Unfortunately, we have seen quotes from ++Venables and bishops in his Province which are reported as being from ++Rowan and they have been refuted. Does anyone have a link from ++Rowan or Lambeth to corroborate this?
I don’t intend this as a judgment, I am simply interested in the words used by ++Rowan as I think they are quite important. In addition, I do not believe ++Venables or any of his bishops have ever intentionally misrepresented anything.
Sorry, Brian, I do not understand your post. Quotes from the bishops of the Southern Cone with regard to the ABC have not been refuted. In this situation you will again not receive a quote from Rowan. Why, you may ask? One does not go on record so that one may say different things to different people. All will be happy. Don’t worry Brian, be happy!
I have had enough of Rowan Williams. Quite simply he is a snake. How many silver pieces did the TEO pay Rowan? 30 silver pieces adjusted for inflation over 2000 years is a pretty big sum of money. I hope that he did his math right, and he gets what coming to him.
This actually doesn’t surprise me. By his continual inaction over the last five years, Dr. Williams has proven himself to have been in the back pocket of the Americans since the start. I didn’t think my contempt and disgust for the man could get any higher but it has.
BfT19 writes, in part, “Unfortunately, we have seen quotes from ++Venables and bishops in his Province which are reported as being from ++Rowan and they have been refuted. ”
Do you have a source for these rumors you are spreading or are you just seeking to stir things up?
Rowan Williams has called Peter Jensen’s bluff. He has applied discipline and disinvited John-David Schofield, but allowed him to bow out gracefully. So there will be discipline in the communion after all. But only for some.
From the Jerusalem Declaration:
[blockquote] “While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.” [/blockquote]
So why are the GAFCON bishops still bothering to attend the Lambeth conference, other that to add credibility to whatever the remaining liberal bishop majority at the conference come up with?
Brian: In the past, people have said “Rowan Williams told me thus and so”. Here, Venables is placing language in direct quotes and telling us this is a note from Williams. I think Rowan likes to tell people what he thinks they want to hear, and will then put it in a vague manner. This is indicated to be a quote from a letter and it is a letter which cannot be described as being favorable to Venables. Accordingly, I think this is an accurate quote.
Okay, the Living Church puts a very different spin on this story then many here and at StandFirm are interpreting it as.
Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin was thrilled to learn that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams continues to recognize him as a bishop in good standing and in communion with the See of Canterbury, according to the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, canon to the ordinary of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
Because of health concerns about the effect of another long trip so soon after the Global Anglican Future Conference, and with his primary concern about his status with the Communion already settled, Bishop Schofield has decided to withdraw from the Lambeth Conference. The decision was announced in a letter written July 15 by Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone.
This sounds like
a) Schofield did not want to attend Lambeth,
b) was concerned that not going might cloud his Anglican Communion status,
c) had Venables request a letter from Rowan Williams accepting his Communion status,
d) and Rowan Williams wrote the letter but stated that Schofield’s status is unclear given the DSJ situation.
The only evidence we have that Rowan tried to disinvite Schofield comes from some comments on the StandFirm blog several days ago. Now I am not saying that that commenter is wrong. There may very well be more then meets the eye here. But we really don’t know.
“Rowan Williams has called Peter Jensen’s bluff. He has applied discipline and disinvited John-David Schofield, but allowed him to bow out gracefully. ”
So ‘observing’, where, pray tell did you find a source that stated that Bishop Schofield was disinvited? Bishop Schofield chose to decline the invitation. As should the retired and unelected bishop Lamb have declined his improper invitation, especially since it was doubtless (IMO) sent to him under pressure from the Episcopal organization.
Well, one thing ++Rowan did not do, was “throw” +Scofield OUT of the AC. That’s why +Scofield is as happy as possible. The problem was a sort of technical one, with whom should +Scofield be seated under the current cloudy situation.
Since(as I remember) ++Rowan himself did NOT invite +Lamb, that is interesting also.
Personally I’m quite relieved that +John David did not have to go, it would have been a terrible strain. Sometimes, God does know best.
# 10. Apologies. I misunderstood. See #9 for what really happened.
This [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14196/#248094″] story [/url] must have got crossed in the wires somewhere?
