tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post845341616523632554..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: San Joaquin AnnotatedDaniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-89569952057452047572008-01-23T13:39:00.000-05:002008-01-23T13:39:00.000-05:00Dear Fr. Martins,First, allow me to express my tha...Dear Fr. Martins,<BR/><BR/>First, allow me to express my thanks for what seems a quite thorough and balanced discussion of many of the specific issues (particularly the indeterminate ones) surrounding the "departure" of the Diocese of San Joaquin.<BR/><BR/>I do have one observation to make concerning the statement that you made in your post that <BR/><BR/> "Dr. Williams is very much between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It would take an extraordinary batch of “Anglican fudge” to lubricate the friction between those two opposing forces."<BR/><BR/>It would seem to me that Dr. Williams has, by his deliberate choices (actions or lack of same) navigated directly into that situation, an observation which you did not register.<BR/><BR/>From your silence on this latter point, what ought we to infer about your opinion as to why +Rowan finds himself <I>in extremis</I>, particularly whether anyone should be surprised at that result? I ask neither to be snide nor critical, but rather to determine whether you would agree with that assessment.<BR/><BR/>Blessings and regards,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-58268774237822343852008-01-20T16:35:00.000-05:002008-01-20T16:35:00.000-05:00Beryl and Leslie, there are many of us in TEC who ...Beryl and Leslie, there are many of us in TEC who are thinking of you guys in San Joaquin, and who know you are people and not puppets.<BR/><BR/>Take heart, and don't let them get you down.blshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07627725321531151309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-12259323356097993962008-01-20T10:34:00.000-05:002008-01-20T10:34:00.000-05:00Well said Beryl! You always hit the nail on the h...Well said Beryl! You always hit the nail on the head! Fr. Martins... What is your problem with RE? We are good and faithful Episcopalians. We love the church and were quite willing to come to the Lord's table together with our conservative friends until ex-Bishop Schofield forced us to divide.<BR/>Peace to you...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-12275440845239286882008-01-19T22:44:00.000-05:002008-01-19T22:44:00.000-05:00I am a mere lay person who has been a faithful mem...I am a mere lay person who has been a faithful member of the Episcopal Church for more than 40 years in the Diocese of San Joaquin. I love our Episcopal Church, and I have watched and endured while Bishop Schofield has derided the Episcopal Church and Episcopal Church leadership for almost 20 years. Do you not see that his actions and words have created an atmosphere of conflict and distrust? Parishioners, the mere laity, in these circumstances become divided one against the other because lines are drawn and sides must be chosen. And what is the result? Conflicts do not draw people in; they drive people out. So, in the Diocese of San Joaquin, you know full well that missions and parishes have closed as people were driven out and numbers dwindled.<BR/>I was a member of St. Francis Episcopal Church in Turlock, and we were a divided parish in regard to the bishop's choices. When our priest left a year ago, the conflicts became more intense. Then Bishop Schofield placed a deposed priest in there as supply, and a number of the parishioners chose to call this deposed priest to serve as interim. In good faith, there were a number of us who could not remain if this man was allowed to serve there. There were five of us on the Vestry who resigned over this issue. A number of us could no longer attend that church while that man was serving there. We were faithful Episcopalians who were simply disregarded by the bishop.<BR/>So you make denigrating statements about Remain Episcopal, as though it is a "puppet group" to be propped up by the national church. Does it occur to you that they might be loyal and faithful Episcopalians, Christians, who love their church and who pray for an opportunity to begin anew without having to be embattled with the bishop over his controversies? So how does it make you feel that some of us who gave love, support, talent, and time for more than 40 years to our church, and now we have to begin again with no church, no altar, no altar supplies, no prayer books except our own, no hymnals, no music, no Sunday School building, no church grounds, and so on? If we want to attend a church, we have to drive 50 miles up the road. Is it possible for you for one minute to quit worrying about being right and look at what has happened to the laity??? This has not been a noble battle.Beryl Simkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04518248428800542990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-56143060605553814842008-01-17T14:51:00.000-05:002008-01-17T14:51:00.000-05:00Esteemed Brother, your comparison of Bishop Schofi...Esteemed Brother, your comparison of Bishop Schofield's relationship with Southern Cone and either Bishop MacDonald or your own consideration of a parish in Toronto is not apt. For you to transfer to Toronto would have required some formal and constitutional action at both ends. The ecclesiastical authorities of both the diocese you left and the diocese you entered would have to consent to the move. So, Bishop MacDonald's unusual joint recognition was approved officially in both provinces. Bishop Schofield did not apply to the ecclesiastical authority. Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church states regarding a bishop elected for another jurisdiction, "Before acceptance of such election a resignation of jurisdiction in the in the Diocese in which the Bishop is then serving, conditioned on the required consents of the BIshops and Standing Committees of the CHurch to such election, shall be submitted to the House of Bishops.... Such resignation... shall require the consent of the House of Bishops." Regardless of other issues involved in this, Bishop Schofield did not seek consent of the ecclesiastical authority, the House of Bishops, for transfer to the Southern Cone; and so the process isn't complete.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the Episcopal Church has near as much trouble as you suggest with the issue of whether there is or is not a Diocese of San Joaquin in the Episcopal Church. I think it is clearer to say that there is one; and that Bishop Schofield and those who support him have violated fiduciary responsibility by the pretense of asserting a false identity between the continuing Episcopal Diocese and some newly forming Diocese of San Joaquin of the Province of the Southern Cone. Both may exist (setting aside for the moment the tradition of the geographical contiguity and integrity of provinces), but they are not identical; nor even if more people have left the continuing diocese to form the new one. There is a community that remains to the continuing diocese (and perhaps even to reconstitute a Standing Committee), and so certainly it has not ceased to exist. That doesn't somehow establish the actions taken in the last diocesan convention.