In an expected, but disappointing decision, the newly forming Episcopal Church diocese in southwestern Pennsylvania announced today that it intends to move forward with legal action against The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) by attempting to claim all diocesan property.
“The document filed today in the Calvary litigation by Calvary and the new diocese created after the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh withdrew from The Episcopal Church is both procedurally and substantively improper. Moreover, it is regrettable that these groups have chosen to pursue more litigation rather than agree to equitable division of the assets.” said the Rev. Peter Frank, diocesan spokesman.
No surprise here…
Intercessor
Um. It is the continuuing Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, not the newly-forming etc. You left. Y’all’ve started a new thing, maybe even, DV, a New Thing. Live with it.
The semantic stuff is so much like so many Republicans’ “Democrat Party” thing as to make it impossible to take any of you reasserters seriously.
Actually, #2, Pittsburgh restarted an old thing, the one you guys dynamited in 2003 when you went Scripture-optional. And why should the Episcopal Organization franchise there get to keep all the real estate anyway? Lord knows, there aren’t going to be enough people to keep your barns operational. Or is that the idea?
#2, the deliberate injection of secular politics into this argument, on thin grounds, makes it hard to discuss the church matters.
The large majority of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh continues intact. It has transferred its larger association from the General Convention to another group of Anglican dioceses. The dissenters, who wish to remain associated with the General Convention, have had to reorganize, elect officers, pass bylaws, and so on, before being able to file suit to take the property of the majority. They’re not content, apparently, with taking up their now-former bishop’s and diocese’s offer of an equitable distribution of assets, consistent with New Testament principles on the settlement of disputes.
RE: “as to make it impossible to take any of you reasserters seriously.”
Why I would want the likes of Oriscus to take “any of you reasserters seriously” is beyond me.
Mr. Frank’s comments: “The document filed today in the Calvary litigation by Calvary and the new diocese created after the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh withdrew from The Episcopal Church is both procedurally and substantively improper. Moreover, it is regrettable that these groups have chosen to pursue more litigation rather than agree to equitable division of the assets.†said the Rev. Peter Frank, diocesan spokesman.” seemed to miss the point. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) is not seeking something new. It is seeking enforcement of what was and is the agreement ending the court action in 2005. In the event of a split, the property goes to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that is the TEC diocese (not Southern Cone) diocese.
As you will recall, Calvary Pittsburgh petitioned the Court for enforcement of its agreement with +Duncan’s group. In contrast to its settlement agreement, it protested that +Duncan was continuing to attempt to take property out of the then TEC diocese of Pittsburgh. This petition was accepted by the Court leading to further actions and the revelation of the two secret “smoking gun” documents: The GS Steering Committee document clearly stating it was the intent of the Duncan diocese to control the property for the “replacement” diocese it Duncan planned to lead and the Westfield’s Response document in the Court mandated discovery process.
Mr. Frank’s comments fly in the face of the agreement and prove once again that the issue of “property” is not a TEC issue alone, it is an “Anglican Pittsburgh” issue and always has been.
Had Pittsburgh not agreed to the settlement, the Calvary litigation would have continued in 2005. It was not until the exposure of the GS Steering Committee document and the Westfield’s Response document circa Feb 2007 that +Duncan’s intent were made and proven clear. There was no intent to abide by the settlement that was negotiated.
I can never help laughing out loud when ECUSA loyalists types, such as EmilyH, accuse others of lying and deception.
Phil — she’s just reading off the stuff she’s reading on the HOBD, and elsewhere. Doesn’t even grasp what the flaws are and can’t help it. I doubt she’s lying.
Of course — there is no “replacement” diocese. The same old diocese exists today. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh — and as the lawsuit settled, it owns all the property, unlike what Duncan wanted which was to let individual parishes take their property with them.
Now the law will have to settle which “diocese” — the faux one that isn’t even following the TEC canons for its own development — or the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh — will receive the property.
It’ll be a several-years process — interesting to observe.
Oh, of course, Sarah. I do want to make clear, though – I was not accusing EmilyH of lying, only supporting an institution that does.
EmilyH’s opening quote from Mr. Frank says it: the Diocese that always was continues to exist, affiliated with another Anglican Province, and in communion with Canterbury. The Faithful Remnant who did not go along for the ride found themselves in the position of having to organize a new Diocese of TEC while simultaneously claiming that they were the True and Only diocese.
Dumb Sheep.
Ms. Sarah Hey in comment # 8 above has stated that my source for comments is the HofBD(?) discussion list. It is not. My source for comments referencing the Calvary case is and always has been the document file of the office of the prothonotary of Allegheny county Pa. In the case noted No. GD-03-020941. In the specific instance, I reference I reference the Stipulation and Court Order of October 14,2005 Paragraph 1 states:
“Property, whether real or personal (hereinafter “property). held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter “Dioceseâ€) for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held or administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. For purposes of this paragraph, Property as which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish of the Diocese shall not be deemed Property held or administered by the Diocese.†Please see Exhibit 1 for a copy of the settlement order: http://prothonotary.county.allegheny.pa.us/DisplayImage.asp?gPDFOH=vol673 00000015&CaseID=GD-03-020941&DocketType=RQ&SeqNumber=114
Whatever the case of the alleged Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Southern Cone, it is not the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. In addition Ms. Hey can have no personal knowledge of my sources and her assertion to the contrary is false.