Well, ladies and gentlemen, I WAS WRONG! Many of you may have already known that, assumed that, figured that I had been smoking something funny or otherwise was just "off my rocker".
Let me be clear. I was/am not a fan of Father Dan Martins and never have been. See my prior posts on this priest who fled the diocese and let it in a shambles. I just did not see any genuine reason why/how consent could be withheld, given our governance system and the grounds. Well, sufficient information has now been released via the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin to create enough doubt in the minds of every member of every standing committee in the Episcopal Church that bishop-elect Dan Martins would stay with the Episcopal Church.
The long and the short of the information you are about to read is that Father Martins was knee-deep in the split of the Dioceses of San Joaquin from the Episcopal Church. He helped write the constitutional changes that "made it possible" for the diocese of San Joaquin to "leave". Father Martins
Here are the citations:
Diocesan Council Minutes
Bishop Schofield's Address to Convention identifying Dan Martins as a
Father Dan Martin's email (cunning??)
Standing Committee minutes in which Fr. Martins participates "fully" in the discussion of the split.
Email from Dan Martins 2006
Lest you think I am alone, here is the letter from the Standing Committee of the EPISCOPAL DIOCESE of San Joaquin on there lack of consent.
Standing Committee letter on withholding consent of the election of Dan Martins to the bishop of Springfield.
I do not do this lightly, this is a very serious matter, but there is no doubt in my mind that much as Fr. Martins' mentor, Father Martins will do what HE feels is best, regardless of who gets hurt or what happens!