BREAKING: Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop

Further ignominy for the Camp Allen bishops: Wimberly consented to this, although the review committee did so only by a “majority.”

This was ECUSA’s last chance for peace.  Let slip the dogs of war.  Rowan Williams now has a decision he cannot finesse: does Schofield go to Lambeth.

“...the ministry of the Episcopal Church continues and moves forward.”

Yeah.

Once again, SF board, thanks for keeping information current.

I thought the good Bishop headed the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, and she doesn’t have any jurisidiction in their affairs. Maybe she just wants something for the media, so she can say all will be well when she places a new Bishop out there.

She has a meeting planned, because everyone is returning now that they have thought about the vote! 

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_93539_ENG_HTM.htm

Maybe everyone should go back and tell the Episcopal Church where to go.

Trying to say this was Bishop Schofield’s idea is thinking in a very small box.

FLASH!  The Vatican just announced that the Pope has inhibited KJS and forbids her from performing episcopal activities in his world.

Members of the Diocese of Texas take note!

Dr. N,

In a sense this is what the abandonment canon is for.  You are quite correct that Mr. Schofield is considered a bishop by the province of Southern Cone and wont be particularly impacted at this moment by the action.  In fact, I rather suspect he will simply ignore it.  But there are other considerations:

When (not if) the TEC see of S J is declared vacant, the parishes that remain in TEC can begin the process of selecting a new bishop.  The presiding bishop can appoint an interim bishop for them.  Canonical life, in other words, can move on for TEC.  In itself that also wont impact Mr. Schofield.

The other items may however impact him. 

1)  The national church and the reorganized diocese will assert a claim on the diocese’s property which I am sure he will deny.  The litigation will inevitably begin.

2)  TEC will formally inform the ABp of Canterbury that Mr. Schofield has been deposed.  As he has no release from the HoB and as the transfer to Southern Cone is therefor not canonical from this province’s perspective, TEC will expect the invitation to Lambeth to be revoked.  Dr. Williams is not going to be able to duck this one, he will have to actually decide.

I think that the recent record suggests TEC will win the lawsuits.  I am not particularly happy about that, I should rather have people than property.  But then, I am the guy who once proposed to the house of deputies private board that we let the stuff go.  I think the scars have healed well .

If Dr. Williams had any sense, he would continue the invitation to Mr. Schofield, invite all of the CANA bishops, and invite Bp. Robinson.  Invite them all, let them sort themselves out.  But, I doubt he will.  ;;sigh;;

FWIW
jimB

Several years ago I was sitting in an Episcopal Congregation when it was announced that the ELCA would not participate in pulpit exchange with the Episcopal Church. There was a flash of wonder why this was the case. At the time, I thought the ELCA was more liberal the ECUSA.

Well, if I were in the ELCA right now, I would be withdrawing that program.  Then, maybe they already have.

I’m in the Diocese of Texas, and I was expecting better from Bishop Wimberly.  As of now, I have one foot out the door, and the other almost out.  This is probably enough to have myself and my family out of TEC.  I don’t see much reason to stay any more.

He (and any real Bishops left in TEC) should just inhibit her right back!  He’s more of a Bishop than she ever will be. 

It’s an honor find yourself at odds with the likes of her.  Those who are not are the more reprehensible for not being offended and opposed to her and VGR.

Truth be told, the majority of TEC Bishops should be inhibited and ashamed of themselves.

[9] I was writing too fast.  They did approve the pulpit exchange 6 months or a year later in my recollection.

[8] The ABC may have to bring everyone in and hand out boxing gloves.

I am sincere in my suggestion that there should be a large orthodox showing at the meeting on the 26th. They have called for inclusion of everyone, and claim to be welcoming the conservatives back. They need to meet the convention that took the vote.

It is interesting that when it is a conservative bishop dealing with properties somewhat in the manner of the Diocese of CT, ENS is all sympathetic towards the “spiritually abused” lay members - but when it was the liberal bishop of CT, they applauded his courageous action to preserve the property “held in trust” for the diocese.

No matter what conservatives do, it is wrong; no matter what progressives do, it is right.  This seems to be the law of progressive Christianity.

