Ed.

. . .

The Diocese of San Joaquin is a part of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The diocesan office – the office of the bishop – is in Fresno, on the grounds of St. James Cathedral. The diocese currently stretches from just south of Sacramento, to the top of the Grapevine, south of Bakersfield; from west of I-5 including Coalinga and Los Banos, to the Nevada border.

This weblog is an offical part of the communications for and by the diocese. It is administered by the Rev. Robert Eaton, the Rector of St. John Parish in Tulare.

For further information on the diocese please view the diocesan website, at http://www.sjoaquin.net .

. . .

Your link to the Southern Cone diocese’s website, along to references to the bishop’s office at the cathedral in Fresno, does raise a question about exactly whose official communications you are making. Does this blog still speak for Bishop Schofield’s diocese?

I have longed to knwo what your vision for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is. If your Standing Committee were running the show right now, what would you be doing? Would you be planning to reorganize, to hold an emergency convention, to bring in a new bishop?

I have seen comments from some on the conservative side that the remaining Episcopal diocese is too small to survive, that the remaining Episcopal parishes (including yours) should be dispersed to other nearby dioceses. What is your position?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hey, how come I didn’t get an Easter week greeting?