Stopping the spin or spilling the beans?

I noticed tonight that the third paragraph in the article "San Joaquin's remaining Episcopalians to gather for reconciliation, inclusion, celebration" from Episcopal News Service/Episcopal Life reads:

Former Bishop John-David Schofield had urged the realignment, approved by 42 of the diocese's 47 congregations. Clergy approved the split 70-12 and laity voted 103-10 for realignment.

Or, at least that's how it used to read when first published and blogged about over at TitusOneNine. Note the word former when describing Bishop Schofield. That's not how it appears now on the ENS website. The operative word has been edited out. Now you'll see:

Bishop John-David Schofield had urged the realignment, approved by 42 of the diocese's 47 congregations. Clergy approved the split 70-12 and laity voted 103-10 for realignment.

At first I thought it might be a case of Episcopal Life stopping the spin in their articles (or at least backing off just a hair). My hallmate at seminary, Scott Albergate, didn't call it Pravda for nothing. But now it looks like it might have been more of a case of wishful thinking, or even spilling the beans for what was going to come next. That article was followed by this story a few hours later. There we read:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15, I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

Jefferts Schori acted after the Title IV Review Committee certified that Schofield had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

Of course, the inhibition does not mean that Schofield is now the former Bishop of San Joaquin. It's too early to make that pronouncement, but that process may very well run its full course. The problem with the next stage (if he is deposed) is that there can be no new bishop because there will not be the minimum number of six parishes to constitute a TEC diocese of San Joaquin. Unless of course, they take those few congregations and split them into very small church plants. But then, there would probably not be the financial recourses to have a diocese anyway.

The Diocese of San Joaquin immediately responded to the inhibition in a press release, which concluded this insightful comment: "The Episcopal Church's own identity is dependent upon its relationship with the whole Anglican Communion. TEC should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions."

TEC should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions.

Another oddity is that Schori is saying that Schofield has abandoned the communion by leading the diocese out of TEC while also saying that diocese cannot secede anyway. Which is it? And how can you discipline a bishop for leaving your jurisdiction if you no longer have jurisdiction over that bishop? Another important detail to watch for was pointed out by a commenter at Stand Firm: "Rowan Williams now has a decision he cannot finesse: does Schofield go to Lambeth?"