So, will TEC supplement the pay of the new interim bishop for the TEC diocese of San Joaquine, and the new bishop when he is seated? Or will the three parishes in the “diocese” have to foot the bill themselves?
This may turn out to be a rather low-paying job for the bishop class.

(a refugee from the Briar Patch),

Has there been a church that has grown when TEC has taken property from an orthodox congregaton? My casual observation is that they all close or are run with ringers for show. I wonder about the basis for TECs optimism for growth in San Joaquin once 42 of the 47 congregations are gone.

Maybe they will send Bennison out there.  He knows the area and has experience living in the tension.

Perhaps Spong could be persuaded by KJS to relocate to Fresno ...

*G*

This is just funny - poor Shori - trying to run the herd when they all left her FAR behind in the cowpen.

I say “YEE HA!  OFF to the Pampas!”

RE: [17]

Ouch!

(a refugee from the Briar Patch),

Truly this is not unexpected. My prayers are with +Schofield & DioSJ as this round of the 815 ugliness begins.

BabyBlue has posted an update.

http://sanjoaquin.anglican.org/

No surprise. I will however offer this comment: Wimberly - you are a disgrace to “Windsor”, the Anglican Communion, Christianity and the State of Texas. Ditto to the other “Windsor” bishops.

May the saints preserve us.

#10 - you can always come visit us at the REC! You’ll be welcomed with open arms and - I expect - pleasantly surprised at the orthodoxy and liturgy.  Come visit, sit a-spell, and take communion with us.

What exactly does this do? Bp Schofield wasn’t going to perform any “episcopal acts” in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (i.e. the parishes that are staying in TEC) anyway, was he? A TEC inhibition has no force in Province of the Southern Cone, does it?

[24] How wonderful it is that each 1.5 days another congregation leaves TEC and gives options for the communities they serve. Thank you larswife for reminding us of your congregation and the courage your people took to spread the Gospel in your area. Some of us had to leave TEC congregations without options and find community in blogs, or in home churches. It is sad to see beautiful buildings that served Episcopal families for generations close, but that seems to be what is necessary to stop the cancer in TEC. The only way to achieve change is to stop feeding 815.

“Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop”

She should do a better job of inhibiting herself.
_ _ _ _ _

“Let slip the dogs of war. Rowan Williams now has a decision he cannot finesse: does Schofield go to Lambeth”

Let slip the wrongs of Rowan. We can almost count on it.

By [8], it seems they can place some pressure on him from the AC side. I think that can be handled by the primates. The biggest hurt is to lock the doors to the congregations and file lawsuits.  If I were in those congregations, I would gather everyone to demonstrate the concern of the people about the innovations. This would be a media disaster for 815.

There is nothing new here: the actions of the Title IV Review Committee and the PB were expected and Predictable, just as the actions of +Colorado against Don+ and the (lay) vestry of that parish. A sorry state of affairs. I appreciate BABYBLUE’s commentary on SanJoaquin, but take umbrage to her referring to the Recent Unpleasantness as being a “civil war”.

Its not surprising, it would have been shocking if it had not occurred. 

I agree with the comment about Wimberly.  If the Camp Allen Bishop had any spine, he would have protested the action. 

The faster all of this is over with the better.

Br_er R, thanks for the pointer to BB’s update.  SJ’s response is absolutely perfect.

“I know that this clarification of the bishop’s status will be a relief to many Episcopalians in the diocese,” Anderson said.

Many?  Did he really say ‘many?’

“That clarity will help them in their ministry to each other and beyond in the continuing Diocese of San Joaquin. “

Since this “continuing diocese” is non-viable, it should logically be folded into an adjacent diocese.  But that would be an admission of defeat so TEC will not take this action right away.  The inevitable decision will await some future time when it can be taken quietly ... when no one is looking.

carl

On one of the links at Baby Blue’s site, I saw a notice that the HOB meeting is going to be at Camp Allen. Hey, fellow Texans—anyone want to go? With or without signs and cattle brands.

