As a point of clarification, there is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status. The claims of the Episcopal Church to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone. Neither the Presiding Bishop or the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.
A statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, dated January 11,2008:
“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop.He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.
Un fuerte abrazo.
–The Most Rev. Greg Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone
I guess what I am curious about is whether ++Schofield himself is officially out of TEC. I seem to remember that he answered Mrs. Schori (when asked about his standing) by noting that the ABC was recommending professional mediators to resolve the stand-off. He said he would welcome that. If he himself has not completely withdrawn from TEC, would not proceedings be necessary regarding his employment status with TEC, including issues such as pensions and health insurance?
Y un fuerte abrazo a usted, muy estimado Arzobispo Venables!
[blockquote]there is no confusion…[/blockquote]
Well somebody’s obviously confused!
[blockquote]Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone[/blockquote]
[blockquote]The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]
Mick … Bingo! It’s more of the same from the former Bishop of San Joaquin. As Louie Crew named it a few weeks ago in his description of John David’s “response” to the Presiding Bishop: “I’m out if you want to consider me in; I’m in if you want to consider me out. Gotcha!”
Susan – why would you call him the former Bishop of San Joaquin if you believe what PB Shori did was correct and proper? How could she possibly inhibit the former Bishop of San Joaquin? In her statement, she says, “…I order him from and after that time to cease all ‘episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,’ until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops.”
#3, Say what? You quoted “Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone.”
This is not what he said. He said, “The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007.” And he also said, “Neither the Presiding Bishop or the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.”
Perhaps it is you and Susan who are confused.
Using abandonment of Communion ought to be thought through a bit better by 815 or this could backfire in major ways. The canon clearly does not have in its logic the situation in SJ. I imagine even a so called ‘reappraiser’ would, or could, concede that. The canon assumes the communion membership of TEC and the clarity of that claim, and yet we are manifestly in a period when that is clouded. If +J-DS is declared by TEC to have abandoned communion when a communion province without an analogous cloud over it is the one receiving him, the danger is once again an imprudent overreaching on the part of a group of people needing better counsel. One sees similar overreaching in the NVA logic. One could even argue that this action places a cloud, not over +J-DS, but over the adjudication processes of TEC themselves. Presumably the reason this course of action is being followed is to allow a new Bishop to be elected, but that could happen anyway; +J-DS is making no claim to be the Bishop of the diocese he has left. If the issue is wanting to seize the properties, then the issue ought to be fought on those terms; I can’t see how a claim to them is furthered by engaging in this kind of shell-game. I would have thought it just called attention to the messes TEC is presently in, and the way what it does by deploying this canon is to question TEC’s capacity to know what communion might be, and how it might therefore be actually abandoned.
#6 – No the confusion definitely rests in the +Schofield camp. Someone issues a statement claiming +Schofield remains a member of the TEC HoB (as well as Southern Cone), which is then swiftly followed by a correction – that he is no longer a bishop of TEC, only of Southern Cone. Even one (and perhaps more?) of +Schofield’s people was unsure exactly what had happened.
#7 “+J-DS is making no claim to be the Bishop of the diocese he has left.”
But I thought +Schofield was denying having ‘left’ any diocese at all – that it was the whole diocese that ‘left’?
#8 — fair enough: make that ‘the diocese of TEC’ he has left; as I understand it, the diocese he is Bishop of is a diocese of Southern Cone, which used to be in TEC. Can he do this? We shall see; I do not know. Should a decision be made that he has abandoned the Communion? — I think that is imprudent, and slightly incoherent, in the present circumstances. That was the chief point of my note.
There is no confusion in John David Scholfield’s mind nor in the monds of the people of the Diocese of San Joachin. Detractors of this apostolic leader are the ones who are confused and who cast a veil of confusion wherever they can.
Dr. Seitz, It appears the PB Schori and her staff are receiving poor legal advice. That happens when lawyer-bishops with personal agendas are elevated to high positions.
All legal arguments aside, the presiding bishop’s actions please only a small faction of TEC. Conservatives and moderates are mortified by her lack of compassion, charity and forgiveness. She is a poor model for a rector, not to mention a presiding bishop.
There is an “Alice in Wonderland” quality to this whole blooming mess. (And I don’t mean you, Alice.) Dr. Seitz’s comments illustrate this very well. I don’t see that the PB (not “Mrs. Schori”; how insulting!) can act except with this declaration, as “abandoning communion” here clearly means “the communion of the Episcopal Church” (let’s not play word games with “communion” here) which +Schofield has clearly abandoned, and ++Venables has confirmed by his statement. ++Jefferts Schori has had to act, given +Schofield’s shenannigans on the issues of “diocese” and “property.”
Bob from Boone, is the “communion of the Episcopal Church” not co-equivalent with the Anglican Communion? If +JDS is in communion with the Anglican Communion, how can he not be in communion with TEC unless TEC is not in communion with a large part of the Anglican Communion. Of course we know a large part of the Anglican Communion is not in communion with TEC. Does not this declaration also establish the fact that TEC is not in communion with the Southern Cone? and other parts of the Anglican Communion? Does this not legally establish a communion split?
#12 — out of your own accurate mouth, Boone. Is there now a communion of TEC? That would speak volumes, and sadly against the historic claims of TEC not just to be in a catholic Communion of churches, but also prefacing its own canons and constitution with that claim. It is genuinely perplexing if not silly to hear Alice in Wonderland applied to anyone but yourself. There needs to be a reality check here. There is a Communion. There is a TEC. If TEC is now *its own communion*, well you have defined your own reality in a way that Alice would envy. Then again, clarity like this could be very useful as TEC tries to decide where it is.
Bob from Boone: The canon in question is “communion of this church”. If we accept your and TEC’s spin on this – i.e. that “this church” means “TEC”, and that JDS has “abandoned communion” because he now serves in the Province of the Southern Cone, then logically, any TEC priest that serves in another Anglican Province (i.e. Canada, England, Australia, etc.) should also be dismissed on the basis of this canon.
If we say, well, the reason he has “abandoned communion of this church” is because he is doing SOMETHING ELSE we don’t like (i.e. improperly attempting to realign a TEC diocese) then the proper course of action is to canonically charge him for the something else.
Dr. Seitz is quite correct in bringing this issue up. TEC’s problem is that the TEC constitution and canons have no provisions at all that govern or prohibit a diocese from doing what the DSJ did, and there is no competent (i.e. constitutionally empowered) organ in TEC to rule on constitutional interpretation. There is no constitutional or canonical grounds under which JDS can be charged. So they attempted to use the catch-all “abandonment of communion” canon.
The problem is that constitutionally and canonically, JDS and the DSJ acted correctly and within their legal and Anglican rights. To be sure, the action was unprecedented, but there is no TEC constitutional provision nor canon, nor any Lambeth resolution which JDS or the DSJ broke when it realigned. So there really are no legitimate or credible grounds at all to charge JDS with anything.
From the post: “As a point of clarification, there is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status.” Well, someone was definitely confused earlier (and now the original post is gone…)!
15 jamesw: It is not “spin” that “this Church” means TEC. Check the Preamble to the Constitution and Canons thoroughly. Dr. Seitz’ argument is based on an incorrect interpretation.
No, PadreWayne, Dr. Seitz’s argument is the traditional interpretation, not the “Spirit Doing a New Thing” one.
I’m so glad this is happening, though – it won’t matter a fig under CA law, which will turn the property over to the incorporated diocesan entity which is now part of the Southern Cone, and it boosts the case in VA. Jolly good.
15 in re:
“TEC’s problem is that the TEC constitution and canons have no provisions at all that govern or prohibit a diocese from doing what the DSJ did, and there is no competent (i.e. constitutionally empowered) organ in TEC to rule on constitutional interpretation.”
Sure, there is a canon under which Schofield can be presented: the Denis canon. But 815 is too lazy or is canonically reluctant to do so and force that issue in the current situation in the Anglican Communion. Did Schofield and DoSJ hold its properties, in whole and in part, in trust for ecusa? No, they did not. But that presumes that the Denis canon is canonically binding on DoSJ and its bishop in the current situation. As any parent knows, you cannot discipline an 18 year old who has left the house. 815 needs to recognize that their situation is like unto such a parent’s.
17- Agreed that 16 fails to make his point. Simply saying “Seitz is wrong” means nothing. Seitz’s posts were logical exemplars, unless we now have lower case and upper case ‘Communions’ and ‘communions’ that are distinctly different entities.
At that point one comes to wonder “How many communions can dance on the head of a pin?”
If TEC and Southern Cone are not in full communion, then the declaration was made by ++Venables and +Schofield when the latter publicly declared that he had to move to the Southern Cone because he could no longer tolerate TEC. That must necessarily imply that TEC and Southern Cone are different enough to not be in full communion, at least in the eyes of +Schofield, otherwise his move would be nonsensical.
+Schofield made rather a point of declaring a month ago that he was no longer a bishop under the authority of TEC. ++Jefferts Schori has now agreed with him that this is true, and in a couple of months presumably the HOB will likewise agree. This was all inevitable from the moment that DioSJ voted to depart, so I don’t see what all the posturing is about.
20 Ross, I’d suggest that you research what was the precise language that +Schofield used in recommending that DoSJ join Southern Cone and leave ecusa. I believe he was pretty clear that his motivation was concerning the issue of primatial oversight, and the nature of ecusa’s vs Southern Cone’s ministries. Not whether ecusa or Southern Cone are as provinces in Communion, which is not a matter for a diocesan, but rather for a primate to discern.
I agree, Ross, #20. +Schofield has left TEC, but he just doesn’t want say so publically.
Padre Wayne, it may be that the original post was removed because, as “Thinking Anglicans” reported, it was written by a PR firm on behalf of +Schofield, or somebody. So embarrassing, I guess, it had to be removed. Surely Bp. Schofield didn’t hire this firm, did he? He is quite capable of constructing non-sequiturs by himself.
“So embarrassing,…” to whom?
” I guess, it had to be removed ” by whom?
Logically, the two ‘whoms’ must be identical. So why would Kendall be embarrassed?
PR firm? Oh, brother. Let’s not muddy this up any more than it already is.
And Bob, isn’t there enough mud flying that you have to take one more gratuitous shot at the bishop? (“He is quite capable of constructing non-sequiturs by himself”, you said.)
Did you not read the lessons from Colossians this week in your daily office and re-commit yourself to adherence?
Let’s stick to the confusion already at hand.
RGEaton
Look, let’s try to work together to figure this all out. Let’s help TEC and the Diocese of San Joaquin (whether you count that as TEC-DSJ, SCONE-DSJ, or TEC/SCONE-DSJ) save their precious dollars (and in that perspective we ALL see somebody’s precious dollars being consumed) and come to some agreement about what is and what is not Communion in the context of TEC, PRIOR to all the other litigious blood-letting that will commence over property.
In order to do that, we’ve got to do research. And the place to start is the first set of authorized Constitution and Canons for PECUSA. Forget, for now, the language that was amended into the C & C’s 150 years later re: the Anglican Communion.
Q#1 : What and where is the origin of any C & C’s language re: membership in PECUSA, joining PECUSA, and leaving PECUSA.
I hear the groans of the non-academics now…..but, hey, we’ve got some time before the HOB meets, right? Before someone decides by canonical standards that the inhibited bishop of TEC San Joaquin should become the deposed and former bishop of TEC San Joaquin, right?!
So, where’s a copy of the first set?
RGEaton
Let me guess, it is part of the stuff that Nicolas Cage found in [i]National Treasure[/i] under Trinity/Wall Street?
