Well, that certainly told folks how the cows eat the cabbage. An excellent response to the lies of Mr. Schofield.
Three tips of the hat to Brian.
My dear friend Jake,
You quoted the following words from Bryan: "Mr. Schofield was made a bishop of the Episcopal Church BY the Episcopal Church. His status as a bishop, his oath of conformity, and his claim to membership in the Anglican Communion are all contingent upon his conduct in the Episcopal Church and no other."
I am no expert in canon law but this suggests that the hyphenated, schismatic Schofield is no longer a Bishop as a result of the deposition. Is that what has happened? I am confused. I understand deposition in the context of those who jump the Tiber but in this context the deposed bishop is still swimming in Anglican waters.
Yours ever so kindly and gently,
I am at least a semi-outsider in San Joaquin. The best thing about the meeting last night was sitting in this church, in this diocese, in the presence of a bishop, and being able to trust what was spoken. I knew we weren't being lied to.
The siege is lifted.
I suppose that the Province of the Southern Cone can receive Schofield as a bishop (presumably without re-consecrating him) if they choose to do so. Presumably anyone can be made a bishop with sufficient consents from their jurisdiction. The geography is more problematic, since San Joaquin is far away from the constitutionally-mandated boundaries of the Southern Cone.
Thanks Jake. I've been thinking all day that since the Diocese of San Joaquin is now beyond Mr. Schofield, we can stop worrying about what he is doing. The Diocese has been re-born, and it's a new day. We can leave sorting out Mr. Schofield's field of refuse to the courts, and we can get on with the business of (re)building the church. (Don't worry Leslie and others - it doesn't mean we will stop trying to get the keys to your church buildings back.) What Mr. Schofield says or thinks is now, to me, not relevant.
Uh Jake,
You better go check out the Living Church pronto. Looks like Holy Week might get bumped in favor of Canon Week. As a tax attorney, I'll often tell folks the first order of business is RTFC, which is Read the Effin Code, but in this context looks like the HOB should subsitute "Canons" for "Code." What a mess...
Jake, one more thing: Could you ask Bryan Taylor-Ferguson, AOJN, if he would be willing to send in his piece (or a modified version of it) as an op-ed submission to the Fresno Bee, etc. etc.? We need some help locally in offsetting some of the positive press Schofield has generated over the last few weeks. This goes a long ways to showing how Shofield is wrong, and would be much more effective than a series of shorter "letters to the editor".
In my opinion, this article is brilliant.
Thanks.
Excellent article by Bryan Taylor-Ferguson. Thanks again Jake for giving it to us to read and comment on.
We have allowed far to much freedom in regard to the 'discipline' of the church in the House of Bishops. Iker can't make it to the House of Bishops meeting because he is to busy consulting with other churches on how to take his diocese out of TEC as John David, The Conehead attempted. The bishops vow to consult with one another and yet he and a few other bishops ignore this vow routinely. They should be disciplined for this action. If they can't be with their fellow bishops then they should be removed from office for failure to comply to the discipline their order is shown to uphold. Let the House of Deputies seek to impose the requirement of mandatory attendance at these meetings with removal from office as a consequence. The laity has a right to expect its leaders to conform to their vows.
When will we start using criminal law against John David? There is no reason at all that as of March 12th that he should have any access to any funds of the diocese and there should have been an immediate injunction placed on him to keep him from any church property of funds. This isn't civil law this is now criminal law. No vice president of a normal corporation could be removed from office and not had a security officer escort help him leave the property.
We should never confuse the issue of discipline with a question of doctrine. They are two very different animals. One requires conformity to organizational procedures and is based on man made institutional laws; the other requires respect to Christ's own words and the wisdom tradition built on His foundation.
Yup, widening gyre. The whole thing was illegal. Mrs Schori lied again. Neither Bishop Cox nor Schofield were diposed legally. Read the effin Canon law.
Well done, Brian!
Here is a link to the Living Church's article on the depositions, which by their research does seem to violate canon law. I'm no fan of the schismatics to say the least, but if these reports are correct, it is troubling.
http://www.livingchurch.org/news...quired-
majority
Well, this is beyond question right. I count 293 bishops eligible to vote from Louie Crew's Anglican pages , but I probably missed one.
I bet I know where the mistake came from, too: a quorum of the [junior, let us remember!] house requires a majority of all those entitled to vote _exclusive of those who have resigned_; the deposition canon doesn't include that exclusion, and thus brings in 124 retired diocesans, 2 retired PBs, 16 retired suffragans, and 2 who resigned for other reasons.
If The Living Church article is correct, the Chancellor and PB have considerable egg on their faces
One or more canon lawyers needs deposed.
Needless to say (but that rarely stops me), after the attention to detail about +Mark Lawrence's election, it will hardly do to be cavalier about the canons in this case. David Beers' resignation should be on someone's desk by 8 am tomorrow.
Hmmm. TrinityMatthew, is the requirement that a majority of bishops consent, or that a majority of the bishops at the meeting consent? Much would turn on that.
And Reed -- wasn't the same procedural maneuver used at the Dar es Salaam Primates' Meeting? I believe I remember that, as time went on, more and more of the Primates left the meeting. Very few Primates (besides Archbishop Akinola) were still at the meeting when the provisions of the Dar es Salaam Communique were imposed on the Episcopal Church. Yet it was represented as "the Primates'" decision, to which we all had to bow.
