Subsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal Church and some commentators have suggested that we may have failed to follow our own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law, however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.There is a detailed history of the Abandonment Canon provided, which expands on Robert's analysis. Bishop Saul's letter also clarifies other matters, such as precedent and procedural safeguards.
This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any additional such actions in the future...
The final point is worth repeating:
...Finally, it must be noted that no Member of the House of Bishops, present or not present, requested further action, investigation, or hearing as permitted under House rules. No challenge was made to the Parliamentarian’s ruling on the meaning of Canon IV.9. Similarly, no Member of the House of Bishops, as permitted by Rule XVII, requested reconsideration of the House’s action. Again, no request having been made at the time, the right to do so must now be considered waived.Two Bishops abandoned the communion of TEC. They were deposed, without objection. It is a done deal, regardless of how many letters objecting after the fact are published on the net.
This document will be a valuable resource in the future. When those who will never be satisfied insist on continuing to flog this dead horse, this letter will provide you with all the necessary information to refute their misconceptions.