tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post8208494448397635380..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: Schori writes a letter about litigationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-89311766094347148282009-08-13T09:41:20.856-04:002009-08-13T09:41:20.856-04:00DavidH @ 1118h, I disagree. The reason this filin...DavidH @ 1118h, I disagree. The reason this filing – not a lawsuit – is not akin to a quiet title action is because the congregations were simply filing a record of their votes with the court, <i>as the Virginia code allows them to do</i>. That is, as established by the statute, there really were no valid competing interests once the congregations won the vote. That the Episcopalians initiated a lawsuit anyway and chose to play judicial roulette is not a counter-argument, simply a reflection of what good modern, secular Americans they are, suing every time things don’t go their way.<br /><br />Now, I full well understand you dislike the law, but it remains the law nonetheless. The congregations exercised the right given to them under that law, and so their filing with the court was something of slightly more import than applying for a fishing license, but less than filing for a divorce. What surprises me is that ECUSA’s legal adventurism was permitted in the first place. But, again, that’s America: I wouldn’t be surprised if a random man were allowed to walk in off the street and sue me for painting my living room.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-58896632781439326982009-08-13T08:26:22.486-04:002009-08-13T08:26:22.486-04:00Late to the party....but mulling this thread over ...Late to the party....but mulling this thread over I found it ironic that whenever anything is to the liberals liking, it's "our" locality, our rights, our diocese our polity, our property, our, our, our.<br /><br />Yet why does a specific conservative's church make one lick of difference to or diocese the liberals ... other than the property. Does anyone ever see the liberals worrying about the souls of those in a conservative position. I know I haven't other than an accusation of mental illness. <br /><br />I find it sad that what appears to be foremost in the minds of TEC are property, brand protection and pure spite. Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible apply today and not tomorrow doesn't make sense, but then again, nothing TEC has done for many years makes any sense.<br /><br />That the liberal side chooses not to see the conservative pain or point of view isn't a surprise. While God has hope in each one of us, the prospect of hope the liberals will have compassion for the conservatives dims each day. Expecting it, I guess, really is mental illness.<br /><br />I thought the last few weeks of lessons have been rather interesting of late.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-38828424219380849862009-08-12T21:52:51.298-04:002009-08-12T21:52:51.298-04:00bb at 8:39 pm,
I don't mean to be rude (altho...bb at 8:39 pm,<br /><br />I don't mean to be rude (although, as APWBD astutely observed, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often), but apparently facts mean nothing to you.<br /><br />Every congregation filed a report of the vote. Every congregation filed a petition. This isn't debatable -- go download them. And the very definition of a petition is that you're asking a court to do something. In this case, that something was to enter an order approving the votes and confirming conclusive title to and control in the congregations, thereby extinguishing the interests claimed by the Diocese and TEC. If you thought otherwise, you were confused or misled.<br /><br />I've given you my best guess as to why everyone agreed to do 57-9 first. It's always possible to imagine alternate realities, but given that 57-9 was going to come up regardless of how things proceeded, it's hard to call dealing with it a blunder.<br /><br />From the transcripts and briefing, I don't think your impressions about the Diocese, TEC, and their witnesses are accurate, but that's neither here nor there.<br /><br />Have a good night. With this 81st comment, my contributions to your record are at an end.DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-82637144478308152592009-08-12T20:39:41.508-04:002009-08-12T20:39:41.508-04:00No, we filed reports of our votes. Even Bishop Le...No, we filed reports of our votes. Even Bishop Lee called it that. We didn't ask the court to do anything, we filed reports of our votes called petitions. We could have done more, 57-9 provides for that - but we chose NOT to do it because we thought we were heading into property negotiations with BIshop Lee. We did not file lawsuits. 57-9 is a statute and we filed reports of our votes, period. Is that clear?<br /><br />The DIocesan and TEC lawsuits were filed after the Standstill Agreement was rescinded. Those were the first lawsuits filed, the petitions were not lawsuits, as I stated before even Bishop Lee called them "reports" - which is what I understood them to be when they were filed. <br /><br />The TEC and Episcopal lawsuits were set aside when the CIrcuit Court decided that it would address the 57-9 petitions first. The lawsuits may never be addressed if the Supreme Court upholds Judge Bellows rulings. <br /><br />The address for this blog is open: BabyBlueAnglican@aol.com. You can feel free to send me the transcript at that address. I am curious as to why Brad said yes when it was clearly not helpful for the diocese to find their lawsuit and the lawsuit of Bishop Schori (remember, there were two separate lawsuits filed, which is also interesting, was it piling on or was 815 concerned whether Bishop Lee would go through it - after all, he ended up deposing his own cousin).