tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post1446328283774069340..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia files for "prejudgment interest" against the seven Anglican congregations in VirginiaAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-26908297610080913782012-02-22T06:12:00.721-05:002012-02-22T06:12:00.721-05:00I agree, with that Arthur. Anonymity bears with i...I agree, with that Arthur. Anonymity bears with it some responsibility to self-regulate on a level of punctilious civility, but it does have the advantage of forcing people to concentrate on the thought or opinion expressed without lapsing to an instinct of attacking the person. I very much respect Father Daniel's principles and preferences on this point, but, for me personally, I don't have to know a commenter's name to find his/her point one that engages me to either agree or disagree, and to express those thoughts in response. <br /><br />If one had a strict rule of non-anonymity, I fear a number of people who have valuable opinions would not participate. That a few anonymous commenters abuse their privileges (and the blog host's hospitality) is unfortunate, but can be dealt with by paying no attention, or, if it becomes chronic, by the blog host deleting the comment. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-64486431715109843592012-02-21T16:55:59.558-05:002012-02-21T16:55:59.558-05:00I have tended to post anonymously or under a pen n...I have tended to post anonymously or under a pen name here and elsewhere for many years, since I got tired of hate e-mail from the people who disagreed with me. <br /><br />And I really think anonymous posting is fine, subject to a little moderating. For me, I am interested in debating ideas, not people.<br /><br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-22013154131133682322012-02-20T20:57:52.472-05:002012-02-20T20:57:52.472-05:00I agree that it is often hard to keep track of pos...I agree that it is often hard to keep track of posts from anon, but I think there is another concern, although one that BB has rarely had to address. It is so much easier to to overstep the bounds of civility when no one, but God, knows who we are. As one of my friends reminded me when I was a rude young man, the Gospel will always be offensive but I didn't have to be.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-24087934911744874752012-02-20T16:02:11.074-05:002012-02-20T16:02:11.074-05:00This is a cafe where everyone is welcome - it woul...This is a cafe where everyone is welcome - it would be helpful though if the Anons at least give themselves a "name" so we can keep track which Anon says what. Your thoughts and ideas are appreciated, but it is sometimes a challenge to sort which Anon says what. You can give yourself a name when you create your posting. :)<br /><br />By the way, the Fifth Annual CafeAnonsBall is coming up this Tuesday where we celebrate all of you who drop in to the Cafe, who's names are only known to God. :)<br /><br />And of course, God does know your name! Just something to remember.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-79703265914853244822012-02-20T14:40:49.674-05:002012-02-20T14:40:49.674-05:00Having no interest in further conversation with pe...Having no interest in further conversation with people who hide their identities, I will leave this thread.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-59909643210979548192012-02-20T13:46:47.698-05:002012-02-20T13:46:47.698-05:00Except that ignores that, up until that point, TEC...Except that ignores that, up until that point, TEC had said they were in communion with all the other provinces. To have grounds for abandonment of coummunion, TEC declared that it was no longer in communion with the African Anglican provinces involved, which the African provinces readily recognized. And since that time, TEC has not been in communion with the vast majority of Anglicans.<br /><br />It would have been kinder if an amicable separation agreement had been reached, as might have happened under Griswold. Or adequate alternative oversight provided that was not just a trap to wait until the current clergy retired. But once Schori became PB, it was clear none of that was going to happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-56509706608639138362012-02-20T13:01:59.819-05:002012-02-20T13:01:59.819-05:00I think it should be clear that the situation of d...I think it should be clear that the situation of departing congregations and clergy presented an unusual canonical problem. Letters dimissory are normal when a cleric moves from one diocese to another or from one church in the Communion to another. What was unusual in these cases was that the clerics were not moving anywhere. They, and the Bishops in Africa who took authority over them and their congregations, were also violating ancient canons. It is no wonder that ordinary canonical procedures seemed inadequate. It seems to me that resorting to the abandonment of communion option may have been the kindest thing that Bishops could do.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-33641739685135664792012-02-19T18:47:09.824-05:002012-02-19T18:47:09.824-05:00No particular need for conjecture. Phil Ashey was...No particular need for conjecture. Phil Ashey was declared to have abandoned communion in 2005 by Lee for asking for a letter that year.<br /><br />And perhaps another reason the canons were not properly applied was that the proper canonical procedure was to issue a letter dimissory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-6062493437523501722012-02-19T14:05:16.850-05:002012-02-19T14:05:16.850-05:00My experience elsewhere was that departing clergy ...My experience elsewhere was that departing clergy had so little respect for the authority of their Bishop that any use of established canonical procedures for separation was almost impossible.