Just A Few Thoughts On The Sauls Memorandum

The first thing I noticed is that this came from Saul’s property committee. Not the House committee on Constitution and Canons. This is extremely significant.

Secondly, the memorandum makes the specious argument that the word “whole” used in the abandonment of communion canon is there merely to have abstention votes count as no. The memorandum inserts “at the meeting” into the canon in the same vain without those words actually being there. The only substantive change in 1904 that was intended was to change the word “seat” to “vote” in the House of Bishops. The memorandum acknowledges this, and then proceeds to to take the fact that there would now be a meeting of the House to determine abandonment of communion charges rather than having this action taken by mail or by written action which adds procedural protections for the accused and turn this on its head by dramatically lowering the number of bishops required to consent to deposition for abandonment. It ignores the fact that the 1904 convention was in a process of canonical and constitutional revision, and the phrase was changed to match the Constitution. The phrase “bishops entitled to vote” is a term of art and must be interpreted consistently.

Then again, what else would one expect from a bishop who interprets scripture the way he does. The fact that he interprets law in the same manner comes as no surprise.

2 Responses to “Just A Few Thoughts On The Sauls Memorandum”

  1. 1 Rick Arllen May 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Brad, it’s called ‘blacksmithing’ the canons. +Lee in Virginia is a pro at the art. All that is required of the practitioner is to apply enough heat (no light is required or desired) to the historic words and concepts of any given canon that has serious orthodox impediments to the ‘greater good’ and then beat hell into it with a big, black hammer until the canon looks just like what you want it to be.

  2. 2 pendennis88 May 29, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Sometimes one gets the impression that TEC revisionists are so used to muscling the outcome of things that they don’t think they should even bother putting together arguments that might be persuasive to an outsider. I got the same impression when I read reports of TEC’s performance in the Virginia property litigation. Only an entity with unalloyed confidence that it must win because of who it is would show up with such an ill-prepared (Ian Douglas, anyone?) case. Well, it might happen, but we shall see.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: