Answers from the Standing Committee: What are you “doing”?
March 21, 2008
The Standing Committee has received questions from acquaintances, friends, intercessors, and other members of this Church, all concerned about the Canonical or non-canonical morass that has been created for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, which could be summarized as, “Why aren’t you doing something?”
The January letter to the Presiding Bishop, sent after her letter to each of the Standing Committee members, both of which were posted across the internet (and are available here on Surrounded), lays out the problem.
The Standing Committee, within a couple of weeks after the December election, were made aware through a variety of channels of communication that there were congregations and clergy who would not be going along to the Southern Cone Province, AND there were congregations and there were clergy who were already or who would be “in discernment” about the matter. If you are going to take action and include all players, plans cannot nor should not be made until everyone who is on board gets on board.
Look at the Surrounded posts “And on the same day..” and the one re: Ecclesiastes, “Axe vs Wisdom”. We did not nor do not consider ourselves subservient to the tyranny of the urgent. We believed the bishop would eventually resign, and it would be a matter of simply acknowleding his resignation, as the Standing Committee and accepting the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese.
The Presiding Bishop, rather than approach the mess from a canonical basis and ask the question, “Who’s left to carry on?”, she rather only listened to and heard “There’s no one left - they’ve all betrayed us.” She has since allowed for her hasty pronouncement — which came despite having that January phone conversation with her which was somewhat affirming of our presence, which tells me “somebody” else got their two cents in —- and now seems intransigent. This includes the spin from the failed deposition vote.
But that brings us to where the Standing Committee was all along. We had to wait. That’s because — according to TEC Canons, which we have been following diligently — the Standing Committee does not become the Ecclesiastical Authority until the office of Bishop is vacant. If the HOB vote for deposition had not failed, the See would indeed now be vacant.
Now we are one week closer to March 29, and there are layers of non-canonical actions being taken and planned for in order to push TEC DSJ ahead without the Standing Committee.
Let us be clear, as our letter already stated, we are ready to legally act when TEC lawfully & canonically deposes Bishop Schofield. The Presiding Bishop and her advisers chose to use this as their strategy for dealing with Bp Schofield. That is thus the current canonical mess which now must be cleaned up.
Accordingly, until then, Bp. Schofield, as per the C&C of TEC and the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is still the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese. We, the duly elected and canonically recognized Standing Committee of the Diocese have pointed out, and now say it again, that the PB does not have any canonical authority to dismiss (”not recognize”) the elected Standing Committee nor to call a special meeting of the convention of DSJ. The announced meeting to be held in Lodi at the end of March cannot by canonical requirements be a diocesan convention and any actions purported to be taken have no force or effect in the Diocese of San Joaquin.
We have not “done anything” because we did not yet have the authority, as per the Canons. The Presiding Bishop has given permission, financial support and encouragement to (basically) Remain Episcopal folks in DSJ to “do something”, because she has facilitated a canonical coup in the making, all prepared to begin with the deposition of Bp Schofield.
One of the consequences that is very sad for us on the Standing Committee to watch is this irony: the sharp and biting complaint of so many within the Remain Episcopal camp, that they have been autocratically removed from any authoritative, collegial process in DSJ under Bp Schofield, is very close to being replaced by the same kind of autocratic “squeeze out”, and by their own enthusiasm.
Prayer, and a willingness to operate within the borders that are necessary for our common life together, is what we need right now from all, if for nothing else, the sake of the rest of this Church to have hope that we have groundrules that work, even in uncharted waters.