<br /><br />It is entirely possible that the Diocese was out-lawyered, but that will be a judgement for others to make when this sad affair comes to an end. I have a bias there - the CANA attorneys are amazing, but it's far from over and as we were recently reminded by an off-the-cuff remark by a diocesan official as the case now go to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia "you're in our territory now."<br /><br />In the meantime, there are 24 boxes to be gone through in preparation for the Supreme Court's ruling on whether they will hear the appeal (which is extremely likely) and then whether they will overturn Judge Belllows' ruling. <br /><br />It was a nail-biting moment waiting for Judge Bellows' decision. He is unreadable in court. He has a dry wit and he runs his court tight, the attorneys in his court remind me of students in the old Paper Chase series in the 70s and Bellows as their professor. He was quite amazing to watch.<br /><br />For me, the telling movement was during the trial when the record of the former rulings using 57-9 were brought into evidence. One after another and to learn that the author of the legislation was the Speaker of the House of the state legislature. Another telling moment was when Ian Douglas could not define the words that he was brought on the stand to define. It was clear that to certain extent the Diocese and TEC did not seem to take the 57-9 trial very seriously. And so perhaps they never dreamed it would turn out the way they did, and so agreed to go forward with it first. I can recall that they thought the second trial would focus on their issues and it took them a while to realize that was not going to happen. I don't know, I don't know why they would agree to focus on 57-9, but it was one their major blunders. Of course, time will tell if blunder sees a better day, that the Supreme Court may vote to overturn Judge Bellows' rulings. That could very well happen. Perhaps, even as Bishop Lee is far, far, away from Virginia in Grace Cathedral in San Francisco that the Richmond based court will rule in his favor. But if it doesn't, perhaps that will be the best place for him to be, far, far, away. For the rulings are upheld, it won't just be the Diocese of Virginia that will be affected, but all the Episcopal Dioceses in Virginia. <br /><br />It's a risk - and it appears the Diocese is willing to take it. But I think it would behoove them, even at this late hour, to consider negotiations. I really do. For even in this late hour, it's still my prayer that we find a way to stay in as close a communion as possible. On that mark, BIshop Lee got it right.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-2879244941774052722009-08-12T19:31:39.180-04:002009-08-12T19:31:39.180-04:00bb at 12:58 am,
Your first paragraph about the pe...bb at 12:58 am,<br /><br />Your first paragraph about the petitions is just wrong, and in fact, it doesn't make any sense at all. Without a request for the order, you would not have been asking the court for anything at all. And your last paragraph about the way the petitions are referred to is also misleading -- each congregation filed a report, and each congregation filed a petition seeking approval of the reported vote by court order, again, thereby achieving title and control and extinguishing other interests.<br /><br />(FWIW, what's the big deal? You filed lawsuits. Admit it and move on.)<br /><br />The rest of your post explains some things -- namely that there are 3 different hearings and a couple different issues being jumbled together here.<br /><br />I quoted above from the parties' initial scheduling conference in May 2007. I have no idea if that's online (a friend sent it to me; I'm sure you have lawyer friends that send things to you too), but send me an e-mail, and I'll be happy to send it to you. (PMing me on SF is probably the easiest and most private way to get me your address.)<br /><br />The issue at that point was what does the court do first, and as the bit above shows (contrary to your earlier posts), everyone was in agreement that 57-9 was up first, with initial matters in the other cases proceeding at the same time. Given that 57-9 had been raised in both sets of cases (see the pleadings on the Diocese's website), it was inevitable that 57-9 be dealt with, and it's hard to see how scheduling it first favored either side. Remember that before the court's April 2008 decision, it was entirely unclear how the court viewed 57-9.<br /><br />Your last post (12:58 am) refers to two different hearings and issues. First, in talking about the individuals being dismissed from the suit, you're referring to a hearing that took place in August 2007 on the CANA folks' demurrers to the Diocese's and TEC's lawsuits. And second, in referring to it not being the wish of TEC to have a trial, you're talking about the Sept 2007 hearing where the parties and the court discussed the upcoming trial (which had, at that point, been scheduled for 4 months and was less than 2 months away). At that point, yes, TEC made the argument that there need not be a trial. It's pretty darn hard to ever convince a Virginia court of that unless everyone agrees, and of course, CANA didn't. But that's a different issue from what went first.DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-16624372469377931122009-08-12T00:58:45.880-04:002009-08-12T00:58:45.880-04:00DavidH writes: "the petitions sought an order...DavidH writes: "the petitions sought an order that would give the congregations "conclusive" title to and control of the property ..."