolina’s new bishop.

Boy howdy, this South Carolina bishop election will be the Most Scrupulously Guarded Canonically-Correct Bishop Election Ever—guaranteed by your friendly 815 ECUSA office. 

They shall restore trust in the process—with absolutely no hint of favoritism—starting right now with this next bishop election.

I think you’re right, Sarah, on the second part of your prediction, but a lip-quivering apology?  Not from this crowd.  The best we might do is an “apology” a la Elizabeth Kaeton.

Doing a little paraprasing
“..Methinks something is rotten in SC..”

I thought that the presenting issue with (+)Lawrence’s consent was the manner in which they were received (e-mail, etc.) and not necessarily the wording of the consent.  Am I wrong?

Isn’t it strange that no one is mentioning the financial penalty imposed by 815 for Dio-S.C. even daring to elect a reasserter as bishop?  There is little or no mention of the cost associated with having to redo this election process, which is pathetic in and of itself.

True repentance (dare I use the term here) should include financial reparation in addition to any verbal expression of “Sorry!”.

The presenting issue was that the consents were in violation of the canons.

Specifically, some of the consents were received by fax or email.  And some were not signed by all members of the Standing Committees.

As our Presiding Bishop stated in her loving and gentle letter to the Diocese of South Carolina:

“In the past, when consents to episcopal elections have been so closely contested, the diocese has been diligent in seeking to have canonically adequate ballots submitted, asking Standing Committees to resubmit their ballots when necessary,” she added. “It is certainly my hope that in future any diocese seeking consent to an election will use all possible effort to ensure that ballots are received in an appropriate form and in a timely manner.”

#6.  Me knows something is rotten at 815….

Thanks Sarah,

So, if I am understanding this correctly, the difference between the consents in SC and VA were based on delivery and signature (basically issues of validating the truth of the statement) in SC whereas the question in VA is the wording and not the veracity of the consent.  If that is the case, why the uproar. [Forgive me for being a bit under-informed on this one-I am not sure I have read all the documents]

Brian, since the precise wording of the consent is MANDATED by the canons, just as the signatures are MANDATED by the canons, then yes, in both cases the “veracity” of the consent is in question.  Actually, I would say the “validity” of the consent is in question.

Actually let’s just say it.  Those consents from SC that did not have the canonically MANDATED signatures and those consents from VA that did not have the canonically MANDATED wording were invalid.

It’s just that . . . the consents were declared invalid in one case . . . and not the other.

One guess as to which was which.  ; > )

Brian, in this case I have to say that the reasserters are ticked off for valid reasons.

Mark Lawrence’s election was invalidated on a technicality—not because there was any significant doubt that he received the required number of consents (barely, but he did), but because they weren’t delivered properly.  Other elections, which violated technicalities of equivalent magnitute (i.e, minor procedural points) were not invalidated.

If you’ve been historically lax about enforcing the letter of the law about procedures, and you suddenly decide that you want to do things properly from now on, that’s a fine thing—but you have to announce that you’re doing this ahead of time so that everyone running an election knows that they will have to dot all their i’s and cross all their t’s; and any elections currently going on need to be administered by the current de facto rules.  That’s only fair.

In the case of Mark Lawrence, an appropriate response by 815 might have been to go back to the diocese and say, “Look, we got X number of consents by fax or e-mail, and in a process this close we’d prefer to have actual written papers, as the canons technically require.  Your deadline has passed, but get the dioceses in question to send us written consent forms with, as they say, businesslike speed, and we’ll call it good.”

An even better response would have been, once it became clear that the process would be close, to ask the diocese of SC before the deadline to make sure everyone was sending in written consent forms.

It pains me to say it, because in general I like ++KJS; but in this instance the reasserters are right.  This situation stinks.

Red herring, pharaseetical legalism. The bishops and standing committees that made decisions on consents knew what they were deciding upon. In the case of Virginia the number consenting crossed the number required. In the case of South Carolina it was touch and go in terms of getting the number of consents sufficient, and some of them lacked the signatures demonstrating a majority of the standing committee favored consent. There is a time limit for a sufficient number for good reason. It being so close, I’m conflicted about whether I would have preferred those lacking signatures ought to have been given another chance.

