Schofield tells pastoral visitors to stay out
John-David Schofield has written a letter to the Rev. Canon Brian Cox and the Rev. Canon Robert Moore, warning them that they are not to meddle in the affairs of the diocese. He paints them into a rhetorical corner, saying that if the argument was San Joaquin couldn't remove itself from the Episcopal Church, that he and the diocese are still in TEC and that the canons' presence was intrusive--but if they had legitimately left the diocese, then they were still intruding into another province's diocese:
In either case, at present, The Episcopal Church has begun attacking both me and this diocese. Your coming here is unconscionable in that you are meddling in the affairs of San Joaquin with neither the courtesy of requesting my permission as bishop nor even troubling to inform me of your plans. Such actions are hardly those of men with honorable intentions.Even though you have already taken it upon yourself to be in contact with clergy and parishes, under no circumstances are you welcome to hold meetings in this diocese or to ask permission of clergy or other leaders to do so.
If indeed your proposal is to seek reconciliation with the goal to reduce the “threat of law suits” you are approaching the wrong persons. Why do you not come directly to me with your concerns and offers, for such lawsuits – presumably – would be lodged against me?
Should you choose to deal directly with me concerning the above mentioned proposals I would be willing to set aside time to meet with you in my office in Fresno. Apart from this, I ask you to desist from entering this diocese.
It bears noting that if the first assertion is true, that San Joaquin is still in TEC, then Schofield also needs to remember he's been inhibited.
The letter is here.
Logical fallacy, of course.
Schofield is not the Diocese, nor the Diocese him.
He has left. The Diocese has not. And it is in need of pastoral care.
Posted by Bryant A. Hudson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 21, 2008 4:43 PM
This is much too much wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Even were he not deposed, he has no canonical right to forbid a priest from outside his diocese to function on a temporary basis. Only Episcopal, not Presbyteral, acts require a diocesan's permission in such a case.
Posted by tobias haller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Based on what I thought was going on I admit the bishop doesn't make sense here.
I thought for whatever reason - he was being fair or knew that Californian law favours leaving parishes - he was letting go of the parishes in that area that want to remain Episcopal.
If that's so then why object to the Episcopalians sending in some clergy to manage them?
If he's doing incursion he can't complain that other Anglicans are doing likewise.
Sidebar: I think I understand your wanting to keep the Episcopal DoSJ going but wouldn't it make more sense both for your remaining parishes there and to get back at Bishop Schofield to suppress the diocese and then fold your remaining parishes into a neighbouring diocese? In other words suppose the row weren't going on. Are there really enough Episcopalians in the SJ Valley to have a diocese?
Another sidebar: as both the Episcopalians and the Southern Cone AFAIK have open Communion in the older sense of the Episcopal rule 'all baptised Christians may receive' I imagine the split, like the possible one between the Episcopalians and the Anglican Communion, doesn't make much of a difference to Joe Bloggs in the pew.
Posted by John Beeler![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 22, 2008 1:36 PM