The Expected Spin From 815 On The Deposition Votes – Beers Says “Eligible to vote” means nothing

Read it all. Frankly, the Episcopal Church has lost all credibility in its democratic processes. This deal is rigged because they aren’t going to follow their own rules. Beers needs to go and the PB needs to get better legal advice.

17 Responses to “The Expected Spin From 815 On The Deposition Votes – Beers Says “Eligible to vote” means nothing”

  1. 1 Canon Gregg L. Riley March 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm


    I believe it was Bishop Iker who referred to the HOB meetings as “toxic environment.” Why should we be surprised?

  2. 2 Henry March 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Well, DUH!!! Of course Beers is going to say it was all good–if he said otherwise, he would be making himself look like the fool that he is!

  3. 3 Timothy Fountain March 15, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    Brad, your read on these matters means alot. As an attorney, GC deputy, and participant in Reconciliation workshops, it is hard to dismiss your interpretation of what’s going on. Wishing you peace and spiritual safety, but selfishly glad you are still on the front lines.

  4. 4 Mike March 17, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Mr. Drell,

    Thanks for your well-considered view on the HOB “vote”. Beers knows precisely what he’s doing, as does the PB. The only people positioned to respond officially, the bishops themselves – should they remain silent on this obvious procedural sham – will be plainly seen as culpable and complicit, if this stands unchallenged. Lay people, those to whom these shepherds are responsible, ARE watching and taking note.

  5. 5 robroy March 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Mike points out that the bishops need to decry the miscarriage of justice. Since you seem to have +MacPherson’s ear, any word from him? Or is it all collegiality?

  6. 6 Phil March 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    The PB needs to go, too – this is her show; she’s driving the agenda.

    Actually, her and Beers need to step down pending the results of a full, independent inquiry. Knowing what we know now, that inquiry will likely to lead to the permanent resignation of both, as well as others.

  7. 7 Mike March 17, 2008 at 3:10 pm


    ..and the likelihood of stepping down?

  8. 8 Rudy March 17, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Can the decision of the chair (the PB) or the votes for the deposition be challenged?



  9. 9 Gregg L. Riley March 17, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Nope, the ball has been sanpped for the next play (Duncan) there is no review.

  10. 10 Allen Lewis March 18, 2008 at 1:33 am

    I’ve a question to which I have not yet seen a response: Is there any way Bishop Schofield or Bishop Cox could challenge this vote in a civil court? I know they would probably not, but could they if they they so desired?

    I have not seen this point addressed anywhere. Brad?

  11. 11 Jeffersonian March 18, 2008 at 2:09 am

    The liklihood of the Schori-Beers Axis stepping down is roughly equivalent to that of Lindsay Lohan coming up clean at the clinic. They are doing the HoB’s bidding…who, exactly would even call for their ouster.

    I’ve been predicting a purge of the orthodox for years. It’s on, folks. Git while the gittin’ is good.

  12. 12 LP March 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    How much more of this is going to be necessary before people realize that if you wish to be a Christian and an Anglican — rather than an apostate and a Schorian — you must LEAVE THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

    Will it take the prosecution of individuals in __every single parish__ for such “infractions” as… oh, I dunno… holding fast to their marriage vows or believing in the bodily resurrection, before people take their heads out the sand and recognize that the institutionalized apostasy and persecution of the Christian faith which is happening in the leadership and seminaries of PECUSA (and has been for 30 years now) has a bearing, both legal and sacramental, on them?

    Putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and humming loudly doesn’t make it go away… it just means that your presence and contributions to a PECUSA parish — **ANY** PECUSA parish — are complicit in its abandonment of the faith and persecution of Christians.

    “Oh, but it’s not happening (yet) in my back-yard” has never been a good excuse. That’s particularly true in a situation like this.

    WAKE UP people!

    If you’re not actively seeking to leave PECUSA, you are __part of the problem__ and __complicit in persecution__.

    *** There is no longer any middle ground. ***

    (In fact, there hasn’t been any for quite some time, but by now that should be abundantly clear to anyone __who hasn’t already decided, in their hearts, to side with the apostates.__)


  13. 13 Joe Trimble March 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    I second LP’s post. Nothing to add

  14. 14 Mike March 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Well, we are now near the middle of the day, March 19, and have we heard from the vaunted Windsor Bishops? Anyone? I guess each of you then, by your individual and collective silence, is culpable and complicit in the travesty of the most recent deposition voting scandal. Yes, it’s a scandal. Yet you’ll certainly not hear that word from the Windsor Blunderers!

  15. 15 David March 19, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    A just finished conversation (totally different conversation) ended with this perfect illustration of TEC’s “democracy.”

    Democracy in action: lynch mob, 49 votes in favor, 1 against.

  16. 16 LC March 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    I have to scratch my head at what Schori or anyone else thinks is being accomplished by saying, “We checked with our lawyer, and he said our process was legal”.

    I mean, Beers is a lawyer. He’s not a legislator, or a judge. He’s a partisan advocate who is being paid to put the best possible face on his client’s case. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (to borrow a line from Seinfeld)–but recognize it for what it is.

    I then had another thought. ECUSA is raising this as if it were an advice-of-counsel defense in a court of law. There is a strategic problem with this. This is not a court of law, so advice of counsel is not really much of a defense. However, this is a willful, public disclosure of the communications with counsel that are in question. I think this is at least arguably a waiver of the attorney-client and work-product privileges with respect to the communications in question. In the event that there ever IS a court case that arises out of this, I hope somebody remembers that these privileges were waived. They’re certainly waived once a criminal or civil litigant raises an advice-of-counsel defense. Why not here?

    LP, nice to hear from you again. Funny to be running into you again all these years after daily Communion with Dorsey McConnell in Dwight Hall. Happy Holy Week to you and the Mrs.

  17. 17 Kenneth Jones March 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    I have the feeling that not ALL lay persons in TEC are fooled by these shenanigans. A good many are honest enough to question the actions of their leaders, and I believe that those actions are going to backfire on them when their pew sitters finally wake up and take notice.

    Schori and Company may have lit the fuse on a bomb.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: