Conger

The Episcopal Church’s legal battles entered a new phase last week, as lawyers for the national church filed suit in California against the Bishop and Diocese of San Joaquin in a bid to take control of its assets, while the Methodist Church sought to enter the fray in Virginia on behalf of the diocese.

Lawyers for the national church filed suit in a Fresno County Superior Court on April 24, seeking to transfer the assets of the diocese under the control of Bishop John-David Schofield based in Fresno to the new diocese based in Stockton created by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori under former Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb.

“While it is regrettable that legal action is necessary, the diocese and The Episcopal Church have no other viable option but to seek the intervention of the court to recover the property and assets of the diocese,” said Bishop Lamb, the provisional Bishop of San Joaquin–Stockton

Last December, a supermajority of clergy and lay delegates at the San Joaquin-Fresno synod voted to quit the Episcopal Church and join the Province of the Southern Cone. Dioceses may not succeed from the Episcopal Church as “such actions are contrary to the Canons and Constitution of The Episcopal Church and the diocese,” the media Stockton diocese said.

Writing to the Fresno diocese, Bishop Schofield said, “please be assured that we have been expecting this litigation, and the contents contain no surprises,” adding that “in spite of the claims by The Episcopal Church, nothing in their current constitution and canons prohibits a diocese from leaving one province and moving to another.”

Bishop Schori’s handling of the San Joaquin affair has raised concerns. One group of bishops and church leaders commissioned a legal opinion on the validity of her actions from an international lawyer, who concluded she had committed 11 violations of canon law and should be brought to trial for abuse of office.

The Presiding Bishop issued a counter statement the same day, saying that her advisors had concluded that she had properly interpreted church canons. The Episcopal Church has no independent judiciary and has no way of reconciling opposing views save through political confrontations.

In Virginia the United Methodist Church on April 24 filed a brief in support of the national church and Diocese of Virginia against the breakaway congregations now grouped under the banner of CANA.

The Methodist Church argued that Virginia’s law granting congregations to withdraw from their parent churches in the case of schisms raised questions of the “appropriateness of the government’s intrusion into the freedom of any church body to organize and govern itself according to its own faith and doctrine.”

Virginia’s Attorney-General Robert McDowell in January filed a brief opposing the national Episcopal Church’s. A spokesman for the breakaway congregations, Jim Oakes, said the law, enacted in the wake of denominational splits following the American Civil War, was a tested and “reasonably neutral way for the state to adjudicate” the dispute.

The Bishop of New Hampshire has not been banned in Britain, a spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury tells The Church of England Newspaper, denying press speculation Bishop Gene Robinson had been muzzled by Dr. Rowan Williams from preaching in England.

On May 2, Lambeth Palace confirmed Bishop Robinson was not granted a license to officiate—to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacramental acts. However it was an exaggeration to say he had been banned from preaching as canon law does not permit the archbishop to ban preachers, his spokesman said.

On April 29 Bishop Robinson told the congregation at St Mary’s Putney that he had received an email from Dr. Williams that morning refusing his request to officiate and preach in the Province of Canterbury. The following day, the Episcopal News Service reported that Archbishop Williams would not permit Bishop Robinson “to preach or preside at a Eucharist while he is in England, according to reports.”

In Britain to promote his new book, “In the eye of the storm: Swept to the center by God,” Bishop Robinson told the BBC’s Hardtalk programme “in the past “[Dr. Williams] has … declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission.”

Under Canon C17.6 “by statute law it belongs to the archbishop to give permission to officiate within his province to any minister who has been ordained” by an “overseas” province. However, Canon B18.2 gives the authority of determining who may preach to the parish incumbent—with the permission of the diocesan bishop.

Bishop Robinson had sought permission to officiate in the past and Dr. Williams had declined to accede to that request, the spokesman said. Bishop Robinson had again broached the topic, seeking permission to officiate this summer and had also sought Dr. Williams’ endorsement to preach.

Dr. Williams again declined to license him, and had given “no endorsement for any of the invitations [Bishop Robinson] has received” to preach, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Press Secretary the Rev. Jonathan Jennings said.

Lambeth Palace press officer Marie Papworth told CEN copies of the correspondence would not be made public as it was the Archbishop’s policy not to disclose the contents of private communications.

The Archbishop of York’s press secretary, the Rev. Canon Arun Arora, stated he was unaware of any request from Bishop Robinson to officiate in the Province of York. Bishop Robinson did not respond to our request for clarification.

There is nothing new under the sun. The dispute in San Joaquin has its precursor in the Colenso affair in South Africa in the 1860’s.

The caption reads:

The Zulu Bride

Bishop Tait: “Stay! — I protest!–”

Bishop Gray: “Upon what grounds, my Lord?”

Bishop Tait: “Bigamy! she’s married already.”

Dr. Gray, Bishop of Cape Town, was proceeding to consecrate the Rev. Mr. Macrorie as Bishop of Natal, with the avowed purposed of expelling Dr. Colenso the existing Bishop of that see, from the ministration of his holy office, when the Bishop of London, (Dr. Tait) published a strong letter, interposing, and the scheme was frustrated.–February 1868 (Punch)

Organizers of Gafcon report that as of April 25, 267 bishops have registered for the June meeting in Jerusalem.

Denounced as a rival gathering to the July Lambeth conference, a detailed agenda has yet to be released. Like Lambeth much of the conference will be devoted to worship and spiritual reflection. However, Gafcon will play host to bishops, clergy and lay leaders, and will also seek to formulate a common approach to the divisions of doctrine and discipline within the Anglican Communion.

Approximately 150 bishops and conferees from Muslim majority countries unable to travel freely to Israel along with the Gafcon leadership team will meet at a resort on the Dead Sea in Jordan from June 18-22, while a further 600 are expected to join the self-styled “pilgrimage” in Jerusalem from June 22-29.

Organizers note that many of the bishops attending Gafcon will also be among the 625 bishops attending the Lambeth Conference. While the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda and their bishops have said that as it is currently organized, they will not attend Lambeth, the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone Gregory Venables announced last week that he will go to Lambeth.

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh announced on May 6 that he would attend Lambeth and Gafcon, joining Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker and the other conservative American bishops in attending both meetings.

“After consulting with the people of Pittsburgh and our friends around the globe, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for us to be present at both gatherings,” said Bishop Robert Duncan. The American conservative leader said that he would attend the first half of Lambeth, from July 16-25, and that his suffragan, Bishop Henry Scriven will attend from July 26-Aug 3.

