From the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin
February 1, 2008
As sent and posted to the Presiding Bishop’s email address earlier this morning, 02/01/08. The letter sent from the Presiding Bishop is in the next post down.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Office of the Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church Center
New York City, New York pboffice@episcopalchurch.org
Friday, February 01, 2008
We have received your letter dated January 25 in which you state that you do not recognize us individually as members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. We find your statements, published by ENS on the internet and read in Hanford prior to most of us receiving the actual letter, to be unhelpful. While you may hold any personal opinion you wish as an individual, the office of Presiding Bishop does not have the legal, canonical or moral authority to proclaim for the Episcopal Church non-recognition of duly elected members of a diocesan Standing Committee. Without having any canonical or constitutional authority to refuse to recognize us, we cannot accept your opinion as changing our status as the canonical Standing Committee of the Diocese.
We regret that you have based your “understanding” on conjecture and misinformation. Since you do not provide any evidence of specific acts of the Standing Committee, nor proof of any wrong doing, we are unable to comment in detail on acts or events you may have relied upon to form your “understanding”. We regret you didn’t attempt to confirm your understanding with the President of our Standing Committee when you called him on January 9th, or on any other occasion.
You cite Canon I.17.8 as setting a standard of duty for anyone in elected position in The Episcopal Church, however neither this canon nor any other canon gives the office of Presiding Bishop [or any other person] sole privilege to interpret what constitutes a failure to “well and faithfully perform the duties” of any office. If the interpretation of failure to “well and faithfully perform the duties” of office is open to anyone, a cursory look at your performance in office would be cause for a great number of Episcopalians to find that you “have been and are unable to well and faithfully fulfill your duties as” Presiding Bishop. To name just a few of your canonical violations:
- Ordination of the Bishop of Virginia without the specific written consents from a majority of Standing Committees as required in Canon III.11.4.b;
- Your intentional withholding [from May ’07 to January ‘08] of notification and failure to bring before the House of Bishop’s meeting in September 2007 the abandonment of communion finding of the Title IV review committee against Bishop Cox as required in Canon IV.9.2;
- Your stated intent to delay consideration of the abandonment of communion finding of the Title IV review committee against Bishop Duncan past the March 2008 meeting of the House of Bishop’s [including your intentional withholding of notification from December 16, ’07 to January 15, ‘08] again in violation of the requirements of Canon IV.9.2.
- Establishing a missionary congregation in Bakersfield and appointing a priest who is not canonically resident to be under the supervision of Canon Moore and under your authority in violation of Canon I.13.2b and Canon III.9.6
With this evidence of your willful disobedience to the requirements of Canon, many Episcopalians could, using your own words, state they “do not recognize you as” the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. And of course, in the spirit of reconciliation, we would encourage you to be aware a “future declaration of adherence to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and a reaffirmation of the Declaration of Conformity, will once again make you eligible for election to office in the Episcopal Church.”
We regret the decisions you have made to misuse the Canons of The Episcopal Church. We acknowledge your personal opinion of our status as members of the Standing Committee for the Diocese of San Joaquin. In accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, we ARE the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese of San Joaquin in the event the House of Bishops should choose to depose Bishop John-David Schofield. Any attempt on your part, or on the part of any other person, to circumvent or replace the Standing Committee as the Ecclesiastical Authority will be a violation of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
J. Snell
M. McClenaghan
R. Eaton
K. Robinson
T. Wright
R. James
February 1, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I am in awe. There are no words except Thank You and God Bless You Each and Everyone.
February 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Wonderful letter.
Hang in there Christians!
February 1, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Nice going, people. I think you will be remembered as the Martyrs of San Joaquin. But it is yet to be determined when your feast day will be!
February 1, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I suspect the PeeBee truly believes that the Constitution and Canons are used only for her personal attacks as directed by David “John Wilkes Booth” Beers on others. This letter implies they apply to her as well? What a novel thought: she is under authority.
February 2, 2008 at 3:00 am
God bless the Standing Committe, Bishop and Diocese of San Joaquin!
February 2, 2008 at 3:48 am
Where were you all at the convention? How did you vote? Or should I ask, on wall did you form a line? If you voted for schism, you should no longer be considered members of TEC. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
February 2, 2008 at 9:41 am
There are many who wish you well, and who would like to see someone take the high road at this unfortunate time.
Is it fair to read this letter as (A) implying that the signers believe that they are in full conformity with Canon I.17.8?
In that case, they would be saying, in effect, that anything the Standing Committee might have done in contributing to the Diocese’s attempt to join the Southern Cone does not in fact violate the canon.
Or is a better reading one (B) that infers the signers tacitly admit to violating Canon I.17.8, but they feel an adequate defense consists in pointing out that the PB violated Canon I.17.8 as well? The problem here, of course, is that pointing out the PB’s faults would not exonerate the Standing Committee.
February 3, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Todd the letter allows neither interpretation. It states:
1.) That there are grounds for believing that she has de facto left the communion. Therefore she has no authority to write the letter in the first place.
2.) That even if she had not left the communion her authority is lacking.
3.) That lacking any citing of failure by the standing committee to comment on, the committee feels that it is in violation of no cannon. The cannon quoting being vague and not giving penalty or referencing a failure of the committee.
It was a wicked cool letter and amazingly well crafted. It put the Mrs. Schori letter to shame.
And as to the which wall comment: Why would that make a difference to anyone but a pedant? The vote was taken. The method of voting matters not a wit. Merely commenting on it sounds petulant.
