Me thinketh this dear lady will be “deeply saddened” by a whole host of things during the years ahead in her life - both this one and the one to come.

Why on earth would a private letter regarding pension status be published worldwide?

#2, because she wants to make sure everyone reads it and they start shaking in their boots.  Why else??

Gloria

One difference is that Bishops Cox, Bena, and Fairfield were retired bishops when they resigned from the Episcopal House of Bishops and joined the Southern Cone, Nigeria, and Uganda. If I remember correctly Bishop Cox was threatened with action but the other two have not. Neither, again IIRC, was Bishop Davies when he formed the Episcopal Missionary Church.

I think that the practice of deposing for abandonment priests and deacons who seek to serve under foreign bishops says that the Episcopal Church is not in communion with those bishops and provinces, that it is in fact walking apart. Prosecuting Bishop Scofield and Bishops Cox, Bena, and Fairfield says the same.

I regret the necessity these aod others feel, and I look for the Episcopal Church to resolve to conform to the biblical teaching of Lambeth 1.10 and the other provinces of the communion.

While I do not think that some of the actions of the majority of General Convention 2003 are of necessity church-dividing, I recognize that others’  consciences lead them to a different conclusion.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

It must really stick in the craw of KJS, that she, by canon law, has to wait two months before beginning the deposition of the good Bishop Schofield. If I were Bp Schofield, I would say, “Thank you, Katherine, for your heartfelt concern about my pension, and I will get back with you on a reply” then definitely wait till after the consecration of Mark Lawrence at least.

Now what would happen, just for thought, if +Schofield said that he had not left TEC, and that the actions of San Joaquin were necessary to provide the Alternate Primatial Oversight that the ABC recommended and the HOB summarily rejected?

...just a question from the Briar Patch,

The actions of our diocesan convention a week ago speak for themselves.  The votes were very explicit, and I don’t think any further explanation is necessary.

Her letter really doesn’t deserve an answer, in the spirit of not feeding the trolls.

I hope that Bishop Schofield will be able to attend the consecration of Mark Lawrence and act as a co-consecrator.

“...and the acceptability of pension contributions on your behalf.”

I think that his pension earned up to the exit of the Diocese of San Joaquin from ECUSA is not in ‘jeopardy.’

All that Schori can do is to refuse any further contribution toward his pension benefits.  I am pretty sure that the bishop and other long term clergy are protected by pension vesting laws.

If he’s vested, he’s vested.  The money is his.  When you leave someone’s employ the pension contributions stop.  He does not, however, have to take a distribution of the funds until he reaches an age where distributions are required, but he can roll the entire thing into a new plan now if he wishes, according to well-established IRS rules.

#11 and others: The Clergy Pension Plan of the Church Pension Fund is a defined benefit plan.  Benefits are determined by a calculation including years of credited service, reflecting assessments paid by a participating institution of the Episcopal Church, and the average of the highest six of the highest eight years of assessible compensation.  Only institutions of the Episcopal Church, and only clergy in good standing in the Episcopal Church, may participate.  At retirement (65, or 62 with early retirement reduction, or 55 with 30 or more years of credited service) clergy vested in the plan (at least 5 years of credited service) will begin receive all earned benefits.
So: there’s nothing for Bishop Schofield or others to “own” or to “roll over.”  No cash balance, only a defined benefit at retirement.  There is nothing Bishop Schofield or others can do that would permit the Pension Fund to reduce or eliminate any earned benefits at retirement.  Everybody will get what they have earned during their years of eligible participation.
However, if the Diocese of San Joaquin now considers itself to be not a part of the Episcopal Church, but rather a part of the Province of the Southern Cone, and/or if Bishop Schofield now considers himself to be no longer a bishop of the Episcopal Church, but a bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone, then no *further* assessments can be received from the diocese by the Fund, and no *further* benefits can be earned by clergy who are no longer in the Episcopal Church.  Nothing can be taken away that has been earned, but nothing further can be earned.
I believe the Anglican Communion Network has established a defined-contribution (not defined benefit) pension plan for clergy not eligible to participate in the Church Pension Fund.  I would hope that parishes and dioceses and other employing institution no longer part of the Episcopal Church will continue to contribute to clergy pensions by contributing to new pension plans and by purchasing other benefits available to active clergy in the Episcopal Church Pension Fund plan, including at least short and long term disability insurance and term life insurance.

