I do not think you should take the lack of a rousing scream of “NO” to mean that this was wholeheartedly endorsed or that any one thought yes meant that the person thought this did anything much toward answering DES.

Maybe he said, “no” under his breath during the voice vote?

Canon,
  I doubt the average person can do much but I don’t see why an intrepid group of bloggers couldn’t contact at least the CA/Windsor Bishops and ask “If your vote had been recorded what would it have been?” If they fudge then that’s a YES.

MacPherson says here that +Bennison voted no and I’ve also believe I read that +Howe voted no.  How many no votes were there?

I am sorry gentleman but I just got off the phone with Bishop Salmon.  He not only opposed the document but made a speech before the House in closed session explaining why on a point of personal privilege.

So far you have:
Howe: did not vote for it…which is a NO
Salmon: NO
Bennison: No
Wolfe: probably NO
Love: Probably NO
Anyone absent or left: NO
Also, why did KJS allow a voice vote at all?
Weren’t there retired Bishops present? Does their vote count?
If not, how are you supposed to know they didn’t speak up in a group vote?

How many no votes were there?

According to reports, there were only 2 no votes.

Soooooooo . . . bishop Salmon remained silent during the public vote?  Or did everyone who was in attendance mistakenly believe that there was only one ‘No’ - from bishop Bennison?

Those reports cannot be accurate based on what we now know.

According to reports, there were only 2 no votes.

Interesting, because Kennedy+, who was in the room says there was only one.

both Matt Kennedy and Bishop Wolf stated there was a single ‘No’ vote, not several ‘No’ votes.  Bishop Wolf identified it as bishop Bennison.  Howe said he opposed it, but did not specifically say he voice-voted ‘No’.

Note: I didn’t post the ENS story yet until I talked to Bishop Salmon because I was concerned about its accuracy.

Why did they not demand the vote be counted?

This is a very different picture than other eye witnesses are presenting. I grant that witness account can be in error without any malice but not going on record all this looks like post-event whitewashing.

AH:
It is silly for anyone to suggest, as ENS and some media have, that this was “near-unanimous” and “wholeheartedly” endorsed.
There was only a voice vote. If you are in a group of people about to vote and it’s clear 70% of them just yelled Aye then yelling NO is an afterthought, especially when you are frustrated and tired. The only thing you can accurately say about a voice vote is that it passed. This was a very important vote, the chair at the very least should of asked for a roll call vote so that there was a proper record of not just the Yeas and nays but who was absent.

How is it inclusive not to include the truth of what actually happened?

No one is suggesting Matt+‘s account isn’t accurate. He never said everyone said Yes and then one person said No.

Matt 5:37 folks.

If they wanted to abstain from voting, then shouldn’t someone have called for abstentions so that it would also be a matter of record that some didn’t say “no” but didn’t say “yes”?

I smell fudge in the oven.

Rocks - uh, don’t be so sure.  Here is the liveblog from Matt Kennedy:

Wolfe: I am worried about voting on this in consensus
KJS: Would you like to vote or recieve this by consensus
mixed
KJS: Let’s vote. All in favor of this?
Aye
No (I only heard one voice)
Okay,

This is turning out to be a train wreck, not only the Episcopal house of bishops, but the reasserters’ angst.  Why are we all wasting time worrying about these issues?  I’m just going to see how it all sorts out, and probably just follow Bishop Stanton’s leadership.  Whatever he decides to do has always worked out for me.

Thank you Kendall, we were truly worrying about +Salmon.  I hope he wrote his speech down, so that someday we can see/hear it.

Gloria in Dio.SC

I have alot of respect for most of the Windsor & Camp Allen bishops.  I also have a healthy dose of skepticism about bishops who come out in the next day or two and say that they opposed the resolution statement when two eyewitnesses in the room both remember (and one records in real-time) having heard only one dissenting voice.

How is it inclusive not to include the truth of what actually happened?