(Yes, I'm back, encouraged by the Episcopal Church's efforts to set a few boundaries.)
How has the "51% majority" requirement been understood in the past?
I am waiting for more information.
Is it unusual for so many members of the house of bishops to not appear at the meetings? Or is the usual? What has happened in the past, and what were the numbers present when a bishop a bishop has been deposed? What is the precedent?
If it turns out that it was an obligation for those bishops to be there, then I am really upset about such an extreme failure to have fulfilled an important duty. Whatever way they have voted, they needed to have been present. We heard from Bishop Iker, that he wasn't there because the atmosphere was toxic to his spirit.
As a member of the laity, and a member of a Vestry in the DoSJ, I have attended a parish meeting, deanery meetings, and several vestry meetings that were conducted in a "toxic atmosphere." But, it was a duty,and I entered in a spirit of resolve to be the voice that I thought I should be. We cannot absent ourselves from uncomfortable situations.
I just expect more from our spiritual leaders, the bishops of our church. I expect them to stand a little taller, conduct themselves more reasonably, speak their views very coherently, listen to their colleagues with utmost respect and Christain love, understand and appreciate diverse ideas and opinions, and have the inner stamina to be where they should be in regard to their position in the church.
I hope and pray there is a good explanation for the actions and inactions of all those bishops who were not there. Oh, that prayer for forgivenss, for things done and the things not done.
Luckily there is that resignation letter. While unclear it should be more than enough to remove his control over assets of TEC. For example a bank branch president sending an unclear resignation letter would not find himself with access to the safe the next day.
Beryl, I imagine most of the missing bishops weren't there simply because they're retired and their presence isn't usually required.
Here is the language from Art. 1, Sec. 2, of the Constitution:
"A majority of all
Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their
jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business."
But here (as also quoted above) is the language of the deposition canon (IV.9.2):
"If the House, by
a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give
its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the
Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more
Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed."
There's no ambiguity there at all: absent retirees don't affect the number required for a quorum, but they do affect the number required to depose.
4May1535+
I'm not a canon lawyer, but I am a lawyer. It seems to me the quorum clause trumps the deposition clause. A majority is necessary to conduct business, and a majority of those present entitled to vote are required to conduct the business of deposition. Much depends on how this has been interpreted in the past. I await the response of our chancellor.
4May1535+
I'm not a canon lawyer, but I am a lawyer. It seems to me the quorum clause trumps the deposition clause. A majority is necessary to conduct business, and a majority of those present entitled to vote are required to conduct the business of deposition. Much depends on how this has been interpreted in the past. I await the response of our chancellor.
That is, "entitled to vote" means "entitled to vote at that meeting" (which includes retired bishops, who aren't counted in seeing if a quorum is present). You can't be entitled to vote if you're not present at the meeting where the vote is taken.
Feh: this will all come out in the wash.
The HofB only ratified what the Episcopalians of San Joaquin (on behalf of the Holy Spirit? *g*) had done on the ground: moved on, having had their bishop remove himself.
"The letter killeth, but the Spirit give life"
Hang in there, everybody: EASTER'S COMIN'! :-D
Well written, Brian!! I hope you will consider publication in the Bee. And, I also hope the Bee will ave the integrity to publish it as written.
A while back, before the HOB meeting, folks on this list were beginning to melt down a bit from not knowing what to expect and being afraid.
+KJS has behaved admirably and done what she has said she would do. She is a brilliaint woman, and not likely to have overlooked what the canons require in terms of the deposition. I doubt teh canon lawyers did either. I suspect teh opposition is just trying to make everyone panic again. Hang in there everyone--Easter is coming!! You all continue to be in my prayers.
Praise God from Whom ALL Blessings Flow...
I am taking this 'last chance' opportunity to let go. I am the sister of one of Schofield's longest and staunchest supporters in the clergy. A few years ago, my brother defrauded the State of California. I am advised he can still be prosecuted, as the statute of limitations has not yet expired. In view of recent events, however, I think a more pronounced form of justice awaits him and his kind.
welcome to our site, SQ.
Schofield asked, "why [are] bishops who continue to teach and publish books that deny the most basic Christian beliefs are not disciplined while those of us who uphold the Christian Faith are?"
I posted about this a couple of days ago and I'd like to take the liberty of repeating my comments again.
Schofield and his allies who complain about this in fact know how to file heresy charges because they've done it before. The question that they have never answered is why they never filed heresy charges against Spong (this is whom they're talking about) when they know how to do it.
In the mid-1990s, a group of bishops -- including Schofield -- filed a presentment for heresy against Bishop Walter C. Righter. They claimed that he had ordained a non-celibate gay man living in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex and that this act constituted heresy.
According to the Opinion of the Court, The bishops who filed heresy charges against Righter were the following:
James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas,
Stephen H. Jecko, Bishop of Florida,
John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin,
John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida,
Maurice M. Benitez, Bishop of Texas,
William C. Wantland, Bishop of Eau Claire,
Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth,
Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy,
James M. Coleman, Bishop of West Tennessee, and
Terence Kelshaw, Bishop of Rio Grande.
