revised October 13, 1995
Prepared by Louie Crew. Freely share but acknowledge.
In regard to the Presentment against Rt. Rev. Walter Righter, by May 12, 1995, Bishop Righter must submit an "answer" to the presentment and a "brief in support" of his answer. The Presiding Bishop will then send copies of all the papers submitted by each side to every voting member of the House of Bishops, and each is to vote individually as to whether he or she consents to the prosecution of the matter.
If one-fourth of all voting members of the House should submit their consents within three months, the matter would proceed to the Court for the Trial of a Bishop, which at this time is composed of the following nine bishops:
Prior Voting on Lesbigay Issues by Current Members of The Court For the Trial of a Bishop:
Bishop Type See Consc 79 88 90 91A 91B 94A 94B 91 %Neg 94 %Neg F Borsch* D Los Ang 1988 - 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% A Fairfield D NDak 1989 - - 1 1 1 0 100.0% 60.0% R Johnson D NC 1994 0 0 0.0% E Jones D Indiana 1977 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% D Patterson R Dallas 1983 - 1 1 1 1 0 100.0% 80.0% C Tennis D Delaware 1986 - 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% D Theuner* D New H 1986 - 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% A Walmsley R Conn. 1979 - 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% R White D Milw. 1984 - 1 1 1 1 0 100.0% 80.0% Number of Members: 9 AVERAGE %Neg 91: 0.375 AVERAGE %Neg 94: 0.244444444(* indicates that the bishop signed a statement of dissent from the 1979 Resolution; that statement was recirculated at least two later General Conventions)
That is the court that would render its decision by majority vote, and a sentence of admonition, suspension, or deposition would be set if the decision were in favor of the presenters.
In a case such as this, either side would ordinarily have the right of appeal to the Court of Review, which at this time is composed of the following nine bishops:
Prior Voting on Lesbigay Issues by Current Members ofThe Court of Review: Bishop Type See Consc 79 88 90 91A 91B 94A 94B 91 %Neg 94 %Neg J Coleman D-C W Tenn 1993 1 0 100.0% 100.0% A Dickson D W Ten 1983 - 1 - 1 1 1 0 100.0% 66.7% R Johnson D W NCaro 1989 - - 0 1 0 0 50.0% 20.0% R Ladehoff D Oregon 1985 - 1 1 1 0 0 100.0% 60.0% P Lee D Va 1984 - 0 1 1 0 0 66.7% 40.0% L Maze D Ark 1994 0 1 0.0% C McNutt D C.Penn 1980 - 0 1 1 0 0 66.7% 40.0% R Shimpfky D ElCamin 1990 - - 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% F Stough R Alabama 1971 1 0 0 0 0 0 25.0% 20.0% Number of Members: 9 AVERAGE %Neg 91: 0.635416667 AVERAGE %Neg 94: 0.385185185If the Court of Review made a decision in favor of the presenters, and set a sentence, no such sentence could be imposed unless the court's findings were then "approved by a vote of two-thirds of all Bishops canonically assembled in the House of Bishops and entitled to vote.
Explanation of Abbreviations & Percentages
Type of Bishop: D=Diocesan, D-C=Coadjutor, R=Retired
Consc=Year of Consecration
1979: Voted not to ordain homosexuals
1988: Signed the General Synod Resolution (CofE) not to ordain homosexuals
1990: Voted to Disassociate from the Diocese of Newark's action ordaining
R. Wms
1991A: Signed the Irenaeus Resolution
1991B: Voted for the Frey Resolution (via Howe)
1994A: Signed the Province 7 Document
1994B: Signed Bp. Spong's Statement of Koinonia
Signing the Irenaeus Resolution was counted as negative, but failure
to sign it was not factored as positive, hence not counted as a part of
that Bishop's voting record.
1994B is a positive vote and hence was not factored into the percentages, since the percentages compute negative votes.
Conclusion
If bishops vote in this matter as they have voted on far easier opportunities to be negative:
Chances for conviction: study nivosity in the netherworld. Chances to obstruct: will the sun rise?
My pages have been accessed
times since February 14, 1996. Thank you for visiting.