I almost hate to bring this up for fear of discussing an intelligence matter in a public place, but no one who has commented thus far seems to have noticed a glaring conflict created by this action, considering the requirements of Title IV of Canon 9. The apparent (at least to me) conflict arises between the position of TEC with respect to the ADV case (i.e., no division has occurred) and the specifications of any infraction which would support the reported findings of the Title IV Review Committee. Very specifically, there are three possible categories of offenses, at least one of which must be committed, in order for that committee to find that the accused has “abandoned communion.” As quoted in the Episcopal Life Online article found at the hyperlink above, these are (emphases added):

º open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of the Church;
º formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same; or

º exercising episcopal acts [which include primarily Holy Orders and Confirmation] in and for a religious body other than the Episcopal Church or another Church in communion with the Church so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church.

I note that the Episcopal Life Online article gives no details on what elements of proof were adduced to justify the finding, nor even under which of the three possible infractions is alleged to have been violated. However, everyone should note that if it is either of the latter two offenses, then TEC is implicitly, but <u>unambiguously</u>, affirming that, as of the date of the acceptance by DioSanJoaquin of the invitation to join the Southern Cone, a division must <u>necessarily</u> have already taken place. I cannot imagine what the Committee could have found as the required elements of proof for a finding under the first category of offenses. For either of the latter two categories, if no division has occurred in the Anglican Communion, then TEC considers itself in communion with the Southern Cone. The alternative is that TEC does not consider itself in communion with the Southern Cone, ergo a division has occurred. What is even more confusing is, if TEC has not declared that they are not in communion with the Southern Cone, then it would be impossible for any bishop in TEC to be justly inhibited for violating the Title because there was no way he could have been expected to know that the Province in question “out of bounds.” This is breathtakingly incoherent.

I will refrain from making any expressly pejorative comments about the intellectual acuity of the leadership of TEC which such an affirmation suggests, but it does make one wonder if they had their brains with them when this decision was taken.

Draw pistol, cock hammer, release safety, aim carefully at own foot, pull trigger. Does anyone else find this incredibly stupid on the part of TEC, or is it just me?

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Thank you, Martial Artist.  That is precisely the observation I was going to make.  TEC is here recognizing that it is no longer in Communion with the Province of the Southern Cone.  This follows numerous inhibitions of priests in other dioceses who also are now canonically resident in other provinces.  These show that those dioceses are not in communion with offshore Anglicans.  The division of the Communion is ongoing.

Has it been sixty days since the San Joaquin convention?  I thought there was a canonically required period between warning and inhibition.  If Schori’s pre-convention letter to Schofield was the warning, he hadn’t done anything yet, at that point.

San Joaquin’s response (via Baby Blue, above) makes another point.  Schofield has not resigned from TEC’s House of Bishops.

re: has it been sixty days?

No. It has been barely a month.

Draw pistol, cock hammer, release safety, aim carefully at own foot, pull trigger. Does anyone else find this incredibly stupid on the part of TEC, or is it just me?

You are not alone Martial Artist, but rather, in very good company.

While not unexpected, I find my reaction this evening is one of sadness, to this mistaken action, on the part of the current leadership of TEC.  Last year we were asking for clarity, I find that in the last twelve months, it has been provided to us. This is simply one more bit of clarity.  It is so very sad.

I do not know the members of the review committee, except by their actions and words. I am acquainted with Bishop Schofield.  However, as I look at what the members of the review committee are acquiescing to, I find them much smaller individuals by comparison.  At this time this evening, I would suggest it is they, who should be considering the meaning of “The Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of the Church”, not Bishop Schofield.  While I have disagreed with some of Bishop Schofield’s positions in the past, I have never found cause to doubt either his love or understanding of what was meant by the phrase “Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church”.

As I reflect on this further over the weekend, I will undoubtedly discover additional feeling regarding this action; different words to express those feelings; further reflections on what this means in the context of the current unpleasantness.  However, I leave this evening with a feeling of deep sadness.

irenaeus wrote:

Rowan Williams now has a decision he cannot finesse: does Schofield go to Lambeth?

Since the ABC called the adoption of DSJ by Southern Cone “sensible” I’ll be very surprised if he pulls Bp Schofield’s invitation. Does anyone in the diocese know whether the bishop is planning to attend?

