Contacted at their diocesan headquarters, Fr Van McCalister, diocesan spokesman and Bishop John-David Schofield said they would let the comments of the Standing Committee stand and they would make no additional comments at this time.

The wording required by canon includes the following: [We,] fully sensible how important it is that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B. ought not to be ordained to that Holy Order. In witness whereof, we have here unto set our hands...

This was the canon submitted in the case of Fr. Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of San Joaquin, the duly elected Bishop of South Carolina. The wording of the Virginia declaration was much shorter and read:[We] give our consent to the ordination and consecration of the Very Rev. Shannon S. Johnston as Bishop Coadjutor for the Diocese of Virginia.

The Presiding Bishop's office admitted that it acquiesced in the Diocese of Virginia's violation of the express language of Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons in the consecration process of its new bishop, but stated the violation was customary and not of sufficient merit to call into question the validity of the Episcopal consecration of Bishop Johnston. In a letter dated July 20, the conservative-leaning diocese accused Bishop Schori of "unequal application of the same canon in two separate cases within months of each other," permitting the "irregular consecration" of the Bishop-coadjutor of Virginia.

These actions may have caused a "liability on your part for violation of the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention," the diocese said. The election of Bishop-elect Johnston the Diocese of Virginia solicited consents, or approval of his election, using a consent form not in conformance with the language of the Constitution and Canons. The so called "short form", Canon Carlson Gerdau, canon to Presiding Bishop Schori told "The Living Church" magazine, had been used by other dioceses in recent years and "no one has ever objected to it before."

It was the Presiding Bishop's opinion that use of a form not authorized by the canons did not constitute a "defect".

The Diocese of San Joaquin stated it protested the use of the "short form" in letters dated May 31 and June 18, noting that church law required conformance to the explicit language of the canons.

The diocese stated on July 22 it had not received an acknowledgment of its protests, however the Episcopal News Service reported the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor responded to the May and June letters "last week".

Mrs. Schori had, earlier in the year, quashed the election of Canon Mark Lawrence as Bishop of South Carolina, tossing out ballots from dioceses in favor of his election for not being in strict conformance to the requirement that the ballots be signed by all members of a diocese's standing committee, thereby depriving him of a majority necessary for consent to his election. This prompted San Joaquin to charge Mrs. Schori with hypocrisy and double standards.

In an interesting twist to this story, Lionel E. Deimel, Ph.D. a leader in the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a liberal organization trying to unseat Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, ripped Mrs. Schori. In an article "Doing Consents Right" Deimel wrote, "It is, I think, incumbent upon the Presiding Bishop to provide an explanation for her decisions. She should do so promptly. I would expect her to say that she extended the consent period for the Lawrence consents out of Christian charity, and that the defective consents raised questions as to whether certain standing committees had, in fact, validly consented as required by canon. This explanation necessarily raises the question as to why, having already bent the canons to allow more standing committees tim to respond, she did not take the extra time to query the standing committees that submitted defective testimonies and give them the opportunity to correct any "technical" errors they may have made.

"As to the Virginia consents, I would expect Mrs. Schori to explain that we all know what consents are all about, and sufficient testimonials with valid signatures were received to allow Johnston's consecration. Perhaps, with the help of David Booth Beers, her chancellor, she will offer a better explanation. She needs one."

Then Deimel blasted Schori and demanded she do the following: "Admit that allowing 123 days for consents to be received was a mistake, for which she begs forgiveness. The canons are clear that the proper number is 120, and the wording makes it clear that the General Convention intended the starting date to be unambiguous. The time period is arbitrary, but its length and beginning point is intended to be fixed. The Presiding Bishop should declare that, in the future, only 120 days will be allowed and, within 7 days of the start of the consent period, the day on which the clock started with be announced publicly, so that everyone knows when the deadline is.

"Explain again that sufficient valid consents for Lawrence's consecration were not received within 120 days. Whether or not sufficient consents were received in 123 days is moot. (This declaration will likely be criticized, and a public relations expert might question my advice. I cannot see a viable alternative, however.)Admit that the Virginia consent form was defective, but that the consent process cannot really be undone. Beg for forgiveness again. Declare that, in the future, the Office of the Presiding Bishop will work more closely with standing committees to assure them that the steps in the consent process for which they are responsible are carried out properly. Promise that, within 30 days, The Episcopal Church will have a downloadable, fillable PDF form on its Web site for standing committees to use in the future. All consents should be required to be executed using this form. (Actual signatures, of course, will still be needed.) Additional clarifications as to how consents may be submitted might need to be made. By canon, consents from standing committees are sent to the Presiding Bishop only after a sufficient number has been received. The Presiding Bishop should offer to pre-certify consents for a standing committee as they are received, however.

"Apologize in writing to the San Joaquin standing committee for failure to reply to its correspondence, and thank its members for their contribution to improving important church procedures.

"Beg for forgiveness again and promise to do better in the future."

To date Mrs. Schori has not responded and it appears that she won't. Jan Nunley a spokesperson for the national church said the procedures followed have been in widespread use throughout the Church for at least a decade. "We received over 80 signed consent forms, and our process was confirmed by the act of consecration in a joy-filled service presided over by the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church."

The Diocese of Virginia declined to respond. However, observers in Virginia noted that the diocese's claims that the Virginia-based CANA Bishop Martyn Minns has irregular episcopal orders, would appear to be undercut, given the admitted defect in the consecration process of its bishop-coadjutor.

Further formal action is not considered likely, as US church law gives the Presiding Bishop the authority to determine whether a violation of canon law has occurred.

END