US bishops explain their actions over inhibitions: CEN 2.01.08 p 5.

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.”