Yes, I understand that Bp. Schofield is planning to attend Lambeth.  He has said so enthusiastically in an interview that I heard last month.

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
  Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.” (Luke 6:22-23)

Well, if it hasn’t been the required sixty days, then this inhibition is a violation of the canons.  Not that this is a new phenomenon…

On the afternoon of January 11, the Presiding Bishop called Schofield at the diocesan offices in Fresno, California, to notify him of her action, Robertson said. Schofield was not in the office and Jefferts Schori left a message with a staff member, telling the bishop that he would receive copies of the certification and inhibition yet that day via email and fax, and by overnight mail on January 12.

I can imagine the telephone conversation:

KJS: Hello, this is Katherine Jefferts Schori, er…, the presiding bishop,...is Bishop Schofield…no, is former Bishop Shofield there…No, wait, he is being only now inhibited…Is Bishop Schofield there?
Receptionist: Is this a joke? Myrtle is that you? You do that whiny voice pretty good, but I am not falling for it again.
KJS: No, it really is your presiding bishop…er, your former presiding bishop…er, this really is Katherine Jefferts Schori! Is…Mr. Schofield, I mean, Bp Schofield there?
Receptionist: Of course not, Myrtle, you dimwit. He is out tending to his flock, doing whatever bishops do. Maybe he’s crackin’ a few noggins with the shepherd’s crook thingy.
KJS: I am not Myrtle and you can call me most reverend. Can I just leave a message?
Receptionist: Myrtle, you are a hoot. You can do whatever your most reverendness wants to…

Salt in the wound - still absolutely no attempt to deal with the needs of the US conservatives.

This will make things worse for TEC.

What a pity.

And they say the Episcopal Church no longer has any inhibitions left.

G, D & R

I have a blog thingy

Kathrine:

“Be gone….....you have no power here”

Robroy—
  wonderful!
Cradle—
  interesting take!

re: has it been sixty days?

If I’m not mistake, this is the start of the 60 days.  It will be interesting to see what the HOB does after that.

On the canons of TEC.  My understanding is that the three mst senior bishops (+Wimberly among them) must agree and then the issue is referred to the relevant committee (9 members?) which decides on the inhibition.  I believe the majority ruling would apply to this group.  On their decision, the PB informs the bishop question and he/she has 60 days to recant, from there. (for this bishop, yesterday) Then the House of Bishops votes on the matter.  Assuming that +Schofield will ignore the inhibition etc., that will be at the HofB regular meeting in March. 

On the effect all of this might have on the Va cases.  For legal minds above, the briefs have already been submitted.  I do not know if the record is closed as of any specific date, or new argument evidence etc. can be added.  If the record were closed, should the events that transpired in SJ yesterday be relevant?  If the decision is appealed, would the appeal be based only the record of the trial court?

Rowan Williams now has a decision he cannot finesse: does Schofield go to Lambeth?

He has already made a decision in regard to Bishop Cavalcante.
There is some similarity to the precedent there.

(a refugee from the Briar Patch),

A further question on matter that can or can not be considered by the court in the Va cases.  Is it matter that took place prior to the filing of the action that can be considered by the court?  If that is the case, there would appear to be no special relevance in the action taken by TEC regarding +Schofield yesterday?

Has it been sixty days since the San Joaquin convention?  I thought there was a canonically required period between warning and inhibition.

There is no connection between a “warning” and an official inhibition.  A minimum of sixty days must pass before the HOB can officially depose a bishop who has been inhibited- sort of a grace period to recant.

Prayers here and here.

Bishop Whimperly stricks again!
Nelson Koscheski+

As I mentioned over at T19, can we have ++Akinola and ++Kolini inhibit Chane, Bruno and Andrus now?

TEC will expect the invitation to Lambeth to be revoked.  Dr. Williams is not going to be able to duck this one, he will have to actually decide.