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-51093169270181015442008-01-15T16:36:00.000-05:002008-01-15T16:36:00.000-05:00To JamesW:Good point about Cavalcanti being extend...To JamesW:<BR/>Good point about Cavalcanti being extended Argentinian hospitality after his deposition. In actual terms, it's probably a distinction without a difference, but it may be just enough of a crack to give Rowan the cover he needs for the apparent inconsistency.Daniel Martinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-21410131168026585112008-01-15T14:37:00.000-05:002008-01-15T14:37:00.000-05:00Dan: Excellent summary and analysis. I think tha...Dan: Excellent summary and analysis. I think that when all is said and done, TEC's strategy here will be seen as a tremedous blunder - they are backing themselves and Rowan Williams into a corner, with long-term results that will seriously undercut TEC.<BR/><BR/>But the main point of my post was to distinguish Schofield from Cavalcanti and the AMIA/CANA/etc. bishops. Rowan has made the point that the bishops he has not invited to Lambeth (Robinson and the AMIA/CANA/etc. group) were not invited because they were consecrated against the mind of the Communion. So that clearly distinguishes them from Cavalcanti and Schofield.<BR/><BR/>Then Cavalcanti was deposed BEFORE he was taken in by the Province of the Southern Cone. Rowan can therefore argue that - whether one agrees with the Brazilian Province's actions or not - it did depose Cavalcanti when he was still part of the Brazilian church. As such, when Venables took Cavalcanti in, he - in a sense - "reconsecrated" him.<BR/><BR/>None of the above situations apply to Schofield. His diocese departed TEC when he was a bishop in good standing. Now, arguably, TEC has no canonical authority over him.<BR/><BR/>And that is the question which Rowan's Lambeth invitation will address. If Rowan maintains Schofield's Lambeth invitation, then Tony is wrong when he says that the Southern Cones claim to the Diocese of San Joaquin "is unilateral and is not recognized by the wider church" because Rowan Williams will be recognizing it.<BR/><BR/>And since I think it is usually safe to assume that Rowan Williams will take the path of non-decision, I think it most likely that Schofield will be keeping his Lambeth invitation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-3517535819115810432008-01-14T18:28:00.000-05:002008-01-14T18:28:00.000-05:00Two points: 1) it is a majority vote in the HOB f...Two points: 1) it is a majority vote in the HOB for abandonment..not a 2/3 vote. [IV.9.2] 2) +JDS did not attend services at the scheduled congregation nor any other congregation yesterday, he made hospital calls.<BR/><BR/>OK another point; the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin is alive, well, functioning and constitutionally elected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-53579497154527739662008-01-14T16:37:00.000-05:002008-01-14T16:37:00.000-05:00The more...[815] prop[s] up Remain Episcopal as th...<I>The more...[815] prop[s] up Remain Episcopal as their puppet regime...</I><BR/><BR/>I happen to know a number of Remain Episcopal members -- as I suspect you do. To insinuate that they are mere shills for 815 is not only wrongheaded, but insulting in the extreme. In fact, the Remain Episcopal members could make a strong case that they've been left "in the wilderness" for years when it comes to tangible support for their desire to remain in TEC.<BR/><BR/>Whether they have made a fitting choice or not can be debated, but at least give these people credit for standing for their convictions on their own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-8986884155992051492008-01-14T15:50:00.000-05:002008-01-14T15:50:00.000-05:00I wrote this today to another list, which may have...I wrote this today to another list, which may have something or other to do with points you have made in your good analysis:<BR/><BR/>"The report of the review committee, at least without seeing supporting documentation seems rather vague as to which count or counts are invoked to support the allegation. Normally of course clergy of this church are free to exercise their ministry in other Anglican Provinces with the consent of their Ordinary, but that presumes that they reside in the territory embraced by that Province. While the Instruments of Unity do not authorize the limits and extents of geographical boundaries, one could well say that the recognition given to a Province by the whole Communion includes, at least externally, a territorial limit recognized by all. Internal reorganization is another matter. Ergo, if the Diocese of Sydney claimed jurisdiction over Southern Africa (Archbishops of Sydney have consecrated bishops for the rival not Anglican Communion “Church of England in South Africa” in the past, sometimes over the protest of Capetown and sometimes with tacit approval) its claim might not be recognized by the Australian Church as a whole or the Communion in general through its Instruments.<BR/><BR/>Therein lies the problem for the Communion, for the Southern Cone and for TEC. However temporary the measure, the Province of the Southern Cone (sounds like ice cream!) now seems to claim jurisdiction in North America. Such a claim is unilateral and is not recognized by the wider church. Similarly although perhaps less immediately the Provinces of Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya seem to make a similar territorial and jurisdictional claim, however justified and however temporary. Such measures are rarely temporary and even more rarely justified. They fly in the face of the Windsor Report’s recommendations and the wishes of the Primates of the Communion and seem to be acts of impatience and panic. They are also ecclesiologically suspect.<BR/><BR/>There may not be “moral equivalence” whatever that term means, between the actions of TEC in 2003 and onwards and the actions of these Provinces -depends how importance one views the Doctrine of the Church - but the prevalence of unilateralism among conservatives must surely be a cause for worry and needs a far more convincing justification, however much one cares for those in this country who suffer for orthodoxy, than so far has emerged.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile Bishop Schofield and his followers are placing themselves under a jurisdiction which may have no jurisdiction in “this land of the USA”. In the long run they may find themselves just as isolated as they have been in TEC. This is all tragic.<BR/>|Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com