<br /><br />No, no, no. We filed our votes - we did not take the next step. We moved to join the Bishop of Virginia's Property Committee (why would we do that if we had taken the step to claim the property? We were prepared to put cash on the table, for heaven's sake). That's where we were until David Booth Beers came into the Diocese and it all fell apart.<br /><br />DavidH - can you give me the URL for the citation above? I've looked for it - it was certainly not the desire of the Episcopal Church to have a trial over 57-9, I can only speculate as to why Brad said that. I do recall that regarding the issue of the nearly 200 people individually sued by both the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, the judge suggested it would behoove them to withdrawn those suits or he would rule on them and he suggested that all parties with their attorneys go out into the hall and have a parlay over that one. One of the rectors of the voting churches was in the courtroom with me and he couldn't buy a house because of those personal lawsuits. It was clear Judge Bellows was about to rule and I can speculate it would not have been in the Episcopal Church's favor.<br /><br />So they withdrew their lawsuits with prejudice, meaning they could one day bring them back - a better situation for them then if Judge Bellows had ruled against them.<br /><br />It would be helpful for me to see the the context of Brad's remarks and if I can recall the circumstances in the court room at that time. The Diocese at one point had charged all the churches with abandonment but that strategy itself was abandoned when Bishop Schori entered the litigation.<br /><br />Now BIshop Schori uses surrogates to enter litigation rather than entering it herself as she did in Virginia. Now she sets up the shadow dioceses to do that for her, still supplying her own litigation counsel. She did not do that with the Virginia votes.<br /><br />It was a major win for the CANA churches when Judge Bellows ruled that he would deal with the 57-9 petitions first. It was certainly not in the Diocese or the Episcopal Church's favor that the litigation would move in that direction, unless they naively thought this would all be wrapped up in a week and they could move on to the substance of their own lawsuits.<br /><br />It was a very difficult time, with the breakdown of the Property Committee even before there had been a formal meeting. But even at that time, Bishop Lee was still referring to the filing of the votes as "reports" which is what they were - they were not lawsuits then and they are not lawsuits now. The reports were filed with the court but at no time did the voting churches sue the Diocese or TEC.<br /><br />DavidH - can you let us know where on online you are reading the transcript? It would be very helpful read it in its entirety. Again, it was not what TEC or the DIocese planned. They certainly were not happy that their own lawsuits were set aside to deal with the 57-9 petitions first. <br /><br />At some point, however, Bishop Lee was advised to stop calling the petitions "reports" (which is what they were and he had initially referred to them as such) and instead lead people to believe that they were lawsuits. Perhaps Brad and the others thought that by putting themselves in a defensive position that would score them points, but that's speculation on my part. It was spinning and perhaps kept the laity in the diocese in the dark about how things were truly fairing at the time in the litigation.<br /><br />It would be very helpful, though, to re-read the transcript. Thank you!<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-20110449492827924862009-08-11T23:18:50.147-04:002009-08-11T23:18:50.147-04:00bb at 8:26 am, "Were you there" is an in...bb at 8:26 am, "Were you there" is an interesting question for you to ask, given that you were not at the Standing Committee meeting in question either. <br /><br />Fortunately, because the parties have made many of the case documents available online, many of the facts are there for people to see. And, the rest of the case documents are public records, easily obtainable from the court or if you know someone involved with the case. For example, the transcript from the very first conference the court held, at which it was decided to deal with 57-9 first, very clearly shows that you're wrong (at p.30, lines 4-16):<br /><br /><i>THE COURT: All right. Let me ask this broad question: Although the letters I received show that there is some difference between the parties about precisely how to proceed with the 57-9 litigation, would it be a fair statement to say that everybody in this courtroom agrees that I should resolve the 57-9 litigation before the declaratory judgment action? Is that something that everybody agrees on?<br />MR. COFFEE [CANA lawyer]: That was our take from the correspondence, Your Honor.<br />THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Davenport?<br />MR. DAVENPORT [Diocese lawyer]: Your Honor, yes....