...this sounds more like the punishment of Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, and extreme fundamentalists rather than the Episcopal faith I have come to love. Who knows what went on in the bishop's marriage? Perhaps his wife was making his life miserable...PERHAPS even she was not the model that St. Paul decreed and refused "to be silent in church"! (In which case it would seem reasonable to have the divorce to the person who wrote this) < /sarc >. A former priest of mine went through a divorce. There was no adultery in this case either, his wife simply went off the deep end...and went out of her way to mortify him at every event they attended as a couple. During their separation she met an Iranian man, cohabitated with him, and had the audacity to even bring him to services that her former husband was offciating, in full view of the congregation and her children.
I cannot speak for the Jehovah's Witnesses or "extreme fundamentalists." But as "Mormon" bishop, I do not deal in punishment; I leave that to God.
On those occasions when a disciplinary council is necessary, its purpose is threefold: (1) to save the soul of the transgressor; (2) to protect the innocent; and (3) to preserve the good name of the Church. At no time is the intent to punish the transgressor.
The situation described in the article is certainly a sad one. Given the facts as presented, I would have counseled the man to stay with his wife and try to save their marriage. However, if the man decided to sue for divorce anyway, I would not have disfellowshipped or excommunicated him. Such a step would be warranted only in cases of serious sins, such as adultery or abuse.