Because it is irrelevant.  We know that there was opposition and that people (at least +Salmon) spoke out at the meeting.  So there wasn’t 100% agreement.  It was a majority vote and far exceeded a supermajority.  If individual bishops want to identify themselves, feel free.  Still remains irrelevant.

Thank you, Dr. Harmon , this takes a great weight off my heart, and that of many others, I’m sure.

What a shoddy way to do business.  Have a voice vote and then declare it nearly unanimous when the no’s aren’t voiced probably because these bishops generally didn’t think anyone was taking roll at that point?  This ain’t the Rotary Club, folks.  It’s supposed to be a serious operation.

BTW, if Matt+ was in the room for the voice vote, how could he have missed the “Impassioned Speech Explaining Why” made by +salmon?

The Speech was given in closed session

Brian—a substantial part of the proceedings took place during closed door sessions from which the press was excluded. 
As for your contention that misrepresenting the vote is irrelevant—I really expected much better of you.

Canon Doctor:

First don’t get me wrong because I think Bishop Salmon is and has been a great pillar of the faith, but now we have four or five bishops claiming to be the single No vote heard.  This is what happens when you don’t make folks go on the record.

If “our’ bishops had wanted a voice vote the could have, and my view should have, made that clear while they were in the prolonged executive session.  The only reason not to have aroll call on this was that you either trusted everyone to tell the truth about how they voted, or you are trying to provide cover for someone.  I’d have to say that trusting bishops like +Bruno to tell the truth is a longshot.

RSB

It sounded to me from Matt’s description that the voice vote might have been a quick surprise to many and there wasn’t time to speak against it.  Once the voice vote began, I imagine some of the no’s were like deer in the headlights.  Just a thought.

Maybe someone ought to ask Fr. Matt to amplify first hand what he heard and saw.  I don’t think he’d hesitate to comment.  The only reason this is at all important is that it ties in with Rev. Dr. Harmon’s earlier warnings about honesty and clarity, on BOTH sides, in response to the primates’ request.

if “our’ bishops had wanted a voice vote they could have, and my view should have, made that clear while they were in the prolonged executive session.

Perhaps they did.  Remember that the way this whole lengthy meeting was run bears less resemblance to the convention of a professional organization than to a session of the Supreme Soviet as interpreted by Monty Python.  815 is utterly terrified of anything approaching a “democratic polity”, which is why they turned their steamroller up to 11 for this meeting.

I am reminded yet again of how good at FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) that TEC is.  The official TEC list of co-consecrators of +VGR did not include some bishops who can be seen in photos, and did include at least one bishop who was in fact at the protest service.  I am not certain whether a truly accurate list exists even now, as I have seen requests for such a list.  We had much the same over exactly how, and by whom, +KJS was elected PB, and of course a reading of this and other blogs shows the same over who did and did not do what in the HOB meeting.  Interesting stuff, but much of the emotional effort would be better spent elsewhere than helping TEC spread the FUD.  After all, you can’t have Anglican Fudge without FUD.

FWIW

APB

This is what ENS has:

Former South Carolina Bishop Ed Salmon said that even though the process used to reach the final document did not acknowledge the “unconscious oppression of those who don’t agree,” the effort “represented significant progress in terms of the House of Bishops working together.”

However, he said that the document did not directly address the Primates’ Communiqué.

“I believe we have a problem in the Anglican Communion because we have a problem in the Episcopal Church,” Salmon said, explaining that the problem is “symptomatically” about human sexuality, but “more deeply” about theological differences.

Still, Salmon said, he would do everything he could to make the statement work.

The BBC has it that Kenya is rejecting the House of Bishops statement.

Two votes “no” and Salmon’s was one of them.

Guess he was swimming upstream all the way on this one.

Yet another example of Hob incompetence and prevarication.

NO roll call, no name takee, no responsibility.  Works out the same regardless of who engineered what vote in what way, doesn’t it?  If the bishops who were absent can be assumed to not have voted, then we have documentation of one, that is, a,single no vote to the document and that naysayer is identified as Bennison.  End of story.
Sotte voce did not count at the meeting and does not count after the meeting.  True for liberal and true for “Windsor” bishops and true for “Camp Allen” bishops. 