</i><br /><br />Phil at 10:26 am, as you know (but ignore in an attempt to be cute), the petitions sought an order that would give the congregations "conclusive" title to and control of the property, thereby extinguishing any other person or group's interests (meaning, obviously, those of the Diocese and TEC). They are somewhat like a quiet title lawsuit, in that respect.DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-56727067735052414892009-08-11T22:24:53.699-04:002009-08-11T22:24:53.699-04:00RE "Anonymous response to "pjb" pt ...RE "Anonymous response to "pjb" pt 2<br /><br />The reason we (non-TEC Anglicans) comment on TEC - is that they are suing us. That sort of makes it hard to ignore them. I know you believe the property belongs to the Episcopal Church and not to "some entity claiming to be Anglican." But, the Episcopal Church is still part of the Anglican Communion. I don't know of anyone who ever gave even $1 in a building fund drive to "The Episcopal Church". They gave it to their parish. I suggest you research the Dennis Canon before claiming that the property is clearly TEC's and saying that the majority of any parish and diocese have less of a moral claim than TEC. It was clearly the parish's or the Diocese's property until TEC decided around 1979 to pass the Dennis Canon and simply claim all property for the national church. <br />The dispute revolves around the issue of a hierarchical church as the courts have also said that the Dennis Canon cannot be applied to churches and Dioceses already in existence prior to its passage in a non-hierarchical church. <br /><br />Whether or not TEC is a hierarchical church within the meaning of the law has yet to be determined. In fact, the issue may be heard by the US Supreme Court, so no, the issue is not resolved. Many claim it is an issue of fact that must be decided by the trier of fact, not the courts since having the courts decide it as a matter of law might well violate the first amendment.<br /><br />The PB has no authority to overrule the decisions of a diocese - which is precisely what she is trying to do. We (the Anglican Communion) have never been a hierarchical church in the same way as the Roman Catholic church is. The PB cannot appoint our bishops. The Bishop cannot appoint our rectors. We vote.<br /><br />So you see it's far from settled. And I hate to burst your bubble, but being an attorney licensed in the state of California, I can tell you that the rest of the country does NOT look to California to lead on legal issues. And none of the cases regarding Dioceses - not parishes - have actually come to trial yet. There is a huge legal difference between a parish leaving a Diocese and a Diocese leaving a Province. So far, these are all preliminary motions, rulings and appeals. Pre-trial can go on for years. TEC has claimed victory, but it has yet to win at trial. Sorry.<br /><br />As for why we care - because we believe the PB (and others in TEC) to be preaching a false Gospel and harming God's people. How can we not care?ejdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345859235778195292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-5284732775836377042009-08-11T22:23:42.643-04:002009-08-11T22:23:42.643-04:00Anonymous - I'm guessing that "pjb" ...Anonymous - I'm guessing that "pjb" was meant to be "ejd" as you seem to be addressing my comments. <br /><br />I am not having an emotional reaction. I am having a logical and theological reaction. My only emotion in all this is sadness that we have come to the point that separation is necessary and then to be sued by those professing to be Christians without even trying to work it out. <br /><br /> My sources for the Presiding Bishop's comments are videos of her saying the things I cite as well as the official site of the Episcopal church. I do NOT believe gossip and rumors and every time I hear of yet another statement by the PB, I check it out - always hoping the reporters were wrong. They have not been. Time and again she has made comments that indicate that she does not believe the only means to salvation is through Jesus. Therefore she can say she believes the creeds but when she makes other statements contrary to them, it is hard to ignore.<br /><br />I do not understand how you can say the PB has not deposed anyone. First of all - until this past General Convention, the charge was abandonment of the communion - NOT abandonment of TEC. General Convention changed the canons to reflect what they wanted - not what historically has been. At least the majority of Bishops and clergy she deposed did not abandon the communion - they moved to another Province of the Anglican communion for oversight. That is not abandonment of the Communion. But the PB acts like TEC is its own communion - apart from the Anglican communion. And if they keep it up - they will be.<br /><br />Secondly, Bp Duncan had not left the Episcopal Church when she deposed him for abandonment of the communion. Further, he never abandoned the communion. The diocese of Pittsburgh realigned with another Anglican Province rather than TEC. <br /><br />Third, once a Bishop or clergy does leave TEC for another jurisdiction, neither the PB nor any TEC Bishop has authority to depose them anyway.ejdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345859235778195292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-20462808986300184842009-08-11T11:56:55.795-04:002009-08-11T11:56:55.795-04:00This comment thread makes me feel like this: http...This comment thread makes me feel like this: <a href="http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/90000/1000/500/291545/291545.full.gif" rel="nofollow">http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/90000/1000/500/291545/291545.full.gif</a>Jeff Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04662228150180705795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-68201135457350506362009-08-11T10:26:11.898-04:002009-08-11T10:26:11.898-04:00DavidH,