March 22, 2008 at 8:32 am
My heart & prayers are with you. I know the feeling of being an empty place where nothing seems to be happening - where you can do nothing about it. It is akin to being at a birthday party where all the other kids have already gone into the other room and eating the cake while you stand there alone, blindfolded and slightly dizzy, still trying to pin the tail on the donkey. God bless you all. Frances
March 22, 2008 at 10:43 am
The question is whether you are still members of TEC; that is PB’s ground for not recognizing you. If you are, then either you accept that Bp Schofield has been deposed by the act of HoB or you will file a protest that that act was defective and left you in limbo (you surely have standing in this matter). Since you have not done the latter (bitching on the blog does not count) and nor yet the former, your status as members of TEC — and thus of being the Standing committee for the Episcopal DSJ — is prima facie null. To be sure, a pretest is unlikely to result in any change; the arguments from practicality and precedent carry the day when the House is the final judge of the meaning of its rules. But rejecting this action then sets you against C&C and so goes back to the earlier question whether you are in TEC or some other province. A not affirming you obedience to C&C blah-blah might have helped earlier on and might yet be useful, but you have also refused to do this (I know that it should not be required but in these parlous times some small concessions may be needed for achieving greater goods). Given that, you might move to reclaim some leadership in fact as well as principle for the upcoming meeting. Otherwise you will be ignored as either not the Standing Committee or at least one that has failed to perform its duties.
March 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm
[...] Answers from the Standing Committee: What are you “doing”? The Standing Committee has received questions from acquaintances, friends, intercessors, and other members of this […] [...]
March 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
the deposition failed? exactly how do you figure that?
If you believe this, it indicates WHO you are collectively and where you seem to be headed. None of which bodes well for the SJ Diocese.
March 22, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Christ is Risen, John.
John, your premise in the beginning of your first sentence is actually not the issue. The Presiding Bishop’s ground for “not recognizing” us is really not whether I am a “member” of the Episcopal Church.
I think if you will read again her letter to us you will see that is not the case.
March 22, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Sherry, Blessed Resurrection Day!
I’m not sure of the overall intent of your comment.
So I’ll start with your two questions. Yes, by the necessities of Canon law in this particular kind of vote, there needed to be a majority of ALL eligible bishops to make the deposition succeed. They weren’t there, the vote went ahead anyway. Therefore, without the # of bishops necessary to vote “Yes”, then the vote failed, and the deposition of both Bp Schofield and Bp Cox did not succeed.
I didn’t figure that out. Others who did the review of the vote did.
The current quandry is this: the chair ruled the “Ayes” had it in both votes, and so also ruled that both bishops (one at a time) were thus deposed.
A challenge to the vote based on the Canons was made in the Living Church article by the very fact it was published. Bishops who were alerted to the discrepancy are now more formally challenging the vote, in order to have it done properly.
The motivation is this is no time in the life of TEC to break Canons (even if unintentional).
I don’t presume to know what you mean in the second half of your post. So let me ask you, Who do YOU think we are? and Where do YOU think we are headed? Be glad to respond when you answer.
March 24, 2008 at 8:03 am
So, you’re stuck in a corner where you have to assert that the bishop is still the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and you haven’t come into power as the Ecclesiastical Authority remaining in the diocese. That must be a lonely place. By your own spin, you can’t do anything at all. By your lack of activity, you become increasingly irrelevant.
March 24, 2008 at 11:19 am
Big Red,
Happy Monday in Easter Week.
There is a sense of isolation; that can’t be denied. Ironically, it is because we are asserting the borders of Communal life provided by the Canons.
But truly, we find our companionship in all who love Jesus, and share His love.
Icing on the cake, there are so many who join us in the assertion of the Canons, and of the canonical procedure which is well defined, and to which should be adhered.
We would welcome your joining us, Ruidh, in asserting the same for the sake of the ongoing life-together of this Church.
March 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm
A coup of a coup! What was that we learned from math class? A negative times a negative equals a positive, wasn’t that it?
March 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Ms Cornelius,
Blessed Monday in Easter Week.
I saw some of your blogging. You and I would certainly agree on much in the life of the Church today, especially the mess that can happen when people try to take measures into their own hands.
I know the one coup attempt I mentioned, but what was the other? The Southern Cone biz itself?
March 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm
rgeaton:
Well first, your take on the Bishop is seemingly in error. There is precedent for just this kind of practice within TEC’s HOB which was unprotested. (Read Mark Harris’ blog and others for a different opinion). The singular reason for any sort of protest of vote, in this instance, is the polarity of the “issue”. And you know that full well.
