JCD 1152

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1272&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

A Philippine bishop was suspended not long before his annual conference was to meet. A retired bishop was assigned to take over and decided that another site for the conference would be handier for him. He sought the Cabinet’s support which finally was grudgingly given. The bishop got his site and then appointed new superintendents to work with him on making appointments despite the fact that the suspended bishop and his Cabinet had already made appointments. Consequently, there was great confusion in the conference and people split on which site to go to for conference. Both sites held conference sessions. At the one where the retired bishop presided, questions of law were raised challenging the change of venue.

The retired bishop ruled immediately that the Discipline supported his choice of site, since the superintendents went along with it. The Judicial Council agreed because by their earlier ruling (JCD 1149), they had supported the Philippine bishops as a College of Bishops who then took action against another bishop under accusation. That action was extended to the assignment of the retired bishop and this decision followed from the retired bishop’s actions.

Had the questions asked covered more of the circumstances, the Council, as their concurring opinion states, may have been able to sort out more of the problems that were splitting the conference.

Note: This decision was made outside the time frame of the normal Council schedule to facilitate matters for the church in the Philippines. I was not consulted about this matter.