Bishop Lamb Bemoans ”˜Astronomical’ Cost of Property Dispute

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin will appeal a California Superior Court ruling that The Episcopal Church is hierarchical and that the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield had no standing to break the diocese’s ties with the larger church.

Judge Adolfo M. Corona of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, issued an order for summary adjudication on July 21. The lawsuit was filed by the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, acting bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and The Episcopal Church against Bishop Schofield, several bodies formed by the departing diocese, and the investment firm of Merrill Lynch.

“Defendants’ right to amend their constitution and canons is not unrestricted and unlimited,” Judge Corona wrote. “The constitution of the diocese has always permitted amendments. ”¦ However, from the inception of the diocese as a missionary district, it acceded to the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and recognized the authority of the General Convention of the same.”

Read it all.

Print Friendly

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: San Joaquin

12 comments on “Bishop Lamb Bemoans ”˜Astronomical’ Cost of Property Dispute

  1. Milton says:

    “For what mans begins to build a house and does not first calculate what the cost will be? For if he begins to build and cannot finish, he will be thought a fool.”

    “They have sown a wind and reaped a whirlwind.”

  2. Creighton+ says:

    This is a reality that a number of Diocese must face…but also the divisions amongst themselves…..the cost must be counted…and then a decision made…God be with every diocese that comes to this cross road. God be with them all..

  3. David Wilson says:

    Bishop Lamb has a rather interesting opening gambit concerning criteria for “negotiations”

  4. A Floridian says:

    [Comment deleted by Elf]

  5. AnglicanFirst says:

    Bishop Lamb said,
    “We want our property back. We want the properties that belong to The Episcopal Church back under the control of The Episcopal Church,….”

    In answer to Bishop Lamb, the orthodox Anglicans might say,

    We want “…the Faith once given…” back. We want the The Episcopal Church to return to Scripture, the creeds and the traditions of the Church Catholic.

    We don’t want The Episcopal Church to become New Age emulation of the Universalist/Unitarian Church.

    We don’t want a ‘puppet’ of the presiding bishop pretending in the courts that he is honestly and justly sitting in the cathedra seat of the Bishop of San Jaoquin.

  6. desertpadre says:

    Lamb’s definition of “negotiation” is the same as their definition of “dialogue” has always been: their offer to dialogue has always meant that “we’ll talk until you surrender.”
    desert padre

  7. Carolina Anglican says:

    I think it is significant in this judge’s statement what is true nationally…that outsiders and some insiders believe that a diocese in TEC accedes and submits to General Convention’s decisions. Regardless of how much a diocese like SC or Albany wants to differentiate itself or pretend the association can be explained, the fact is by the inclusion in TEC the orthodox lend credence to what the national church does and says. No verbage can overcome the statement of association and submission and accountability. If the dioceses argue that no submission or accountability exists, then is the only reason for remaining in TEC financial, material and conflict avoidance?

  8. JCDuquette says:

    I found his comments: He said the diocese is open to negotiation with the departing diocese.

    “My diocese is always open for conversation, but we need to be very clear that the conversation will be: When do you intend to give our property back? How do you intend to give our property back?”

    He is discussing getting the property back but he is having to pay attorney and legal cost to do so. I would not “negotiate” with him without lawyer either. Since he is suing the departing diocese, I don’t see where he has any reason to complain.

  9. FaithfulDeparted says:

    It is interesting when he refers to the property as “ours”.

    What exactly is Lamb’s claim on property that John-David and his Diocese developed and sustained?

  10. desertpadre says:

    At our special convention on August 1, when we voted to become part of ACNA, San Joaquin’s attorney stated that when he deals with Lamb and his crew, he comes away “feeling soiled.”
    desert padre

  11. fatherlee says:


  12. Ouroboros says:

    Don’t forget, they sued not only the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin and its Bishop, John-David, but they had the temerity to sue their law firm. That law firm is itself represented by counsel and was only added as a defendant AFTER the much-vaunted motion for summary adjudication was filed. Thus, under basic due process rules, Judge Corona’s ruling on TEC’s motion is not applicable to nor binding upon the defendant law firm. There is much more litigation to come, and if Bishop Lamb is already bemoaning things, just wait until he sees Round Two.