In a brief interview with a reporter for The Living Church shortly after the decision was announced on Jan. 5, Bishop Bruno said he was “overjoyed” at the verdict and considered all issues at dispute to be decided in their favor. Bishop Bruno said his next step will be to initiate dialogue individually with the clergy and lay leadership of the three churches in the hope that it will lead to reconciliation and perhaps the eventual voluntary return of those congregations to The Episcopal Church.
“I want to see if they are willing to talk; to see if they want to return to The Episcopal Church,” Bishop Bruno said. He added that the offer of dialogue carried no preconditions.
“Attorneys handle legal issues,” he said. “This is now a pastoral issue.”
If this is a pastoral issue, then why did you bring a lawsuit to begin with? If it had been handled as a “pastoral” issue all along, then the diocese and the congregations would have saved millions in litigation costs.
Calling it pastoral now is like calling for border negiotations after you have defeated your enemy and occupied his lands in a war.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The Lord asks us to choose between him and the world, if we had all chosen him with out reservation their would be a vibrant new anglican church and a bunch of empty old buildings. I am afraid by trying to save the buildings we have lost our opertunity.
paul
“. . . to see if they want to return to The Episcopal Church . . . ”
Wow. Just wow.
I wonder if the bishop knows how delusional he is about TEC and traditional Episcopalians who are departing it.
“Attorneys handle legal issues,†he said. “This is now a pastoral issue.â€
Abuse me and then talk about interpersonal relations?
What an idiot.
Nuts.
Smoking mirrors!
#5, heh –
“What does that mean?” he asked in reply. “Is this affirmative or negative?”
[sarcasm on] “Heh, heh, heh…now that our “legal” team has beaten them, maybe now they will see the error of their ways and that RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. Maybe now they will be more, shall we say, amenable to crawling, er coming back to us.” [sarcasm off]
Sarah, I am quite sure that Bishop Bruno knows very well how things stand. Therefore the problem! He IS the problem…..he and the “Church” which he represents. If St James’ is finally forced to leave their property, that won’t really be a “loss” for them…..spiritually, anyway…..but it WILL be a financial loss for TEC and the Diocese of Los Angeles, and a huge one. They’ll be left with an empty building and quickly-emptying coffers; a white elephant and a millstone around his neck.
[i] This is now a pastoral issue [/i] —Bp. Bruno
That’s right. Might as well turn the disputed church buildings into [b]pastures[/b], for all the good they will do and all the people they will hold.
[i] Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt [/i] (“They made a desert and called it peace”)
—Tacitus, the Roman historian, referring to Rome’s defeat of Carthage in 146 BC
Just a process comment:
Kendall and Elves,
Is there any way to consolidate the comments when there are multiple stories posted on exactly the same subject? As it is, I (like others interested in this developing event) am having to scan the comments in half-a-dozen or more places in order to keep up with the discussion. A number of people are asking questions in later threads that were answered hours earlier in threads that have dropped far down the page. Valuable points are being made (by others, not me) that many people who are interested in the subject are never going to see because they don’t look at that particular thread.
It is probably too late to clean up this discussion, but it is something to bear in mind for future breaking news.
Respectfully,
Dale
Bp. Bruno “initiates dialogue”:
Answering Machine: Hello. You’ve reached St. James’ Anglican Church, Newport Beach. Sorry we’re not available to take your call. Please leave a message and we’ll call you back soon. Have a great day!
Bp. Bruno: Hi, St. James. This is Bishop Bruno. I’ll be stopping by tomorrow to pick up the keys. If you could have the deeds signed over to the Diocese too, that’d be great. Thanks so much.
Irenaeus – there couldn’t be a more appropriate quotation as that tag from Tacitus. Thank you for adding it to the discussion.
Yes, Irenaeus, outstanding quotation.
“’I want to see if they are willing to talk; to see if they want to return to The Episcopal Church,’ Bishop Bruno said.” This must be for foreign consumption, or perhaps it’s a joke. The LA Diocese has gone so far off the deep end since these parishes left that there is no question of their return, unless a few, very few, members decide they’d like to have the building instead of the faith. These won’t be sustainable General Convention parishes; they’ll have to be closed and sold.
Bruno to parishioners: “Our dispute is now a pastoral issue”
Wolf to lamb: “Come into my lair and let’s talk it over”
“Attorneys handle legal issues,†he said. “This is now a pastoral issue.â€
He found some pretty good lawyers — but he doesn’t know a pastor anywhere.
“Acceperunt mercedem suam vani vanam”
— St. Augustine, on the avarice of officials and delatores in his own day —
seems just as apposite.
Here’s what the deceivers like Bruno won’t understand. That our Church has been taken over by causes masquerading as the Gospel. As long as THAT continues, well and fine. TEC is toast with Bruno and his kind of leadership. Pockets of bored or guilt-ridden people will seek out TEC to assuage their need to be relevant, but God will not prosper it as a Church.