Who was the defendant(s) in the suit CANA...DavidH,<br /><br />Who was the defendant(s) in the suit CANA filed first? What damages or relief did CANA seek from the defendant(s)?Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-54794301999880693762009-08-11T08:26:37.579-04:002009-08-11T08:26:37.579-04:00Were you there, DavidH? Or are you writing what y...Were you there, DavidH? Or are you writing what you've been told. As I wrote above, it was in testimony of the rector that Bishop Lee told him that there was a new sheriff in town. The Standing Committee did not reject the Protocol (in fact, they tried to change it and Bishop Lee requested that they leave it the way it is - and so it was received by the Standing Committee, not rejected, though that was an option they did not do that).<br /><br />Yes, TEC filed the lawsuits first, the CANA parishes filed 57-9 petitions recording our votes. The CANA parishes sued no one and the action was not considered hostile (which a lawsuit of course would be!) when the Standstill Agreement was drafted. The CANA parishes did not request the court to make a decision on the property, we filed our votes - is that clear? We could have, but we did not do that. We thought we were going into negotiations with Bishop Lee on his property committee, let's make that perfectly clear.<br /><br />What we agreed was to not take that next step - we stood still. We went to the table and that's where we were when David Booth Beers came into the Diocese. I don't know what he said to Bishop Lee. I don't know.<br /><br />No, that's not accurate. The court decided to go with the 57-9 first, that was a strategic loss to the Diocese and TEC (if you think that's what they wanted than you are kidding yourself - it was strategic loss for them at the time, not to say that those lawsuits could be re-enacted if the VA Courts overturn Judge Bellows rulings). Believe me, that was a matter of prayer while we waited to find out if the lawsuits (remember, there were two - one from Bishop Lee and one from Bishop Schori) would be dealt with or the 57-9 petitions. It was not in the Diocese or TEC's interest to have the 57-9 petitions dealt with first, for if the rulings stand their current lawsuits are moot.<br /><br />As I've said before, there must be a better way to do this, to remain in "as close a communion as possible" than litigation. Perhaps cooler heads will once again prevail, and that my friends is my prayer.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-57850991831427742652009-08-11T08:08:18.863-04:002009-08-11T08:08:18.863-04:00"TEC has survived for 200+ years, I'm sur..."TEC has survived for 200+ years, I'm sure they will continue to survive. In fact, according to the Pew research, it seems that TEC is attracting lots of new folks every day, with most of them coming across from the RCs and other denominations who are unable to even talk about these issues, let alone try to address the legitimate pastoral needs of ALL God's children."<br /><br />You MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!<br /><br />EVEN TEC'S OWN DATA SAYS THEIR LOSING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE A YEAR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-91808382858603401072009-08-11T05:41:03.370-04:002009-08-11T05:41:03.370-04:00As is often the case, BB speaks in an authoritativ...As is often the case, BB speaks in an authoritative manner but is plain wrong.<br /><br />1. The CANA folks did not follow every part of the Protocol. They did not take a second vote, and the wording of their resolutions did not match the specific wording required by the Protocol. Why? Because their lawyers were telling them what to do and knew they couldn't completely follow a document that recognizes that the Diocese has a property interest.<br /><br />2. The Protocol had effectively been rejected by the Diocese's Standing Committee in mid-November, long before the votes or Beers' meeting. The testimony in court was uncontested on that point. David Allison, an ADV board member and Church of the Apostles vestry member, admitted they all knew that before voting. The CANA folks then got a letter on 12/1 clearly warning them not to attempt to take the property. They went ahead anyway.<br /><br />3. The petitions are lawsuits, seeking an order that would be conclusive about the property. The CANA folks were plaintiffs too, as the court's own opinion refers to them.<br /><br />4. The Standstill Agreement recognizes that the petitions are lawsuits. Otherwise there would have been no need to put an exception in for them.<br /><br />5. The Standstill was a temporary measure that the Diocese chose not to renew in Jan 2007. When all parties ceased to be committed to it, it became irrelevant. <br /><br />6. The court decided to deal with the 57-9 petitions first because the parties were in agreement that it should do that. The court did not decide that on its own.<br /><br />7. TEC did not file suit first. The CANA folks did with their petitions (some in mid-December, some in mid-January). Followed by the Diocese (on 1/31). TEC filed last, on 2/9.<br /><br />8. The "new sheriff" remark was John Yates' account of what Bishop Lee said. Bishop Lee never testified that he said that. <br /><br />I am no fan at all of the PB. But neither am I a fan of BB's constant misinformation.DavidHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254619654216747524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-69276084730672897462009-08-10T17:59:12.422-04:002009-08-10T17:59:12.422-04:00You may be right, but right, truth and justice are...You may be right, but right, truth and justice are more important than practicality. If you want to leave the church, LEAVE. You can't take the property or furniture.