Perhaps they all find solace in the doctrine of the Trinity now?  And would like to claim that the actions of the one are for all?  /sarcasm.

Re 35:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014907.stm

If all of these bishops are now claiming they voted no, where’s the minority report?

It’s reminiscent of the vote on B033 where the bishops all agreed and then they come out later and say “But I didn’t really mean it!”

Brian from t19, all the bishops didn’t agree. ENS should have said this.

AH,
I read Matt’s blog live. There is no way in a voice vote to pick out individuals from a large group or say everyone said Aye. Even if everyone who wanted to vote No yelled it we still wouldn’t know who most of them were till they said so individually. There should have been a roll call vote reported on such an important vote. Why does it matter? I think it matters to people in the pews to know how their bishop voted.

dwstroudmd,
  It’s not who voted NO that’s important, it who voted Yes and we don’t know that. All we know is that a majority, probably a large majority, did vote yes.

I was for it before I was against it…or vice versa.

Rocks,
The point is that Matt reported that there was only one No vote and yet we now have bishops claiming that they were that lone No voter standing firm as it were. 
When they get home they will have to explain their vote, and they can’t all claim to be Matt’s one lone No vote.

It’s academic at this point.  If they were there, and participated (which they all did) and there’s no minority report, I’m assuming they were mostly for it.  Bishops Wolf and MacPherson are probably typical of the Windsor/CA group; not entirely happy about the statement, but not passionately against it, believing it’s better than what they might’ve gotten and believing it’s something the ABC and primates can work with.

They aren’t claiming they voted NO. They said the didn’t vote FOR it.
Salmon said he would not vote for it in private session. Howe specifically said I didn’t vote for it. Again it the Yeas that are important, not the Nays. What;s the point of making a big deal of saying NO in a group vote when it’s clear the resolution will pass?
If you were FOR something you would say Yes.

Rocks, I agree the “yeas” are important and most important.  The problem is that having placed faith in the actions of the “Windsor” and “Camp Allen” bishops to attempt to move in a Communion direction, I have nothing to show for that faith.  I don’t even have a single identified voice from those groups that was HEARD at the critical vote.

I never expected any outcome than the one arrived at.  I did expect a defense of the Faith and identifiable protagaonists for the Faith.  I have neither.  Bennison, of all the paragons of liberal revisionism, is the only voice of supposed conviction to be heard.  Integrity should be just as disillusioned in “their bishops” as I am in mine.  Nothing was worth going on record for.

Of course, it is possible this was planned to be executed to promote the maximum doubt.  Clever strategy if so planned.  I rather think it was ennui.

Frankly, I think it was KJS using the chair to abuse the rules of order to be able to put out a press statement that claimed there was a near consensus, when clearly there wasn’t. Bishop Wolf saw that, as did those who yelled vote when KJS asked if they wanted it to be by vote or consensus. She accepts the group wants a vote and goes right ahead and does it by consensus anyway.

This is something like the synoptic problem.  Many people in good faith have clear recollections that differ.  I’ve worked with Bishop Salmon in a board for more than thirteen years, and I’ve never known him to speak anything other than the truth.  Ever.

As I said yesterday, this is indicative of wide-spread institutional failure in the HoB that goes beyond theological problem.

So was the closed session vote the REAL vote, and the open session vote just a show or smokescreen?  I think we’re missing some vital information here.

Under the rules of the House of Bishops, any six bishops can require a recorded vote on any question (House of Bishops Rules of Order, General Rule VII).

Did no one ASK for a recorded vote?

These bishops are all elected officials.  Thus their vote is supposed to reflect the wishes of the diocese.  As such, the bishops have a duty to inform the flock that elected them how they voted.  It must not be a secret.  That is what Rome does.

“What’s the point of making a big deal of saying NO in a group vote when it’s clear the resolution will pass?”—-Rocks

Because the witness we bear when we fight and lose can be just as important—-sometimes more important—-than the witness we bear under more pleasant circumstances.