Friends,
This is what we were waiting for from the ABC before we could discuss the matter of Bishop Schofield at Lambeth. Our bishop made it clear to us on numerous occasions that he did not want to attend Lambeth this time because it would be almost as hostile as a TEC HOB meeting, little would be accomplished regarding important matters, and it would be very expensive for us to send him. The ONLY reason for him to attend is to be recognized as a legitimate bishop within the Anglican Communion. The letter cited by Abp. Venables recognizes my bishop as a legitimate bishop in the Communion, so now his attendance at Lambeth is unnecessary. I have personal knowledge that this letter is legitimate. This is recognition that was not given to any uninvited bishop. Not a good day for Episcopalians. They wanted a clear dis-invitation or at least words that reject the realignment of the diocese and they got neither.
FrWes,
Read it again. The letter does NOT say that the ABC recognizes Bishop Schofield as a legitimate Bishop in the Communion. It just doesn’t say that. In fact, it pretty much says the opposite.
Insofar as nobody has questioned the Anglican status of any of the bishops who did not attend this complete waste of time and none of them seem to have required letters assuring them that they were still Anglican, why was Bishop Schofield’s Anglican status an issue at all?
#15, you know the answer to that question. +Katharine said he was deposed, so of course ++Rowan had to cover by his “technical” issue, while all the while stating that regardless, +Scofield was still “in”.
I don’t think there was actully an overt question by anyone with good intentions, but the answer is quite satisfactory especially because the ABC considers the Bishop/Diocese connection to the AC the true connection. And regardless of our opinion, +Scofields position could be called questionable.
Gloria in SC
#13 I have to agree with #15. If this was the letter you were hoping for I’d be very concerned about this disclaimer:
[blockquote] However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. [/blockquote]
It would be better that he attends if he wants to claim to be recognised as a legitimate bishop in the Anglican Communion to support the DSJ court case, then there is no ambiguity.
But #13, the letter avoids recognizing Rev. Schofield as “a legitimate bishop within the Anglican Communion.” The letter acknowledges that Schofield didn’t “withdraw” from the communion, but goes on to say “it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group.”
In other words, attending or not attending Lambeth will have no bearing on his status. Fine as far as it goes, but in no way can that be construed as an endorsement of his legitimacy as a Bishop in the AC.
Having said all that, the GAFCON folks have publically encouraged and endorsed further “boundary crossing,” so the status of Schofield and his ilk will have to be clarified soon.
As a reappraiser, it doesn’t bother me to have overlapping bishoprics in the US—who cares anymore? The whole “I don’t recognize her legitimacy” and “I’m not in communion with him” business is a tiresome distraction now. God will eventually sort out all of our various legitimacies and there will be surprises on both sides.
My comment at SF –
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7039/]AoCtoHowe[/url] (bold is mine below)
[blockquote] I would repeat what I’ve said several times before – that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. [b]The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese[/b] rather than the Provincial structure as such. [/blockquote]
So now does the AoC argue that the diocese became non-compliant with the Windsor report by affiliating with the Southern Cone and thus its bishop no longer Lambeth eligible even though the diocese and bishop are in the AoC’s words the ‘organ of union’. If not able to make autonomous decisions, what could ‘organ of union’ mean in the AoC’s mind? Can you disaffiliate and not affiliate elsewhere? Sort of a Diocese in provincial limbo? Sure seems this could have been cleared up month’s ago.
What a mess. Sometimes the Archbishop is truly amazing. I hope he enjoys having opened the possibility TEC will depose him (civilly, not canonically, speaking) in the upcoming California litigation.
What is “Anglican canon law” and to whom does it now mean anything? I’m sorry for the cynicism, but this ABC seems to bring it out of me like smoke drives out bees.
Some folks need to read that quote again. He clearly does not say that +John-David is out, by recognizing that he has been accepted by the Southern Cone. Twice he says that he says that +Schofield has not withdrawn from the Communion. In that respect, I don’t quite see how #14 can come to the conclusion they have. His precise status and jurisdiction are certainly in question, but he is clearly still in the Communion. I don’t think this comes down on either side, really. Any TECer wanting him booted from the Communion clearly did not get that. Any Southern Coneyislander wanting recognition of their move clearly did not get that either.
I’m also going to say this, as I’ve said several times before, anyone who thinks +John-David Schofield is in the least bit interested in “saving-face” or “bowing out gracefully” does not know the man. If he’s not going, it’s because he decided not to go, for health or scheduling or to not cancel his opera plans or to simply avoid the inanity (he also might not go if, for whatever reason, +Venables had suggested he not). If anyone is saving face it’s +Williams, who now has one less powderkeg to worry about.
I also have to agree with Sherri. “Anglican canon law” is a particularly curious phrase.
the general norm of anglican canon law is non-existent. the ABC knows this. so this is anglican fudge…………………again. and the first of many servings from Lame-beth.
The letter cited by Abp. Venables recognizes my bishop as a legitimate bishop in the Communion, so now his attendance at Lambeth is unnecessary. I have personal knowledge that this letter is legitimate.
Forgive me for not taking your word FrWes, but I want to see ++Rowan’s handwriting or e-mail address attached. Also, the point is moot anyway as the statement clearly shows (the [] are my comments demonstrating what the statement “clearly” says
In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message [was it stated or handwritten or sent electronically? Through a courier?] from him: “I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion [a status shared with +Minns who is not a bishop of the Anglican Communion] and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn [of course he did not withdraw, he was deposed! There is a huge difference between not being “regarded as having withdrawn” and being “a bishop of the Anglican Communion” which is made clear by ++Rowan’s next sentence.] from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his
exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify
the terms on which he will exercise his ministry.”
+Schofield’s declining of the invitation forestalled ++Rowan from having to make an official ruling. By not going, he has not clarified any issue. He has left things exactly where they were.
Brian,
I’m sorry, I just don’t share the same jaded perspective you have regarding my Bishop or my Archbishop. These men are not fools. If the letter was not satisfactory to them, I’m sure Archbishop Venables would have ordered Bishop Schofield to attend Lambeth to press the issue, a firestorm that the ABC would do anything to avoid.
The schism and exodus he faces in his own province over mandatory recognition of female bishops, let alone GAFCON’s threat to his power, is enough to all but ruin his plans for a mere tea party!
TEC desperately needed clarity from the ABC to legitimize their actions against Bishop Schofield and to recognize that the ONLY legitimate Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is the one under TEC. This time THEY got the fudge! There was NO acknowledgment that Bishop Schofield was validly deposed, instead he was recognized a Bishop of the Southern Cone. There was NO statement suggesting that the vote we took in December was invalid, merely a reference that the matter would go before the Windsor Commission. There was NO withdrawal of Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth. TEC needed all those things to happen and they got NOTHING.
None of the uninvited Bishops received such a statement of recognition as Bishop Schofield from the ABC. You can call it fudgy all you want, and you can disbelieve what I know firsthand all you like. As for me, I will gladly forgo the heartburn you are enjoying.
Unfortunately, we have seen quotes from ++Venables and bishops in his Province which are reported as being from ++Rowan and they have been refuted. Does anyone have a link from ++Rowan or Lambeth to corroborate this?
I don’t intend this as a judgment, I am simply interested in the words used by ++Rowan as I think they are quite important. In addition, I do not believe ++Venables or any of his bishops have ever intentionally misrepresented anything.
Hmmm, the link has gone down. Has the news changed?
Sorry, Brian, I do not understand your post. Quotes from the bishops of the Southern Cone with regard to the ABC have not been refuted. In this situation you will again not receive a quote from Rowan. Why, you may ask? One does not go on record so that one may say different things to different people. All will be happy. Don’t worry Brian, be happy!
I have had enough of Rowan Williams. Quite simply he is a snake. How many silver pieces did the TEO pay Rowan? 30 silver pieces adjusted for inflation over 2000 years is a pretty big sum of money. I hope that he did his math right, and he gets what coming to him.
This actually doesn’t surprise me. By his continual inaction over the last five years, Dr. Williams has proven himself to have been in the back pocket of the Americans since the start. I didn’t think my contempt and disgust for the man could get any higher but it has.
BfT19 writes, in part, “Unfortunately, we have seen quotes from ++Venables and bishops in his Province which are reported as being from ++Rowan and they have been refuted. ”
Do you have a source for these rumors you are spreading or are you just seeking to stir things up?
Link is working again.
Rowan Williams has called Peter Jensen’s bluff. He has applied discipline and disinvited John-David Schofield, but allowed him to bow out gracefully. So there will be discipline in the communion after all. But only for some.
From the Jerusalem Declaration:
[blockquote] “While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.” [/blockquote]
So why are the GAFCON bishops still bothering to attend the Lambeth conference, other that to add credibility to whatever the remaining liberal bishop majority at the conference come up with?
Brian: In the past, people have said “Rowan Williams told me thus and so”. Here, Venables is placing language in direct quotes and telling us this is a note from Williams. I think Rowan likes to tell people what he thinks they want to hear, and will then put it in a vague manner. This is indicated to be a quote from a letter and it is a letter which cannot be described as being favorable to Venables. Accordingly, I think this is an accurate quote.