<br /><br />TEC has survived for 200+ years, I'm sure they will continue to survive. In fact, according to the Pew research, it seems that TEC is attracting lots of new folks every day, with most of them coming across from the RCs and other denominations who are unable to even talk about these issues, let alone try to address the legitimate pastoral needs of ALL God's children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-39997642044712076132009-08-10T11:21:21.618-04:002009-08-10T11:21:21.618-04:00There are undoubtedly people in CANA and ACNA who ...There are undoubtedly people in CANA and ACNA who see the Church as the church buildings. There are also those who sincerely believe that the outcome will be God's will and that they should continue to attend in that church building regardless of who owns it.<br /><br />I would doubt that more than 30% of the original numbers would return to the buildings, and that includes the shadow congregations that have been stood up by the dioceses. It is doubtful that the physical plants can be supported by that remainder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-31703786242635318842009-08-10T07:58:42.135-04:002009-08-10T07:58:42.135-04:00The buildings will not be as empty as you think, A...The buildings will not be as empty as you think, Anon 1952, if there are many people who find comfort in Christian worship in familiar surroundings. I suspect a great number of these people are now sitting in CANA and ACNA churches. I also suspect that they will continue to sit there and be welcome, feel welcome if those sites are returned to Episcopalian use.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-14287130438237791992009-08-09T19:52:30.743-04:002009-08-09T19:52:30.743-04:00We can argue all we want about how we got here. T...We can argue all we want about how we got here. Those who have departed have no reason to trust the PB after she killed negotiations that could have produced an amicable settlement including cash to the diocese of VA. <br /><br />This is now being settled in the courts nationwide and where TEC wins, there are only empty buildings, many of them unmarketable. This is her legacy: departed congregations, ghost church buildings and a faux gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-10041615846448774472009-08-09T16:51:33.765-04:002009-08-09T16:51:33.765-04:00your last comment is particularly insightful and f...your last comment is particularly insightful and fair-minded, Anon. We need a lot more of that mindset. I am admittedly a most inadequate reader of the Mind of God, but I can't imagine that He smiles on all the nasty bickering and name-calling that goes on in this spat over how to divide up the spoils of the Church we are all wrecking before His eyes.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-8416757247432157692009-08-08T12:50:48.219-04:002009-08-08T12:50:48.219-04:00@ Scout
Your discussion of a proposed settlement ...@ Scout<br /><br />Your discussion of a proposed settlement seems like a reasonable one to me (and has all along), but I'm not sure that reason is going to go over very well with some of the folks on either "side."<br /><br />Once Lee had essentially damaged the authority of the apostolic succession by failing to have the necessary firmness when it was needed, I'm not sure that TEC will feel that they can stop short of anything that does not re-establish the authority of a hierarchical and apostolic church.<br /><br />That may be the point of the PB's proposed limitations on a settlement restricting bishops from other denominations; she may be trying, paradoxically enough, to restore the authority of the heirs to the apostles. One would think that both sides have an interest in restoring the standing of hierarchical bishops in a centralized church based on the apostolic succession: that's what both sides believe, right?<br /><br />In the end, it seems the PB is trying, once again, to offer all concerned a gracious way out of this mess. She has done this several times at several stages of these unfortunate events: what other hierarchical denomination would have offered dissenters "alternative oversight?" Or allowed a known advocate of separation to be confirmed a bishop of the church?<br /><br />Surely no one thinks the Romans would have accepted let alone themselves proposed such an arrangement? Does ANYONE really think that Akinola would agree to "alternative oversight" for the "liberal" parishes in his province? The concept is laughable.<br /><br />But the PB's offer does seem to be at least a reasonable initial negotiating point. Unfortunately, except for you and Steve, her proposal doesn't seem to be getting much in the way of a rational response from "this side" of the "discussion" <br /><br />I have to admit, she hasn't communicated the offer in a way that makes it easy for this side to swallow; in fact, she hasn't done a very good job of engaging this side all along. The substance seems to have been there, but the offers seem to have been reluctant and the tone of engagement has been missing. Mind you, the immediate and rabid resorts to "apostasy" from the likes of Mims, Anderson, and the former bishop of Pittsburgh haven't exactly been models of warm personal engagement either. It seems that both sides have a good bit of emotion based rash statements to repent. I don't see either side getting down off their emotional "high horse" to get started doing a little "horse trading."<br /><br />It would be nice, though....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-11054244818743645042009-08-08T12:41:13.036-04:002009-08-08T12:41:13.036-04:00@ Scout.
