8/28/2008

Out there in San Joaquin, modest sanity, but you couldn't tell it from reports.

The Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, issued an order and stipulation on August 25th. That order had to do, as far as I can tell, with releasing some funds that were in contention between the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. The use of those assets were frozen pending judgment that would not be forthcoming for as much as a year.

In the meantime the Camp and Conference Center, called Evergreen Conference Center Oakhurst (ECCO), had salaries to pay and maintenance projects to undertake. It appears from The Episcopal Diocese page and Episcopal Cafe that Bishop Lamb felt that those needs required some mutual arrangement and the Judge was asked to lift the freeze on accounts that would pay those costs. It appears from the accounts included in the lifting of that freeze that they were all accounts from which funds for ECCO might be taken. It also appears that the funds could only be taken by mutual consent of both plaintiff (The Episcopal Diocese) and the defendant (Bishop Schofield and the Anglican Diocese).

What we have here is a bit of creative financing in the midst of a lawsuit to see that ministry can in fact take place.

Episcopal Cafe had the headline taken from the Diocesan news release, "Court maintains freeze on San Joaquin Diocesan accounts, which is true enough. The Living Church had a headline that stated, "Court Divides Endowment Between San Joaquin Dioceses, which is also true enough.

The reality is that in the middle of the freeze, the two sides are agreed on putting funds to a good purpose at ECCO, and the two sides did NOT divide the Endowment, but rather took joint responsibility to see that it was used for the purpose for which it was given. The Living Church headline makes it appear that the Court of its own divided the funds prior to final judgment. What the court did was allow the two sides by mutual agreement to use funds for the purposes of camp salaries and upkeep. There is no division, as Bishop Lamb must give assent to any funds used.

A better headline might have read, Contention aside, an important ministry in San Joaquin continues.

The Diocesan web site writes, "Bishop Jerry Lamb called the continuation of ECCO’s ministry “critical.” At the direction of the Episcopal Diocesan Council, the Chancellor for the Diocese and attorneys for the Episcopal Church contacted Mr. Schofield’s attorneys to negotiate terms for interim access to funds to support camp operations, including staff salaries, daily operations and certain capital improvements. According to the order and stipulation, the ECCO management will provide operational and financial information to the Episcopal Diocese and report to Diocesan Council."

Bishop Lamb and Bishop Schofield are to be commended for an action for the common good. You will note that the diocesan notice refers to Mr. Schofield. That is difficult, but proper. In the Episcopal Church he is no longer a bishop having been deposed. This is the first time I remember seeing his title as Mister.

21 comments:

  1. Should the topic come up in some way, do you think it would be proper for the diocese to refer to a, "Mr. Ratzinger?" He is also not a bishop in the Episcopal Church. How about, "Mr. Williams?" Again: not a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deacon Charlie Perrin28/8/08 5:00 PM

    That would be fine with me.

    "Mister" is a term of respect, and has been used by many "Low Church" Episcopal presbyters.

    Better to refer to him as Mr. Ratzinger then some of the other less respectful names I've heard used for him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The matter Phil likes to misrepresent is that by "Holy Tradition" (I saw it referred that way at SFIF recently) Mr. Schofield would no longer be considered a bishop in any church, Anglican or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And it's a lot less stupid than any belief in a 'character indelebilis', the idea that clergy are any different than the rest of us.
    Why people call clergy 'Father' anyway-beats me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ps this would seem more like a serious question and less like trolling, Phil, if you happen to have have posted, now or at an earlier date, a similar question on Stand Firm or sites of related political bent, inquiring into the popular use of the term "Mrs Schori" - not to mention other, less polite expressions - when referring to the Presiding Bishop.

    In related vein, on StandFirm's thread on the RC Bishop of Wilmington's ban on the RC Senator Biden's speaking in Delaware Church schools because he does not oppose abortion, a poster rejoicing in the monikker "Martial Artist", responded to another blogger's hope that Biden be excommunicated, by saying:

    "I would tend to agree with your recommendation, the more so if it were to be accompanied by an inescapable and immediate remand to the highest authority for judgement. wink. Blessings and regards."