Perhaps not.  RW only has to make a decision if he wants to withdraw the invitation.  What is the upside for him to do so?  It further provokes the very people he wants to cajole into attending Lambeth.  And really what would TEC do if RW failed to act?  TEC will not storm away from Lambeth if its expectations about Bishop Schofield are disappointed.  The better part of discretion would therefore be for RW to ignore this situation. 

carl

It would have been better if he had ignored the Cavalcanti situation.
Of course, it would have been best if he had welcomed this orthodox Brazilian bishop.

(a refugee from the Briar Patch),

#34 MA…noted.I wondered. Are yu able to enjoy your holiday and keep up with the madhouse?

<blockquote>  The better part of discretion would therefore be for RW to ignore this situation.  <blockquote> Well said Carl. That certainly would play to RW’s strength. God bless my Bishop John-David Schofield.
Intercessor

Yes, this is all expected and amounts to so much paperwork, in some ways, and necessary upheaval.  Bp. Schofield will go about his anointed episcopal business through the Province of the Southern Cone.  KJS will have laid the necessary groundwork to begin filling the (according to the paperwork) soon-vacant see.  Dr. Williams, who seems to be caught in a corner, will again wiggle out of the corner and continue to do nothing.  Lawsuits will be filed to take over the cathedral and all the transferred parish properties.  The “remaining” Episcopal churches will put on a good show for a short time and then die quietly.

We are in a painful period of realignment of the Anglican tetanic plates as God prunes his Church.  As the plates grind past each other, many people suffer: betrayal, abandonment, loss of faith and property.  At the same time many are released, revived, restored.  The Name of Jesus suffers some shame and receives much glory.  After a time, stasis will be restored and we can all get on with the Gospel.  The trick is to keep on with the Gospel even as the grinding and shrieking go on about us.

My parish found itself on the edge of the plates for much of last year and the year before.  It was excruciating.  We are resting now, under the wing of ++Venables, getting back to our mission.  Thanks be to God.

Continual prayers go up for those still on the edges.

Thank you Cindy T. Wise words indeed.
Intercessor

ISTM that the question is did the DSJ just kick out TEC and brought in the Southern Cone Provence or did the members of the DSJ and the bishop leave DSJ and start a new dioscese and leave the DSJ empty?  Now if TEC just needs to take the leavings and restart a new dioscese or fold it into another dioscese then the inhibition is just a gesture or book keeping houskeeping measure and of no consequence.  If the DSJ was abandoned then they will need to clean up and refurbish.  Lots of luck.  I think TEC needs to have a map in 815 with areas of geography blackened out and realize that they are no longer a presence in that area of the US.  Let’s see how their evangalism program and influx of GLBT folks works out to repopulate the terra incognito where dragons and monsters reside.  Fun to watch.  I’m betting on +Schofield.

Ironic, because she herself isn’t validly ordained, plus +Schofield doesn’t work for her anymore.  But, maybe she’ll be inhibiting some Methodist and Roman Catholic priests tomorrow.

meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a [ mèggəlō máynee ə, mèggələ máynee ə ]
noun
Definition:
1. greed for power: an excessive enjoyment in having power over other people and a craving for more of it
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/megalomania.html

I forgot to add that in this highly unusual and virtually unprecedented situation, KJS had to do something, and since inhibition is the only tool in her drawer, she used it.  Whether it will have negative consequences for 815 down the road, re: the VA lawsuits, remains to be seen.  That would put her in quite a nice kettle of fish, lit with her own butane, eh?

lit with her own butane, eh?

I dunno. Anyone else get a whiff of methane?

(a refugee from the Briar Patch),

DSJ from +Bp Schofield point of view left TEC and joined the Southern Cone. There is no DSJ in TEC any longer. Schori can no more inhibit +Bp Schofield than the Pope can inhibit Schori.

TEC is claiming that DSJ is still a valid Diocese within TEC, and +Bp Schofield etc have left the diocese, but the diocese still remains. Hence inhibitions, vacant see, new Bishop, and lawsuits to determine ownership of the property.

The one thing that I am not understanding is why +Bp Schofield is still claiming membership in HoB. Seems that his position and arguments would be cleaner with a clean and complete cut from all TEC association.

#68

Four words for you—-> “Under advice of counsel”

I have a blog thingy

Anyone else get a whiff of methane?

