Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
It has become commonplace for The Episcopal Church to proclaim itself an international church of sixteen countries. For example, the minutes of the October 2009 Executive Council record that:
The Presiding Bishop gave Opening Remarks. She asked for a moratorium on use of “National Church” and enumerated the countries in which The Episcopal Church [hereafter, TEC] works.
June 22 2010 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
Several years ago I was in a meeting at a large London law firm. We were working on a very complex matter, and this was one of a series of meetings that went on for several years. This particular one was quite large with 30 or so lawyers from several London and New York law firms, as well as representatives of Her Majesty’s Government. During the morning, one of the junior partners of the host firm was asked to address a difficult legal question. He spoke for a considerable time, over an hour, without notes, and then lunch arrived and we went off to a different conference room to eat. But as we were filing back into the meeting room after lunch we could see what this lawyer had done over the break because piled up on his chair and the table in front of his seat was an enormous stack of law books with little handwritten notes and yellow post-its stuck in here and there. As we walked in and saw the pile of books, one of his senior partners turned to this lawyer and said “what happened, David? Did you lose your nerve?”
Today I want to talk about what the courts would see if they lost their nerve and went back to the books and took a fresh look at the law and the facts concerning TEC polity. But I want to state one thing very clearly at the outset: there is no guarantee the courts will ever do this. They may simply assume that TEC has a central hierarchy like the other churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, and the Church of England, and never seriously engage the issues I am going to address. But what if they do engage? What if they undertake a serious examination of this issue? What would they see?
February 07 2010 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Monday, October 19th, 2009
Bishop Stanton has already addressed the subject of TEC’s polity from the perspective of its history and constitution. In just a bit, Dr. Turner will talk about the Anglican covenant, its provisions and background. What I want to do briefly is address both of these topics, but from a different angle: first, to talk about TEC’s polity from the perspective of the civil law and then to look at the Anglican covenant from the perspective of TEC polity. I hope when I am done that this is coherent and I can tie it all together!
First, TEC polity. And to begin, why do we care what the civil law has to say? The answer to that largely lies in the fact that there are now several civil lawsuits around the country in which courts are addressing TEC polity. This is not the way we want it to be, but it is the way it is. And barring some unexpected negotiated settlement of these lawsuits, the secular courts will have profound things to say about TEC polity that will affect us all. So we have to care.
First, TEC polity. And to begin, why do we care what the civil law has to say? The answer to that largely lies in the fact that there are now several civil lawsuits around the country in which courts are addressing TEC polity. This is not the way we want it to be, but it is the way it is. And barring some unexpected negotiated settlement of these lawsuits, the secular courts will have profound things to say about TEC polity that will affect us all. So we have to care.
October 19 2009 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009
Fr. Mark Harris has published today a further article on his blog, “Preludium,” concerning the “Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church,” published yesterday by the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. Fr. Harris is a member of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church. Fr. Harris had previously disclosed on his blog obviously confidential [...]
April 23 2009 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008
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.”
September 23 2008 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Friday, September 19th, 2008
I would like to thank Dr. Gundersen, a church historian, for reviewing my recent paper, “Is The Episcopal Church Hierarchical?”. Reading her response, one could perhaps be forgiven when informed that my paper contains a “fatal flaw” for thinking that she had discovered that TEC’s constitution did in fact contain explicit technical legal language identifying General Convention as the supreme or highest authority. But she makes no such claim. Nor did she discover that the Church of England, contrary to the claims in my original paper, lacked a “Supremacy Act” and an “Oath of Supremacy” at the time TEC was being formed. Or that the governing legal instruments of other churches widely-regarded as hierarchical are actually devoid of the legally-precise hierarchical language identified in the original paper. Because those points are at the heart of the argument developed in that paper, one senses right away that the “fatal flaw” is unrelated to the main lines of the paper. What is not so quickly apparent, however, is that Dr. Gundersen’s critique itself contains a “fatal flaw”: she overlooks my discussion of the very topic she says is not there. It is Dr. Gundersen who engages in an anachronistic and legally uninformed reading of the text, and it is she who clearly misunderstands legal terminology, preferring to use colloquial definitions and references to an ordinary dictionary for the legal terminology analyzed in the original paper.
What follows is necessarily technical, but to avoid the anachronistic reading Dr. Gundersen gives the language in question some technical understanding is required.
September 19 2008 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Sunday, September 14th, 2008
ACI has consistently sought to secure the mission and identity of The Episcopal Church within the larger Anglican Communion. Events such as the published proceeding against Bishop Duncan clearly belong 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. We are for this reason concerned to publish the timely statement of Mark McCall.
September 14 2008 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Saturday, May 31st, 2008
With Bishop Sauls’ lengthy and considered review of the canonical irregularities in the cases of Bishops Cox and Schofield, we can now assume that the leadership of The Episcopal Church has made the best case that can be made in defense of these actions. But a review of Bishop Sauls’ memorandum shows that one cannot defend the indefensible. His analysis studiously avoids addressing the controlling issues. He extols safeguards that were not followed in these very cases. His inexplicable misreading of the legislative history of Canon IV.9 points to yet further proof confirming the plain meaning of that canon. And inherent in his waiver argument is the admission that there was a legal right that was waived. After all arguments are made that can be made, it remains clear that a “majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” does indeed mean what it says: a majority of bishops with voting rights in the House of Bishops. The legislative history to which Bishop Sauls points demonstrates that the canon has always had this meaning, and it has never changed.
May 31 2008 | Articles