I should also note that the question, given the whole purpose of a “church” that is something that worships Christ according to the manner constituted by Him and His apostles makes the idea of “schism” by San Joaquin even more laughable. We need only reacquaint you with quaint biblical words like adultery, sodomy, submission, male, female, and father.
February 3, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I don’t get why the Standing Committee is upset. If the diocese has left TEC and is now part of a different province, then the Standing Committee is either the Standing Committee of that diocese in the Southern Cone, or it is claiming to be the Standing Committee of a continuing SJ diocese in TEC. If the diocese can’t (and doesn’t want to) have it both ways, then how can the Standing Committee have it both ways?
I just don’t get it….
February 3, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Nick,
Thanks for the reply. I think we agree that the “whole purpose of a ‘church’”–to which you refer–includes not just the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the carrying of that worship out into the world in satisfaction of the Great Commission. We are charged not with navel gazing, but with going out along highways and hedges, as most of the world remains thoroughly pagan, and even many Christians are unchurched. I suppose we agree on that, and there is no need for me to “only reacquaint you” with such a central notion.
Good–but that is why any division among Christians in the eyes of the pagan and unchurched world is so serious, especially one with as much hatred and rancor, as much scandal and sedition among Christians merely nominal and real as this one, which–let me “only reacquaint you” with the facts–has been going on for years
and will go on for years more. I hope this does not seem like mere pedantry to you; since it touches the heart of what it is to be a Christian, it seems extremely serious to me.
Of course the Standing Committee of San Joachin knows all this, and recognizes that any sedition, any scandal, any enabling of hatred and rancor anywhere in the church serves not God the Father insofar as it undermines the Great Commission, imperiling the very esse–the very being–of the church.
The Standing Committee and the PB are nothing but poor sinners, and I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that the PB is guilty as charged, and should be charged with still more. So let us suppose the Standing Committee is right about the PB: she should simply be tossed out on her ear posthaste.
That has nothing to do with whether the Standing Committee claims it did not violate the canon. We are not moral relativists, you and me, right? There is an objective fact of the matter–a fact in the Holy Mind of God if you will–about whether they violated the canon.
So I still have to ask: are they saying that they did not violate the canon? Or are they saying that they did, but it does not matter because the PB did too?
February 3, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Let me admit I hope they mean to insist they never violated the canon, and that they never intended to make the diocese leave the Episcopal Church, and that they never acted on such an intention.
And that is all that need be said, period.
February 4, 2008 at 1:57 pm
If this:
“[a]ny person accepting any office in this Church shall well and faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of this Church and of the Diocese in which the office is being exercised.”
Is the best evidence of failure you can muster for not allowing a diocese to leave then you’re in need of some crack shot lawyers. This whole canon requires something else, a defined violation, to even work. This is an act of desperation. It is rule by fiat.
February 4, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Fr. Dan (3),
I believe the Standing Committee would prefer if we were not referred to as “The Martyrs..” of anything (or for that matter “The Six…”, or “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (you pick), or “you people”).
My study of the spiritual gifts tells me that martyrdom is predominantly a “one time” gift, whether grabbing the lion’s head and mouth, or heading off to the Amazon jungle in the ’50’s, or being stoned to death without pre-meditation. We surely have seen the Cross, but we are not about being intentional martyrs. Our families might have something to say in that dialogue.
I know its more fun to provide a title of caricature, but this is not about us as a band of merry men and women. This is about the Kingdom.
So, “The Standing Committee of…” will do just fine.
Thanks.
with love, and God bless you and your wife.
February 6, 2008 at 9:29 am
I find the controversy perplexing, to say the least, and would only fault Bishop Katharine for not being absolutely certain about the members’ intentions before writing to them. As far as I can tell, she based her letter on what appeared to be accurate information about the votes of the members on taking the diocese out of the Episcopal Church and reports that they had constituted themselves as the Standing Committee of the new Southern Cone diocese. I think that what was/is needed is clarity about the intentions of the members of the Standing Committee. If it is certain that they intend to stay within the Episcopal Church and be part of the Diocese of San Joaquin, I think Bishop Katharine should recognize their authority. If, however, they cannot give assurances that they want to remain in the Episcopal Church, one might reasonably conclude that they are trying to have it both ways, i.e., to exercise authority as the Ecclesiastical Authority after Bishop Schofield is deposed, as seems inevitable, while exercising similar authority in a diocese of the Southern Cone. I don’t believe that having it both ways is an honest option. Having read their response, what I found most offensive was, not their protestation of innocence, but their listing of counter-charges against Bishop Katharine. In my experience that tactic is usually used by one who is guilty as charged.
February 6, 2008 at 11:30 pm
ed. — This comment has been removed due to unfit comment.
To the comment itself, the Standing Committee is not all one gender, nor were the members “fired.” As for any comment “removed” prior to this one, GrayWolf, that is not correct. A previous comment from you was still in the management cue waiting to be reviewed. That’s the review speed this weblog operates on for now. Still, just so you know, since it appears the first “missing” comment had the same unfit comments as this one, it would also never been posted, and an email would have been sent to inform you of such. That email is not necessary now.
On comments in general, we allow all comments - even sharp ones - but not ones that are, without any other merit, demeaning or derogatory. If one of those naughty ones slips through and gets posted, it will eventually be reviewed and removed. —
February 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Let me get this straight. Bishop Schofield says six members of the Standing Committee resigned. At least two of the clergy members are quoted as saying they did not resign. There are only two possibilities resign or fired. Someone is lying.
Bishop Schofield says you are not the Standing Committee — you say you are.
Rather than write letters that are demeaning, derogatory and without merit to the Presiding Bishop why don’t you tell the truth.