The symptomology is also evident in people like the lesbian-promoting Rev. Dr. Cynthia Black, who haunted Lambeth to promote Gene Robinson. Here she is editing for “The Gene Pool”.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rvaAL1L_55s/SJy3I1lp1qI/AAAAAAAAD40/Uv4ZaZXB704/s1600-h/cynthia.jpg
(Hope that link worked – if not just copy/paste).
Thanks to the ever in-your-face documentation of Susan Russell for that fact.
If the Rev. Dr. Black had spent NEAR the energy on her failing cathedral as she spent in advocating for lesbianism then Christ the King would not have been sold off.
Keep up the good work revisionists. You make the point for separation so well.
Dr. Tighe,
Please forgive my ignorance, but would you translate St. Augustine in a way that I can grasp the context here. Thanks.
Ughh ..Jeff from VA…The collective minds of the California Supreme Court have stated with great vigor that property deeds are meaningless pieces of paper when applied to “church affairs”.
Intercessor
It was *always* a pastoral issue. The issue is that the bishops of ECUSA aren’t pastors, otherwise they wouldn’t have laymen walking out seeking real ones. Real fatih, too. Ignorance + arrogance = EUCSA
Successful dialogue means we win. If you can be pastoral about it, then all is well.
Intercessor (#20), I’d imagine he’ll want the deeds signed over anyway. Prospective purchasers of the empty buildings will want more assurances than a California Supreme Court decision upholding the validity and applicability of a denominational trust clause to ensure that they’re buying from the “actual” owner.
Jeff,
If I were a prospective buyer, I would feel pretty confident relying on a state Supreme Court decision saying that the person signing the deed has the authority to do so. The only higher authority on state land titles is God Almighty. Certainly, I would feel a lot more confident relying on this decision than on the four corners of a deed when its meaning is disputed.
Analogous situation: A joint venture between two corporations comes to a bad end. Who gets to keep the venture’s property? That is not going to be finally determined by whose name is on the deeds, but by the terms of the joint venture agreement. That does not mean that “property deeds are meaningless pieces of paper when applied to ‘corporate affairs,'” but only that courts must decide property disputes based on all the relevant evidence.
Some of this discussion reminds me of the rule of “stage law” that the villain who gets physical possession of the widow’s deed can throw her out of her home. Obviously, courts are going to look beyond who has the deed, and they are also going to look beyond the bare wording of a deed that was executed in a particular context for a particular purpose.
Re: #19,
Literally, “the empty (men) received their empty reward (or pay-off),” and perhaps “The foolish men grasped their pointless prize.”
Phil (#1) asks “Then why the lawsuit?”
You can read the whole long, sad story [url=http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2009/01/story-time-20.html]here[/url] (if you’re so inclined) or here’s the short answer:
Because the chance to work through differences or — lacking that — to come to a mutually agreeable separation agreement was back there somewhere inbetween when the departing clergy turned down +Jon’s offer of alternative episcopal overisght saying “thanks for the offer of DEPO but we want you to be our bishop” and when they — a week later said “we’re out of here — meet our lawyers.”
The responsibility for “the lawsuits” clearly lies firmly at the feet of the ones walking out the door with the silver, the linens and the deeds stuffed in their pockets — not at the feet of the one still setting a place at the table for everybody.
It is interesting to ponder how many 80X120 General Steel Buildings cash defending these lawsuits could have bought.
S–eeewww-san Russell rides in with yet another boilerplate full of nothing. Never, never, never is the answer going to come out of her as to WHY she won’t take her unique insights and pastoral skills out on the road and become a rector someplace rather than hiding in the back bench staff lineup at All Saints.
” The responsibility for the ‘lawsuits’ clearly lies firmly …..at the feet of the ones walking out the door with the silver….. not at the feet of the one setting a place at the table for everybody. ” … Ms. Russell.
Comment: Ms. Russell, Bruno ( a Catholic who resented their rules ) and the PB ( ten years an Episcopal priest ) are essentially usurpers to the ECUSA, as is the Bp. of NH – it seems to me the people who are leaving with the “silver” are the ones who paid for it in the first place; and, of course, David Booth Beers and his wife. Bruno is essentially “setting the table” with china paid for by the Christians who preceded him. He likes to dine at the expensive California Club in downtown LA where he can be seen treating his underlings [ and impressionable Times reporters ] to lunch on our tab. He was elevated by a nomination from the floor of the local diocesan convention by a fan from a parish in Santa Monica, with few others around to challenge.
Perhaps the Lord has His own method of addressing spiritual and real estate matters: the Mr. Calvary retreat/monastery above Santa Barbara recently burned – I mean burned. Traditionally inhabited by a very spiritual group of monks, it recently had become a widely-promoted ( in gay circles ) gay retreat. God is never mocked. The retreat is gone and people wander around asking “why” ? Does Bp. Bruno have a clue ?
As to the “pastoral” comment – wasn’t it Nebuchadnezzar who was last seen eating grass in a pastoral setting ?