Posted at StandFirm:
Okay, the Living Church puts a very different spin on this story then many here and at StandFirm are interpreting it as.
This sounds like
a) Schofield did not want to attend Lambeth,
b) was concerned that not going might cloud his Anglican Communion status,
c) had Venables request a letter from Rowan Williams accepting his Communion status,
d) and Rowan Williams wrote the letter but stated that Schofield’s status is unclear given the DSJ situation.
The only evidence we have that Rowan tried to disinvite Schofield comes from some comments on the StandFirm blog several days ago. Now I am not saying that that commenter is wrong. There may very well be more then meets the eye here. But we really don’t know.
“Rowan Williams has called Peter Jensen’s bluff. He has applied discipline and disinvited John-David Schofield, but allowed him to bow out gracefully. ”
So ‘observing’, where, pray tell did you find a source that stated that Bishop Schofield was disinvited? Bishop Schofield chose to decline the invitation. As should the retired and unelected bishop Lamb have declined his improper invitation, especially since it was doubtless (IMO) sent to him under pressure from the Episcopal organization.
Well, one thing ++Rowan did not do, was “throw” +Scofield OUT of the AC. That’s why +Scofield is as happy as possible. The problem was a sort of technical one, with whom should +Scofield be seated under the current cloudy situation.
Since(as I remember) ++Rowan himself did NOT invite +Lamb, that is interesting also.
Personally I’m quite relieved that +John David did not have to go, it would have been a terrible strain. Sometimes, God does know best.
gloria in SC
# 10. Apologies. I misunderstood. See #9 for what really happened.
This [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14196/#248094″] story [/url] must have got crossed in the wires somewhere?
Friends,
This is what we were waiting for from the ABC before we could discuss the matter of Bishop Schofield at Lambeth. Our bishop made it clear to us on numerous occasions that he did not want to attend Lambeth this time because it would be almost as hostile as a TEC HOB meeting, little would be accomplished regarding important matters, and it would be very expensive for us to send him. The ONLY reason for him to attend is to be recognized as a legitimate bishop within the Anglican Communion. The letter cited by Abp. Venables recognizes my bishop as a legitimate bishop in the Communion, so now his attendance at Lambeth is unnecessary. I have personal knowledge that this letter is legitimate. This is recognition that was not given to any uninvited bishop. Not a good day for Episcopalians. They wanted a clear dis-invitation or at least words that reject the realignment of the diocese and they got neither.
FrWes,
Read it again. The letter does NOT say that the ABC recognizes Bishop Schofield as a legitimate Bishop in the Communion. It just doesn’t say that. In fact, it pretty much says the opposite.
Insofar as nobody has questioned the Anglican status of any of the bishops who did not attend this complete waste of time and none of them seem to have required letters assuring them that they were still Anglican, why was Bishop Schofield’s Anglican status an issue at all?
#15, you know the answer to that question. +Katharine said he was deposed, so of course ++Rowan had to cover by his “technical” issue, while all the while stating that regardless, +Scofield was still “in”.
I don’t think there was actully an overt question by anyone with good intentions, but the answer is quite satisfactory especially because the ABC considers the Bishop/Diocese connection to the AC the true connection. And regardless of our opinion, +Scofields position could be called questionable.
Gloria in SC
#13 I have to agree with #15. If this was the letter you were hoping for I’d be very concerned about this disclaimer:
[blockquote] However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. [/blockquote]
It would be better that he attends if he wants to claim to be recognised as a legitimate bishop in the Anglican Communion to support the DSJ court case, then there is no ambiguity.
But #13, the letter avoids recognizing Rev. Schofield as “a legitimate bishop within the Anglican Communion.” The letter acknowledges that Schofield didn’t “withdraw” from the communion, but goes on to say “it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group.”
In other words, attending or not attending Lambeth will have no bearing on his status. Fine as far as it goes, but in no way can that be construed as an endorsement of his legitimacy as a Bishop in the AC.
Having said all that, the GAFCON folks have publically encouraged and endorsed further “boundary crossing,” so the status of Schofield and his ilk will have to be clarified soon.
As a reappraiser, it doesn’t bother me to have overlapping bishoprics in the US—who cares anymore? The whole “I don’t recognize her legitimacy” and “I’m not in communion with him” business is a tiresome distraction now. God will eventually sort out all of our various legitimacies and there will be surprises on both sides.
