An attorney representing Bishop William J. Cox has accused Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of defaming the bishop, and has demanded that she publish a correction of her announcement concerning his deposition.
In a letter dated March 27, Wicks Stephens, a lawyer representing Bishop Cox, said that since the deposition failed to achieve the canonically required majority of “the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” the deposition is “without effect and void.” The Presiding Bishop has previously been made aware of the canonical deficiencies in the vote deposing Bishop Cox, the retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland and assisting bishop in Oklahoma. Therefore, Mr. Stephens said she may be guilty of defamation if she continues to make public statements to the contrary about his client.
“In light of the foregoing, demand is hereby made that you right the wrong by which you have defamed Bishop Cox by immediately withdrawing your pronouncement of deposition and that you publish your withdrawal in the same manner and to the same extent you have published your wrongful actions,” Mr. Stephens wrote.
The Presiding Bishop was asked about the canonical legitimacy of the House of Bishops’ votes to depose bishops Cox and John-David Schofield of San Joaquin during a question-and-answer session at St. Anne’s Church in Stockton, Calif., the evening before she opened the business session of a March 29 special convention to reconstitute an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Bishop Jefferts Schori said the House of Bishops’ vote to depose Bishop Schofield was proper when a majority of the approximately 115 bishops present for a business session on March 12 consented to the depositions. (The total number of bishops entitled to vote that day was 294.)
“A majority of the House of Bishops voted,” she said. Moreover, she added, any protest of a parliamentary action must be made at the time of the action by someone present at the meeting. “That did not happen.”
In an interview with a reporter for The Living Church, Mr. Stephens said Bishop Jefferts Schori sent notice of Bishop Cox’s deposition to every diocesan bishop in The Episcopal Church and to the primates of all 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion. Likewise he sent each person on the Presiding Bishop’s distribution list a copy of the letter demanding a correction.
Steve Waring
We invite your response to this article through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week click here to start your subscription.
5 Comments
Bishop Cox has resigned three times - as Suffragan of Maryland, as Assistant in Oklahoma, and from the House of Bishops. A reasonable person might think that is enough. I'm waiting for action to be taken against Bishops Bena (Suffragan Albany now Nigeria) and Fairfield (North Dakota now Uganda).
Bishop Fairfield's dissent in the Righter case merits rereading.
Tom Rightmyer trightmy@juno.com Asheville, NC
It seems a sad commentary on the current state of the Episcopal Church, that the election of a new bishop (on the first ballot!) in the Diocese of South Carolina is blocked by the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor based on a technicality in Canon Law, and yet when Canon Law is clearly not followed, as in this case (since the majority of the 294 bishops entitled to vote certainly could not have been obtained from the 115 bishops attending the meeting, even if all 115 had been in complete unanimity. A 'majority' of 294 would be 148 votes... hard to get from 115 bishops. [To claim the Canons mean "a majority of those present" goes against the clear meaning of the Canon, which was written as it is because of the extreme gravity of the action involved-- stripping a bishop of his Holy Orders.]
We as a Church have long believed that we are called to speak out for justice and fairness, and a great many resolutions are passed by every General Convention on precisely those two virtues in regard to the world. If, though, we fail to practice those same virtues within the Church, how can we expect anyone else to listen to us? Given particularly that in this case we are talking about an elderly, retired bishop-- certainly no current threat to our polity-- how could our House of Bishops have allowed this travesty to take place?
The rampant apparent arrogance on the part of bishops in TEC--arrogance from the Left and from the Right--disgusts me. They're just playing church. The call must go out to everyone of them to get on their knees and beg mercy from God for what they are doing to the church. And they shouldn't get off their knees to eat or drink or sleep until they have fully repented of their sins. The Presiding Bishop, as chief pastor and primate, appears to be chiefly arrogant. Is this the best we can do? Is this the best we can hope for from our leaders? I expect better.
"And they'll know we are Christians by our love" hmmmm....TEC seems to have forgotten that line. Bishop Jefferts Schori seems bent on punishment and has lost all perspecitive of love and propriety. In performing these illegal and unethical actions, especially with regards to a retired bishop, she gives a lie to the meaning of Christian charity and undermines TEC mission.
The conservatives within the Episcopal Church are angry; and wish to do damage to our mother church (and--more than a few of them, no doubt--to our mother Presiding Bishop) via pointless legal machinations and obfuscations. Rather than simply walking out the door with their dignity intact--as befits Christians anywhere who seek a new faith home--they choose to go kicking and screaming like children who cannot get their way.
For those of us who faithfully remain in a loving relationship with an inclusive church, the sadness we bear is at many levels.