That your opinion swings with Dan, Virtue etc., says a great deal about your concerns… and the perspective from which you declare the Bishop undeposed. Every one of your citations (I have read all the material) come from people either in the process of leaving TEC, or people who have left TEC, or people that are openly schismatic. At least have the decency to put the issue in question in mutual perspective versus drawing an opinion based on those who are statistically the least of us in TEC.
Secondly, in regard to “who” you are, collectively, you are a group of people, who have in the past supported the exclusion of women in orders of TEC. You supported right up to Dec. 8 every move made by Bishop Shofield to push the Diocese farther and farther to the extremist right, and knew full well his intentions all along to leave TEC and did nothing to prevent it, in fact agreeing to every move to do so. You are responsible, directly, collectively and as individuals, for the mess that is the Diocese of San Joaquin. That you consider yourselves now representatives of ANYONE TEC is bizarre past reason.
If you ARE TEC, then you need to renounce any movement to schism with the church. But you haven’t, and I don’t believe you can because this is not your POV.
Actions speak louder than words. Your actions (and inactions) have undone the Diocese and left Episcopalians adrift. Shame on each and every one of you!
The bizarre situation of the SJD is YOUR collective fault. John David should have been stopped instead of helped.
March 24, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Rob,
You point out that others will or have figured out whether the Schofield vote was proper or acceptable. But “A challenge to the vote based on the Canons was made in the Living Church article” is really no challenge — it’s an opinion offered by a partisan observer. As I understand it, not one member of the HOB has challenged the procedure or outcome of the vote.
With regard to your standing committee, what IS your position with regard to David Schofield? You have made the strenuous argument that your committee has been overlooked and the canons ignored. Did the standing committee, in part or in whole, as individuals or as a body, support the position of David Schofield to remove the Diocese of San Joaquin from the Episcopal Church? Do you, individually or as a body, recognize yourself today as Episcopalians? As I understand the commentary here and elsewhere, a central reason the canons have been found so wanting is that the standing committee was so deafeningly silent as David Schofield attempted to tear San Joaquin from the church. I look forward to learning more of your position.
March 24, 2008 at 7:54 pm
If you are waiting for Bishop Schofield to get any more deposed than he is, you will be under his thumb for the indefinite future. So you will effectively force TEC to go ahead without you.
March 27, 2008 at 12:09 am
Sherry,
Actually, first, I offered you a Jesus is Risen blessing, and you ignored it. That’s like saying “The Peace of the Lord be with you”, and you giving no response in return. I don’t know you, though. Are you a christian?
To your comments, un-canonical acts are not made worthy by previous un-canonical acts and labeling them as “precedent.” Do two wrongs make a right? Harris is wrong; maybe read some colleagues of Harris who disagree with him and also call the deposition vote a failed vote.
Further, you insinuate something in your first paragraph which is not clear. But I will say that any Standing Committee member who is being responsible should be LOOKING for canonical aberrations and irregularities and errors; and we find them without having to wait for any polarizations. They usually stand out (when you are looking for them) like a sore thumb.
In your next paragraph, I can’t tell if you are referring to the whole Standing Committee or just me. I can tell you we are not “swinging” with Fr. Martins or David Virtue. They have their own sets of comments. Are you suggesting there has been or still is some collusion? And you still haven’t said what you think our opinion is, even though you seem to presume we/I do.
In your next paragraph you answer my previous question and share what or who you think “we” are. My response is that your perception of who “we” are is wrong. For instance, every one of the Standing Committee members as of December 8 who are priests (including myself) would be and are supportive of the action of a bishop in ordaining women. But then you used the word “collectively”, so now I don’t know if you are talking about Bp Schofield and the whole diocese before December, or just the Standing Committee.
Next, I am not TEC but I am a priest in TEC. But that’s what you probably meant. I never left TEC; I knew I would not be leaving TEC going into the December Convention, which was absolutely unacceptable to a few of my conservative colleagues (friends, too),even as I shared with them this was God’s will for me.
You really need to stop making assumptions. Where did you get this stuff from? Somebody else’s gossip and rumor?