At Gafcon, “we will be among friends, focused squarely on the Gospel, and dealing openly with how we build the missionary relationships, covenantal boundaries and responsible structures for the future of Anglicanism,” he said.

At Lambeth, “those who accuse us of abandoning the Anglican Communion will certainly be present and vocal,” he noted. “It is important for us to be able to respond directly to their claims about the situation in the Episcopal Church and our place in the Communion,” he said.

First published in The Living Church.

Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire has not been banned from pulpits in the Church of England according to a spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who denied press speculation that the Archbishop Rowan Williams was attempting to silence Bishop Robinson.

A press officer confirmed on May 2 that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had not issued Bishop Robinson a license to officiate in the Province of Canterbury. However, Church of England canon law does not grant the archbishop the authority to ban preachers, the spokesman noted.

While traveling in Britain to promote his book, Bishop Robinson told the BBC “in the past [Archbishop Williams] has… declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission.” Episcopal News Service reported April 30 that Archbishop Williams would not permit Bishop Robinson “to preach or preside at a Eucharist while he is in England, according to reports.”

Under the Church of England’s Canon C17.6 “by statute law it belongs to the archbishop to give permission to officiate within his province to any minister who has been ordained” by an “overseas” province of the Anglican Communion. All visiting clergy who seek to perform the sacraments within the Province of Canterbury must secure the permission of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The same rules apply for the Province of York in the northern part of England. But another canon gives the authority to preach to a parish incumbent, with the permission of the diocesan bishop.

Bishop Robinson has sought permission to officiate in the past and Archbishop Williams has declined to accede to the request, the spokesman said. Bishop Robinson broached the topic again in a letter to Archbishop Williams, seeking permission to officiate in the province this summer and seeking his endorsement to preach. Archbishop Williams again declined to license Bishop Robinson to officiate, and had given “no endorsement for any of the invitations [Bishop Robinson] has received” to preach, said the Rev. Jonathan Jennings, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s press secretary.

The Rev. Arun Arora, director of communications for the Archbishop of York, said he was unaware of any request from Bishop Robinson to officiate in the Province of York.

Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.

A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report’s recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop’s ordination vows. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants “of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident.” Victims of sexual misconduct and the Presiding Bishop also may bring charges before the Title IV [disciplinary] Review Committee. Title IV, Canon 3, Section 27 specifies that the Presiding Bishop appoints the five bishops to the Review Committee and the president of the House of Deputies appoints the two members of the clergy and two lay members. A spokeswoman said the Presiding Bishop was unable to respond to the charges as she had not yet seen the memorandum.

The Rev. Ephraim Radner, a member of the Anglican Covenant Design Group, said he found the matters addressed by the brief troubling. The lack of a common understanding of the church’s constitution and canons was “tearing apart our very episcopate and the credibility of our church’s ability to make formal decisions,” he said

The 7,000-word memorandum states it does not address issues of doctrine under Title 4, Canon 1, Section 1c, but limits its review to the “recent actions she has taken against bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.”

The paper argues the Presiding Bishop “failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by [Title IV, Canon 9].” This failure was not a “technical issue that could be waived,” but was an “important procedural protection that is integral” to the use of the canon. Nor did she comply with the requirement that the bishop be given timely notice of the legal proceedings, as the Presiding Bishop withheld notice for seven months.

By not inhibiting Bishop Cox during the two-month period she gave him for denying the charges, the Presiding Bishop was also creating “new procedures” for deposing bishops. The 60-day notice to deny the charges applies only to an “inhibited bishop,” according to the memorandum. Bishop Jefferts Schori had made the same error in her treatment of Bishop Duncan, the document noted.

Bringing Bishop Cox before the House of Bishops without securing his inhibition first also violated Title IV, Canon 9, Section 2, the memorandum said, as “a bishop who has not been inhibited is not ‘liable to deposition’ under this canon.”

To suggest that the provision of Section 2 of the Canon: “Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular, or special meeting of the House,” was “nonsensical,” the paper argued for “if the ‘Otherwise’ sentence deals with uninhibited bishops such as Bishop Cox (and Duncan), there is no provision under which the Presiding Bishop is authorized to depose an inhibited bishop such as Bishop Schofield. No rule of legal interpretation permits such a nonsensical result.”

The Presiding Bishop’s deposition of Bishops Cox and Schofield was done without the “necessary consent” of the House of Bishops. “The conclusion that the requisite consent was not given is irrefutable” as the “plain meaning” of the words of the canon, as well as voting procedures detailed in other parts of the Constitution and Canons do not permit the interpretation interposed by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, the paper said

Concerning the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Presiding Bishop’s announcement that she did not recognize the “duly elected” diocesan standing committee violated Articles IV and II.3 of the church’s constitution and repudiated her duties under [Title I, Canon 2, Section 4(a)(3)] which permits her only to “consult” with the diocesan ecclesiastical authority in the event of an episcopal vacancy.

The appointment of “representatives and vicars” to act in San Joaquin violated Article II.3 of the church’s constitution, the document stated, while the convening of a special convention in San Joaquin and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop violated Article II.3 and Title III, Canon 13.

“The violations with respect to Bishops Cox and Duncan, although willful and repeated, pertained primarily to individual bishops. The violations with respect to [San Joaquin] however, subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go to the heart of TEC’s polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses’ governed under Article II.3 by bishops who are not under a metropolitan or archbishop,” the legal memorandum concluded.

The procedural difficulties in bringing this matter to adjudication were formidable, the paper argued, as the “ability of the complainants to hold accountable the Presiding Bishop or another bishop thus ends at the [Title IV] Review Committee.”

The authors of the legal memorandum were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would be conducive for a conviction. The Title IV committee could issue a presentment, it could decline to issue a presentment and “produce a rationale that is persuasive to most objective observers,” or it could “decline to issue a presentment on grounds that are not persuasive and serve only to discredit the Review Committee and the process as well as the respondent,” it said.

This third outcome is “highly likely,” the paper concluded, but it noted the effort should nonetheless be made to hold the institution “accountable.”

An American state court has handed the Episcopal Church a major defeat in its battle for control of the property of breakaway congregations in Virginia, rejecting its argument that there was no “division” in the Episcopal Church.

In an 88 page opinion released on April 3, Fairfax County Judge Randy Bellows held that a Nineteenth century law governing the disposition of church property in the event of a church schism applied to the dispute between the Diocese of Virginia and CANA—the American jurisdiction of the Church of Nigeria.