Your points are, as usual, well taken. ...@ Scout.<br /><br />Your points are, as usual, well taken. I agree that Bishop Lee was likely misleading in his lack of firmness early on in the process.<br /><br />Even for someone in basic agreement with the objections to the direction of TEC, the so called discernment process seemed obviously and grossly biased and pretty clearly set up so that only a single possible result could be the outcome.<br /><br />They seemed to misrepresent TECs position from the beginning as equivalent to the most radical of the advocacy groups. Even then there was only one citation of theology on the "other" side, despite nearly 40 years of theological discussion on the subjects concerned and an overwhelming majority of contemporary theologians who support TECs side.<br /><br />Who in their right mind could have accepted such a process as being even remotely an even-handed discernment process? Even for someone who agrees with the theological position taken by the leaders, that "discernment process was ridiculously unbalanced. How Lee could have been so soft-minded as to have even given the appearance of being willing to accept the inevitable outcome?<br /><br />There are those on the other side (TEC) who maintain to this day that the entire imbroglio is partly Lee's fault for not taking a firmer hand from the beginning.<br /><br />Indeed, I've heard notions that the rectors of the parishes that were then considering an exit could have and should have been inhibited and removed AS SOON as there was the slightest serious talk of taking the parishes out of TEC.<br /><br />That is what happened in other locations and, these people maintain, the result was a great deal more clarity in which the cases were settled much faster.<br /><br />For example, the Diocese of Washington (DC) had a situation in suburban Maryland at about the same time. The Bishop (Dixon) simply inhibited and removed the rector, appointed an interim and everyone moved on (or away). There was some legal by-blowing, but, in the end, the diocese won without further question or controversy.<br /><br />I believe the same course of events happened with similar results in PA, CT, and KY as well.<br /><br />Although I, myself, think that the early inhibition route would have been far too draconian, it IS possible that VA is in this dreadful fix mainly because Lee was simply "too nice" and failed to uphold his own authority by putting a stop to the issue right from the start. After all, although we govern ourselves democratically, for the most part, in the end, spiritually and administratively, the Bishops rule. That's what it means to be Episcopalian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-1194305092588163622009-08-08T11:13:21.516-04:002009-08-08T11:13:21.516-04:00I thought at the time (second half 2006) and conti...I thought at the time (second half 2006) and continue to think that the Bishop and his Chancellor in Virginia were indeed sending confusing signals in dealing with disaffected elements concerning disposition of properties. There were differences in circumstance between some of the parishes. I often heard the situation in Dale City (John Guernsey's parish), where a negotiated settlement went fairly smoothly early on in the process, described as an indicator that secessionists in even the large historic parishes like Truro and the Falls Church would be given a pass on walking away with the buildings. I thought at the time that that could not possibly be and I am certain that the YES vote was pumped up considerably by the assumption blithely (and I think misleadingly) conveyed to parishioners that it was likely that the property could be retained without much fuss. I would have thought it far more honest for those leading the exodus to say, "we should assume that we will have to leave Truro (or the Falls Church) and we may never return. At a minimum, there will be a period of months or years in which we will have to find temporary quarters. It may be that we will have to build our own church, but it will be well worth it not to have to be associated with these weird, apostate Episcopalians" (to use some of the milder language employed to describe those less motivated to depart). Unhappily, that point was never made very clearly , and I do believe the Diocese shares some responsibility for being equivocal about its approach to the properties. <br /><br />But it seems inescapable that once the 57-9 petitions were filed by the departing groups, the litigation game was afoot. I can't imagine that had the Diocese done nothing in response, and had simply stood mute at that point, that it could ever have asserted any right to possession or compensation, or have been in any position to protect the continuing Episcopalian worshippers, whatever their numbers. <br /><br />But, to return to the important point flagged by Steven, the PB post does contain explicit discussion of possible settlement of property disputes. That' s the news in that letter, not whether the Presiding Bishop has a black, heretical soul. I find it a little bizarre that Jeffords-Schori puts such a premium on keeping out bishops from other denominations - once the property is conveyed to another group, that point seems irrelevant. But, for the big parishes in northern Virginia, the formulation in her letter would seem to open the way for a some sort of deal where the departing factions could secure access to former properties at some reasonable compensation. In Northern Virginia, I have come to think that an agreement that enabled CANA to purchase Truro (accounting for all property and accounts in place as of November 2006 and rents for use in the interim) while the Falls Church is returned for Episcopal worship (also with an accounting for all assets seized in November 2006 and rents for the interim use) would be a rational way to put an end to the legal bleeding. It would inevitably be less expensive than another four years of litigation and would protect all sides. The KJS letter in the post doesn't go into that kind of detail, but it doesn't exclude some version of that approach.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-31299939000179522952009-08-08T10:37:33.770-04:002009-08-08T10:37:33.770-04:00BB