Sherry, the speaking of words is an action. And words have been spoken. Your words, in my opinion, carry an enormous amount of projection, some of it which is unnecessarily hurtful. I would ask that you look before you leap.
March 27, 2008 at 12:21 am
Anthony,
Good Wednesday in Easter week.
Where’s the fire?!
Also, we haven’t “forced” anybody’s hand. That “hand” had its own mind already.
March 27, 2008 at 12:27 am
Rick D,
Blessed Thursday in Easter Week.
As I read that article, what I saw was an amazingly informed question about canonical procedure. I hand it to the reporters. Would that same diligence had been found within the House of Bishops prior to that vote(s) being taken. It was no “opinion”, and it was indeed a challenge. Challenges can come from all quarters.
My understanding is that at least two bishops have indeed challenged the proceeding and the outcome once it came to their attention (which was unfortunately after the fact, but no less valid to make).
The rest of your comment I hope you can find answers to in the surrounding comments.
March 27, 2008 at 3:15 am
Peace to you, Rob.
Thank you for your clarification of the two bishops who have objected — could you point to links, as I haven’t been able to see those. I continue my argument that the original Living Church article is essentially an editorial, since neither author has standing within the HOB.
Thank you also for your clarifications that you intend to remain an Episcopal priest and that you support the ordination of women. That is good news indeed, for which I thank you.
March 28, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Dear Rob
It is so wonderful that you are scrupulously following the canons and carrying forward the torch of faith for all of us God-fearing Christians especially in this holy time of the year. I do have one or two minor concerns which I am sure could be easily cleared up and would be of great enlightenment to me.
The first is that pesky matter of your resignation. Bishop Schofield announced to the world that you had resigned from the Standing Committee, but you still consider yourself a member of the Standing Committee. Like I say, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation that doesn’t involve duplicity on anyone’s part, Perhaps you resigned from the Standing Committee and then forgot you had resigned. Again, I am sure this is easily cleared up.
Secondly, when that mean-spirited Presiding Bishop inhibited our poor Bishop Schofield, he declared she had no jurisdiction over him because he was no longer a member of TEC. If he is not a member of TEC and you are, then how can he be your bishop? Again, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation that I am overlooking.
Finally, I am glad to see that you are taking a position on firmly upholding territorial boundaries. I am sure lots of people will revile you and persecute you for this stand, but I for one am glad that we will be giving those foreign bishops the boot right where they deserve it, if you know what I mean.
March 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Gray Wolf,
I did not resign, nor did the bishop have my permission to even suggest that I did.
There is a loose string canonically when a bishop or priest decides to leave the Episcopal Church, that is, their official standing before they left. If the departure seems a repudiation, or even just the “walking away” from ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church and then to leave the Episcopal Church altogether, then the Abandonment of Communion solution was created for that purpose. Bp Schofield effectively announced his departure Dec 8. Since I did not intend to leave the Episcopal Church, he resigned from being my bishop. The loose string, however, was still hanging, and would continue to hang until the HOB did something (valid) about it. UNTIL that time, when the loose string would be tied up, the Canons - attempting to protect the minority and provide grace for reconciliation - allow for that bishop to still be who he was before hand. In this case, the Ecclesiastical Authority of San Joaquin (TEC). The March 29 meeting was finally set as the earliest gauging of Bp Schofield’s Ecclesiastical Authority loose string being tied-up. I believe it had been first talked about in May or June. My guess is that property issues got the best of people, and the meeting was moved up. Most thought the deposition (the loose string solution in this case, without resignation) inevitable. It didn’t work out the way it should have. The loose string was not tied up. The meeting will now be held without compliance of Canons.
The HoB should not be allowed to slide on this one. It already has had deep Back Home ramifications keeping complete fellowship and association from being engaged.
It will now have to be later.
March 29, 2008 at 7:52 am
So, let me get this straight. Your bishop said you resigned even though you didn’t resign and even though he is not a part of TEC and you are he is still your bishop because he is a “loose string”. Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up, Rob.
Hey, how come I didn’t get an Easter week greeting?
March 29, 2008 at 8:38 am
Gray Wolf,
Blessed Saturday in Easter Week!