These names are, of course, all too familiar in the current church wars.
So why have Schofield and his allies never filed heresy charges against Spong since they know how to do it?
About the only conclusion that can be drawn from this situation is that they believe that (1) Righter's ordaining a non-celibate gay man living in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex is heretical and (2) Spong's alleged denial of the Trinity is not heretical.
Or perhaps, ordaining a non-celibate gay man living in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex is significantly more heretical than denying the Trinity, justifying heresy trials in the first case but not in the second.
Or perhaps, more cynically, creating schism and dissention in the Church is more important -- and apparently more fun -- than maintaining the truth of Christian faith.
First, a simple majority is actually 50% + 1, not 51%. There's quite a mathematical difference.
Second, "girl cooties!" Tee hee!
I suppose it is a difference without a distinction, but I actually do not agree that Mr. Schofield is a liar. I think he is so delusionally convinced of his own rectitude that he actually believes he is some sort of martyr.
Canon does not permit as far as I know, an insanity defense, but none-the-less.
FWIW
jimB
welcome back, charlotte:)
What does AOJN stand for?
Dr. Primrose, With respect to the Righter trial etc., the other conclusion is that these bishops recognized that Spong would not be convicted.
AOJN - Associate, Order of Julian of Norwich, I think.
"Dr. Primrose, With respect to the Righter trial etc., the other conclusion is that these bishops recognized that Spong would not be convicted."
Actually, there's no way of knowing that, is there?
I would have a lot more sympathy with their argument if they had at least tried. But their attempt to foist blame on others when they did nothing themselves -- and they were in fact in a position to do something about it -- just doesn't cut it. It's utterly hypocritical.
Hey Everybody:
I listened to a fabulous and appropriate NPR program this afternoon called: Deception.
It' s available at the following link:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab
This show addresses lies, liars, lying to others, and my personal favorite, lying to self.
A truly timely piece of radio journalism.
In the spirit of "getting it off my chest", and noting in advance, the last letter of my Myers-Briggs has never been the least iffy, (J), and perhaps doing Mr. Schofield too much honor by making him a scapegoat for far more than he is responsible for,
Liar, possessed by the Father of Lies! divider! Self-hater and Hater of others! Manifest evil in our midst: begone! And may the poor soul thus afflicted be released by this evil, that he may repent, and return to Godde's forgiveness and grace, even though he once denied it to others.
Amen.
Regarding the quorum issue:
I chair a ton of university meetings, and I count the number of people in the room before we vote on anything. It's not that hard. It's addition.
I'm sure the PB did her math.
I'm not worried.
It was announced, in advance of the HoB meeting, that the deposition of John-David Schofield would be considered at a business meeting on the last meeting day. There could have been a variety of reasons for bishops leaving early, before the business meeting. Just another piece of the puzzle.
I think Conger's anaylsis of the canons, as set forth in his article in the Living Church, is completely wrong.
Canon IV.15 contains a set of defined terms applicable to the disciplinary canons. One of the defined terms is "All the Members," which is defined as meaning "the total number of members of the body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies."
The section of the deposition canon in question (Canon IV.9.2) does not use this term. Instead, it uses "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote."
Canon IV.9.1, which immediately precedes Canon IV.9.2, however, does use the term "All the Members" in connection with the Review Committee.
Conger in effect argues that "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" has the same meaning as "All the Members."
But one of the basic rules of construction of laws is that, if the body that created the laws uses two different sets of words, particularly if they are in the same part of the law, the body that created the law intended that the two phrases mean different things. "Whole number of bishops entitled to vote" does not and cannot mean the same thing a "All the Members" -- meaning "the total number of members of [Bishops] without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies." It has to mean the whole number of bishops entitled to vote at the House of Bishops meeting.
Jake,
Never before have I posted without reading the previous entries - until now. Since you invite the last burst of invective, I will "get it out".
For the past six months, whenever a parishioner has asked me "what in the heck is going on?", my response has been, "Liars and thieves!"
Ok, now that I have that out of my system, I am looking forward sincerely to your coming change of pace.
Blessings,
Beloved of Christ, what has become of us? How is it possible that such a critical item as what Canon Laws apply to deposing a bishop by the House of Bishops is surreal at best. How long have these people had this problem before their eyes?
Jake - I know you disapprove of this reference but what else has the House of Bishops become if not the House of Shame? A critical vote on a question of vital concern to the entire church and they don't know the rules. That is shameful in the extreme.
From the Book of Common Prayer:
"In Times of Conflict
O God, you have bound us together in a common life.
Help us, in the midst of our struggles for justice and truth,
to confront one another without hatred or bitterness,
and to work together with mutual forbearance and respect;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
Excellent essay! Things could not be outlined more clearly than they are in this.
Blessings and Prayers to all in San Joaquin!
Terry Dyslexia | 03.14.08 - 7:16 pm |
I'm agreeing with those above about the meaning of "quorum" and those other obscurities, so I'm not worried. However, when the House meets next, and before Lambeth, to depose Duncan (and I hope Iker), they can ratify the actions of the previous meeting. I don't think they need to.