I have said before in this forum that I see no reason South Carolina’s choice should not have received consents, and I wish them well this time around.

The Diocese of Virginia press release on the subject is here,
http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/pressroom/newsrelease39.html

It’s not a red herring, it’s simply a different example of canons not being followed to the letter. If the office of the presiding bishop is going to insist upon a strict adherence ot canons in a controversial election, then it ought to be that way for non-controversial elections, if for no other reason than this…it’s causing people to stumble. What’s good for the goose…

RE: “It being so close, I’m conflicted about whether I would have preferred those lacking signatures ought to have been given another chance.”

I’m not conflicted at all.  Those lacking signatures ought NOT to have been given another chance.  Those lacking signatures were invalid according to the canons.  The Diocese of South Carolina is now slogging through the process again in order to do the consent process in accordance to the canons.

Nor am I conflicted about the Diocese of Virginia consents.  Those lacking the canonically MANDATED wording ought NOT to have been given another chance.  Those lacking the proper wording were INVALID according to the canons.  The Diocese of Virginia should now be slogging through the process again in order to do the consent process in accordance to the canons.

But . . . they are not so doing.

Why are they not so doing?

Because the violation of the canons that produced an INVALID consent was not so declared in the case of the Diocese of Virginia but WAS so declared in the case of the Diocese of South Carolina.

It’s appropriate that the tainted consents concerned an election in the Diocese of Virginia, because this episode may help in the defense of the lawsuit against the CANA parishes.  It makes it easier to argue to the court to disregard the TEC canons and rule on neutral principles if you can show that TEC itself does not take its own canons seriously enough to enforce them consistently.

Does Bob Duncan speak for Mark Lawrence? If so, this
http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/07/pittsburgh-continues-plans-to-split.html
doesn’t help the cause for consent the second time around.

Yes, Bob Duncan speaks totally for Mark Lawrence.  Pull the string and Bob Duncan’s voice comes out of Lawrence.  Heck . . . pull the string and Bob Duncan’s secretary’s voice comes out of Lawrence, if Duncan is too busy.

[roll eyes]

The thing that so amuses me about Jake is that he repeats with breathlessness what was publicized in a posted press release a month ago, and then pretends like it’s some sort of super-secret spy report from a district meeting.

Just too funny.

I’m sorry, but this is so dumb I had to log in.  Fr Sanderson is another one who has been led down the path over these last 50 years.  That path leads to the ditch.  This is typical of the TECorp hierarchy (as is also found in noncanonical rector search processes).  The question is: did Matthews set him up?  I would answer “yes”.  It is clear that the Standing Committees themselves do NOT know how to use the long form, because it has not been used in the last decade.  This would double the so-called work of the Standing Committee of SC in that they had to reinform the others what to do and how to do it.  Ahh!  But even they did not know that no one else knew.  Fr Sanderson does not even know he was stabbed in the back.  Thanks for the great assist Bishop Matthews.

I’m not conflicted at all.  Those lacking signatures ought NOT to have been given another chance.  Those lacking signatures were invalid according to the canons.  The Diocese of South Carolina is now slogging through the process again in order to do the consent process in accordance to the canons.

Nor am I conflicted about the Diocese of Virginia consents.  Those lacking the canonically MANDATED wording ought NOT to have been given another chance.  Those lacking the proper wording were INVALID according to the canons.  The Diocese of Virginia should now be slogging through the process again in order to do the consent process in accordance to the canons.

At the risk of being called peevish;), I have to say that I have thought about this for a while.  I don’t see the two as related.  If someone does not sign something, we don’t really know what they’ll say later (i.e. ++Katharine, some GS Primates).  If the wording is incorrect, but the meaning is the same, then we have a signed document proving consent.

The only legitimate argument that I see is that the wording is not what is required by the Canon.  This argues for a strict construction, especially considering the use of the word “shall.”  But then the argument becomes about strict construction.  In the case of (+)Lawrence, ++Katharine did not apply strict construction.  In fact she extended the mandated time for receipt of the ballots.

