Rowan writes: "I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry."
Hmm - sounds like there was a bit of behind the scenes going on regarding Schofield's status and he was allowed to "elect to decline" his invite.
Read more of who is there and who is not here
21 comments:
As you might suspect, the sturm und drang over at Melanie's has already reached its typically feverish pitch about this...
Most of the comments on the conservative blogs are that Rowan "wimped out" and strong armed Schofield and Venables. Venables tried to spin it as at least the ABC recognizes Schofield as a bishop of the AC.
Note that Venables's own letterhead identifies himself as "Obispo Primado," NOT, I repeat, NOT "Arzobispo."
Thanks dr. primrose for the correction.
Mark Harris says Venables writes wishful thinking. here.
I'm looking forward to the day when the schismatics find they have nothing left to parse.
Is it possible that what this means is,
1) the +ABC recognizes that he does not have "immediate jurisdiction" in either TEC or Southern Cone (i.e. he really can't say who is, or is not, a bishop outside England), and
2) he realizes that there are some weighty legal matters pending and that anything he says about JDS' legitimacy, or not, would seem to prejudice processes in the CA judicial system?
and RW did not invite Minns et al -- J-DS falls into that category now.
Ah, and JDS was gonna try and pull off his dance of the double edged double-x-mitre and make The Lambeth Conference into a "trade show"...best he stays home and dries (everything) out in all that HOT FRESNO AIR because there's a storm brewing and it's a head'n his way they say...so much for Southernconealone comfort without even a whisper of a good-old-boy ole'
...and, hopefully, +Jerry Lamb, the true bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, will be going.
Jerry is on his way (if not there already)
Here for your thoughtful consideration is . . . a song
Wasted Time
The Eagles
Well baby, there you stand
With your little head, down in your hand
Oh, my god, you can't believe it's happening
Again
Your baby's gone, and you're all alone
And it looks like the end.
And you're back out on the street.
And you're tryin' to remember.
How will you start it over?
You don't know what became.
You don't care much for a stranger's touch,
But you can't hold your man.
You never thought you'd be alone this far
Down the line
And I know what's been on your mind
You're afraid it's all been wasted time
The autumn leaves have got you thinking
About the first time that you fell
You didn't love the boy too much, no, no
You just loved the boy to well, farewell
So you live from day to day, and you dream
About tomorrow, oh.
And the hours go by like minutes
And the shadows come to stay
So you take a little something to
Make them go away
And I could have done so many things, baby
If I could only stop my mind from wondrin' what
I left behind and from worrying 'bout this wasted time
Ooh, another love has come and gone
Ooh, and the years keep rushing on
I remember what you told me before you went out on your own:
'sometimes to keep it together, we got to leave it alone.'
So you can get on with your search, baby, and I can
Get on with mine
And maybe someday we will find , that it wasn't really
Wasted time
Mm,hm
Oh hoo, ooh, ohh,
Ooh,ooh, mm
Ah yes, I just saw a photo of +Jerry in Canterbury, talking with Bp. & Mrs. John Chane, here. The source is: Episcopal Life Online.
Somehow, what with +Robinson's exemplary grace contrasting the silliness of Nigeria, who, the Lead tells us, threatens sanctions on any of its bishops who attend, this Lambeth appears to be getting off to a rather auspicious start.
Makes sense. Bishop Schofield is still a sitting Anglican bishop (just like the recent news reports say) but as long as TEC is the official Anglican franchise in the US he is a foreign one uncanonically operating on TEC's turf. (But, aside from the property dispute, not illegally in American law - it's a free country.) So he's told to stay home until things are sorted out. That's fair.
OT. On the California legal front, the Supreme Court has denied the petition to remove this fall's ballot measure that would ban marriage for same-sex couples -- California Supreme Court keeps anti-gay marriage initiative on ballot. This ruling was pretty much expected and the the attempt to keep was initiative off the ballot wa a long-shot.
****
The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove an anti-gay marriage initiative from the November ballot.
Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters.
Gay rights lawyers also argued that petitions circulated to get the measure on the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect.
The court, meeting at its regular weekly conference, denied the petition without comment in a brief order.
Proposition 8 would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, struck down a ban on same-sex marriage on May 15, and same-sex couples began marrying last month.
I went to an information session on my campus today with Lambda Legal and asked the attorney if my partner (who will be my lawful spouse in October) will still be my lawful spouse in november, if this hateful thing passes.
The answer was, although the amendment is not written retroactively, at least one arch-conservative group has announced it will immediately file suit to nullify my marriage if this thing passes.
The attorney also commented that there is no precedent for such a law that deliberately removes protection for an entire class of people.
Please learn more at www.equalityforall.com and help us fight this battle.
Numerous hard right Christian group s are pouring money into CA to take my rights away. I hope some progressive Christian groups put an equivalent effort into denying the haters a "Christian" franchise.
IT
Reuters is reporting that Howard Ahmanson's (our nemesis who has been trying to undermine mainine churches) Fieldstead &Co. is pouring money into Prop 8 here.
IT, a recent poll showed most Californians favoring gay marriage, but if the nasty thing passes, The Massachusetts Senate has voted to let out-of-state gays marry. So, if the House and governor follow suit, it'll be a possibility. But, hopefully, we Californians won't need it.
I cannot begin to stress how important it is for our straight allies to lift their voices in this.
The recent polls are not slanted towards likely voters so they over=estimate our support.
IT,
I think, perhaps, it might be a good idea to have articles posted here reasonably often on the Calif. issue.
Worth it to keep our hearts and minds focused.
Okay. I will try to keep up on this (And Dr Primrose, keep commenting!)
A comment on what the California Supreme Court did and did not do here (because much of the press has gotten it wrong).
All the court did was rule that it was not going to deal with the legal issues NOW. It did not rule on the merits and the challenges that were raised in the petition to the court may be (and will be) later raised if the initiative passes.
What the court did was not surprising -- it virtually never pulls a ballot measure of the ballot before the election. It prefers to wait to see what happens at the election. If the measure fails, the legal complaints then become moot.
This was NOT some big victory for the anti-marriage-initiative proponents.
Both Anglicans United and Anglican Mainstream report, contrary to P.B. Venables's claim, that Bp. Schofield's invitation to Lambeth was specifically withdrawn last week, as also were two of the Southern Cone Recife bishops.
Should we expect a retraction from the S.C.'s offices?
Post a Comment