Apparently, you have not been reading carefully, or you are relying on someone else’s explanation of what they read.
What Bishop Schofield said was that those members of the Standing Committee who were “in discernment” were unqualified to be members of the Standing Committee of the Southern Cone Diocese of San Joaquin. He did not say that those members had resigned, because they had not. He merely declared that they were unqualified to serve on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin of the Southern Cone.
As to their membership on the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, Bishop Schofield had no opinion and no jurisdiction as he considered himself no longer a part of the Episcopal Church. However, the fact is that CANONICALLY he is still the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin until the House of Bishops accepts his resignation. To date, they have not done so.
So the fact is that Fr. Eaton and the other five members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin are still members of the Standing Committee. They have not resigned, nor been removed by any canonically valid procedure. However, they have no power to declare the See of San Joaquin vacant until the HOB either accepts Bishop Schofield’s resignation (they have not done so yet) or else Bishop Schofield is deposed by the proper canonical procedure. That has not happened either. The validity of the HOB action has now been challenged by two members of the HOB who were present at the meetintg.
Now despite all the inconvenience and uncertainty and doubt, it does seem that the Presiding Bishop and those who make up the organization known as “Remain Episcopal” would want things to be done in compliance with the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church of the US. The United States is a country of laws, rather than of men (and women). From her actions and statements, it seems that the Presiding Bishop is making things up as she goes along. To do so is, simply put, lawless behavior, something which is unbefitting the leader of a purportedly Christian organization, especially one that operates under the laws of the Unted States of America.
The last time I checked, those laws have not been repealed. I would think Remain Episcopal and the Episcopal Church would wish to be in compliance.
As for Fr. Eaton and the remaining Standing Committee members, I wish God’s blessing and protection for them as they try to behave as faithful members of the Episcopal Church.
You might consider praying for them, rather than attacking the.
March 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Peace and may God’s mercy be upon you on this Saturday in Easter Week also
I am not sure who you are, but thank you for that clarification. I indeed might be in error since I was relying on a quotation purportedly from Bishop Schofield by an Episcopal priest, but obviously in error. So the four clerical members and two lay members of the Standing Committee did not resign but were “removed” by Bishop Schofield. Now I understand. Were they removed from the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin of the Southern Cone or Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin of the Episcopal Church? And if there is no Diocese of San Joaquin of the Episcopal Church because the Diocese of San Joaquin has moved to the Southern Cone, then how can they be members of the Standing Committee of a Diocese that does not exist? Oh, dear me, I have gone and done it again, confused myself.
Oh, by the way, you might want to straighten out The Rev’d Doctor Kendall Harmon who says “Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.” He seems to be citing someone named “Venables” whoever he is.
Again thanks for your enlightenment. I am truly sorry if I attacked anyone. I will pray for them every day. Let me now if it works.
March 29, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Gray Wolf and Sherry:
Is the sarcasm and general tone in your posts really necessary?
There really does not seem to be much doubt but that there were major procedural problems with the attempted deposition of JDS and Cox. Bishops Howe and Lawrence have both objected and there has been quite the “blog storm” since the HOB meeting.
As you know, there are a hand full of churches in the DSJ that have not chosen to follow JDS into the SC. Most of the Standing Committee included. Just how did the PB get the authority to remove the Standing Committee members? If she does not have that authority then her what she attmpted is not valid.
I also would like to remind you that Fr. Rob has stated that his decision to stay within TEC is based on a call from God. Although my parish has decided to follow our bishop into the SC I will continue to pray for Fr. Rob and his parish as they continue to follow Jesus in TEC. They should have your prayers as well.
Fr. Rob has also stated his desire to see TEC follow the procedures set out in it’s constitution and canons. Nothing more, nothing less. If there was a conservative PB behaving as PB Schori I suspect you would be screaming bloody murder.
March 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Ah, yes the Jerry Springer defense. If I can find someone doing something more morally repugnant than I am (e.g. the PB) then I am then I must be justified.
Actually, Walt, if you had asked me,which you did not, I would have told you that I believe that it was a mistake for the PB to remove the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin even if Bishop Schofield had not already done so.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I would have thought the Emperor would have liked to have been told he had no clothes on.
