JCM 1183

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1304&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

This request for reconsideration was about a previous request for reconsideration. This the first time I’ve seen that in my studies of the Judicial Council.

As the concurring opinion signed by the majority of the Council indicates, this ruling is part of the tale of a respondent bishop in his quest for justice against a Philippines College of Bishops antagonistic toward him.

Let me touch on the two previous rulings behind this memorandum.

JCD 1162 was a denial of request for reconsideration of JCD 1152. The Council was generous in providing a rationale for the denial, something the Council rarely does.

JCD 1152 dealt with the legality of an interim bishop changing the meeting place of an annual conference at the last minute using DSs appointed by him at the last minute to change the meeting place. As my commentary on JCM 1162 pointed out, the College of Bishops had not been truthful about that in their brief for JCD 1152.

The Council closes that door about the matter of the authority of the interim bishop with this memorandum. The concurring opinion does not mention the College of Bishops’ fabrication. More of the story that has emerged now did trouble the Council, specifically the six suspensions of the respondent bishop since 2009 used to keep him out of episcopacy despite a committee on investigation dropping the charges against him (see JCD 1177).