“As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:6-7).

It’s clear that others are also deeply concerned about the failure of Windsor/CA bishops to vote ‘No’ when it came time to vote.  Of all the things I read last night this is what disturbed me the most.

“That is what Rome does.”

eek!  Well, we sure don’t want that, do we?  It’s much better having your church’s teachings subject to majority rule, isn’t it?  I mean, how could THAT backfire?  Yay democracy! </sarcasm>

I fail to see what good can come of snarky attacks on Catholic polity at this point in the game.

Remember that the way this whole lengthy meeting was run bears less resemblance to the convention of a professional organization than to a session of the Supreme Soviet as interpreted by Monty Python.

Too entirely true.

It seems to me y’all are onto something.  Juxtaposing some quotes from above comments:
“815 is utterly terrified of anything approaching a “democratic polity”, which is why they turned their steamroller up to 11 for this meeting.”
“NO roll call, no name takee, no responsibility.  Works out the same regardless of who engineered what vote in what way, doesn’t it?”
“Frankly, I think it was KJS using the chair to abuse the rules of order to be able to put out a press statement that claimed there was a near consensus, when clearly there wasn’t. Bishop Wolf saw that, as did those who yelled vote when KJS asked if they wanted it to be by vote or consensus. She accepts the group wants a vote and goes right ahead and does it by consensus anyway.”

So this is how it’s done…..

Let’s suppose one bishop did call for a tally vote - well, the house would have had to vote on whether to take a tally vote - and I’m sure our PB would have asked for a verbal vote - and the majority would have YELLED NO…..I’ll wait to hear from all the Network Bishops that remained in NO.  Possibly they, those who stayed, got the short straw and had to stay…who knows…but I do believe it is good that we had Network Bishops who stayed and Network Bishops who left to go prepare and start the meeting in Pa…....just mho…

This is getting very silly. Surely the point is not who heard what, but whether or not certain bishops voted for the resoloution or not. Reading the blogs it’s evident that a number of bishops are saying that they did not vote for it, rather than that they voted no in a loud audible voice. Seems to me the bishops in question likely did not say anything during the voice vote (i.e abstained), and have they clarified their posistions afterward. I’d have prepared a louder voice vote for no, but there you, are, we’ve all been in meetings where we have opposed the motion, but because the support is for it is obviously there, and because we are tired, and want it all over we just say nothing during the voice vote.

It’s not edifying to see the bishops act in this manner, but they are human, and by the time the vote came could plainly see the writing was on the wall and no doubt just wanted the fiasco to end and were moving on to consider how things would work out in their diocese’.

The voting is over. Any discussion is moot.

bl

This thread may already be dead, but I have to say something about this.

Did anyone notice that Bp Salmon’s speech was given in the closed session? 

Folks: we do not know what all went on in the closed session.  It was most likely that it was there that the real debate occurred.  It was there that any real vote/consensus actually happened.  The “open session” was the show.  It is my guess that a whole lot of folks were given some kind of opportunity to “vote” “no” previously in private—and that a lot of the far left did so as well as the orthodox—and they were asked simply to make a show of being together in public.  Of course Bennison would act out; that’s the kind of thing he does.  But I would be amazed if there was not a serious battle in private—which is the reason for closed session.

Bp Salmon is a no-compromise sold-out-to-Jesus Christian of impeccable integrity as are many others in the HoB, including Bp Bill Love.

Could we try to find some kind of charity and hope?  I have been burned as often as anyone—probably more than many.  But cynicism, “ennui” and a jaded attitude do not become those who are supposed to trust in the Lord Jesus.

Let’s entrust oursevles to Him and remain at one with the working out of His Will.

I really hope this idea is read by somone here and that this take manages to get into all the considerations of this issue because I would be willing to bet a lot that this just may be what actually happened.

On the off chance someone’s still checking in here, Bp. Salmon said that, to the best of his knowledge, there were two “no” votes: his and Bp. Bennison’s.