My comment at SF –
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7039/]AoCtoHowe[/url] (bold is mine below)
[blockquote] I would repeat what I’ve said several times before – that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. [b]The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese[/b] rather than the Provincial structure as such. [/blockquote]
So now does the AoC argue that the diocese became non-compliant with the Windsor report by affiliating with the Southern Cone and thus its bishop no longer Lambeth eligible even though the diocese and bishop are in the AoC’s words the ‘organ of union’. If not able to make autonomous decisions, what could ‘organ of union’ mean in the AoC’s mind? Can you disaffiliate and not affiliate elsewhere? Sort of a Diocese in provincial limbo? Sure seems this could have been cleared up month’s ago.
Peace,
What a mess. Sometimes the Archbishop is truly amazing. I hope he enjoys having opened the possibility TEC will depose him (civilly, not canonically, speaking) in the upcoming California litigation.
What is “Anglican canon law” and to whom does it now mean anything? I’m sorry for the cynicism, but this ABC seems to bring it out of me like smoke drives out bees.
Some folks need to read that quote again. He clearly does not say that +John-David is out, by recognizing that he has been accepted by the Southern Cone. Twice he says that he says that +Schofield has not withdrawn from the Communion. In that respect, I don’t quite see how #14 can come to the conclusion they have. His precise status and jurisdiction are certainly in question, but he is clearly still in the Communion. I don’t think this comes down on either side, really. Any TECer wanting him booted from the Communion clearly did not get that. Any Southern Coneyislander wanting recognition of their move clearly did not get that either.
I’m also going to say this, as I’ve said several times before, anyone who thinks +John-David Schofield is in the least bit interested in “saving-face” or “bowing out gracefully” does not know the man. If he’s not going, it’s because he decided not to go, for health or scheduling or to not cancel his opera plans or to simply avoid the inanity (he also might not go if, for whatever reason, +Venables had suggested he not). If anyone is saving face it’s +Williams, who now has one less powderkeg to worry about.
I also have to agree with Sherri. “Anglican canon law” is a particularly curious phrase.
This is typical Williams – he’s a genius of double-speak and fudge.
Even The Anglican Curmudgeon confessed that parsing Williams was a challenge and took him a week to do one speech.
I dislike disingenuous perfidous people. I would not attend Lambeth if I were invited – these people have made me an Anglo-phobe.
the general norm of anglican canon law is non-existent. the ABC knows this. so this is anglican fudge…………………again. and the first of many servings from Lame-beth.
The letter cited by Abp. Venables recognizes my bishop as a legitimate bishop in the Communion, so now his attendance at Lambeth is unnecessary. I have personal knowledge that this letter is legitimate.
Forgive me for not taking your word FrWes, but I want to see ++Rowan’s handwriting or e-mail address attached. Also, the point is moot anyway as the statement clearly shows (the [] are my comments demonstrating what the statement “clearly” says
In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message [was it stated or handwritten or sent electronically? Through a courier?] from him: “I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion [a status shared with +Minns who is not a bishop of the Anglican Communion] and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn [of course he did not withdraw, he was deposed! There is a huge difference between not being “regarded as having withdrawn” and being “a bishop of the Anglican Communion” which is made clear by ++Rowan’s next sentence.] from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his
exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify
the terms on which he will exercise his ministry.”
+Schofield’s declining of the invitation forestalled ++Rowan from having to make an official ruling. By not going, he has not clarified any issue. He has left things exactly where they were.
Brian,
I’m sorry, I just don’t share the same jaded perspective you have regarding my Bishop or my Archbishop. These men are not fools. If the letter was not satisfactory to them, I’m sure Archbishop Venables would have ordered Bishop Schofield to attend Lambeth to press the issue, a firestorm that the ABC would do anything to avoid.
The schism and exodus he faces in his own province over mandatory recognition of female bishops, let alone GAFCON’s threat to his power, is enough to all but ruin his plans for a mere tea party!
TEC desperately needed clarity from the ABC to legitimize their actions against Bishop Schofield and to recognize that the ONLY legitimate Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is the one under TEC. This time THEY got the fudge! There was NO acknowledgment that Bishop Schofield was validly deposed, instead he was recognized a Bishop of the Southern Cone. There was NO statement suggesting that the vote we took in December was invalid, merely a reference that the matter would go before the Windsor Commission. There was NO withdrawal of Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth. TEC needed all those things to happen and they got NOTHING.
None of the uninvited Bishops received such a statement of recognition as Bishop Schofield from the ABC. You can call it fudgy all you want, and you can disbelieve what I know firsthand all you like. As for me, I will gladly forgo the heartburn you are enjoying.
Nice people here. #4 particularly.