If I didn't believe in the principle of "good order", I would assert what is really on my mind about this - which would be, "there comes a time when one must stop relying on the politeness of process; there comes a time when one must simply make a moral choice. The choice has been made. And good on them." Of course, I do believe in the principle of "good order", so I would never say that. (Not.)
Blessingss,
Remember, folks, that part of the MO is to cause confusion (semer la discorde), obfuscate and make people panic. Given the source of the article, I would ride this one out before jumping to the conclusion that the HOB blew it. OCICBW but I pray that will not be the case.
Lee | Homepage | 03.14.08 - 7:30 pm |
In that regard, I invite johnieb to join JCF, James I, and me for a huddle on the 29th. The last time I did what I have in mind, the first session ended with a rather clear singing of the doxology. The whole process took nearly nine years, but it was a good start. Yes, I am being purposefully obscure.
And - just to be clear, did someone say that the Healing Service is going to be held not in Lodi, but in...?
Blessings,
If you all want to talk about an article in the Living Church, which as you should know is certainly no voice of authority, go right ahead.
But the LC cannot possibly know what happened in the HoB meeting. I'm surprised that any of you are biting on this story.
It doesn't change a thing, so I'm not too interested in that article, personally.
As of tomorrow, the topic of the former Bishop of San Joaquin will be closed, so get it out of your systems now.
We're already getting a few extremists dropping in to attempt to sow confusion among us, so comments are going on moderation for a bit.
Jake | Homepage | 03.14.08 - 7:34 pm |
I pray the power of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon Fr. Jake; may he calmly resist all the powers of ill health and chaos now sent against us.
Blessings,
The strongest passion I can manage at this point concerning the former Episcopal Bishop Schofield is to buy him a one way ticket to Buenos Aires if he wants to remain a bishop in the Southern Cone.
Other than that, it's time to move on and begin rebuilding.
The essay is excellent, thank you for posting it. I have to say, that the writer pretty much summed up all my personal feelings on the matter without using any or all of the other words I would have used.
However, I would add the following to the long list of Shofield characteristics from my POV:
angry
self serving
anti-Episcopalian
Donatist
ego-driven
political strategist
wrongly-churched
contemptuous
thoughtless
empathyless
power seeker and holder
biased
prejudiced
careless
morally and ethically adrift
king-maker
unChristian
wharped (or tweaked, as you prefer)
spiritually vacant
insecure
powerless
self-motivated
emotionally shallow
questionably sane
complex-ridden
there. i got it out of my system.
Call me naive or whatever you want, but I would be inclined to think that the canonical experts knew the proper interpretation of the canons in question and gave sound advice. To say that it would require 51% of all bishops entitled to vote and interpret that to mean 51% of all bishops who could/should be there is interesting. That would suggest that at least 51% of all bishops must be in attendance AND all vote for a deposition. That seems unrealistic and makes me question the interpretation of the canons used in the piece in The Living Church article. Schofield defenders be gone! I'm tired of the spin. I cannot believe for a second that 815 wouldn't make sure that everything was followed to a "t" for this. There is far too much at stake. Anyone who wants to leave ECUSA, fine. vaya con dios. But do NOT take me or anyone else with you. And leave the keys behind. The assertion on the DioSJ ("Anglican" version) website that ECUSA has no regard for Schofield's ability to transfer is just plain wrong. He can go. But this diocese does not belong to him. It is not his to take. I don't care (frankly) who voted for what in December. I believe he stacked the deck, he lied to people and his misinformation will one day come to light. Their votes are of those who are not Episcopalians apparently. See ya! Buh-bye. Get out of town and let me back into God's church. I am so frustrated. I have so many things I want to say and apparently need to get off my chest. Most of them need to be said to specific people. I am disappointed in people I consider friends. I am heartbroken. I want to know if my letter of transfer will actually be able to happen. It's supposed to go from one Episcopal Church to another and yet that church is now claiming to be something other than an Episcopal Church (despite the signs in front). Yes, Easter is coming. Yes, this IS the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it! But, I need to vent some more. I guess it's time for another blog for me. I haven't blogged on this matter for awhile. Jake, I so look forward to seeing what you have in mind for Holy Week. I am ready to celebrate the coming of the Risen Christ and the baptism of my dear, sweet son.
Healing Service is at St Anne's in Stockton, 5pm reception with the PB,Bonnie Anderson and Bsp Lamb, Healing Service starts at 6:30.
I understand that St Anne's has some homebrewed ale!!
I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over the vote in the HOB, I'll ride this one out, as I believe Schofield et al are feeling somewhat desperate.
What concerns me is that a matter of this importance was decided by a voice vote. To me a voice vote is like an oral contract: Not worth the paper it's printed on. I have not read the canons in this matter, it would seem to me that a vote to depose a bishop should be conducted by a secret ballot. As was drilled into my head during my days as a parish treasurer: "Paper Trails are Your Friends."
Since we are told to get stuff off our chests now I want so repeat something I have said here on previous threads and consider to be important:
Understanding, compassion, and forgiveness are appropriate after the abuse stops. Until then you can understand all you want but you draw a clear, firm line and you hold it. Until the abuse ends, I cut JDS and his ilk no slack. It is not un-Christian to be firm.
I also want to thank dr. primrose for pointing out the inconsistency in claims to be standing up for orthodoxy.