That’s what you get when you try to squeeze a cash cow.

Just a brief observation on Wimberly and that subset of Windsor bishops who essentially side with TEC’s national leadership over conservatives every time when push comes to shove—if TEC is likened to a dysfunctional family with an alcoholic family member, it seems that those in Wimberly’s mode are “enablers” who do not condone what the alcoholic does but who make it possible for the behavior to continue by shielding the family dynamics from outside scrutiny. 

By purporting to mirror the standard and behavior of the larger (more conservative) Anglican world, and by giving the outward appearance of a conservative remnant within TEC as a sort of traditional “wing” of the church (in appearance but not in practice), enablers give shelter to the more aggressive revisionists within TEC.  They allow Daddy to keep drinking inside the privacy of the home without repercussions from the outside world.  In essence, it boils down to:  “See, it’s not just a liberal vs. conservative issue, because I as a conservative bishop join with Schori in the attempt to defrock Bishop Schofield, so you worldwide Anglicans should stay out of our family squabble.”

The tension in recent years in the U.S. is that the internet allows the family secrets to come out.  Further, there is always tension and conflict when someone (e.g., the Diocese of SJ) stops playing according to the rules of a dysfunctional family’s code.

—John Clay

Bp. Iker has posted a response to the inhibition of Bp. Scholfield on the Diocese of Fort Worth website:Here.

Sorry. No “l” in Schofield.

How likely is it that when the HOB meets in March, Schori’s action will be approved by acclamation, and the Network bishops will say they voted “No” but no one heard them?

Bill McGovern: Quite likely, it appears…

Cindy T.(62), thank you for those wise, touching, and moving words.

#71, John Clay,

Extraordinarily perceptive post! Thank you. That particular subset of Windsor Bishops is, indeed, organizationally dysfunctional, by any measure I can perceive.  Anyone care to rebut #71’s well argued thesis?

It is worth noting that Schori, et. al. don’t have to inhibit or depose anyone.  In fact, I am not sure what good it does them.  I understand that during the civil war, the north kept the southern bishops on the rolls even though they did not come to the HOB meetings.  After the war, they were welcomed back.  If TEC was as welcoming as it claims it is, they could just as easily say you may have rejected us, but we don’t reject you.  You are welcome at our HOB meeting at any time, and we hope that we can be reconciled one day.  That would be the welcoming, non-judgmental approach.  This is more like:  You can’t reject me, I reject you first.  I will excommunicate you since you excommunicated me.  You can’t fire me, I quit.  A petty, meaningless act for a not-so-welcoming presiding bishop and her new court.

The Episcopal Life article talks about the “majority” vote—- I’m assuming they would have said unanimous if it had been.  Does anyone know who on the Title IV review committee voted against? (if any).

BB links to the comments on this at Jake’s: http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/former-bishop-of-san-joaquin-inhibited.html

Many of the comments drip with a gleeful emotion that looks a lot like hatred. I will be so relieved when I can leave the church of these people. And they would write something like: What’s stopping you? It’s actually a good question. I’m not altogether satisfied with my answer, but it’s enough for now.

[#66] Cindy T. in TX & [67] Br_er Rabbit,

…lit with her own butane…

not to mention “and with her own ignition source.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

BillK, the Civil War situation was different. KJS wants her hand on the property and to protect her monoply of Anglicanism in the U.S. Thus, she would not be content to sit idly while such competition takes up residence on “her turf.”

It seems to me that there really is only question for Anglo Catholics- when we formally excommunicate KJS, do we do it in Latin or English?

To the Archbishop of Canterbury-
The time for “professional facilitators” is long past. 

TJ

#82 TJ…good one. LOL! Latin or English.

#82 Obviously, she will exercise any legal means at her disposal to reclaim as much of DSJ as she can.  However, she seems almost to grant that his temporal authority over the diocese is beyond her power and strikes at his ecclesiastical authority in the narrow sliver of the Anglican Communion known at The Episcopal Church.  To me it looks like an unnecessary even counterproductive action in TEC terms.  Therefore, I interpret it as being motivated by pure frustration and spite.