The article published July 17 reporting on charges against the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox contained inaccurate information about the nature of the complaint filed against him. There is no provision under the Canons and Constitution of the General Convention for the Presiding Bishop to file a “formal” complaint with the Title IV [Disciplinary] Review Committee. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold did forward on to the Review Committee evidence compiled in part by the bishops of Kansas and Oklahoma, but it was not a formal complaint.

A formal complaint for alleged offenses not involving doctrine or conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy may be filed either by any three bishops or by 10 or more priests, deacons and laity. At least one priest and six of the laity making the complaint “shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident,” according to Title IV Canon 3.23(a)2. Title IV Canon 3.23(b) provides that “whenever the Presiding Bishop has sufficient reason to believe that any bishop has committed an offense and the interests and good order and discipline of the Church require investigation by the Review Committee, the Presiding Bishop shall concisely and clearly inform the Review Committee in writing as to the nature and facts surrounding each alleged offense but without judgment or comment upon the allegations, and the Review Committee shall proceed as if a charge had been filed.”

To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine. To learn more, click here.