Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is David Booth Beers

Once again the trusty Anglican Curmudgeon has struck gold. One of the arguments around which Katharine Jefferts Schori and her chancellor hinged their campaign to depose Bishop Bob Duncan had to do with their rather idiosyncratic interpretation of what was meant by “the whole number … entitled to vote”. Now the Curmudgeon has discovered that Booth Beers has used exactly the opposite interepretation in the legal suit against the Virginia parishes. The Curmudgeon writes thus:

From the Memorandum written to the members of the House of Bishops on September 12, 2008:

There may also be raised at this meeting the question of whether consent to the deposition of a bishop who has been certified to have abandoned the Communion of this Church must be 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. Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a “regular or special meeting of the House” and, second, be “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote”. My Chancellor and the Parliamentarian of the House have both advised me that the canon means 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.

From the Opening Brief filed by Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia on [Section] 57-9 Voting Issues, prepared in part and signed on September 5, 2008 (one week before the above Memorandum) by the law firm Goodwin Procter, of which David Booth Beers is a partner (bold again added, except for the heading, which is in bold in the original):

V. The phrase “majority of the whole number” in § 57-9(A) requires a majority vote of the whole number of “members” eligible to vote, whether or not they voted.

Just as the Court can and should resolve the proper definition of the statutory term “members” as a matter of law, it should, if there is any dispute on this issue, resolve the meaning of the statutory phrase “majority of the whole number” as a matter of law. That is, does the statute require that the vote reflect a majority of “the whole number” of members or only a majority of those who actually cast a ballot?

In their efforts to invoke the statute, the CANA Congregations properly concluded that a majority of “the whole number” was required…

… Furthermore, the Congregations did not simply schedule a congregational meeting at which a vote of those present could be taken. Instead, they went to great lengths to ensure a majority vote of all those who … were eligible to vote…

The Congregations’ own case law … confirms that the above understanding of “majority of the whole number” was correct…

Accordingly, the phrase “majority of the whole number” in § 57-9(A) refers to and requires a majority of the total number of a congregation’s “members” over the age of 18, regardless of how many or how few actually cast a ballot.

TEC’s brief attached a copy of Merriam-Webster's definition of “member” to enhance its argument. Let us do the same here, and attach Merriam-Webster's definition of “hypocrite”:

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings