Meanwhile, Diocese of Utah Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish said January 13 she “deeply regret[ed] the necessity of this inhibition.”
“Yet I am in full support of our Presiding Bishop’s actions. When the Body of Christ is broken by the departure of any of its members, we are all diminished,” the bishop said in a statement emailed to Episcopal News Service. “Yet I know that our Presiding Bishop has taken courageous steps to ensure the long-term future of our beloved Church, whose structure must be respected as we live out our common life. Bishop Schofield has chosen to violate the authority and canons (church law) of the Church that called him into the ministry of bishop. We cannot do otherwise than to hold him accountable to the vows he took the day he was ordained.”
Irish said in her statement that Episcopal bishops from western U.S. dioceses who concluded a three-day meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on January 10 were unanimous in their support of Jefferts Schori’s action.
“While we have tried over the years to be in collegial fellowship with Bishop Schofield and to work productively with the Diocese of San Joaquin, he has consistently refused to join in our conversations,” Irish said. “The Episcopal Church is actively supporting and ministering to those persons who wish to remain members in San Joaquin, and our prayers and thoughts are with them as they suffer abandonment by their bishop and fellow Christians. We trust good things will come for them through the comforting ministry of the Holy Spirit at this challenging time.”
This is the bishop who violates the canons by not having had Christian Baptism, correct? Some points of order are more serious than others, I suppose, but to have such complain of someone else’s not participating in the group is a bit over the top, IMHO.
Persons complaining of Schofield had best look at their tolerance for non-canonical actions and persons in bishoprics before they hurl their stones within their glass houses…shattering glass and convictions are equally noisy and dangerous.
That’s right, Irish has only had a Mormon baptism. She was never formally baptised in a Christian service in any denomination, as far as I know.
This was a telling statement from the article:
[i]If a majority of the House concurs, the Presiding Bishop must depose Schofield and declare the episcopate of the diocese vacant. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops. {said the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop.}[/i]
Such a welcoming, forgiving attitude. 🙁
[i] “When the Body of Christ is broken by the departure of any of its members, we are all diminished,” the bishop said in a statement emailed to Episcopal News Service.[/i]
I wasn’t aware that anyone departing TEC was also departing the Body of Christ. If I had known that I might have done things a bit differently!
Following the the”adventures” of the PB seems to indicate that someone considerably higher in rank than a bishop chose to go down a different road many months ago. Nuff said!!!
“Yet I am in full support of our Presiding Bishop’s actions. When the Body of Christ is broken by the departure of any of its members, we are all diminished…”
What provincial arrogance!!!
Ah, the ad hominem is alive and well!
The big question appears to me as: If Bishop Schofield is no longer in The Episcopal Church, does he need to be deposed? Or can HQ now go forth and encourage the establishment of new leadership and push its claim for the property?
The Episcopal Church constitutes THE Body of Christ?
“we live out our common life” if I see that hackneyed jargon one more time I may move along myself.
9 ecusa might need to organize a replacement diocese as well, but that is the logic of the situation. DoSJ went to Southern Cone, and +Schofield with it. Schori wrote Schofield asking for his status, and Schofield responded that this situation might be temporary or might be permanent, depending on events and the AoC’s actions. But in either case, if ecusa wishes to reorganize in that geographical space, I suppose they will need a bishop or some form of episcopal tranfer of the remaining parishes to other dioceses, which amounts to the same thing.
We are dealing here with a classical category confusion. An argument is raging because the two different groups refuse to recognize that they are talking about two [i]different[/i] Dioceses of San Joaquin.
For Bishop Schofield and the parishes that are following him, the Diocese of San Joaquin is the same one they have always known—same offices in the same location, same churches, etc. The only thing that is new and different about it is where they send their provincial assessments, where Bishop Schofield goes to meet with his primate and fellow bishops, and the fact that it has five fewer parishes in it.
For the crowd at 815, as well as for those who have signaled that they want to remain with TEC, the Diocese of San Joaquin is also the same one they’ve always known, except it has no current Bishop, and it has been reduced to just five parishes down from 47. Obviously, if they want it to continue, they will have to figure a way to build it back up. (Hint: Nothing will inhibit rebuilding it as much as a Diocesan assessment to pay for the cost of lawsuits.)
The two Dioceses are really now different—it’s just that each side continues to refer to them by the same name, and hence the confusion and much of the argument. Bishop Schofield could help remove some of the confusion by publicly resigning from the TEC’s HoB, thereby making it unnecessary for 815 to go through the procedure of deposing him in order to have a vacancy to fill. Maybe he has already done so, and TEC has not made it public, because they want to “set an example†for those who might be thinking about making similar moves in the future.
For now, since the part of the Diocese remaining in TEC is so reduced in size, I suggest that we eliminate the confusion by calling it the “Diocese of San Joaquinitoâ€.
11 agree except for fact that 815 doesn’t see those 42 parishes as having left the warm embrace of the mother province and diocese.
I particularly agree with the confusion that Schofield being still part of the ecusa HoB brings. Some shaking of dust off of feet might be appropriate for Schofield, but I think that he wishes it has not come to that point. But, it is fairly obvious that if he doesn’t do it, he’ll get the bum’s rush like Paul did in Asia Minor several times.
I’m still awaiting some credible explanation of the purported inhibition. The stated reason is the first prong of the canon, abandonment of the doctrine, dsicpline, and worship of the church. But priests and bishops have changed provinces in the Anglican Communion for years without such repercussions. So changing provinces, by itself, cannot be the basis.
The inhibition only makes logical sense if TEC concedes that it is no longer in communion with So. Cone. Given that So. Cone is still in commmunion with Canterbury, does not the inhibition constitute an implicit admission by TEC that TEC is no longer part of the AC?
13 but Schofield said that he wasn’t resigning from ecusa’s HoB. So he’s sort of trying to have his cake and eat it also. Not so gluttonously as ecusa in saying that DoSJ is still there, but sort of isn’t, but it is the same type of thing. In
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8571
he says:
“It may well be that in these facilitated conversations my own status [Schori was asking as to Schofield’s status as diocesan] and even that of The Episcopal Church vis-Ã -vis its membership in the Anglican Communion will be clarified.”
So, Schofield’s present status is as it has been, diocesan of DoSJ and member of the HoB, by this letter.
So the reason for inhibition is IF 815 wants either of these to be otherwise. As DoSJ has left, I don’t think that they can do much about Schofield as diocesan. But that is not the opinion expressed by this inhibition.
Personally, I don’t think the inhibition is worth the paper it’s printed on. We’re ignoring it in this diocese.
“I’m still awaiting some credible explanation of the purported inhibition” —Bill Matz
1. Spite
2. Preparing to sue
I wonder if Tanner’s note reflects unhappiness in her diocese with 815. This seems an attempt to try to smooth things over if I am reading the tea leaves properly.
Anthony: If you follow the decisions of the Diocese of San Joaquin in light of the actual black-and-white details of the Constitution and Canons of TEC, then I think the most plausible explanation of what happened is as follows.
There is only one Diocese of San Joaquin. That diocese voted, according to its constitution and not in violation of any ACTUAL TEC constitutional or canonical provision (ever wonder why nobody from 815 has ever actually cited specific LANGUAGE???), to remove itself from unity with TEC’s General Convention and instead to align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Now, you might not like the decision, you might disagree with it as a matter of policy, but this seems to me the most impartial and objective reading of the what TEC’s canons say and what the Diocese of San Joaquin did.
This means that there is no “TEC” Diocese of San Joaquin left. In other words, I would argue that from an ANGLICAN COMMUNION perspective, there are now still six Anglican dioceses in California, with 5 belonging to TEC and 1 belonging to the Southern Cone. From a TEC perspective, this means that there is no organized TEC diocese in the geographical district of the Diocese of San Joaquin. There are a handful of parishes which would like to come under TEC oversight and which the local Anglican bishop (i.e. Schofield) is willing to release.
This interpretation reflects the reality on the ground. What I find unfortunate is TEC’s inability to deal with that reality here. Instead they are twisting the constitution and canons into meanings they were clearly not meant to have. Now, they will certainly “get away” with it within TEC. But in doing so, they will be causing incalculable damage to the the canons and constitution of TEC, not to mention its polity. TEC is also twisting the obvious facts of the situation (only people can leave, the diocese can’t – well guess what – THEY DID!), thereby undercutting their own credibility.
Furthermore, since the property will eventually be decided on in the secular courts, this “inhibition” is really a pointless exercise. It simply pours gasoline onto an already volotile situation. From a TEC perspective, it should be seen as counterproductive. It is obviously the opening gambit in a very risky legal strategy, which could seriously damage TEC’s financial health in years to come. It will also further erode TEC’s relationships in the Anglican Communion with the more “moderate” conservative Provinces and primates. It is my prediction that 10-20 years from now, when “progressive” Episcopalians look back at what went wrong for them, one of the key strategies that they will realize backfired horribly on them will be KJS’s “scorched earth” litigation policy.