The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia last year brought suit against 11 congregations of the Anglican District of Virginia seeking control of the breakaway parish properties, including the diocese’s two largest congregations—Truro Parish and the Falls Church in suburban Washington.

Judge Bellows rejected the Episcopal Church’s contention that the CANA secessions were a local matter. He held “it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the diocese, [the Episcopal Church], and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude.”

“The rapidity with which [The Episcopal Church's] problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world,” he said.

The Episcopal Church and the Diocese have challenged the legality of the law, saying it violates Federal constitutional guarantees separating Church and State. A hearing before Judge Bellows is scheduled for May 28 on this issue. Virginia’s Attorney General has announced he will defend the legality of the statute against the Episcopal Church’s claims. The third phase of the litigation—disposition of the property—will be addressed later this year.

While the trial court’s ruling on the applicability of the relevant law does not rule out the Episcopal Church eventually prevailing in the fight, the April 3 ruling comes as a blow to the Church’s plans to use civil courts to enforce the interpretation of Church canons by the Presiding Bishop.

The Virginia law “plainly deprives the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, as well as all hierarchical churches, of their historic constitutional rights to structure their polity free from governmental interference and thus violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced,” US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on April 4.

The Diocese of Virginia objected to the ruling as well arguing that the “people in the CANA congregations were free to leave, but they cannot take Episcopal property with them.”

A spokesman for the parishes lauded the judge’s decision that upheld its contention that “”our churches’ own trustees hold title for the benefit of the congregations.”

CANA Bishop Martyn Minns said he was confident they would prevail. “There will be another hearing on the constitutional issues that have been raised and I am sure that there will be a variety of appeals but we are confident of the rightness of the path that we have chosen and grateful to God for his favor,” he said.

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has overseen the creation of a new Diocese of San Joaquin—one of three ecclesial entities bearing that name and active in Central California.

At a special convention called by the Presiding Bishop held on March 28-29, a rump group of the diocese unanimously elected the former Bishop of Northern California, the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb to serve as interim bishop of the diocese, and repudiated the December vote to affiliate with the Province of the Southern Cone.

Delegates from 18 congregations met from March 28-29 at St. John the Baptist Church in Lodi, California. However, no delegates from a majority of diocese’s congregations were present at the meeting, nor were more than a quarter of the eligible clergy present.

Delegates to the convention were required to take an oath of conformity before being seated. Of the 18 congregations present, five were parishes of the Diocese of San Joaquin, three were aided missions, and the rest groups representing minorities in parishes that had voted to quit the Episcopal Church.

Clergy and lay delegates from one parish, St. John’s in Tulare objected to the legality of the convention, while its rector protested the Presiding Bishop’s usurpation of the authority of the standing committee in calling a convention, noting she had no right under canon law to proceed.

Critics of the meeting noted the special convention’s actions were of dubious legality, as a quorum of clergy and congregations were not present, and the requirement that 30 days notice of the convening of synod was ignored by the Presiding Bishop. However, delegates passed a resolution absolving itself of any canonical irregularities in the calling and convening of the meeting.

In a question and answer session, Bishop Lamb said the new Diocese of San Joaquin would move forward with the ordination of women, noting that it had received three women priests at the March 29 meeting—San Joaquin had been one of three US dioceses that would not license women priests. However, it would not move as quickly in other disputed areas. “I think the diocese needs to spend time in conversation before it decides where gay and lesbian people will be in this diocese in the future,” Bishop Lamb said.

The formation of an ecclesial body swearing its fealty to the Presiding Bishop in San Joaquin creates a third Diocese of San Joaquin, critics note. In addition to the new diocese, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin under the Province of the Southern Cone is extant, as is the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin under the ecclesiastical authority of its Standing Committee.

The failure of the House of Bishops to properly depose Bishop Schofield further complicates affairs. Bishop Schori declined to discuss her legal strategy, but noted the new diocese would act quickly to attempt to gain control of the property of all of the Dioceses of San Joaquin.

The Rt. Rev. Robert W Duncan

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, SSC

The Rt. Rev. William Wantland

The Bishop of Pittsburgh has denied accusations that he has “abandoned the Communion” of the Episcopal Church.

In a March 14 letter to US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop Robert Duncan pledged his fealty to the doctrine, discipline and liturgy of the Episcopal Church.

“I have kept my ordination vows - all of them - to the best of my ability, including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to ‘banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word’,” he stated.

He had been “present to all but two meetings of the House of Bishops (out of 24) during the last 12 years. In those meetings I have clearly and openly opposed the theological and moral drift of The Episcopal Church, often in the face of great hostility and sadly, at times, derision,” Bishop Duncan wrote.

On Jan 15, Bishop Schori said she would bring move to depose Bishop Duncan at the September House of Bishops Meeting unless he provided a statement and evidence proving his innocence of the charges.

Bishop Schori told a press conference on March 12 that she would distribute copies of the investigation into Bishop Duncan’s alleged “abandonment of Communion” with an eye towards convening a special meeting to depose him from office before the next House of Bishops meeting in September.

Writing to Bishop Schori’s attorney, David Booth Beers, Bishop Duncan’s attorney said his client’s statement had resolved the issue “and we expect that there will be no further action with respect to the certification enclosed with the letter from the Presiding Bishop.”

Should Bishop Schori proceed against Bishop Duncan, his attorney said they would demand a full hearing before any vote was taken. The canons require the Bishops to “investigate the matter,” attorney John Lewis wrote. “That provision, together with fundamental due process, requires that Bishop Duncan (or his representative) be given a hearing by the House of Bishops, including the right to present evidence and witnesses.”

Under the terms of the abandonment canon, a majority of all bishops eligible to vote must consent to a deposition. As of March 25, 147 votes would be required to remove Bishop Duncan from office.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is gauging her strength among the members of the US House of Bishops to see if she has sufficient political capital to depose traditionalist Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh before the July Lambeth Conference.

Bishop Schori’s admission came in the same week as word of new litigation against a retired conservative bishop was announced. The former Bishop of Quincy, 80-year old Edward MacBurney (pictured) is charged with violating the church’s canons by visiting a non-Episcopal church in the diocese of San Diego without the permission of the local Episcopal bishop.