March 30, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Gray Wolf
I suspect you already know this, but, Bishop Schofield informed those members of the Standing Committee that had not made the move to the Southern Cone or were in a period of discernment regarding such a move that they would not qualify to be on the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Standing Committee as they were not yet part of that jurisdiction.
Quite a different story when it comes to your PB and her reason (what was it again?) for removing the entire Standing Committee.
March 31, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Forgive me for my failure to Greet. My bad.
Blessings in the name of the Lord.
Now, here’s where I just jump ship with all of this.
1. When Shofield “left”, he SAID in his press release (later pulled) he was BOTH TEC and So. Cone.
2. Venables later corrected saying Shofield was NOT TEC, but So. Cone.
3. That means that the current members of the Standing Committee ARE So. Cone according to the verbal statements made by both the Bishop and Venables. I suppose this is why your site link here was (and is) to the So. Cone, not TEC.
Can we agree this far?
The remaining church, which is not So. Cone is TEC. They do not recognize Shofield as their Bishop because he has said he IS So. Cone.
Can we still agree this far?
Prior to last weekend, The Diocese of SJ (TEC’s part) did NOT have a Bishop who said he was in TEC.
This is where we probably disagree because, Canon Law or not, Shofield WAS accepted into the So. Cone and he cannot be TEC AND So. Cone. One or the other, yes. Both, no. Evidence clearly supports him being IN So. Cone, not TEC. He says he is gone. Venables says he is gone. The parishes/churches that followed him say they are gone. I can only assume they ARE gone.
Your links also show you to be in the So. Cone, not TEC. I have to say it is just weird thinking of Half Dome in the So. Cone. Every time I see the photo I feel like geography is upside down
The second point is that whether any of us like it or not, this has never happened before. Whether Shofield can or cannot take a diocese out of the TEC will be settled later. But he most certainly cannot leave the diocese IN TEC and take it out of TEC simultaneously (including assets).
So let me ask you this: If you are so concerned about following Cannon Law, are YOU in the So. Cone as a Standing Committee member or TEC… what do you believe you are?
The entire matter of Shofield and the “firing” (or not… there was disagreement expressed on this point) of standing committee members who were in discernment and NOT part of So Cone indicates that he is Southern Cone, not TEC. Again, which are you?
If he is your Bishop, of WHAT is he Bishop of, TEC or So. Cone?
The problem here is NOT one sided. The So. Cone violated their own Cannons. Perhaps EVERYONE has violated their own Cannons.
As far as the HOB vote goes, how do you explain the precedent previously for the same kind and type of vote (not a majority of Bishops present… which, I believe, is the naysayers argument) with nothing problematic said about it? Is it possible that it is perfectly legal but the polarity of this issue has driven people to question a previously accepted practice, one that you yourself did not apparently previously question?
If the broader assumption is that a diocese can not be taken out of TEC, with assets, by a bishop (is that your belief, BTW?), then all I can say to you is that someone needs to do something about it. It is almost impossible to tell whose side you are on and you cannot be on both sides. You either believe you are TEC and act accordingly (unless you believe you have no fiduciary or personal responsibility to the assets of the church), or you don’t.
WHY does it take the HOB to get a Standing Committee, if TEC, to protect the diocese assets? If a vestry took church assets, would that be okay? What is the situational difference here? Where ARE the assets, BTW?
April 1, 2008 at 12:16 am
Sherry,
Thanks for greeting me back.
If we don’t bless each other in greeting these days, our sharp words will be taken for cursing instead. I hope you would agree.
Alleluia. Christ is risen.
You said,
“……I suppose this is why your site link here was (and is) to the So. Cone, not TEC.”
“Can we agree this far?”
Well, no, Sherry, we can’t agree so far.
At least one thing is getting in my way:
to what site link are you referring?
April 1, 2008 at 9:58 am
Thanks to Melanie, I now see to what Sherry was referring. The “About” page needed to be updated back in December and I overlooked it. My apologies for any confusion that caused.
It has now been updated.
Ed.