With continued prayers for healing, health, and a fresh outpouring of the Spirit among all God's faithful everywhere....
Good grief jake, if we don't have him to talk about, what will we talk about. LOL You killingthe conversation about his will really tick him off. he has to be the talk of the world, you know. :)
JCF, James I,
Do you know if the Cathedral in Fresno has the Stations of the Cross?
Best,
You said get it out, so here's what I have been thinking...
Have some more fried chicken, Mr. Schofield. And some more mashed potatoes with real butter. We have plenty. Oh, you'd like some ice cream on your apple pie? Great, we can do that.
Can I interest you in a wafer-thin after-dinner mint?
I'm SOOOOOOO going to hell for that.
Let the record show I'm no petite thing, before the howls of outrage start. This is "satire" folks.
Scott, why are you being purposefully obscure?
The healing service is at St. Anne's, Stockton, I believe. (Someone who's sure of the location can correct me.)
I'm with Jake. I have watched this thread develop this afternoon with some bemusement as some of our regulars immediately leap to conclusions and the tone has become increasingly hysterical.
Meanwhile some of the usual trolls are enjoying their prodding. Iago, anyone?
Really, folks, you have to respond to these things in a measured way. "If that were true, that would be unfortunate" rather than "We're done for, done for I tell you!"
This is a long, long game and it ain't over till the lady with huge tracts of land ;-) warbles. And then some.
Dearest Jake et als,
Two quotes for you:
All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
It is not judgment day, only morning; morning beautiful and fair. (Styron)
Dear ones, keep the faith. Model what all the bishops are saying about +KJS --be the calm presence, the non-anxious child of God. Remember that there are many, many who are keeping you in prayer.
And thank you Jake, for this cyber ministry. many blessings, --margaret
Scott Hankins,
I agree with your comment:
"there comes a time when one must simply make a moral choice. The choice has been made."
I am grateful to Jake for closing this topic! The whole thing gives me a case of 'the vapors' and makes me want to 'take to my bed' with my smelling salts near at hand. (Of course in my case, it would be a Scotch, please - water on the side)
I haven't read the other comments yet, but I just wanted to say that was a darned good essay. And thank you for printing it here.
I am deeply weary of this issue. Yes, it's important, yes, it's heart rending and horrible. But it's also a coerciveness being played by right wing hate mongers. I'm sick of hearing that they've thrown their noses yet higher in the air to show how righteous they are and how evil the liberals are.
They have become the accusers of the brethren and that's the devils job, not the church. They're playing for the wrong team. I was glad to see that it's time to move on from this. I couldn't agree more.
Congratulations to Bryan Taylor-Ferguson. It's nice to know that forceful writing can still find a place at Jake's.
I also salute Terry D's brilliant statement at 3:53; attendance at the HOB should be mandatory unless prevented by emergency.
These no-show bishops do their parishes no good by sulking in the corner because they can't get their way.
This episode and others should put us on notice: we need to take episcopal elections much more seriously - and that starts with elections at parish annual meetings. Voters - communicants - need to show up at the annual meeting, question the candidates for vestry and diocesan convention and make their views known.
We have a well-established pattern now that some clergy (not all) tend to pack their vestries with yes-men and -women. Bishops do the same with standing committees. Have you seen the list of candidates for bishop suffragan of Dallas? Leander Harding is on it, dean of the Trinity Episcopal School for Homophobia and Tongue-Speaking.
Apathy at the annual meeting is where this BS starts.
Do not let the rector hold the annual meeting on a weeknight in January, designed to hold down voter turnout. Annual meetings should only be held on Sunday mornings with a great big coffee hour buffet.
Episcopalians, govern yourselves. This is your legacy as Anglican Americans. Vote for leaders who will keep us together, not tear us apart; vote for servants of God, not for politicians. Vote for peace and justice and love, as best we mortals can discern them in the Holy Spirit.
Show up and vote. Otherwise the bishop suffragan who confirms your grandkids will be the Dean of Senseless Yammering and Homohatred.
I am much moved by Bryan T-F's commentary. It is totally worthy of a Keith Oberman (sp) diatribe on MSNBC. Reading through it, it is Keith's voice I heard in my head, in those same dulcet tones he uses to accuse that "W" idiot.
Bryan, send your writing to Keith, you might just be his new writer.
My best,
Jeff Allison
Birmingham, Alabama
I just ran across the most amazing poem by John O'Donohue, and wondered if it might not be helpful for those lucky enough to go to the healing service, and the rest of us too as we head into Holy Week. There's a video montage of the author reading the poem during his interview on NPR's "Speaking of Faith." Links on my blog or "God Girl."
Beannacht, by John O'Donohue, from Echoes of Memory
On the day when
the weight deadens
on your shoulders
and you stumble,
may the clay dance
to balance you.
And when your eyes
freeze behind
the grey window
and the ghost of loss
gets in to you,
may a flock of colours,
indigo, red, green,
and azure blue
come to awaken in you
a meadow of delight.
When the canvas frays
in the currach of thought
and a stain of ocean
blackens beneath you,
may there come across the waters
a path of yellow moonlight
to bring you safely home.
May the nourishment of the earth be yours,
may the clarity of light be yours,
may the fluency of the ocean be yours,
may the protection of the ancestors be yours.