Speaking at a March 12 press conference following the House of Bishops’ trial of Bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox for “abandonment of communion” of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Schori said she would now move against Bishop Duncan and distribute copies of the investigation into Bishop Duncan’s statments to the bishops. This would allow her to gauge the mood of the house for a trial as early as May for the conservative leader.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on March 15 that Bishop Schori’s lawyer, David Booth Beers sent an email to a number of Pittsburgh church leaders last week explaining the decision. Bishop Schori would “poll the House of Bishops in April to see when the House would next like to meet to discuss, among other things, the certification respecting Bishop Duncan. It is not accurate to say that she is seeking approval to proceed; rather, she seeks the mind of the House as to when to proceed,” he said.

Whether Bishop Schori will be able to rid herself of Bishop Duncan is unclear. The House of Bishop’s failure to conform to its own rules in the trials of Bishop Schofield and Cox, and the reports of wide spread and consistent violations of the Bishop Cox’s right of fair play and due process under the canons by Bishop Schori, strengthens Bishop Duncan’s hand. Under the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, 148 votes are needed to depose a bishop for abandonment of communion.

Only 68 active bishops were present at the trial of Bishops Schofield and Cox, as were a further 25 or so retired bishops. To successfully depose Bishop Duncan, Bishop Schori must find a further 50 bishops to get Bishop Duncan..

Bishop MacBurney, however, has not been charged with abandonment of communion at this stage of the ecclesiastical proceedings, but merely with canonical violations. In a statement released by the Diocese of Quincy, his lawyers noted the novelty of the charges against their client as to “whether an Episcopal bishop exercises total control over a certain geographical territory or whether a Bishop merely exercises control over the Episcopal churches within that territory.”

The current Bishop of Quincy, the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman has given his full backing to Bishop MacBurney, saying his actions had been done in “good faith” and were motivated by the claims of conscience. Forward in Faith called the charges “pastorally and politically inept.”

The attack on Bishop MacBurney “will alienate others across the Communion who have not yet grasped the extent of the graceless and totalitarian mindset which now dominates the Episcopal Church,” it said on March 14.

The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has deposed the Bishop of San Joaquin and the retired suffragan Bishop of Maryland for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church following a closed trial in Texas on March 12.  However, a joint investigation by The Church of England Newspaper and The Living Church magazine has revealed procedural and legal inconsistencies that may render the vote a nullity.

The ecclesiastical trial of Bishop John-David Schofield was a necessary part of the Episcopal Church’s legal strategy to secure the property of the Diocese of San Joaquin, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on March 12.  However, the flawed trial has created a legal anomaly leaving Bishop Schofield in place as Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin, when neither he, nor Bishop Schori, want him to hold that post.

“The current public dispute over the canonical legality of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ recent vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox amounts at best to a severe embarrassment to the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House itself;  at worst, it exposes a travesty of Christian justice and prudence,” the Anglican Communion Institute noted.

“The result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of [the Episcopal Church's] standing in the public’s eye and in the Communion’s councils,” it said.

Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.  For this action Bishop Schofield was found by a review committee to have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church, and was suspended from office pending a trial.

Title IV, Canon 9 section 2 of the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons requires that the House of Bishops “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” must give its consent to depose a bishop under the abandonment of communion canon.

Eligible voters are defined as both active and retired bishops.  Of the 294 bishops eligible to vote, less than a third were present for the trial.  To lawfully depose Bishop Schofield, 148 votes would have to have been cast in favor of deposition.

As of breakfast on the last day of the House of Bishop’s March 7-12 meeting, 115 active and retired bishops were present.  However, by the start of the trial only 68 active bishops answered the roll call, as did an undisclosed number of retired bishops.

The two hour trial in absentia began with a reading of the charges, followed by prayers from the chaplain.  The bishops then broke apart into small groups and then gathered in a plenary session for debate.

A voice vote was held, first for Bishop Schofield and then for Bishop Cox, and both were declared to have been deposed.  Questioned about the canonical inconsistencies at a post-meeting press conference, North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry defended the proceedings but admitted that there had been no discussion of its legality.  “We have acted in recommendation to our canonical advisers,” he said.   ”We acted in accordance with the canons.”

During the press conference, Bishop Schori said she had refused to accept Bishop Schofield’s resignation from the House of Bishops because the canons required a sitting diocesan bishop of the Church to receive permission to resign from the House of Bishops.  His letter of resignation was flawed, she said.  “He resigned his membership in the House of Bishops, not his status as a bishop with jurisdiction.”

The Episcopal Church had to bring him to trial and to refuse his resignation, as it needed to “clarify the status of the Corporate Sole.  It is inappropriate for him to retain control of it.”

Trusteeship of the property of the Diocese of San Joaquin is vested in the Bishop, under California law, by means of a Corporate Sole-whereby the bishop by virtue of his office is trustee of the property.

Bishop Schori told the press conference that Bishop Schofield following the trial was “outside my sphere of influence.  No longer a member of the House of Bishops.  Not a member of the clergy.  Not my concern.”

However, the revelation that the trial failed to conform to canon law, and by failing to garner enough votes to depose Bishop Schofield, had resulted in his legal acquittal, sparked a firestorm of controversy.

The Presiding Bishop’s lawyer, David Booth Beers released a statement on March 15, stating that his “position” was that the requirement that all bishops eligible to vote could be interpreted to mean all eligible to vote who happened to be present at the meeting.

What steps will now be taken to remedy the situation are unclear as both sides are confused as to how to act.  Bishop Schori has already nominated a new bishop to serve as her designee in San Joaquin—retired Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb.  However, leading clergy of the diocese who wish to remain within the Episcopal Church have declined to meet with him, citing the failed trial as evidence that Bishop Schofield remains the Episcopal bishop.

On Palm Sunday, Bishop Schofield preached in his cathedral in Fresno—with Bishop Lamb seated in the front row of the congregation.  Greeted with applause, Bishop Schofield defended his decision to affiliate with the Southern Cone as an act of moral necessity.

Bishop Schori had called a special convention of the diocese for March 29 to ratify Bishop Lamb’s appointment as Episcopal bishop.  However, under civil and canon law the failed trial leaves Bishop Schofield as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the US Church, and Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Province of the Southern Cone.

First published in The Living Church.

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose  bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.

Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. Bishop Cox was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Maryland in 1972. He resigned in 1980, later serving as Assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980 to 1988. In 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda after purchasing its property from the Diocese of Kansas.

Both bishops were charged with abandonment of communion. The procedure for deposing a bishop under this charge is specified in Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2. The canon stipulates that the vote requires “a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote,” not merely a majority of those present. At least a dozen bishops voted either not to depose Bishop Schofield or to abstain, according to several bishops. The number voting in favor of deposing Bishop Cox was reportedly slightly larger than the number in favor of deposing Bishop Schofield.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.