    "Martial Artist" [wonder what the guy actually looks like (though the same may be asked of bizarre rabbits)?] continues "

    "Follow along with me here. What I am thinking of is a relatively immediate referral to the Great Judge, something along the lines of the USMC motto, “It is God’s job to judge. Our job is to arrange the meeting.”"

    This post, on a thread moderated by Jackie Bruchi, is still up, more than 18 hours after it was posted. Will "Martial Artist" be contacted or monitored by Homeland Security after posting a comment of this nature relative to a major party candidate for VP?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, sure, David - but if that's your template, neither would your Presiding Bishop. Welcome back to the Catholic Tradition, friend. (This should answer your question as well, lapinbizarre.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I didn't see Lapin ask a question, and your response, Phil, made no sense in regard to what Lapin posted, which was a very relevant observation of the - shall we say, dual nature - or your personal committment to "catholic tradition" in regard to titles.

    Lapin,

    I do hope there is someone, somewhere that you can report a clearly dangerous and violent individual like "Martial Artist" to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Many thanks Mark. I noticed and thought precisely the same thing, but was trying to be a good boy, putting into practice the Mad Priest "Do not feed" mantra.

    "Martial Artist" posted a "wink wink, nudge nudge" "retraction" a little further down the thread. "I am presuming that you were interpreting mine ..... as somehow threatening towards Sen. Biden. If so, nothing could have been further from my mind."

    Giggles all round at SF, no doubt. And the earlier post is still up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Phil, I am a member of the Anglican Church of Mexico. My Presiding Bishop (Obispo Primado) is el Reverendisimo Carlos Touché Porter.

    Thick headed as I am, I am not sure of the meaning of your snark.

    (he,he, wink, wink, he, he)

    ReplyDelete
  10. He, he, Mark, Lapinbizarre, and David. He, he, he. I'll say it plain: Mrs. Schori is also not a bishop (or priest) in any church, Anglican or otherwise. On that, the ones with the inconsistency and/or dual nature of commitment to the Catholic Tradition are all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Guess it's slim pickings over at XTube, David, what with the Labor Day weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A couple of observations: "Mr." is used by "Low Church" priests (uh, I mean *ministers*), but even their bishops are usually addressed as "Bishop," I believe.

    He, he, Mark, Lapinbizarre, and David. He, he, he. I'll say it plain: Mrs. Schori is also not a bishop (or priest) in any church, Anglican or otherwise.

    Um, no - she definitely holds the office of bishop in PECUSA. Now, you can argue that her orders are invalid or illicit, but PECUSA recognizes her as a bishop. Want proof? Visit our website. You'll notice that she's not listed as Presiding Mrs.

    You know, I don't recognize Methodist orders, but when referencing their clergy I use "Rev." (they think it's a title, not an adjective) or "Bishop" as appropriate. Why? Courtesy. To borrow the slogan of a safe driving campaign in Massachusetts, "A little courtesy won't kill you," phil.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems, Phil, that the best you can ever come up with is to ignore what was said, then give us a "I'm not, you are."

    It's rather bizarre behavior, Phil, and not helping your case.

    As Lapin pointed out (now, please try to follow) you made a big deal out of "Mr." for Schofield, claiming that he is still a bishop, though deposed. However, you have no problem with your fellow Reasserters calling the PB "Mrs."

    That is two-faced of you, Phil, since you seem to need it said bluntly.

    Catholic tradition is not something that is ineffable, you know. No tradition is.

    We claim Catholic tradition as a basis, not a truth above God.

    Really. Do try to stick to what is being said, Phil, not what you want us to have said.

    And - please - try to respond with something other than "It's you guys who are projecting/not sticking to what's said/etc. He, he." It's childish and beneath you. If you can't answer sufficiently, either say nothing or admit you have no response.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Reverend
    The Very Reverend
    The Venerable
    The Right Reverend
    The Most Reverend

    I believe that they are not considered titles or adjectives, but are more rightly referred to as styles or honorifics.

    "A style of office, or honorific, is a form of address which by tradition or law precedes a reference to a person who holds a title or post, or to the political office itself."
    Wikipedia: Style

    ReplyDelete
  15. David, these are adjectives. That's my story, and I'm sticking with it. Now, if you add "Mr.", Mrs.", "Ms", or "Dr" to them, then they're honorifics.

    That's why right-thinking Anglicans don't address their clergy as "Reverend," as in "Hey, Reverend, how's it hanging?" Our Separated Brethren among the Protestants do often do this, however. Instead, we traditionally use a title, like Mr., Fr., Ms. or Mother, as in, "Hey, Father, where'd you put the gin?" If you really wanted to be snooty, you could combine adjectives and forms of address as in, "You, reverend sir, are an ass."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Strictly speaking you're correct, David. I still fall over backwards to avoid addressing clergymen, regardless of denomination, as "Reverend", but it's not even a loosing battle, it's a totally lost one. In addition to the clerical honorific examples you cite, "Honorable" is a standard US civil honorific, but no-one would dream of addressing a judge, mayor or congressman as "Honorable". The same should go for "Reverend" and the clergy. If you're not on christian name terms, Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Father are correct. Bishops may also be addressed as "Bishop" or "Archb".

    Has anyone heard a bishop addressed as "Right Reverend"?

    The assistants to a recent Attorney General of SC referred to him and I assume addressed him as "General". I believe I've heard it used for the USAG as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mark,

    David - who has been flat wrong on matters of historic Christianity before - is the one who continued his mistakes by trying to appeal to Catholic Tradition in support of his notion that Bishop Schofield wouldn't be recognized as such in any church. I merely pointed out that, if you're going to live by that sword, at least recognize that the much-feted Katharine Jefferts Schori fits in the same boat.

    If you have a problem with that, take it up with David.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Phil, please forgive my English. It often escapes me in my attempts to convey my thoughts from Spanish. Even though I run my treatises through spelling and grammar checks before posting, the idiom is often just beyond my feeble grasp.

    What I was originally trying to convey, was that following the "tradition of the Anglican Communion," there are established procedures for deacons, priests & bishops transferring from one diocese to another in the same national/regional church, as well as, for the same clergy transferring from one national/regional church to another. These procedures are established in the canons of the individual national/regional churches.

    The canons of the churches also cover deposition of clergy. It has been the Anglican tradition that a clergyperson deposed by one national/regional church, is considered deposed by all the others.

    John-David Schofield did not follow the canonical procedures of TEC to transfer to the Southern Cone.

    The primate of the Southern Cone extra-canonically received JD Schofield into the SC House of Bishops.

    JD Schofield was deposed by the TEC House of Bishops.

    By Anglican tradition, JD Schofield would be considered deposed in all of the other churches of the Anglican Communion.

    I disregard the canard that TEC did not follow its own canons in the deposition, because it is the same current interpretation of the TEC canons which has resulted in the deposition without question of a number of TEC bishops prior to JD Schofield.

    An interesting twist on the situation is that it is apparent from a letter to the primate of the Southern Cone, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, aside from Anglican tradition, accepts that JD Schofield is now a bishop canonically resident in the Southern Cone. But, at the same time, does not recognize the deposed Bishop of Recife, who has also been received extra-canonically into the SC House of Bishops.
    __________
    David - who has been flat wrong on matters of historic Christianity before
    I was not aware that I have been in such a degree of error in the past. Pray tell, remind me of such occasions.
    _________
    I have an earned four year Master of Theology. As the style I am afforded by my culture, henceforth, all please address me as Maestro.
    _________
    Allen, you threaten us that you will leave our distasteful company, as I recall not but in this thread, also elsewhere. However, you yet return to hurl your barbs. Are you not a man of your word?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Phil, are you being deliberately obtuse?

    I understand having problems with focus, I have them, as well. So, let's recap:

    What I addressed was your obvious duplicity in your hand-wringing over "Mr." Schofield while showing no similar concern over "Mrs." Jefferts Schori.

    I know you don't like being held accountable, but there's reality for you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The court order lists the first of the defendants as "David Mercer Schofield, also known as, John-David Schofield". Don't believe I seen Schofield referred to elsewhere in this fashion.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.