What would be a better response to this situation? KJS could announce that she does not formally recognize what the Diocese of San Joaquin did (stating that she recognizes JDS as continuing to be a member of TEC), acknowledge the depth of disagreement which led to this point, negotiate alternative episcopal oversight for the “Remain Episcopal” parishes, and enter into GOOD FAITH (for a change!) negotiations as per Rowan Williams’ Advent Letter.
It is my prediction that 10-20 years from now, when “progressive†Episcopalians look back at what went wrong for them, one of the key strategies that they will realize backfired horribly on them will be KJS’s “scorched earth†litigation policy.
ECUSA and its California dioceses are staring in the face of a potential Category 5 legal hurricane at the California Supreme Court. Obviously, no one knows what the outcome will be, but I venture that if you surveyed knowledgeable lawyers on all sides of the issue virtually all of them would put ECUSA’s chances of success somewhere between 40 and 60%. And if ECUSA loses, it will be a disaster– legal, financial, ecclesiological and public relations– of the highest magnitude. From a purely legal standpoint, it is inconceivable to me that the lawyers would not advise that at least some consideration be given to settlement in such circumstances. I suspect the “scorched earth†strategy comes not from the lawyers, but from the lawyer-bishops. And as the old adage goes, the lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client.
If my understanding of Bp. Irish’s statement is correct, she is reporting that Bp. Schofield has consistently refused to attend the meetings of the province of which his diocese was a part, and engage in conversation with representatives (bishops, clergy and laity) of other dioceses. Apparently he cut off any meaningful personal ties with Province VIII years ago. Has he for a long time been an Episcopalian in anything other than name?
TEC is no longer credible in offering its opinion regarding behavior of any sort. TEC is apostate and heretical in doctrine, theology and action. God will certainly defend the faithful and punish the unrighteous. We need only to wait to see if ABC confirms his earlier declaration regarding the automony of the diocese polity.
Peace,
Barry
[blockquote]…virtually all of them would put ECUSA’s chances of success somewhere between 40 and 60%.[/blockquote]
The continued lawsuits will drive more and more away from the pews. People will stop giving money to fund these lawsuits. Membership has been dropping but giving has continued to rise. I would attribute this in part with the elderly in the church dying off and bequeathing monies in their wills to the church. When more and more headlines talk about the dioceses playing loose with monies and resources like is going on in Virginia, these too will dry up. These cases are not going to be quickly. The headlines will continue and each one drives away more.
Thus, there are only two options, defeat or Pyhrric victory.
Our bishop, John-David Schofield, is first and foremost a Christian and Anglican. Long ago, my wife and I considered ourselves to be Christians and Anglicans first…….and Episcopalians second. I am quite certain that our bishop has considered himself the same way.
The polity of a Church means little to me, since I believe that being a practicing Christian is far more important. The very idea of “stay off our turf” is anathema to me, and the thought that a supposedly Christian Church like TEC would tell other Christians who hold the same tradition to “buzz off” is un-Christian in the extreme, in my opinion.
I could be wrong and I hope I am. Taking Chancellor’s (#11) terminology, TEC is in the process of deposing the bishop of San Joaquin, from its perspective. Once he is deposed, TEC will sue to recover the property of the diocese and the parishes of San Joaquin (the majority, now Southern Cone group) with the intention of giving said assets to the diocese of San Joaquinito (the five parishes plus a new bishop).
Wha—- No, really? TEC has an *unbaptized* bishop?? My apologies to Anne Redding. A Muslim priestess no longer qualifies as a novelty.
The Bishopess of Utah has Mormon “baptism” only. And she is in communion with the *rest* of you? Oh, dear.
26 Katherine, the intent of ecusa in this deposition is to both obtain control over the corporation known as DoSJ and the parish-corporations of the 42 parishes that are not ‘remaining’ parishes. That will require several steps, of which deposition of the diocesan bishop is just the first. The next step would be having the new bishop sack the standing committee and ecclesiastical court members, probably using simultaneous inhibitions of all their clerical members and appointments of new members. That would probably give the new bishop working majorities on both of these diocesan boards. Then the process would extend to deposing rectors and vestries, as has been done piecemeal in other dioceses such as NH (Redeemer parish in NH comes to mind). Eventually the renovated DoSJ would resemble a [i]whiten’d sepulchre[/i], more or less comparable to the parable’s allusion.