And so may a slow
wind work these words
of love around you,
an invisible cloak
to mind your life.
Jake: why am I your 'second witness'.......did I read that right?
Those of you who are planning to come celebrate with us in DoSJ on 3/29--we need your pre-registrations! You'll find the convention schedule and registration form at the new diocesan website.
Scott, why are you being purposefully obscure?
The healing service is at St. Anne's, Stockton, I believe. (Someone who's sure of the location can correct me.)
Kirstin | Homepage | 03.14.08 - 8:51 pm | #
I believe that you are correct about the location of the healing service.
Because, Kirstin, this is risky business. If my invitees introduce themselves to me on the 29th, all will be well.
Huge blessings on you for asking the question,
Andee | 03.14.08 - 10:13 pm |
Someone please tell me that you have received my registration?
Blessings,
Dr. Primrose wrote:
'But one of the basic rules of construction of laws is that, if the body that created the laws uses two different sets of words, particularly if they are in the same part of the law, the body that created the law intended that the two phrases mean different things. "Whole number of bishops entitled to vote" does not and cannot mean the same thing a "All the Members" -- meaning "the total number of members of [Bishops] without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies." It has to mean the whole number of bishops entitled to vote at the House of Bishops meeting.'
dr.primrose | 03.14.08 - 6:31 pm | #
I agree completely with the good doctor's principle of interpretation, but I still feel that his application is wrong. Canon IV.9.1 does indeed refer to "all the members" of the Review Committee, while IV.9.2 refers to "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote". By our rule, we want these to mean different things. But not all members of the HoB _are_ entitled to vote: some people have seat and voice, but not vote, and the Constitution itself makes this distinction in defining a quorum. Thus "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote," if we take it to mean a majority of the whole 294 Bishops entitled to vote, is still not the same thing as "all the members."
Several people would like to read "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" as "a majority of the whole number of those Bishops entitled to vote and present." But parliamentary procedure recognizes a distinction between "a majority of those present" and "a majority of the entire membership"--in this case, a difference between "a majority of those [eligible to vote] and present" and "a majority of those [eligible to vote]. (See _Roberts' Rules of Order Newly Revised_, 9th Edition, Chapter XIII, Section 43.) The phrase as written in the canon calls, on the face of it, for a particular kind of super-majority, and exactly that sort of super-majority is recognized in the parliamentary authority: so it seems ill-advised, at best, to argue that the canon should be interpreted to refer instead to a different, and smaller, super-majority, distinctly defined in the parliamentary authority. Indeed, a competent chancellor would have advised the PB to make sure of having enough bishops present and voting to surpass even the more stringent category of super-majority (sending out a triple-underlined whip, as our British friends would say): advice that does not seem to have been forthcoming.
All that being said, I would note that _Roberts'_ deprecates this sort of super-majority, a point with which I agree. And further, as I have said here before and will repeat this once in the spirit of Cato's comment about Carthage, Schofield is still a dishonorable liar. Delendum est.
what time does this begin on the 29th (I have a really long drive and have to figure out what to do with my dogs, as well...)
Sorry, I meant to write:
Thus "a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote," if we take it to mean a majority of the whole 294 Bishops entitled to vote, is still not the same thing as a majority of "all the members."
And _Robert's_. Sorry, it is late.
Fallen Angel,
Forgive me for being so obscure.
We've heard some stories about John-David during his younger years, but for some strange reason, no one will offer solid testimony regarding the accuracy of those stories, with one exception. Consequently, since there is only one current witness, and that witness is not willing to officially come forward alone, the stories remain just that; unverified and unusable.
I'm not suggesting that such stories need to be gathered up anymore. I think that moment has come and gone. It was just a reference to past attempts to sort out John-David's murky past.
4May1535+ | 03.14.08 - 10:24 pm |
ROFLMAO!
Blessings!,
"what time does this begin on the 29th (I have a really long drive and have to figure out what to do with my dogs, as well...)"
cany | 03.14.08 - 10:25 pm | #
I trust that my beloved will take care of the cats. Good luck with your dogs! You will find me easily (and, of course, you are also invited). Nametag most probably. T-Shirt maybe (although I think I'll probably wear it under my usual shirt (?). At prayer, probably. You think you have problems? I have to get there from CT!
LOL
Blessings,
Ginny Gibbs | Homepage | 03.14.08 - 10:05 pm |
Thanks, Ginny. How beautiful is that?!
Many blessings,
I do not consider Bishops Ackerman, Duncan, Iker and Schofield to be honorable gentlemen. They hate, and spread lies about, the Episcopal Church which gave them their miters. The decent, gentlemanly thing to do for them would be to resign their orders, turn over they keys and diocesan properties to the "remain Episcopal" authorities, and leave quietly for other branches of Christ's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than "spread lies and misinformation" and transfer church property they hold in trust for the Episcopal Church to off-shore Anglican jurisdictions that have no constitutional and canonical authority to exercise pastoral and sacramental oversight over U.S. parishes and congregations.
Yes, I sadly agree that TEC's leadership has, in the past, played fast and loose with its own C&C, which is also unconscionable conduct, regarding its own canons as discretionary rather than mandatory. Clergy and laity have not held their bishops accountable.