Consent Never Sought

Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.

In 2007, Bishop Cox sent a written letter to Bishop Jefferts Schori, announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops.  Since he was already retired, he did not have jurisdiction, and therefore unlike Bishop Schofield, his resignation did not require consent from a majority of the House of Bishops. A trial of the 88-year-old retired bishop was not mandatory.

Bishop Cox also does not appear to have been granted due process with respect to a speedy trial. Once the disciplinary review committee formally certifies that a bishop has abandoned communion, the canons state “it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the house.” The review committee provided certification to Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. His case should have been heard during the fall meeting in New Orleans last September. When asked about the apparent inconsistency, Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox’s case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting “due to the press of business.”

Title IV, canon 9, section 1 requires the Presiding Bishop to inform the accused bishop “forthwith,” in other words immediately, after the review committee has provided a certificate of abandonment, but Bishop Jefferts Schori did not write to Bishop Cox until Jan. 8, 2008, more than seven months afterward.

The two-hour business session at which the deposition votes were taken ran slightly longer than originally scheduled. First a resolution was read followed by prayer from the chaplain. A period of silence followed the prayer. After the silence was broken, the bishops discussed the resolution in small table groups followed by plenary discussion. When it appeared that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, the voice vote was taken. Each resolution was read and voted on separately.

A trial date has been set for the Bishop of Pennsylvania to adjudicate charges under canon law that he conspired to cover up the sexual abuse of a parishioner.  The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison, Jr., will also come before a civil court in May to answer charges that his use of the “abandonment canon” to depose a priest without benefit of trial was an egregious violation of law and equity.

Bishop Bennison will stand trial before a bishops’ court on June 9, and before the Montgomery Country Court of Common Pleas outside Philadelphia in its May session

On Oct 31 US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori suspended him after a review panel found there was prima facie evidence to proceed against him for his actions as a parish rector in the 1970’s.

Bishop Bennison is accused of covering up the sexual abuse of a 14 year old girl by his brother.  The family of the victim brought charges against the bishop in 2006, accusing him of having knowledge of the offense, but taking no action.  He is also accused of withholding information of the abuse from the Diocese of Los Angeles when his brother applied for ordination.

In May Bishop Bennison will answer charges before a civil court brought by the former president of Forward in Faith, USA, the Rt. Rev. David Moyer.

In a legal first, the Pennsylvania court will allow Bishop Moyer to test the legality of the use of the “abandonment canon” used to rid him of the Anglo-Catholic leader.

Lawyers for Bishop Bennison had argued the court should dismiss the lawsuit saying the First Amendment of the US Constitution forbad state interference in internal church disputes.

Bishop Moyer’s lawyers countered that equity and justice required a trial as the Pennsylvania bishop had misused the canons, lied to the diocese’s standing committee, and fraudulently withheld crucial documents that led to Bishop Moyer’s deposition.

On Feb. 15, 2005, Bishop Moyer was consecrated a bishop of the Anglican Church of America, a continuing church body that is part of the global Traditional Anglican Communion.  He has also been licensed as Assistant Bishop of the diocese of The Murray in the Anglican Church of Australia.

The House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Papua New Guinea has joined in a statement of support for the Bishop of San Joaquin, giving Bishop John-David Schofield their backing in his battle with the Episcopal Church.

The pledge of support comes amidst a hardening of positions over the breakaway diocese. The Episcopal Church has set aside £250,000 to confront Bishop Schofield in 2008, and will seek to bring him to trial at the March meeting of the House of Bishops, with an eye to deposing him from the ordained ministry.

On Jan 29 the Primate of New Guinea and his bishops endorsed a statement put forward on Jan 3 by Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker and the leaders of Forward in Faith UK and the evangelical Archbishop of Sydney, Dr. Philip Jensen that saluted Bishop Schofield on “the courageous decision of the Diocesan Convention of San Joaquin to take leave of The Episcopal Church and to align with the Province of the Southern Cone.”

The 41 bishops stated that they wanted Bishop Schofield “and the world to know that in this decision for the faith once delivered to the saints, we stand with you and beside you.”

Bishop Schofield will be brought to trial by US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on charges that his support for his diocesan synod’s vote to quit the Episcopal Church was evidence that he had “abandoned the Communion” of the Episcopal Church.

The San Joaquin Bishop is not expected to attend the trial, which will be held in camera at the Bishops’ March meeting.

Last week the Presiding Bishop appointed two priests from outside the diocese to serve as her “interim pastoral presence” in San Joaquin. The Rev. Canon Brian Cox and the Rev. Canon Robert Moore toured portions of the diocese from Feb 19-22 meeting with a select group of Episcopalians who had pledged their loyalty to the National Church.

The excursion did not take in all sides in the three way split in San Joaquin, as those who have quit the Episcopal Church for South America as well as those remain part of the Episcopal Church, but oppose the national church’s progressive agenda have not been included in the “listening tour.”

In a statement released on Feb 15, Bishop Schofield urged the two priests not to come, saying they were “entering into the internal affairs of a diocese of another province.”

He said the “Episcopal Church has begun attacking both me and this diocese” and told the Presiding Bishop’s surrogates their actions were “hardly those of men with honorable intentions.”

The breakaway bishop and his diocese are likely to come under further legal pressure in coming months. Last year the national church spent £650,000 in its property fights, and it noted that in the case of San Joaquin, “we will hold clergy leaders accountable to their vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church, and lay leadership accountable to the fiduciary responsibilities of the offices they hold. Up to $500,000 of income from trust funds will be made available in the calendar year 2008 to support the mission work of the Diocese of San Joaquin and similarly situated dioceses,” it said on Feb 14.

The retired Bishop of the Rio Grande has quit the Episcopal Church in the United States for the Church of Uganda.  The Rt. Rev. Terry Kelshaw will be the ninth US bishop to quit the American church in the past 12 months in protest to the Church’s leftward drift on doctrine and discipline.

On Feb 14 the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Rio Grande in New Mexico announced Bishop Kelshaw had written to US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops.  Bishop Kelshaw’s successor, Bishop Jeffrey Steenson quit the Episcopal Church for the Roman Catholic Church in September.  Three other American bishops have gone over to Rome, two to the Southern Cone, one to Uganda and one to Nigeria.

Born in Manchester, Bishop Kelshaw trained at Oakhill College and was ordained a deacon then priest in the Diocese of Bristol in 1967/1968.  He served the Church of England for 14 years in university and parish ministry and moved to the United States to join the staff of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in 1980.  He was elected Bishop of the Rio Grande in 1988 retiring in 2005.