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-36386034203850906072012-02-18T15:59:50.076-05:002012-02-18T15:59:50.076-05:00I have a different theory on why they did not do t...I have a different theory on why they did not do that, Anon0925. I think that the Bishop and his Chancellor seriously under-evaluated the degree to which clergy and vestry had agitated their congregations for separation in the years between 2003 and 2006 and thought that reasonable Christians working cooperatively could find some middle ground. If a priest had asked for a letter dismissory in 2003, the point at which I think most of the departees made up their mind that there was no point in staying other than to arrange for a take-over of the physical property, I suspect it would have been granted with heavy heart. But that was the point at which clergy and vestry who could not countenance further association with the Diocese should have departed/resigned. <br /><br />Of course, this is all conjecture by both of us.<br /><br /><br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-67964400748423330062012-02-17T09:25:56.182-05:002012-02-17T09:25:56.182-05:00#8:32 - And why didn't they do that? Because ...#8:32 - And why didn't they do that? Because under the canons that would have required a trial. A public trial and due process was the last thing the Diocese wanted to give orthodox clergy. When the orthodox clergy actually asked for letters dimissory, that gave the Diocese trumped up grounds for abandonment of communion, which did not require a trial under the canons. Of course, that meant the Diocese of Virginia declaring it was no longer in communion with those Global South Anglican provinces that the clergy requested transfer to, which is now definitively the case.<br /><br />And so now TEC is recognized as part of the communion by the ABC and a handful of provinces, but not by the vast majority of Anglicans, while ACNA is not recognized as a province by the ABC, but is recognized as the Anglican province in the US by the Global South representing the great majority of Anglicans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-9349791766754135432012-02-16T20:17:42.515-05:002012-02-16T20:17:42.515-05:00I may be a bit hazy on my history, Anon0952, but w...I may be a bit hazy on my history, Anon0952, but wasn't the British claim to the colonies overcome by force of arms, and agreed to in the Treaty of Paris? I think the analogy breaks down a bit when juxtaposed with reality.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-87719222557635055672012-02-16T09:52:40.655-05:002012-02-16T09:52:40.655-05:00Perhaps England should sue in the VA courts for th...Perhaps England should sue in the VA courts for the return of the colonies... <br /><br />England would have a stronger case as they actually did put money into the colonies. It said "England" or "King" on the documents, so using the same logic as the courts, these colonies should be returned to England with pre-judgment interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-38257784758228223022012-02-15T21:13:30.433-05:002012-02-15T21:13:30.433-05:00Indeed, we'll leave it there. There is a hear...Indeed, we'll leave it there. There is a hearing at the end of this month. We should have clarity after that.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-3199066260846677152012-02-14T20:32:50.129-05:002012-02-14T20:32:50.129-05:00What you call "chutzpa", I call chutzpah...What you call "chutzpa", I call chutzpah, Steven. Transliteration can be so arbitrary. <br /><br />Anon 1420 takes this about as far as it can be taken, at this point. If I were the Bishop, I would have started dismissing clergy and vestry members somewhere around 2004-2005 when it became apparent that they were, long after their consciences told them they should leave, staying in place, but plotting not only to leave, but also to lead out parishioners and to take property in the bargain. I think it would have been nearly criminal for the Diocese to have negotiated with the occupation crowd once they went to court and once they excluded people who did not choose to leave. That's my view of things. You have a different view. The ethics of leaving and taking stuff are clear enough to me. The law is clear in the courts, not just in Virginia but elsewhere. Now we move on. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-62184462100567877182012-02-14T19:15:10.510-05:002012-02-14T19:15:10.510-05:00Scout, a refresher on the Standstill Agreement may...Scout, a <a href="http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2008/05/diocese-of-virginia-short-term-memory.html" rel="nofollow">refresher on the Standstill Agreement</a> may be in order. In that document, the Diocese acknowledged that the congregations could record their votes at the local courts <i>and</i> also agreed to "seek in good faith to negotiate" to the CANA congregations. So there clearly was much to negotiate about at that time, otherwise the Diocese would not have signed such a document. No? Moreover, you can't say that negotiation would have been fruitless as the Diocese refused to negotiate in the first place -- notwithstanding what the Agreement expressly provided for -- leaving your factual proposition entirely untested. And I still call it chutzpa to walk away from an agreement committing to good faith negotiations without, in fact, having attempted to negotiate, then drag someone into court, and then demand accommodation from him.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-31539008862987925352012-02-14T14:20:11.921-05:002012-02-14T14:20:11.921-05:00This is all ancient history, and is best left to t...This is all ancient history, and is best left to the Ph.D. students who will research it.<br /><br />Bottom line is this: the denomination, as it always does in Virginia, won. The congregations lost. The property ownership issues are settled. Now it's about both sides being free of the dispute and, I suspect with sadness, free of each other. It's a question of when, not if.<br /><br />The congregations will all go through some various measures of transition, perhaps even trauma. Hopefully they will continue to serve our Lord. The diocese will also undergo profound transition as it determines the best uses of these properties for its mission as the Church.<br /><br />Honestly, it's time to let go. On both sides.