So if it is a “sauce for the gander” type argument, then the PB exercised leniency in both elections and fairness was upheld.

Of course, I will be slammed for this.  So to avoid the redundant attacks.  I fully supported the consent to (+)Lawrence’s election.  I support him being re-elected and truly pray that all Bishops and Standing Committees file signed consents and that his election is unanimously consented to within the first week after the vote.

So on the day that Mark Lawrence was elected, the request letters, in the proper form, sat addressed and ready to go. They sat for 60 days or so while we waited for the “green light” from Canon Gerdau. The delay was in the requirement for the second psychological exam. Fr. Lawrence had to go from Bakersfield to UCLA, and the physician was painfully slow in getting the results to 815.

Does anyone know if the newly elected Bishop of Virginia also had to have a second psychological exam?
If so, fine. The system has changed for everyone
If not, why not?

Sarah,
Do I understand you to be confirming that SC is indeed going for option 2; leaving TEC, as soon as they get a bishop?  Or maybe I don’t understand,  being one of those “men with almost no brain” and all.

Apples and oranges folks.  The scrutiny on SC is because they are ready to bolt.  VA was not.  What did you expect?  That TEC would make schism easy?

It seems the Virginia problem is much more serious than first believed:

Jan Nunley:
“The additional irony, of course, is that it turns out that South Carolina and Virginia both used that same abbreviated form. As have most dioceses, apparently, for the last ten or so years.* So if Virginia has to conduct a do-over, so does South Carolina…and so do most Episcopal dioceses for the past decade or so, more than 90 possible elections in more than 80 dioceses, by my count.”

Another person studying this thinks there are 11 illicit bishops that have been improperly elected since 2000 in violation of the “strict conformance” standard.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4633/

Jim the Puritan,
Using that quote seems to imply among other things that you missed the information given that SC did not use the form Virginia did.  You missed that one?
Also, the person who identified 11 consent processes did not use the word “illicit.”  That is not helpful.
Too, it was not the elections themselves that have been called into question, only the following consent process.  Get that straight.
Finally, the use of those non-canonical forms are not in violation of some “strict conformance” standard—the use of those forms is in violation of the canons.  Period.
Be clear and get it right, bud.  This fire doesn’t need unwarranted oil.

RGEaton

RE: “Sarah, Do I understand you to be confirming that SC is indeed going for option 2; leaving TEC, as soon as they get a bishop?”

Yes Father Jake.  I also speak for Mark Lawrence.  When Bishop Duncan and his secretary are too busy, I speak for him myself.  Pull the string and it is my voice that comes out, if it is not Bishop Duncan or his secretary.  Fourth in line, though, is Super-Top-Secret, and you’d have to receive some special cereal boxes with the IRD decoder ring to find that out.  I’ll never say!!

I advise that you take these exact words and post them over at your blog as NEWS!!!  ; > )

Keep it up, Father Jake!

On a more serious note—obviously Father Jake does not know to what I was referring when I mentioned the press release.  Did he really not see it?  Looks like it.

How ironic—look for news, and there it sits in a Pittsburgh diocesan release.

Sad.

25: An “illicit” bishop is one that has been consecrated despite not having met canonical requirements.  That certainly appears to have happened here, since they did not receive the necessary consents under canon law.

There’s a link to the May statement at the beginning of the post.

Newsworthy?  Debatable.  But at least a cut above passing off a snide comment about our PB (man with almost no brain) as “news,” eh?

#23, Father Jake,
Please, as a well informed member of the diocese of SC,  I ask you to stop saying that “the diocese of SC is ready to bolt.”  You can not have facts in evidence to support this.  If you did, it would be news to the diocese.  Instead, this rumor only stirs dissension.  Instead of speculating,  please join us in prayer for Godly leadership to lead us forward.
Catherine Warner

Catherine,

I suggest that you direct your concern to Bp. Duncan.  He was hosting the event at which that speculation was voiced.

Fr. Jake, I wasn’t at Bishop Duncan’s event.  I am responding to the false information from your comment posted earlier.  I would still request prayers over speculation.
Blessings,
Catherine Warner