“I wanted to leave the Episcopal Church five or more years ago but believed then that having a Diocese to care for it would be harmful to them,” Bishop Kelshaw told The Church of England Newspaper.

“Frankly I have not taken Holy Communion in the House of Bishops in about thirteen of the fifteen years I was in there because I did not consider myself in fellowship due to the pronouncements they were making concerning themselves and the church,” he said.

Bishop Kelshaw stated that he will become “Bishop in Resident” at St. James, Newport Beach, California.  St. James quit the diocese of Los Angeles in 2004 to join the Church of Uganda and is currently involved in litigation with the diocese.  Being an “Episcopal” bishop while serving the Church of Uganda congregation in California “would create difficulties” in the litigation he noted.

“My ministry will be here in the US,” he said, and “hopefully [be] away from the present punitive, tyrannical, oversight” of the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church was in a “mess”, Bishop Kelshaw observed.  “For such a small Province in Anglicanism it has attracted far too much attention. In fact, I am not at all convinced it has ever been Anglican?” he remarked.

The Rt. Rev. Hugo Pina Lopez

The Rev. Charles Holt, Rector of St Peter’s Episcopal Church, Lake Mary and deputy to General Convention.

The Hon. Council “Butch” Wooton, Jr., Chancellor of the Diocese of Central Florida

The Rev. Canon Ernest Bennett, Canon to the Ordinary and chairman of the diocesan deputation to General Convention

The Rev. Canon Nelson Pinder, DD.  National President of the Union of Black Episcopalians, emeritus priest of the diocese, and deputy to General Convention

The Very Rev. Eric Turner, Rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church, Melbourne and Dean of the Southeast Deanery.

The Very Rev. Scott Holcomb, Rector of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Deland and Dean of the Southwest Deanery.

The Very Rev. W. Donald Lyon, Rector of St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, Deland and Dean of the Northeast Deanery.

The Very Rev. Timothy Nunez, Rector of the Church of St Mary, Belleview and Dean of the Northwest Deanery.

The Very Rev. Anthony Clark, Dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando. Deputy to General Convention and Secretary of the Standing Committee.

The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe

The dispute over the secession of the Diocese of San Joaquin has led to the formation of three de facto ecclesiastical authorities for the California diocese: one loyal to Bishop John-David Schofield, one loyal to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and a third to the diocese’s Standing Committee.

On Dec 8 the San Joaquin Synod voted to transfer the primatial oversight of the diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone, and Bishop Schofield was received as a bishop of that province by the Primate, Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables.

At the meeting of the Diocesan Standing Committee, who in the absence of the bishop constitute the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese, Bishop Schofield on Jan 19 asked the clergy and lay members of the committee to formally join the South American church.

As a member of the South American Church, Bishop Schofield said in a statement released on Jan 21, “the Standing Committee, which is my council of advice, must be composed of clergy members who are Anglican priests of the Southern Cone.”

Six of the eight members of the committee, including the rectors of the diocese’s leading congregations declined to move to the South American Church, prompting Bishop Schofield to remove them as members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.

However, the six, who were elected to their posts before the Synod vote, remained members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

On Jan 25 Bishop Schori entered the fray, writing that she to did not recognize them as the official Standing Committee.

“In light of your recent actions, I find that you have been and are unable to well and faithfully fulfill your duties as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin,” under the church’s canons. “Accordingly, with this letter I inform you that I do not recognize you as the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin,” she wrote.

The letter was followed by a Jan 26 meeting sponsored by the national church for members in the diocese who sought to remain affiliated with the Episcopal Church. Drawing mainly from the handful of congregations that opposed the synod vote and bolstered by supporters from outside San Joaquin, Bishop Schori promised the gathering of approximately 250 they had her support as the true Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

On Feb 1 the Standing Committee responded to Bishop Schori stating that “while you may hold any personal opinion you wish as an individual, the office of Presiding Bishop does not have the legal, canonical or moral authority to proclaim for the Episcopal Church non-recognition of duly elected members of a diocesan Standing Committee.”

The Standing Committee further noted that the Presiding Bishop had offered no facts to support her “conjecture” of misconduct, and accused her of abusing the canons for partisan political purposes.

“Any attempt on your part, or on the part of any other person, to circumvent or replace the Standing Committee as the Ecclesiastical Authority will be a violation of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church,” they said.

Under canon law, if Bishop Schofield is removed from office as the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin by the House of Bishops, the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese passes to the Standing Committee until the election of a new bishop. The national church has no power to alter the Standing Committee nor to pronounce on its fitness, under the canons.

The three senior bishops of the Episcopal Church have released statements explaining their views on charges of “abandonment of Communion” lodged against the Bishops of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin.

The bishops of Texas and Virginia, Don Wimberly and Peter Lee, last week stated that they had consented to the inhibition, or suspension, of Bishop John-David Schofield, but had refused to countenance the suspension of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan. However, the senior bishop of the church, the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade of Southeast Florida stated he had concurred with the request to inhibit both men.

Under the canons of the Episcopal Church, if the church’s Title IV review committee issues a recommendation that a bishop be brought to trial before the House of Bishops on the charge of abandonment, the presiding bishop must ask the three senior diocesan bishops for permission to inhibit the accused pending trial. The three must be in full agreement for the suspension to take place.

Bishop Wimberly of Texas, a member of the “Windsor Coalition” of bishops stated he had consented the inhibition of Bishop Schofield “because the Diocese of San Joaquin had recently voted to leave the Episcopal Church”

“We did not consent to the request for Bishop Duncan because the Diocese of Pittsburgh has not held their annual convention yet and therefore has not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church, as the Diocese of San Joaquin had,” Bishop Wimberly explained.

Bishop Lee concurred with this sentiment saying it was “clear” Bishop Schofield had abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church. However, Bishop Duncan’s Diocese of Pittsburgh had “not formalized any change to their membership within the Episcopal Church.”

A new wave of parish defections has washed across the Episcopal Church with congregations in Tennessee, Pittsburgh and Central Florida quitting the national church in protest to its leftward drift.

The response to American church secessions however, has differed from past battles with a premium being placed on an amicable parting of the ways.

The new wave of defections has also come from “Windsor Dioceses”—dioceses whose leaders have been opposed to the innovation in doctrine and discipline made in recent years by the national church’s leadership.