My apologies to the Elves, but having seen the Mormon baptism come up, I have some possibly useful information.
It should be noted that at the time +Carolyn was baptized — presumably around 1948, i.e. about eight years after she was born, the common practice among Mormons — even the Roman Catholic Church did, in fact, recognize Mormon baptisms as valid. It was only rather recently that Rome decided to stop recognizing them, in 2001, some time after she had been ordained a bishop in 1996.
Meanwhile +Daniel Tuttle, first Episcopal bishop of Utah and later Presiding Bishop (1903-1923), decided at the time to not rebaptize Mormons, and IIRC ECUSA has maintained that policy ever since.
[i]Thanks Walsingham, no apology needed. That’s helpful info since whenever there is any thread about +Tanner-Irish, the question of her baptism inevitably arises. Here’s hoping however that the whole discussion does not become devoted to this issue! –elfgirl[/i]
Tom Robert: A “whitened sepulchre?” Yes…….and filled with whitened bones, and nothing of value or substance.
What odd interpretations of the San Joaquin situation throughout this thread. Bp Schofield took vows in which he swore to uphold the Episcopal Church. He can no longer keep those vows, and has left that church and placed himself under authority of the Province of the Southern Cone. That doesn’t mean TEC no longer has a diocese in San Joaquin; it has an empty bishop’s seat, when the inhibition/deposition process is done. Apparently POSC has a diocese there as well, and some combination of cool heads and lawyers will figure out who owns what.
This inhibition makes the decision by Rowan Williams re:Lambeth invite to JDS all the more interesting.
If Rowan maintains the invitation, he is pointedly declaring that he does not recognize TEC’s deposition of JDS and that he recognizes the Province of the Southern Cone’s legitimate jurisdiction over the Diocese of San Joaquin. Think it through, there is no other way that a continuing invitation to JDS can be interpreted.
If Rowan rescinds the invitation, he is pointedly declaring that his letter to John Howe and his Advent Letter, were both packs of lies, and will serve as notice to orthodox bishops and dioceses in TEC, that Rowan is deceptive and manipulative. What’s more, there will be a “smoking gun” undermining Rowan’s credibility instead of just conjecture and opinion, and that would probably drive a stake through any hope for a united Lambeth Conference.
Like Robroy, I think that the safest guess about Rowan is that he will do nothing, and so I expect that JDS will maintain his Lambeth invite. I hope the lawyers will be paying attention. It is my guess that (1) TEC’s constitutional preamble; (2) Rowan Williams’ continued recognition of JDS as an Anglican bishop (still TBD); and (3) the fact that the Diocese of San Joaquin followed its own constitution and did not violate any clear TEC canons or constitutional provisions, will make TEC’s case for the DSJ’s property even more unlikely to succeed. What’s more, these events could provide further support for the Virginia litigation (if it is still an issue there) in that it would provide support for the divided church argument (i.e. that the church was divided two years ago already when the DSJ first voted to leave).
TEC reminds me of the classic story of the monkey trap, where the monkey is caught in the trap because his hand is full of goodies. If the monkey would just let go of some of the goodies, he would be able to withdraw his hand, but due to the monkey’s greed, he refuses to let anything go. As such, he remains trapped until the hunter arrives. TEC is the monkey. It is trying to grab everything, and I think this will be its downfall.
So let the liberals revel in how clever KJS is in inhibiting JDS. Were I a liberal in TEC, I would be very upset with what is going on because I think it will have very adverse longterm consequences. But the consideration of long term consequences seems to be something that all North American Anglicans (with precious few exceptions) are incapable of doing.
Rick D, the fact that the diocese of San Joaquin is now under Southern Cone has nothing to do with Bp Schofield. It has everything to do that THE diocese of San Joaquin voted DEMOCRATICALLY and overwhelmingly to withdraw from the TEC and realign. It could have happened that Bp Schofield wanted to “remain Episcopalian” and the diocese would have been looking for a new bishop to work under the good and godly ABp Venables.
When I was considering becoming Episcopalian in 1971-72, an Episcopal priest at Trinity, Fort Worth told me that baptism in other churches was accepted, though not the Mormon baptism, since it was essentially tri-theistic rather than Trinitarian. I rather suspect the Catholic objections predate 2001 as well, although that document may simply have been a re-statement in the face of new questions.