How can ++Ackerman, Duncan, Iker and Schofield call +John S. Spong a "heretic" when they have failed to present him under the Title IV canons?
They, too, have failed to uphold the "faith, discipline and worship of this Church". Their conduct, too, has been reckless and inappropriate.
Scott, if you have "risky business" to conduct, please do it in private. I feel like I'm in third grade, with this whispering and innuendo. It's annoying and distracting.
Thanks.
The reception for the presiding bishop is 5:30 Friday evening, March 28, at the Episcopal Church of St. Anne in Stockton.
The healing service follows at the same place.
Kirstin | Homepage | 03.14.08 - 10:48 pm |
Understood. Thanks. Please ask your question again, because I have no intention to whisper or annoy or distract. If you ask a clear question, I will do my best to answer it clearly.
Best,
When I read Schofield's words, I hear Don Armstrong talking. My mother, who is a member of Grace Exile (the faithful!) has been saying for a long, long that this whole mess has been planned for years! I think she is right on.
Thank you Jake for balanced, objective (well, from my point of view) :) information.
Reception at St Anne's Stockton on the 28th begins at 5pm, For those who need accomodations.. if you call Best Western I-5 in Lodi, and ask for the convention of the Episcopal Diocese, there is a block of rooms reserved at a discounted rate, this location is about 8 miles from St Anne's in Stockton and 4 miles from St John's in Lodi(the location for the convention 29th).. Hope that helps.. Rooms are limited so call as soon as you can,, sapb
sapb | 03.14.08 - 11:38 pm |
#36 (1982)
Aha! or Eureka, or Wowsers, or something. As one was on one's way to brush one's teeth, the way out of this became clear.
Fr. Conger's analysis of the number of bishops required to pass the deposition is correct (148, being half of 294, plus 1).
That has _nothing to do_, however, with the validity of the _voting_, because _no one challenged the ruling of the chair that the ayes had it_ (however many "ayes" the chair may have thought that was). It only requires six bishops, under Rule of Order VII, to request that the ayes and nays be entered on the record, and had six done so, it would presumably have been revealed that there were not 148 ayes. Since they did not, the decision of the chair stands.
I know this seems like Alice in Wonderland, but, again, it's a well established principle of parliamentary procedure. Consider how often on TV we can see that there isn't _actually_ a quorum present in the Senate or the House: but there is presumed to be one present for parliamentary purposes until someone formally suggests the absence of one and forces a quorum call (which is considered a delaying tactic, I believe). (Though, to be fair, _Robert's_ does say in section 39 that the presiding officer has a duty to say that there is no quorum present if he or she happens to notice.) Parliamentary lore from Speaker Mr. Speaker Lenthall (who notoriously did not see in the House of Commons the five members whom St. Charles King and Martyr wished to arrest) down at least to Speaker Joe Cannon is full of presiding officers whose official perceptions have been at variance with what observers might have reported to be the facts.
So he's still out. And good riddance.
4May1535+ | 03.14.08 - 11:44 pm |
Repeat #36 (1982)
Rooms are limited so call as soon as you can,, sapb
sapb | 03.14.08 - 11:38 pm |
Not to worry. I made other reservations. This is *so* exciting!
Blessings,
A little late in the night for Phos Hilaron, isn't it? (Here on the east coast, anyway.) How about #40, though I suppose it would be wrong to cast even J-DS as "the dread malicious foe"?
4May1535+ | 03.14.08 - 11:50 pm |
Then omit verse 4, for heaven's sake.
:),
I just left the meeting with Bishop Lamb in Fresno. Good things are afoot. The church is healthy and growing daily. It feels like we have truly been born again. Hallelluia!
4May1535+ | 03.14.08 - 11:50 pm |
Ron?...friend?
Blessings,
Hi, Scott,
No, we've never met, except here. Though surely being under Jake's roof is enough to allow one to claim friendship in these days of cyber-etiquette?
Stanza four being duly omitted, I am back off to toothbrushing.
May the Lord Almighty grant us all a peaceful night and a perfect end.
Looking forward to seeing everyone.
Jake, I think Mr. Schofield's habits are reasonably well documented though not spoken out loud.
Mr. Schofield is many things, but not a liar, at least not a big liar. He has for years plot and plannedthis and pretty much told everyone and anyonewho will listen he was goinf to do this. We here id DoSJ had a number of pastoral letters with weak-kneed denials by JDS that he was not intending to leave. (IS that the liar part?, uhm, maybe so). BUt, he has been consistent in his direction and for whatever reason we chose to not believe, think differently, try to change his mind, shuffle our responsbility off on the clergy and a host of enabling activities.
Oh, well, here is a little tune for all you comingto CA for the convention:
Just about a year ago, I set out on the road,
Seekin my fame and fortune, lookin for a pot of gold.
Things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in lodi again.
Rode in on the greyhound, Ill be walkin out if I go.
I was just passin through, must be seven months or more.
Ran out of time and money, looks like they took my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in lodi again.
The man from the magazine said I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost connections, ran out of songs to play.
I came into town, a one night stand, looks like my plans fell through
Oh ! lord, stuck in lodi again.
Mmmm...
If I only had a dollar, for evry song Ive sung.
And evry time Ive had to play while people sat there drunk.