While united in their opposition to the actions of the last two General Conventions, conservatives have been divided on what tactical programme to purse. With the breakaway groups now soliciting defections from conservative dioceses, traditionalist leaders within the Episcopal Church are concerned that turf battles over the remaining conservatives may weaken the remaining Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic witness within the Episcopal Church.

In the Diocese of Tennessee the bulk of Trinity Church in Winchester on Jan 6 quit the diocese for CANA, while the rector and members of Holy Cross in Murfreesboro announced that day they had joined the Church of Uganda.

Bishop John Bauerschmidt lamented the secessions, saying they were unnecessary as “Tennessee has on several occasions committed itself to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.” He noted that he was “committed to the Camp Allen principles of compliance with the recommendations of the Windsor Report” articulated by Archbishop Rowan Williams in his Advent letter.

The Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe told his diocesan convention on Jan 25 that eight congregations, including the diocese’s second and fourth largest parishes, were withdrawing from the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Howe told The Church of England Newspaper the last three months had been the most difficult of his life, and the negotiations had left him exhausted. However “we have done something that has not been accomplished anywhere else. We are on the best of terms with all those leaving. And we are committed to rebuilding where there have been losses.”

In his Convention address Bishop Howe stated he understood there were some who for reasons of conscience had to withdraw. “I understand that. I don’t agree, but I don’t believe we should punish them. We shouldn’t sue them. We shouldn’t depose the clergy. Our brokenness is a tragedy. The litigation that is going on in so many places is a travesty,” he said.

“And although some seem to be trying to do so, I don’t think you can hold a Church together by taking everybody you disagree with to court,” he said.

The Diocese of Central Florida is “poised for a new round of significant growth,” after three months of tense negotiations with clergy and lay leadership from nine congregations seeking to leave The Episcopal Church, according to Bishop John W. Howe.

At the conclusion of the diocesan convention Jan. 25-26 at St. James’ Church, Ormond Beach, Bishop Howe told a reporter for The Living Church that though exhausted, he was pleased with the negotiations.

“We are on the best of terms with all those leaving,” he said. “And we are committed to rebuilding where there have been losses.”

In his address to convention, Bishop Howe said the last three months had been the worst period of his life. However, amicable solutions had been reached with the members of the eight congregations who sought to withdraw from the diocese.

“There are those who simply have to leave The Episcopal Church for conscience sake,” he said. “I understand that. I don’t agree, but I don’t believe we should punish them. We shouldn’t sue them. We shouldn’t depose the clergy. Our brokenness is a tragedy. The litigation that is going on in so many places is a travesty. And although some seem to be trying to do so, I don’t think you can hold a church together by taking everybody you disagree with to court.”

During the business portion of the meeting, delegates passed the first reading of an amendment to Article III of the diocese’s constitution, designed to strengthen the diocese’s ties to the wider Anglican Communion.

The resolution “does not change the constitution,” the Very Rev. Eric Turner told the convention, but “clarifies what once did not need clarifying.”

Proposed by the diocesan board, the resolution appended a sentence to the constitutional article defining the diocese’s “purpose,” stating the diocese was a “constituent member” of the Anglican Communion.

The amendment defines the Anglican Communion as a “fellowship of those duly constitution Dioceses, Provinces and regional Churches in Communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”

The Rev. Thomas C. Seitz, Jr., rector of Good Shepherd, Lake Wales, endorsed the resolution, saying it “more accurately reflects who we are and have been.”

The Very Rev. Donald Lyon objected to the amendment. He said he was a “constitutional minimalist.” As there “was not an explicit need to state this,” he counseled against adopting “unnecessary” language.

After a half hour’s debate, a roll call vote by orders was called, and the resolution passed among the clergy 89-66 and in the laity 139-91.

The Bishop of Los Angeles has issued an apology to Hindus for Christian attempts to convert them, and authorized a joint Hindu-Anglican service at St John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles—permitting Hindu devotees to receive the consecrated elements.

The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno apologized for past incidents of Christian discrimination against Hindus, and vowed not to proselytize non-Christians, in a statement read on his behalf by suffragan Bishop Chester Talton.

“I believe that the world cannot afford for us to repeat the errors of our past, in which we sought to dominate rather than to serve,” the bishop’s statement said as reported by the Los Angeles Times. “In this spirit, and in order to take another step in building trust between our two great religious traditions, I offer a sincere apology to the Hindu religious community.”

Accompanied by music performed provided by a Hare Krishna and the St John’s cathedral choirs a Eucharist was celebrated and the Hindus invited to receive the consecrated elements, though some Hindus who abstain from alcohol received only the host, the Los Angeles Times said.

Added to the Communion service was a veneration of an icon. While a Hindu band sang a hymn the Anglican celebrant anointed the icon with sandalwood paste, draped a garland of flowers over the icon and lit a lamp, “as a sign of Christ, the light in the darkness.”

The Diocese of Los Angeles’ ecumenical and interfaith officer called the service unprecedented for the Episcopal Church. American canon law forbids the distribution of the consecrated elements to the un-baptized, but no sanctions have been levied on those bishops and clergy who regularly violate these rules.

The diocese reported the Eucharist was celebrated according to the liturgy of the Church of South India and the “tradition of Bede Griffiths” and incorporated an “Arati, the Service of Light, and Kirtan, congregational chanting of the Holy Names.”

The state has intervened in the Diocese of Virginia property lawsuits, backing the legal arguments of the Nigerian-led breakaway group, CANA.

In a brief filed in the Fairfax County Circuit Court on Jan 10, Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell defended the constitutionality of a state law governing church property disputes, dealing a sharp blow to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s campaign to halt the defection of traditionalist congregations through litigation.

“As a matter of federal constitutional law, the Episcopal Church is simply wrong. The Constitution does not require that local church property disputes be resolved by deferring to national and regional church leaders,” the government brief said.

While not addressing the factual issues in dispute between the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church in its suit against the 11 breakaway congregations, the attorney general said CANA’s legal arguments were “constitutionally sound.”

Virginia law states that if the majority of a congregation’s members decide to secede from their parent church, that congregation can retain the parish property, if there is no legal encumbrance recorded on the property deed.

The Attorney General stated the “Episcopal Church believes that, when there is a property dispute involving a hierarchical denomination, the National and Virginia Constitutions require deference to regional and national church leaders.”

This was false, he argued, as civil law governs church property disputes when issues of doctrine are not before the court.

Lawyers for the Episcopal Church have disputed the applicability of the Virginia statute that allows congregations to keep their property, and have also disputed the constitutionality of the law.