The court says “… the case confuses the motivation for the disaffiliates with the claims made by the general church about the use of church property…”
Comment: if this court and the appeals court earlier continue to rely on the general bahavior of all churches and all denominations in these matters ( the appeals court even referenced a Buddhist church ) without addressing the essential issue – ie. that the church left the membership, leaving a history of mutual trust in favor of heavy propaganda by the likes of “Integrity” et al at conventions like the one in 1979, where hand-picked attendees are regularly barraged with gay propaganda as they cast their vote for pro-gay agendas. The Calif. court refuses to address this central issue and it, to my way of thinking, is derelict in failing to do so – and vociferously so.
Ah, a trip down memory lane. DEPO. You can have another bishop come in to do confirmations if the Diocesan says so, but the Diocesan still requires your tithes and will still disapprove any conservative believer you might propose to replace your current rector, and will require any postulants to attend a seminary which teaches the new faith, not the original.
These parishes will be better off in the long run without their buildings, linen, and silver, which the Diocese will now take from them. Maybe they can buy it back at fire sale prices after the Diocese goes bankrupt.
#33 – Sounds remarkably like the MO of our finest universities
[i] The essential issue—i.e., that the church left the membership. … The Calif. court refuses to address this central issue and it, to my way of thinking, is derelict in failing to do so [/i]
For better or worse, American courts do not decide which church faction has been most faithful to church teachings. This is nothing new. The precedents go back to 1820.
#35 – Irenaeus – I suggest that you review the Virginia rulings by Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows in Virginia, which suggest that ” the majority rules” – ie. as in if and when the majority decides to leave – and he suggests that is not in violation of the
First Amendment. That is, in fact, something new – at least in this battle. See canaconvocation. org. Also note the free movie of the PB sitting for her deposition in the case. I think she would benefit greatly, and perhaps her worldview would improve, if nominated for “What Not to Wear” – especially the hair and makeup part.
RE: ” . . . especially the hair and makeup part.”
Juandeveras — that’s really mean to comment on her personal appearance like that. I could see if it were liturgical garb choices [*koff* oven-mitt *koff koff*] but the non-clothes aspect is unkind.
Not that it matters what I think about it, but I’m just commenting.
RE: “Ah, a trip down memory lane. DEPO.”
Yeh . . . good times, huh? ; > )
Katherine, have you ever noticed that when revisionist activists trumpet “they could have chosen DEPO — why?” it’s never a commentary on the utterly ridiculous fig-leaf of DEPO?
Dale Rye (#24),
Oh, I’m not disputing the efficacy of a California Supreme Court’s decision to definitively settle the ownership of disputed property. I’m just saying that if the Court’s decided the Diocese is the owner, as the Diocese, I’d just want it to be explicit on all the paperwork too.
Irenaeus,
Uninformed people keep saying that the Code of Virginia that Judge Bellows used to grant property to CANA was an outdated Civil War law. Nope. The Code has been revised a few times SINCE then, and each time the lawmakers keep including the right of churches to be shed of the powers that be in a dispute. Chalk that up to people who had to live through the choke-hold of Reconstruction with an overpowering and unjust civil power that redistributed private property at whim and called it law.
The three Virginia dioceses are puckering right about now. If they don’t behave themselves they will lose the whole game. Neff Powell of Southwestern Virginia is usually in deep denial about the thoughts of his constituency, but methinks that his confidence is a lot less after Judge Bellows handed TEC and Peter Lee their heads in court, including telling them that their arguments were based in fantasy rather than reality. Watch the laity after Convention.
THE LAW:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+57-9
#37 – Sarah – “What Not to Wear” has become a favorite of my wife and I precisely because it depicts transformations from the inside of individual women in such a meaningful way. It was not meant as a “put-down” of the PB.
Sarah, yes, and also, they refer to it when clearly there is no more possibility of anyone taking them up on an offer of DEPO. It’s for show.
I have to confess, as a non-lawyer, that I’m surprised by the California Supreme Court’s odd interpretation of “neutral principles,” which I took to mean something like “whoever holds title owns the property.” Perhaps this very liberal body has decided that “neutral principles” require supporting the side which is “inclusive,” not letting people keep natural title to property.
Oh, and I agree with Sarah on hair and makeup. Jefferts Schori’s choice of liturgical attire is fair game, but hair and makeup are out of bounds. I am constantly disappointed when I see photos of myself, taken by loving family members. Give her a break.
I’m sorry to disagree with you ladies.
“…but hair and makeup are out of bounds”.
Does that also include an ongoing lack of makeup?
What DOES one wear to accessorize with a giant oven mitt?
The makeup person on “What Not to Wear” is a lovely woman named Carmindy. She has very inciteful comments on how to effectively use makeup in an understated manner. We have noted literally hundreds of women who have been “born again” after the Carmindy onceover. Since the PB has asserted herself into our collective lives ( I do nor recall there being a popular election or plebescite ), the least she could do is make an effort. I do not think the understandable insecurities of others on this point should deter anyone from making this very obvious point.
“..Now a pastoral issue?”. Hasn’t been pastoral since before this whole thing began. Uh JJ, do you think anyone really buys this spiel?