I think it boils down to our agreement that Le...BB<br /><br />I think it boils down to our agreement that Lee filed the case in response to the potential threat that he would be held accountable for irresponsible disposition of property.<br /><br />We disagree in our opinions as to the reasonableness of that threat.<br /><br />Looking at it from TECs point of view, the threat is a very reasonable one, given the potential precedents and the implications for episcopal theology. I believe that those who have taken on administrative responsibilities such as these must be held to account for their actions in those capacities.<br /><br />That, of course, is one of the reasons, why it is perfectly reasonable to include all those persons who were involved in the decision to take the church's property in case to account, including all 200 lay persons.<br /><br />If you take an action you and you alone are and always will be responsible to both God and our society for those actions.<br /><br />Forgiveness is Christian and we all can be forgiven and we all should forgive sins. That does not mean that we are absolved of the consequences of our actions.<br /><br />Remember the story of the prodigal son? He was forgiven by his father. But the father said to the loyal son: "remember, all that I have is yours, but my son that was dead is returned alive..." (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but I think that's reasonably accurate). In other words, the prodigal son IS forgiven. But he remains responsible for his actions and he is and should be held accountable for their cost: he is forgiven and welcomed home, but he won't inherit any more property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-59435607667694405562009-08-08T10:24:28.164-04:002009-08-08T10:24:28.164-04:00@ BB part 2
As for the PB and Bishop Lee's ca...@ BB part 2<br /><br />As for the PB and Bishop Lee's case against the churches in VA, they certainly do have standing in the courts, as ruled repeatedly by Judge Bellows. He hasn't ruled with TEC on many other items, but he has been clear on that subject: they have a stake and a logical case (good or bad was then yet to be determined) and they are a reasonable participant in the case.<br /><br />That stake suggests that, if Lee and the PB had not brought the case, they would have, essentially, been improperly disposing of church property. As such, they would very reasonably have been personally liable for that fiduciary impropriety. It seems clear that simply letting the properties go without due compensation would have been improper under any reasonable assessment of the case from the point of view of TECs side of the story.<br /><br />Although I was teasing a bit in the post that seems to have started all this, I also had a serious point. That original serious point is that we really must try to set our emotional reactions aside and try to look at this objectively and evenly from both sides.<br /><br />Remember, I actually agree with your position on a number of points relative to TEC's recent actions: I'm just trying to be objective here and to see the issue from both sides. I think that we, as Christians and as reasonable and responsible citizens have a duty to try to be as objective and dispassionate as possible.<br /><br />If the traditional polity of TEC is reasonable and holds true in the courts, then TEC and the diocese of VA had an absolute responsibility to contest and, if possible, win the case for property. If they failed to do so, they would not only have been irresponsibly damaging the patrimony of the church, but also the polity of the EPISCOPAL church.<br /><br />In our faith, bishops have a particular, central, role - both spiritually as well as educationally and administratively. We are a centralized, hierarchical church and always have been. That's part of what it means to be EPISCOPALIANS. Although we have traditionally given wide latitude to the local church to meet local pastoral needs, and in the US we have tended to emphasize the role of the laity in church government, we are not congregationalists that can go haring off on our own, withdrawing from one community of parishes to join any other one that pleases us. we have a duty to obedience and unity UNDER the authority of our bishops. As US Episcopalians we also have a duty to the unity of the democratic process by which we are governed by convention. Individuals who do not like the drift of the larger church, can leave, but parishes and diocese may not.<br /><br />If the VA case holds or even if Lee and the PB had failed to follow-up on the cases in VA, they would have been seriously compromising not just their administrative responsibilities, but the absolute theological integrity of the church's polity: the notion that the apostolic succession is important. If the current (unique) situation stands in VA, a serious blow will have been dealt to the polity of all apostolic churches, not just those in VA, but everywhere in the US. The root question in VA seems to have boiled down to the question: can a state (US or VA) so interfere in the establishment of a church so as to essentially invalidate the apostolic succession and all that it means?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-26049621646971845462009-08-08T10:15:36.778-04:002009-08-08T10:15:36.778-04:00@ BB - According to TEC and the Diocese of VA it i...@ BB - According to TEC and the Diocese of VA it is you who are wrong.<br /><br />Now, I've known Bishop Lee for many years as a parishioner. I know even more about him from other sources. Are you seriously claiming that the bishop is deliberately not telling the truth? Really??? I've never heard of him accused of any such thing before, have you?<br /><br />Isn't it more reasonable and logical that the Bishop believes what he is saying to be true? I grant you that it's possible he is simply mistaken, but what he says and seems to believe is that the filing of the motions asking the court to recognize the separation and grant the property to those who wanted to leave had forced his hand. He says that he either had to fight for the property or surrender completely without a fight and without reasonable compensation at all.<br /><br />Now, sad to say, in this fallen world we live in, a bishop, any bishop, is not just a spiritual leader; he also has certain administrative and fiduciary responsibilities toward the institution of the church and it's physical structure, as well as for the spiritual well being of his flock.<br /><br />It is my understanding that if Bishop Lee had failed to stand up to the church he could reasonably expect to have been held personally liable for the loss or improper disposition of the church's property.<br /><br />The bishop is an otherwise honest man; many on both sides would feel that he has often been dangerously naive and even sometimes irresponsibly gentle and accommodating at a time when firmness and clarity would have been more useful to the situation. Isn't it possible he believes the chronology he posted on his site and stated under oath in court to be true? <br /><br />More importantly, it seems that the entire issue of chronology is simply a red herring. No reasonable legal authority in the land, including, you will note, Judge Randy Bellows, would claim that any agreement amongst the parties would have taken precedence over any ruling on the property by the courts.<br /><br />If you think that any "Standstill Agreement" would have taken precedence over the courts, you have been dreadfully mislead by your adviser. I would suggest, given the amount of time, energy, emotion, and money invested that you consider holding anyone who would have mislead you in that way to account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com