Three conservative bishops of the Episcopal Church are under fire from the church’s national leaders and are being threatened with dismissal for seeking to pull their dioceses out of the church in protest of its leftward drift.

The attempted purge of conservative bishops Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Jack L. Iker of Fort Worth, and John-David Schofield of Fresno by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori marks a new stage in the battle over church doctrine and discipline that has threatened to split the Episcopal Church since the hotly contested 2003 consecration of a non-celibate gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire.

On January 11, Bishop Jefferts Schori stated that a secret review panel had handed down an indictment against Bishop Schofield for “abandoning the Communion” of the Episcopal Church. In November delegates to his diocese’s annual convention voted to pull out of the Episcopal Church and seek the oversight of an overseas archbishop from the Anglican Communion.

Read it all in Christianity Today.

Affiliating with the Province of the Southern Cone would safeguard the Anglo-Catholic heritage of the Diocese of Forth Worth, its bishop and standing committee told the diocese in a Jan 9 letter.

Bishop Jack Iker and the leaders of the diocese reported that after a review of the constitution and canons of the South American Church, “we have concluded that the structure and polity of the Province of the Southern Cone would afford our diocese greater self-determination than we currently have under the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.”

In November the Texas-based diocese voted to remove references to the Episcopal Church from its constitution and canons and begin the process of withdrawal. Quitting the US Church requires a second reading of the proposed constitutional changes at the diocese’s 2008 synod.

Moving the diocese to the oversight of Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina would give a degree of autonomy “in the areas of property ownership, liturgy, holy orders, and missionary focus.” The issue of women’s orders would be left to the diocese, allowing Fort Worth to maintain its traditionalist stance.

Quitting the Episcopal Church would not “change in the day-to-day” life and work of the diocese, but “we expect a significant change in attitude and focus of the clergy and people,” Bishop Iker and the Standing Committee wrote.

A coalition of 33 Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical bishops has endorsed an open letter to the Bishop of San Joaquin, backing him in his battle with US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

On Jan 3, Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker released the statement saluting Bishop John-David Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin’s “courageous decision” to “to take leave” of the Episcopal Church for the Province of the Southern Cone.

“We know that decision was to a large extent the result of your tenacity and faithful leadership, and for that we give thanks to God,” they said.

In an arch response to Bishop Schori’s Dec 14 statement that she felt badly for Bishop Schofield in his loneliness, the bishops wrote that though “it has been said that you are isolated and alone,” we “want you and the world to know that in this decision for the faith once delivered to the saints, we stand with you and beside you.”

Joining Bishop Iker were Evangelical leaders Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney and Bishop Wallace Benn of Lewes as well as Anglo-Catholic bishops John Broadhurst of Fulham, Martyn Jarrett of Beverley, John Goddard of Burnley, Keith Newton of Richborough, Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet and Lindsay Urwin of Horsham, along with active and retired bishops from the US, Africa, Australia, Papua New Guinea and England.

A spokesman for Bishop Iker told The Church of England Newspaper the letter arose from conversations between the members of the International Bishops’ Conference on Faith and Order, a group of Anglo-Catholic bishops who do not ordain women to the priesthood.

The Anglo-Catholic bishops are not a political action group, the Fort Worth spokesman explained but come together for study and fellowship. The letter was organized by Fr. Stephen Parkinson of Forward in Faith UK and distributed to the Anglo-Catholic group for signature. The spokesman noted that as other bishops learned of the letter outside of Anglo-Catholic circles, they too asked if they might endorse it.

The letter comes in response to an exchange of correspondence between Bishops Schofield and Schori over the San Joaquin bishop’s status within the Episcopal Church.

After being asked by Bishop Schori to clarify his status, on Dec 22, Bishop Schofield responded his answer would be guided by Dr. Rowan Williams’ Advent letter to the Primates.

Bishop Schofield stated that his status within the Episcopal Church would be defined at the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. “It is the Archbishop’s proposal for a course of action in the months ahead that may affect my status,” Bishop Schofield wrote. “Since everything that the Diocese of San Joaquin has done, it has done with an eye toward remaining Anglican and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury; his proposal should naturally take precedence” in determining San Joaquin’s status.

He stated he was open to Dr. Williams’ proposals for “professionally facilitated conversations,” stating that “it may well be” in these exchanges “my own status and even that of The Episcopal Church vis-à-vis its membership in the Anglican Communion will be clarified.”

Bishop Schofield added that it would be a mistake to interpret the Dec 8 decision to align with the South American church as a mere protest vote. The San Joaquin synod was “saying that no matter what the consequences, they take a stand for a clear reading of Scripture, the faith that The Episcopal Church first received - but from which it has departed - and for Catholic Order within the Anglican Communion. Truly, the vote was for their bishop and diocese to remain in the Anglican Communion with the fullness of the heritage we have received as a part of that worldwide body.”

The vote did not “change anything within the diocese,” Bishop Schofield said. “With the status of The Episcopal Church’s member-ship in the Anglican Communion looking more and more precarious, the people of San Joaquin simply wanted to remain what we have always been, namely Anglican,” he explained.

Little will change in the day to day life of the Diocese of San Joaquin, Bishop John-David Schofield said following the Dec 8 vote to secede from the Episcopal Church and join the Church of the Province of the Southern Cone.

“For the majority” of San Joaquin Anglicans “nothing will change. The familiar ways in which you worship, your clergy, the Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal, lectionary and place of worship will all remain,” Bishop Schofield wrote in a pastoral letter published Dec 15.

The sole “notable exception” will be the replacement of Gregory Venables for Katharine Jefferts Schori in the intercession for the Presiding Bishop, he said.

However the traditionalist diocese would “no longer [be] operating under the looming shadow of this institutional apostasy” found in The Episcopal Church, he said. The synod vote was “not a schism over secondary issues but a realignment necessitated by false teaching as well as unbiblical sacramental actions that continue to take place” in the national church.

Bishop Schofield stated the “orders of all Diocesan clergy” had been recognized by the Southern Cone. Clergy who wish a “period of discernment” would be granted “more time to consider whether or not to accept the invitation” to join the Southern Cone.

This provision would apply to parishes as well, he noted, as “no one is being asked to act against his conscience,” he said.

On Dec 14 Bishop Schori wrote Bishop Schofield asking him to clarify his status and to affirm his “declaration that you are no longer part of The Episcopal Church, but are now under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone.” His answer was required, she said, so as to ascertain his status within the House of Bishops and pension fund.