Statement on the "Sentence of Deposition" of Bishop Duncan

Prior to the meeting of the House of Bishops last week The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. warned that the "proceeding against Bishop Duncan clearly belong[s] to a larger effort to create an office of Presiding Bishop, and a way of proceeding in the present season, at odds with the constitution and canons of this church."  Following the questionable vote, ACI noted that "the legitimacy of the House's action and the Presiding Bishop's leadership has been placed in serious question before the eyes of the Communion and the larger public. No one should minimize the role this may play in the unfolding re-establishment of the Communion's common life." ACI's concerns about canonical abuse and procedural legitimacy are not allayed by the purported "Sentence of Deposition" of Bishop Duncan now made public.  In her memorandum to the House of Bishops, dated September 12, 2008, the Presiding Bishop addressed the question whether the canonically required vote by the House of Bishops was "by a majority of bishops present at the meeting at which the matter is presented or, on the other hand, by a majority of all the voting members of the House whether or not in attendance."  She concluded that "the vote must be by a majority of all the bishops who are at the meeting at which the vote must be taken and who are entitled to vote." The "Sentence of Deposition" does not reflect, however, her interpretation of the canon.  It includes the recitation "a majority of the members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented to this Deposition at a meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City , Utah , on 18 September, 2008"¦."  That is, the Sentence does not read, following the Presiding Bishop's own memorandum and ruling, "a majority of the members of the House of Bishops present," nor does it recite the actual language of the relevant canon.  Instead, the Sentence adopts the plain reading of the canon the Presiding Bishop overruled: "a majority of members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented..." Surely one thing all parties can agree on is that this did not happen in Salt Lake City .  There are close to 300 members of the House of Bishops "entitled to vote."  Only 88 consented to the purported deposition.  Far from a majority, this is fewer than a third of the bishops entitled to vote.  So why does the "Sentence of Deposition" now concede the legal point made by bishops and others who requested canonical integrity?  Is it because an accurate recitation, one using the Presiding Bishop's own words, "a majority of bishops present at the meeting," would be invalid on its face?  This Sentence of Deposition only confirms ACI's stated concern that the legitimacy of the House's action and the Presiding Bishop's leadership has been placed in serious question by this proceeding.