So - if I declare myself a Bishop of the Province of So-Cone, can I go around ordering other people to change the locks on their doors and grab their discretionary funds?

Seriously, I do not understand why the members of TEC that this former TEC bishop is ordering around have paid any attention to him. He does not have jurisdiction over TEC people or property.

But I'm no canon lawyer.

I guess I'll forget about the Province of So-Cone.

"Seriously, I do not understand why the members of TEC that this former TEC bishop is ordering around have paid any attention to him. He does not have jurisdiction over TEC people or property."

He has not yet been officially declared a former bishop of TEC. Until that happens, no one can be sure how the civil courts might view the matter. I would imagine that attorneys are advising people to proceed with caution.

It's a legally complicated situation, Cynthis, because St Nicholas's is a mission church, not a fully-fledged independent parish. Legally, before the secession, Schofield was its rector. Now, of course, it's a matter for the civil courts. According to Fr. Jake, Schofield has taken the same action at St.Mark's, Tracy, another mission church. Apparently Schofield has not taken overt action against any full parish holding with TEC.

It's a lot more complicated than this. Schofield hasn't even been inhibited yet. Furthermore, it will take a few months for the procedures under the abandonment canon to work out. Clearly he could have done this 5 minutes before Diocesan Convention met without any obstacles. The actions may still even be canonical since he hasn't yet been inhibited.

I note that, in his letter to Fr. Risard, Bishop Schofield says he acknowledges Risard's intention to remain a priest in the Episcopal Church.

Apparently he has no similar regard for the intentions of the people of St. Nicholas--whether their numbers be 20 or 200--to remain in the Episcopal Church. They are simply abandoned by the man who claims to be their rector.

Thanks for the legal clarifications.

I still think his actions are incredibly arrogant and mean, in the senses of both hostile and small. Why on earth would anyone see him as some kind of moral exemplar or leader? What I see is a manipulative bully. Sheeesh!

Prior to his consecration, John David Schofield was my Rector at the Episcopal Church of St. Columba in Inverness, part of the Diocese of California. Fr. Schofield was one of the lonely islands of conservative Anglo-Catholicism in a sea of liberal theology. Still, the Diocesan, Bishop Swing, provided Schofield with much leeway and mercy without a lot of interference from San Francisco.

It is too bad that Bishop Schofield couldn't show that same type of mercy toward those who chose to remain with the Episcopal Church (USA).

Am I the only one seeing Machiavellian intimidation at play here? I see that he believes it's better to be feared than respected all over this behavior. "Don't mess with me because I will come after your parish and seize it." It's clearly not a ploy to gain respect. No, this that John David aims for is fear. Has that not, after all, been the conservative plan from the start? We're all milktoast girly men and ordained women and the conservatives are the tough guys. Well, I've got news for these boys. If no one fears you and you haven't got respect either then your just pathetic and facing lawsuits.

"If no one fears you and you haven't got respect either then your just pathetic and facing lawsuits."

I strongly suspect that most of their tactics are focused on strengthening their standing in the lawsuits which will inevitably follow. In this chaos and confusion no one can be certain how those will turn out.

Thank you, Pat, for noting that Schofield has no regard for the people of St. Nicholas, for that matter, I do not see a lot of reagrd for people in general, unless you are in his camp.
He blames everyone else for the decline in attendance, but he never makes note of the growth that took place at St. Nicholas before his ugly interference and withholding of promised funds.
The church was alive!! Small, but alive! It wasn't only Shcofield who couldn't stand the growth, it was also a jealous fellow clergyman who likes to stir the pot, to keep control of everyone as well.
The amount of outreach, and inreach there rivaled any full parish in spirit and generosity. The people of St. Nicholas are truly good people, even if they stand divided for now.

See also the interview on interfaith radio with PB KJS, involving of all things, a somewhat sympathetic sounding Southern Baptist.

At: http://interfa.wmod.llnwd.net/a117/o1/SBAudio/STATE_OF_BELIEF_12-29-07.mp3

drdanfee's radio link is timely, and a thoughtful analysis. The ++PB keeps coming back to the conclusion of getting involved in something bigger (helping the needy, healing the sick) than whining about the level of LGBT involvement in the Church will get us on our way closer to Christ.

Thank you drdanfee for this link.

I wrote to the Society of Abp Justus suggesting they restore the url for San Joaquin to its rightful owner, the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin. No response yet, as I am sure they are taking a measured approach to this issue.