You know, Id catch the next train back to where I live.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in lodi again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in lodi again.
4May1535+ | 03.14.08 - 11:59 pm |
Amen. May the Lord grant us a peaceful night and a perfect end.
Please pray for David. Earlier this evening, as he was reaching for a soda in his car, a six year old child was killed.
Jesus, Lord, have mercy upon all of us!
And grant us your peace.
Weeping, I am,
We are gentle, angry people singing for our lives!
Scott,
Prayers for David and for peace for him.
Lately, I get so confused trying to read these comments, what with references to some cryptic numbers etc.
There is a chat room here somewhere, wouldn't that be a better place to chat about completely off topic subjects?
Just a suggestion.
Prayers ascending for David, and for the 6 year-old's family---may the child rest in peace and rise in glory...
I want to know if my letter of transfer will actually be able to happen. It's supposed to go from one Episcopal Church to another and yet that church is now claiming to be something other than an Episcopal Church (despite the signs in front). (lost-sheep)
Please don't worry too much about this. I honestly don't remember your history (sometimes I forget bits of my own). Just get together the paperwork you have on being baptized, confirmed, received, etc - where you don't have paperwork, try to remember dates and locations.
Then call your new church office, explain everything, and they'll help you work things out. I think you will find them to be welcoming and helpful, but the process might take a little longer.
AS an example - I had transfered my membership from my home church to A United Methodist Church. To the surprise of all, they did do a transfer, not just a document my baptism and confirmation. When I went back to TEC, they knew about the UMC membership; I was asked to send records from my home church. I was prepared to go through the classes and formalities with the bishop, but it wasn't necessary. What they did with the paperwork between Dio Washington DC and Dio Virginia, I never asked.
As my mom told me - once an Episcopalian, always an Episcopalian; you will be welcomed back, and they will tell you how to do it. And she was right. (FYI I did go take the adult receivers class anyway within a year, and it was a great experience. My guess is the "worst" that could happen is that you will be received or reaffirmed by the bishop of your new diocese, and really - they won't want to make you do that if it isn't necessary).
Please, take this off your list of worries. :-)
Scott,
I didn't ask you a question. Higher in the thread, I answered one of yours. I only asked you to conduct private business in private.
Peace,
Kirstin
I am slow to get our mail on a daily basis. When I did just a few minutes ago, I found a surprise. In our mailbox was the Episcopal Life with the Diocese of San Joaquin "wraparound". A breath of fresh air -- what a difference a day makes!
Lynn | 03.15.08 - 12:46 am |
I wouldn't expect any need for being received. We've been at this process for awhile. I requested our letters of transfer over a month ago before it became completely obvious (think signage) that our parish had gone south for the winter. I think I'm just tired and frustrated and ready to move on, but I apparently have some issues to resolve along the way.
Many thanks!
BTW...we'll be filling out an official transfer request this weekend. Apparently more was needed than the e-mail I sent to the parish office that went completely without response. grrr....We are talking about the parish that is full of people who were surprised to see me every time I attended church after the December 8 vote, though.
lost-sheep, no I don't think you will need to be received. I'm glad you are just frustrated, not worried. But, if my parish office started from 50 and 37 year old documents, I figure those office folks know what to do. There must be times when the church that needs to do the transfer doesn't exist as a functioning parish any longer.
David G - the numbers are from the 1982 Hymnal, no secrets, promise! Can't say a bit about Scott's other posts, however.
Scott, are you planning an exorcism?
Well if he is (planning an exorcism), tell me because I don't want to be around then. I enjoy my demons, they make life interesting.
...I can't say so much for the foul language and speaking in tongues though.
"Well if he is (planning an exorcism), tell me because I don't want to be around then. I enjoy my demons, they make life interesting." David G
Yes, there is a great deal of sense in avoiding the newly cast-off demons of others. No doubt they would be looking for new housing, and one's own are quite enough to make life interesting.
And honestly, my dear, a pink-based concealer and a good foundation with medium coverage would just do wonders for that green complexion.
flawed priest--"When I read Schofield's words, I hear Don Armstrong talking."
I think their play book starts with:
"And oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way across the floor."
And many of them were taken in, but not so taken in that they didn't leave. TBTG
Nice article on Episcopal Life Online about Interim Bishop Lamb's meeting in Fresno at Holy Family.
Neat stuff happening!
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/
7...736_ENG_HTM.htm
Deo Gratias, cany!
JCF, welcome:)
Here's another from The Lead:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/
lea..._gree.html#more
this is really quite exciting:)
L m A o! ! !
Oh yes Honey, that is true!!
But my posts are easier to track, with this Green complexion!!
Oh and after all, my last name is Green.
Who is looking?!?
Brush Park Survive!!!
Ya'll are all fucked up!!!
As an Anglican priest in the far-off Antipodes (New Zealand), I can't help thinking that Bryan Taylor-Ferguson's article on the situation vis-a-vis former Bishop Schofield is a masterpiece of clear perspective.
I pray that the Loyal Remainder of the San Joaquin Diocese may receive the support of Anglicans around the world - who are keen to retain the inclusiveness of the Gospel to ALL.
Joy and Peace this Holy Week, and a Blessed Feast of Resurrection.
Father Ron Smith
Christchurch, New Zealand
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
