Uh Oh (but wait, there's more!)

Over at Midwest Conservative Journal, poster "jim" has done some research and refutes the rather flippant statement of the 815 Communications office (revised from the original) regarding the canonical requirements of Standing Committees in a Bishop's election.

"jim" writes in his posting to 815's Jan Nunley:

"Did you send your readers off on a wild goose chase into the canons in order to clarify or confuse? Anyone who has read the canons would know there are different rules & requirements for General Convention consent [resolution for consent] which require a ballot and the consent from Standing Committees which requires compliance with III.11.4.b.

The words in Canon are important [as well as signatures, of course]. When a bishop-elect requires consents from Standing Committees [III.11.4.b] the words in the Canons are printed in double bold & inset. The canon is specific & states that evidence SHALL be a testimony IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS. There is no room for any other words, any other form. The PB did not have any "evidence" of consent from the Standing Committees in order to determine if the standing committees had consented [remember evidence of canonical consent is defined in III.11.4.b in specific words, with no leeway for presumed ‘intent’].

Jan, why is 815 putting out so much misinformation and so many inaccurate, inflammatory statements? I was hoping for truth & integrity. It is distressing to see the Deputy Director for Communications of TEC spin so wildly out of control to use untruth, exaggeration, condescension, and now canonical wild goose chases in an attempt to cover up verifiable actions of the Presiding Bishop, her staff, and various dioceses."

Read the whole thing here. Read StandFirm here.