Bruce Robison

On the face of it, the letter sounds like a necessary business letter to me. I do think to a certain extent KJS is acting along the prescribed administrative lines of her position. Should +Schofield say he has not departed from TEC there might be an opportunity for a church trial and some witnessing opportunities before the wider public. KJS (re: Bennison v. DioPa) has said that everyone in the clergy is entitled to a church trial.  But I doubt this will happen as the diocese made constitutional changes that deliberately withdrew them from TEC.

Isn’t the U.S. government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation charged to see that people do not lose their benefits because of actions of the entity which sets up the retirement plan? At least that was the way ten or twelve years ago, when I was recipient of a pay out by the PBGC who had “lost” a plan terminated by my previous company.

#14, to say that again: under the rule, no earned benefit can be lost.  Period.  The only question is, whether one can continue accruing additional benefits while employed by an employer other than one under the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church, and the answer to that is no.  Your earned benefits remain yours, and when you retire, you’ll receive them.

Bruce Robison

Bruce,
Is there provision to protect the funds of the not-yet-pensioner from any future “hanky-panky” to punish the pensioner for leaving?  IOW, can TEC mess with what has been contributed on behalf of +J-DS or other dissident contributors or is it beyond TEC’s reach?

#16.I believe that both my experience and what Bruce said mean that if +KJS, as head of the “corporation” plays hanky-panky with +JDS’s and other priest’s pensions she could end up in the pokey. In the case I am familiar with that would have been the case, or so my old CEO was informed.  Fortunately for him, it was the PBGC that “lost” the unds.

The last piece to play on the board, the Pension Plan.  The 4th leg on the 3-legged stool!  The pillar and ground of Episcopalian unity, surpassing all other manifestation of commonality.  The Creed is optional, Episcopal parishes drop it at will.  But wielding the threat of Pension Plan removal, now we’re talking serious theology.  One ring to rule them all…...

The Directors of the Church Pension Fund are elected by General Convention and maintain fiduciary responsibility for the management of the Fund under the supervison of the Insurance Commission of the State of New York.  The Fund is incorporated separately, and neither the Presiding Bishop nor any other officer of the Episcopal Church has any role or authority in the direction of the Fund.  The Fund was created and continues for the purpose of providing a secure retirement for clergy of the Episcopal Church and their dependants. (Recent years have seen the development of similar programs within the Pension Fund for lay professionals.)

There has been some controversy in recent years as the Fund has used a part of its “overage” (assets in excess of actuarially projected obligations) to support several “wellness” initiatives, including CREDO.  The rationale for this, which may be debatable, is that so many clergy reach retirement age in such physical, psychological, emotional, and financial distress that no pension benefit alone could make the retirement years secure.  Thus these wellness initiatives reach down to clergy in our years of active ministry to assist with planning and the development of more healthful patterns of life.  Most people seem to think CREDO and other initiatives (Planning for Tomorrow workshops, etc.) do an excellent job, though there continues to be, again, some discussion over the extent to which pension assets should be allocated for these purposes.  Those of us involved in the conversation via, for example, the National Network of Episcopal Clergy Associations, or those who have been involved in the elections process at General Convention, certainly keep the spotlight on the question.—But to the point here: There may be many slush funds out there that the leadership of the Episcopal Church can turn to in the prosecution of these lawsuits.  But the Pension Fund isn’t one of them.

Bruce Robison

“Jefferts Schori wrote that she was ‘deeply saddened’ to hear of the San Joaquin convention’s actions”

“So terribly sorry to see your property go”

In the secular world, if someone’s boss shared a personal letter about his/her pension with the world, that would be unquestionable grounds for a lawsuit, including invasion of privacy and harassment. I doubt of Bp. Schofield would file such a suit, but he would certainly be entitled under law.

Nancy,
KJS would just deny that she was the one who made the letter public.