Chris Johnson on his Midwest Conservative blog pointed out the quandary that RW finds himself in: “If he withdraws it, he outrages conservatives everywhere and in all likelihood torpedoes the Conference before it begins. If he lets the invitation stand, he effectively puts the Lambeth Palace imprimatur on a second, recognized Anglican presence in the United States.” I would add that if RW gives his tacit approval to the DoSJ – Southern Cone by letting the invitation stand, then the efforts of “Remain Episcopal” are then most certainly construed as border crossings. The TEC cannot pretend that the DoSJ – SC does not exist if it is recognized by the ABC. Also, if a replacement bishop is appointed, does he get an invite? The poor old ditherer.
There’s really nothing confusing about the situation. SJ has withdrawn from ECUSA and affiliated with the Southern Cone. It’s that simple. If the ECUSA has something to offer in that geographical area, it should offer it up. Those who are interested will jump on board. What’s the big deal?
[b]#7[/b] Seitz-ACI,
Dear Reverend Doctor,
I would tend to agree with your comment, particularly [blockquote] One could even argue that this action places a cloud, not over +J-DS, but over the adjudication processes of TEC themselves. [/blockquote] I would be most grateful for your reaction to this [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9109/#169327]comment[/url] I posted on the parallel thread at SFIF. I think my thoughts may be very similar to yours on the relationship to the ADV litigation in particular.
Tom,
Right above the scrolls from the library of Alexandria.
: )
RGEaton
There does seem to be a logical problem here for TEC. If a bishop has “abandoned the communion of TEC” by affiliating with another Anglican province, then that other province is outside the communion of TEC, and logically then TEC is not part of the international communion that province belongs to.
So why should TEC bishops go to Lambeth as participants, when they are not part of the Communion, as this action declares?
Rob–I have a note saying a message has been sent to me, but it has not come through. ACI can probably write something about the appeal to this canon though it would simply be along the lines I have expressed already. The canon was obviously not constructed for the purpose to which it is being put in this case, and it calls attention to the problem rather than resolving it.
Robroy -[#27] writes: “I would add that if RW gives his tacit approval to the DoSJ – Southern Cone by letting the invitation stand, then the efforts of “Remain Episcopal†are then most certainly construed as border crossings. The TEC cannot pretend that the DoSJ – SC does not exist if it is recognized by the ABC.”
RR, you seem to be saying that the ABC — a Briton appointed by HM Government — can implicitly declare that a given geographic territory in the United States is categorically off-limits to the (U.S.) Episcopal Church. I’d purely love to see the separatists’ lawyers make that argument in an American courtroom.
#33 presumes that diocesan geographical integrity means anything anymore, outside of the four corners area of NM/AZ/CO/UT, where it means nothing anyway. One might note that [url=http://ecusa.anglican.org/directory_18718_ENG_HTM.htm]the ecusa geographical representation of the Diocese of the Rio Grande excludes Farmington[/url], home of St. John’s.
My friend, D.C., I am certainly not talking about American jurisprudence. Rather, I am referring to the “ancient traditions” that KJS is so fond of citing. When the good bishop Schofield attends Lambeth, the diocese of San Joaquin, Southern Cone will have an official imprimatur by the Anglican Communion. If the TEC chooses to pursue its “Remain Episcopalians” foreign interventions, it will be just as guilty as the other foreign aggressors.
Now, Rowan might decide to withdraw Bp Schofield’s invitation. The conservatives aren’t going to Lambeth, anyway. But that might offend the more moderate, like Tanzania, etc. Of course, it is contradictory to let Bp Schofield’s invitation stand and not invite +Cavalcanti of Recife. But my money is on RW doing nothing, which is what he does best!
Katherine (#31) is correct. Loook at the cited canon; it specifically excludes actions with respect to other churches in communion. For 815 to apply the canon as it did is an implicit admission that it is no longer in communion, to the contrary of all its public pronouncements.