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-19148750975066827182012-02-14T06:55:01.161-05:002012-02-14T06:55:01.161-05:00Once the departing group took possession of the pr...Once the departing group took possession of the premises and went to court to have title transferred to them pursuant to the Virginia Division Statute, there was absolutely nothing to negotiate about. If the Diocese had not intervened to oppose the petition, the property would have passed to the occupiers by default. I can imagine how successful any negotiation would have been at that point. The persons who were individually named in the countersuits were leaders of the occupation who would have to be subject to the court order requiring return of the property. When I was a vestryman, I knew full well I could be sued personally if I committed an unlawful act that caused harm to another. The takeover was a radical, unprecedented step that had blindingly obvious consequences. Being subject to a lawsuit was one of those consequences. What you call "chutzpa", I call standard pleading practice in civil actions. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-1221391972475702342012-02-13T18:29:39.162-05:002012-02-13T18:29:39.162-05:00I have never made that point. The Standstill Agre...I have never made that point. The Standstill Agreement didn't say a whole lot, but it did say (expressly) that the parties would negotiate. Certainly, if a negotiated settlement included allowing a loyalist group to remain on the property that would have been considered, but the Diocese never allowed that proposition to be tested because it refused to take one step toward negotiation. Instead, within hours of the Agreement's expiry the Diocese in court with lawsuits naming hundreds of volunteer CANA vestry as defendants. My point is that it takes a measure of chutzpa for loyalist groups to demand accommodation from the folks who were sued personally on those groups' behalf.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-12734118539624146482012-02-13T18:05:32.836-05:002012-02-13T18:05:32.836-05:00Who is saying they will not abide by the court'...Who is saying they will not abide by the court's ruling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-8846687988646618732012-02-13T12:27:02.335-05:002012-02-13T12:27:02.335-05:00I think Scout has put it quite well. With the ques...I think Scout has put it quite well. With the question of which group had a right to property at issue, and with no way to resolve that question without the courts, the question has been answered in the only way that it could. The answer was not inevitable, but the manner in which it was answered was. For the moment, at least, the court has given a clear answer. We are free to think the answer is wrong, but not, without consequences, to refuse to abide by the court's ruling.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-25796395830463598502012-02-13T07:05:04.981-05:002012-02-13T07:05:04.981-05:00Even under the most revisionist interpretation of ...Even under the most revisionist interpretation of the so-called Standstill agreement, Steven, there never was any provision for the departing congregations simply to seize the properties. Had the Diocese approved the agreements, the best the departing groups would have achieved would have been the right to make offers for the properties. I suspect at your parish and at Truro, there was probably no offer price that would have been acceptable. Certainly $0.00 was not going to carry the day. And in any conceivable arrangement under the agreement, I doubt that any sentient bishop would have agreed to the elimination of worship for continuing Episcopal parishes, particularly at the historic churches. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-60844079997533665822012-02-12T15:11:12.287-05:002012-02-12T15:11:12.287-05:00The problem for the continuing congregations is th...The problem for the continuing congregations is that the Diocese signed an agreement expressly stating it would negotiate (the Standstill Agreement), but then without taking the first step toward negotiation walked away and sued the CANA congregations including clergy and volunteer vestry. I don't see how someone can claim to be entitled to accommodation from parties he has just sued. Maybe this is how things work in Episcoworld, but the real world doesn't quite operate like this.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-67360314339329194532012-02-12T07:06:18.389-05:002012-02-12T07:06:18.389-05:00I was referring to worship led by priests from the...I was referring to worship led by priests from the Diocese of Virginia. I understand that the CANA/ACNA liturgy is very similar/identical to that used by The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. For a while, I went back and forth between the CANA group and the continuing Episcopal Group that had to find temporary quarters elsewhere. I did so largely on the theory that I had voted not to divide the church and re-affiliate, so I should stay put physically in the church where I had always worshipped, but at the same time needed to show support and sympathy for a group in exile that did not deserve to be there. After a while, however, I decided that my continued enjoyment of the facilities and buildings during the occupation really sent a mixed signal, at least to my own conscience, if not externally, and it also became apparent that the CANA group cared nothing about their fellows who had had to move elsewhere and were not about to leave unless by court order. Nonetheless, I am well aware of the similarity of liturgies. <br /><br />By the way, I'm not a fan of the 1979 Prayer Book, so that, in itself, is not much of a draw. I appreciate, however, that you were making a larger point. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-30996958706947097142012-02-11T18:33:46.710-05:002012-02-11T18:33:46.710-05:00I do want to remind you all that we have had Episc...I do want to remind you all that we have had Episcopalians who voted to remain in the diocese still remain in the community at Truro. The worship remained the same as it did before we voted, we still use the 1979 Prayer Book so the worship didnt' change - I am not sure I understand Scout what you mean by "Episcopal" worship? I am sure those who voted to remain in the diocese but still stayed in the congregation at Truro thought we were continuing our "Episcopal" worship. I could understand if you thought we had tossed out the 1979 Prayer Book, but that is not the case at Truro. <br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.com