Here's how a seceding diocese MUST proceed under the Episcopal Church's constitution

It surprised me to learn that the Episcopal Church's constitution contains a complicated mechanism that a diocese such as Fort Worth could use to secede, after a fashion. But it would not be able to do so so unilaterally; it would first have to obtain approval of its proposed action by super-majority votes of both houses in General Convention and of its TEC-loyal parishes. Given that each diocese's own constitution contains an unqualified accession to TEC's own constitution, it follows that a diocese's extra-constitutional attempts to secede would necessarily be ultra vires, and thus null and void.

Here's how a constitutional secession of sorts would work. Under Article VI, section 2 of TEC's constitution: 

• Bishop Iker and the Fort Worth standing committee must propose to cede jurisdiction of a part of Fort Worth's territory to TEC, where it would have the status of unorganized mission territory.
• The ceded territory would not be the parishes that wanted to stay in TEC, but the ones that wanted to leave; this is counterintuitive but will make sense momentarily. 
• General Convention must then approve the proposed cession of territory by: 
  • a 2/3 vote of the House of Bishops; 
  • a 2/3 vote of the dioceses in the House of Delegates, voting by orders; 
  • a 3/4 vote of the parishes in the ceded territory, i.e., of the secessionist parishes; and 
  • a 3/4 vote of the remaining parishes.
• If GC approved, the Diocese of Fort Worth would still exist, but it would shrink down to encompass just the TEC-loyal parishes that did not want to secede; the remaining parishes would be in unorganized mission territory.
  
• Bishop Iker and his standing committee would then leave TEC and be received in the Southern Cone or other province. In the newly-designated TEC mission territory, they could organize on behalf of their new church, in competition with their former church, as they and their ecclesial authorities saw fit.
  

This would undoubtedly be a funky and cumbersome process, in which a successful secession would be by no means assured (the votes probably just aren't there). The new church would be in violation of the ancient canons prescribing geographic dioceses (but those should be revisited in any case). And property ownership issues would still have to be fought out (but that would be true in any case).

But here's my point: TEC's constitution sets forth a constitutional way for a diocese to 'secede.'  The secessionist dioceses unqualifiedly acceded to TEC's constitution. So, if those dioceses wish to leave TEC, that's how they must attempt to do it; they can't just go off and do what seems good in their own eyes. As a result, the recent extra-constitutional attempts to secede, on the part of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh, are no more than so much noise (and are grounds for presentment of their bishops).

Comments

[Tobias Haller]

This Constitutional Article is not about secession, but about the cession of territory (not parishes) in an area forming part of a Diocese for the creation of what is called an "Area Mission" -- as in the case of the Navajoland Area Mission. Such a mission is not ceded to some other church, but remains a part of the Episcopal Church, devoted to a particular mission. This is not applicable to Fort Worth.

For more on Area Missions and Missionary Dioceses, see Canon I.11.

[D. C. Toedt]

Tobias, I figured there had to be some non-secessionary reason for that constitutional section; it just wasn't apparent what that was.

Remember I'm a lawyer, and one of the things we do is find ways for texts to be creatively interpreted so that our clients can legally do what they want. In this case, I was trying to build an argument based on the legal principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius: Since TEC's constitution provides a mechanism that can be used to secede, albeit with difficulty, it follows that any extra-constitutional secession attempts by dioceses — which unqualifiedly acceded to the constitution — are null and void ab initio.

(In re-reading my own argument, I'm not especially impressed with it; oh well, next time.)

[tobias]

Thanks DC. (Don't know why my comment appears twice? -- feel free to delete one, or both!)

I realize that's a lawyer's task -- tho' I'm not one I've been around them enough to appreciate that fact. I've looked at the pleadings from CANA and they are most inventive along those lines! (Don't think they'll stand up to scrutiny, however, and some of the twists would do Chubby Checker proud.)

I also appreciate the legal principle involved in an argument from silence; our Canons would be markedly improved by spelling out that entry into union with General Convention, with the exception of overseas missionary efforts (as spelled out in Canon I.11) is irrevocable, short of a legal division of the US itself! Of course, the whole idea of the "national church" was so basic to the origin of TEC that no one suspected anyone would come along and try what's being tried now, so the Canons don't address it. In a sense, I think the presence of the canon defining when an overseas diocese may be "liberated" (as Liberia was!; and Mexico) might be used to build an argument contra the secessionists, since this is the only kind of cession conceived of. And as you say, it one thing only is mentioned it must rule out other things. So this is worth keeping on that ground. Well done, Counselor.