"[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.
"In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15 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the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."
So, she is saying, "You can't quit! I fire you!" She is also saying that the majority vote of the people in San Joaquin means nothing. Her "church" is a dictatorship. The threat of lawsuits has been repeated, once again showing the TEC disdain for the Windsor Report and the communiqué from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I am sure that the new Southern Cone diocese of San Joaquin, and their bishop, have no plans to treat Ms. Schori as if she has any authority over them.The writer of the article did not ask for any response from the Diocese of San Joaquin, nor from the Province of the Southern Cone. Even the appearance of objectivity does not matter to the official party paper.
I have spent my life in (blissful) ignorance of TEC canon law, and now I am perplexed. The title 'presiding bishop' and the fact that the TEC is (sort of) Anglican combine to suggest to me that the 'presiding bishop' is therefore a sort of primus (-a, -um) inter pares. Now, while I'm happy to accept that the Pope could possibly unilaterally pick up a diocesan bishop by the scruff, depose and replace him and rip off his frock, it strikes me as strange that any bishop, or purported bishop, operating within the Anglican conception of primacy could unilaterally inhibit the sacramental actions of a bishop in another diocese. Or does a TEC diocesan bishop actually depend on Dr Schori's licence? Or, to look at it another way, is the effect of the inhibition to expel the Diocese of San Joaquin lock, stock and barrel from the TEC? (Or, perhaps, without its locks, stocks or barrels . . . ) Or does the presiding bishop merely have the power to inhibit pending a vote of the House of Bishops? The more I look at this, the more I think that the 'good' dioceses should have left years ago--or at least not stayed in once Dr Schori was elected.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Canons and Constitution of TEC the Presiding Bishop has no such authority. It takes an ecclesiastical trial before the House of Bishops. A Presiding Bishop is nothing more than President of the National Convention. A primate, but not an archbishop. What the tyrants of New York, TEC H.Q., have been trying to do, and local diocesan tyrants, like the formerly empowered Lady Jane, is get the secular courts to rewrite their own Canon Law whenever it does not suit their fancy.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, the people of San Joaquin have spoken, not just the bishop. Everything was done legally (why did it take two votes a year apart? Because that was what Canon Law required). Even if the wicked witch of New York did have such power in TEC, she has none in the Province of the Southern Cone.
This is only a pretense in order to sue the churches of that diocese. If this disgusting woman really thinks of herself as a bishop, and the father in God to the people (kind of a problem there somewhere, it seems), then it must be her idea of loving pastoral care to sue the bastards- by definition, anyone who fails to sieg heil! to her.
Being a member of the DSJ I know for a fact that some priests and deacons were intimidated into voting to leave the EPC, a more direct way of saying this.....they were bullied!!! John David has many good qualities,that is as long as you agree with him,if you don't WATCH OUT.... Grammy
ReplyDeleteThe record states that this was the decision of the overwhelming majority, and that dissenters were allowed both to speak at the Diocesan Convention, and to find a way to remain in TEC. Their speeches were heard, not shouted down. And, you know what Anonymous? Even if I believed your "talking points" (which I don't), Bishop Schofield is a faithful Christian and Ms. Schori is a devil. The choice between good and evil is always clear.
ReplyDeleteBy CC terms, none of the players are quite as far along the road as we would like to see; but, some are motivated by the truth, and others are not. The FiF bishops are motivated by the truth.
So John-David Schofield was a "bully" in trying to shepherd his diocese out of the House of Bondage. Well, that is the way that sheepdogs act, when faced with blind and perverse sheep. "Bully" is an epithet that could be applied to St. Athanasius as well, and for the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reporting and very charitable comments in this area, Father Hart. We outside "The Episcopal Church" (what hubris there) need to let those who have finally had the scales fall from their eyes that we stand with them, not against them. This is no time for triumphalism ("I told you so. . .") but for Christian love.
ReplyDeleteI have been visiting the Diocese since the decision was made. I watched the video of the two meetings. Anyone that believes that the good Bishop is bullying the diocese is on serious medication. He could have crowed all day long after the vote, and while he was obviously very pleased, worked very hard to maintain decorum.
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of who's right and wrong (and I side with the Orthodox in our communion), it seems to me that in our globalizing world, the idea to hold to strictly nationally organized bishoprics, is also hard to maintain.
ReplyDelete