Pat Ashworth wrote in the Church Times US bishops agree to depose Schofield.
George Conger at Religious Intelligence/CEN continued to take a different view over what happened at the recent meeting of the American House of Bishops: Doubts over deposition trial.
Mark Harris takes serious issue with the quality of George Conger’s report, see Beyond Schofield and Cox.
Rob Eaton reports from the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (he is a member of it), in Answers from the Standing Committee: What are you “doing”?
(TA readers will recall that this committee wrote this reply on 1 February to this letter sent to them by the Presiding Bishop on 25 January.)
Meanwhile, the new diocesan website shows increased activity relating to the forthcoming diocesan convention, see here, here, and here.
Taking a wait and let’s see stand, given how fast Schofield and others are trying to move, might communicate an ecclesiastical authority discernment paralysis in the face of Schofield’s moralisms. Part of the hard, wedge-driving success of the conservative realignment campaign so far is that its leaders deeply love to force narrow, and often conservative winner takes all, choices upon people. It’s easy to feel paralyzed. Do I wanna go straight to hell? Or do I wanna be exactly like nothing but a conservative realignment believer? Ah, are those my only choices? Nobody knows this better than the fav target… Read more »
Dr. Primrose’s comment, currently the final one on Mark Harris’s site, hits the nail firmly on the head when he cites the precedent of 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich. “In that case, the diocese removed and defrocked a bishop, who then sued the church, claiming that he was the true bishop. The lower courts found that the bishop’s removal and defrocking were improper because the proceedings against the bishop were not in accordance with the church’s constitution and canons. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, held the civil courts were constitutionally… Read more »
I’m confused. Didn’t the standing committee in San Joaquin approve and vote in favor of Schofield taking the diocese to Southern Cone?
With all due respect to Mr. Eaton, the regularity or irregularity of the House of Bishops’ action is in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, Bishop Schofield’s action in announcing his departure to the Province of the Southern Cone was unequivocal. And, having entered one province he could only be acting to depart another. Bishop Schofield’s explicit resignation as Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin would have been a nice formality, but no more. The essential fact of his separation was already accomplished. The members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin already had… Read more »
drdanfee questioned “Why else talk like you are bound to follow Schofield wherever he leads, until somebody makes it canonically impossible to do so.” Isaiah 54:11-15 ““O afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted, I will build you with stones of turquoise, your foundations with sapphires. I will make your battlements of rubies, your gates of sparkling jewels, and all your walls of precious stones. All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children’s peace. In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear.… Read more »
You may want to add Bishop John W. Howe’s letter to the three most-senior bishops (including his old friend Bishop Peter James Lee of Virginia) that might blow the socks anyone who thinks that the deposition of Schofield is a done deal. He charges that the HOB did not follow the canons when Bishop Schori attempted to depose Bishop Schofield – a very serious charge. He has now written to the Bishop-lawyers in the House. The letter is here: http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-w-howe-writes-three-most-senior.html Here is the text: My Dear Brothers, I need to say how totally disappointed and disgusted I am that not… Read more »
BB, check the 1976, 7-2 US Supreme Court decision to which I cite a reference above. The decision states: “We hold that the inquiries made by the Illinois Supreme Court into matters of ecclesiastical cognizance and polity and the court’s actions pursuant thereto contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
It’s a done deal.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=426&page=708
Here’s the note I left on the Standing Comittee’s site. Since all posts must be moderated, it’ll be interesting to see if it gets approved.
“So, you’re stuck in a corner where you have to assert that the bishop is still the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and you haven’t come into power as the Ecclesiastical Authority remaining in the diocese. That must be a lonely place. By your own spin, you can’t do anything at all. By your lack of activity, you become increasingly irrelevant.”