THE BISHOP of San Joaquin, the Rt Revd John-David Schofield, has declared six of the eight members of his standing committee unqualified to hold any leadership position or elected office. The reason, he says, is because they have not publicly affirmed that they are now recognised members of the Province of the Southern Cone.
One cleric present, the Revd Dan Martins, described the move as a “Saturday-morning massacre”.
San Joaquin voted by a large majority on 8 December to leave the Episcopal Church in the United States and affiliate with the Southern Cone under Archbishop Greg Venables. Clergy still undecided are being allowed a period of discernment, but Archbishop Venables has declared it “highly inappropriate” that any priest “currently undecided or clearly within the Episcopal Church” should continue as an officer or leader.
Three of the clergy, including the standing-committee president, are rectors of the largest parishes in the diocese. Mr Martin describes all eight members as “solidly orthodox in their theological positions, all ‘reasserters’. All have been energetic supporters of Bishops Schofield’s advocacy for the received moral teaching of the Church Catholic. All have agonised over their relationship with an Episcopal Church that causes them shame and embarrassment at every turn.”
Bishop Schofield has declared that the six cannot remain in office “unless and until they can accept fully their membership in the Province of the Southern Cone”. He wrote: “Every one of those former members of the committee are strong, faithful and orthodox leaders within this diocese who are taking the opportunity afforded them for discernment as parish priests, and we thank them for their past, present and future service.”
The Revd Michael McClenaghan, Rector of St Paul’s in Modesto, and a clerical member of the standing committee, confirmed: “No resignations were made by any members of the standing committee, either verbally or in writing. Rather, the majority of the members were removed by the Bishop, including all four of the elected clergy members, one lay member, and possibly another lay member who was not able to attend the meeting. There was no misunderstanding about the process of removal during the meeting.” |
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
