The Lead

Updated

It's been suggested by some that the inhibition of Bishop Schofield is a case of "you can't fire me, I quit."

Yet (although the bishop was unavailable to take a call from the Presiding Bishop yesterday afternoon informing him of the inhibition) an email response was quickly disseminated to the conservative blogs. One of the last to post the email was Titus 1:9 at 10 AM this morning.

Now we read that the text of the email sent of behalf of Schofield is being revised and the new text will be made available soon:

UPDATE: The Text below is incorrect. A correct text is coming soon. In particular this line, "Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, not prohibited by either house." is in error.

Matt

[Update (4:25 PM) There has been some revision of history. In the link above the text of Bishop Schofield's statement and the reference to "a correct text is coming" has been removed. It has been replaced with the text of the statement from Venables which quoted below. At this time the key quote still appears in the comments.]

Could it be that the Bishop of Fort Worth has brought up the question in his message of support for Bishop Schofield?:

The matter is complicated by the fact that Bishop Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin, by constitutional action of their Convention, are no longer a part of The Episcopal Church.

The Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone also seems befuddled by the statement from Schofield's office:

A statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, dated January 11,2008:

“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop.He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.

Un fuerte abrazo.

--The Most Rev. Greg Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone

It would seem that after some backrooms conferring Schofield will be shifting his position from 'It's OK to be a member of two houses' to 'I'm beyond the reach of the discipline of The Episcopal Church.' It will be interesting to see if the Archbishop of Canterbury withdraws Schofield's invitation to Lambeth on the grounds that his position is no different from bishops in AMiA or CANA.

If nothing else the inhibition has finally forced Bishop Schofield to make clear his intentions.

Update. A recap of the time line:

1. Conservative blogs (Baby Blue, Titus 1:9, Stand Firm) post an email from San Joaquin that responded to the inhibition that stated "Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, not prohibited by either house."

2. Stand Firm and Titus 1:9 post an email from Bishop Iker that states "the matter is complicated by the fact that Bishop Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin, by constitutional action of their Convention, are no longer a part of The Episcopal Church. They now function under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone. Disciplinary actions cannot be taken by this Province against a Bishop who is a member of another Province of the Anglican Communion."

3. Titus 1:9 posts the "clarification" from Venables.

4. Stand Firm revises its post of the email from San Joaquin stating the sentence is in error.

5. Stand Firm revises its post of the email from San Joaquin changing its subject to the email from Venables. It removes any reference to the email from San Joaquin. Titus 1:9 erases its post of the email from San Joaquin entirely. Baby Blue changes her post, deleting the email from San Joaquin and substituting the Venable's email. As of Sunday morning none of these blogs had acknowledged the changes.

See Tobias Haller's cogent observations on this sequence of events at In a Godward Direction. Jake has also followed these events. He notes that Thinking Anglicans has some new news: the original statement was put together by a public relations firm.

Monday afternoon

Episcopal Life Online has the story. Hat/tip to Kendall Harmon.

Comments (6)

Double full membership in more than one House of Bishops is also, contrary to the assertion, a violation of General Rule XXIV of the House of Bishops, which only accords honorary seat to bishops who are no longer under TEC jurisdiction.

Question, though. Since when has Gregory Venables been styling himself as "Archbishop"??? Is this an authentic note? A change in self-understanding? Can "Patriarch of the West" be far behind?

Posted by tobias haller | January 12, 2008 3:15 PM

I wondered about the Archbishop title too - in the Southern Cone it's Presiding Bishop, isn't it? Maybe if you translate from English to Spanish and back into English that's what you get.

I also have trouble with Archbishop Jensen. Yeah, he's an archbishop but his title gets bandied in a way that would make you think he's the archbishop of Australia (which he isn't) or at least that he represents New South Wales in the global South (which he can't).

Posted by John B. Chilton | January 12, 2008 3:45 PM

The original statement from San Joaquin in response to the news that Bp. Schofield had been inhibited has now been pulled from the websites on which it appeared this morning. Most likley that is because Bp. Schofield's new boss disagreed with the assertion included in that statement that he could be a member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the Southern Cone simultaneously.

No doubt the statement will be revised at some later date. However, in an attempt to bring all things into the light regarding exactly what is going on in San Joaquin right now, I think it is worth noting the content of that original message. I have reposted it here.

J.
Terry Martin

Posted by Jake | January 12, 2008 4:35 PM

I was noticing the same. Thank you for reposting.

Posted by John B. Chilton | January 12, 2008 4:44 PM

The duplicity of the Separatist faction is astonishing. If you're out, you're out. If you've left, you've left. If you've switched sides, you've switched sides. How on Earth can this fellow deny having abandoned the Episcopal Church? I know the weather in the Southern Cone is an opposite season to what we have north of the equator -- is it also 'opposite day' down there as well where 'yeses' mean 'nos'?

Posted by fatherjones.com | January 12, 2008 5:22 PM

Since when has Gregory Venables been styling himself as "Archbishop"??? Tobias H.

Primado=Primate

Archdiocese=Archidiócesis (Southern Cone isn't one)

Presiding Bishop=Gregory Venables according to the Anglican Communion Directory (official)

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/diocese.cfm?Idind=531&view=alpha

Fanfarrón=Showoff

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo | January 14, 2008 11:37 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations