« McCain's POW release was 35 years ago tomorrow | Main | Rumors about candidates hold lessons for Bible scholars »

March 15, 2008



Thanks for this analysis, D.C. I have to agree with you.


D.C. -
You have been a beacon of reason over at T19 (even if I do not necessarily agree with you).

What, if any, is your opinion on the deposition of Bishop Cox at the same HOB meeting, given that +Cox was not inhibited at all?


Allen Lewis

D. C. Toedt III

Allen @10:18am, the canon is awkwardly drafted on that point. I think a fair reading is that inhibition per se is not a prerequisite to deposition. As long as the committee in question (I forget its name) makes the requisite finding, and the House of Bishops votes by the required majority, then the accused bishop is deposed. The requirement of consent by the three senior bishops with jurisdiction is best read as applying only to temporary inhibition as an interim measure pending the HoB vote. I don't think the intent of the canon was to give any one of three senior bishops the power to unilaterally abort the deposition proceeding by vetoing the interim inhibition.

As to the specific case of Bishop Cox, I don't know off the top of my head whether the committee made the required finding.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Favorite Posts

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow