Both sides in the court battle call themselves “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America,” but in October, a group representing about 60 percent of the local parishes voted to join the more theologically conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America.
In papers filed yesterday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, the Episcopal Diocese argued that the Anglican group stipulated in October 2005 that if it were to leave the church, all property and assets held by the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America … shall continue to be so held … 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.”
[blockquote] n papers filed yesterday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, the Episcopal Diocese argued that the Anglican group stipulated in October 2005 that if it were to leave the church, all property and assets held by the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America … shall continue to be so held … 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.”
The Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for the Anglican diocese, said that’s not what his side intended in signing the stipulation.[/blockquote]
That does not sound like a denial that the stipulation exists. If in fact the TEC loyalists are correct that a stipulation was signed and their characterization of it is accurate then the D of P is likely in serious trouble. If they signed it, and it says what TEC claims it says, intent is not going to come into play. One side in a contract can not arbitrarily violate the stipulations of said contract on the grounds that it did not represent “their intent” when they signed. It most certainly represented TEC’s intent.
Again this is all based on the assumption that TEC loyalists are making factually accurate statements, something which should not be taken for granted given their track record. But I am disturbed by the D of P’s response which did not deny the claimed stipulation’s existence.
AO just said everything I intended to say.
The only possible ethical position I can imagine for any traditionalist to take at this point is to carefully look at whatever was signed and, if the TEC side is correctly describing it, quietly admit that they made an agreement and that they are going to abide by it.
And I say that AS a traditionalist, one who has been on record as opposing TEC’s innovations from before 2003.
So, I think that the people who went with TEC should get an amount of money proportionate to their absolute numbers vis a vis those who who went to their new jurisdiction. That’s only just and equitable.
Yes, Senior Priest, a pro-rata share sounds equitable.
With all due respect to #s 3 & 4 I must disagree. [i][b]IF [/b][/i] the diocese signed this stipulation then they must honor it. TEC had a clear understanding of what they were signing and what it meant. It is neither just, nor fair, nor honorable for one party to a contract to unilaterally alter its terms after the fact because the terms did not reflect their “intent.”
Just and equitable went out the window if and when the D of P signed this alleged stipulation. Assuming the the TEC loyalists are not making things up I think the D of P is about to learn an important and probably expensive lesson.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Here is a link to the October 2005 stipulation (this is a pdf file):
http://tinyurl.com/9452m6
The full URL is:
http://prothonotary.county.allegheny.pa.us/DisplayImage.asp?gPDFOH=vol253 0000066B&CaseID=GD-03-020941&DocketType=STORD&SeqNumber=64
[blockquote] IF the diocese signed this stipulation then they must honor it.[/blockquote]
Who is the “diocese” in this statement? Did the Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh vote and pass this statement by majority vote at its regularly scheduled annual meeting? Who else would have the authority to make such a statement, and make it binding? If the Diocesan Convention did make this decision (and I do not believe that it did, and certainly such a vote would have been memorable), then it certainly had the right to unmake it at the two subsequent Conventions when it voted twice to leave the Province of the Episcopal Church and join the Province of the Southern Cone.
I find this claim (as it stands) to be highly suspicious. I am banking that either the statement was never made or that some statement made in 2005 is being interpreted in a manner in which it was not originally intended, or that someone may have made a statement who had no right to speak on behalf of the diocese, or . . . . I can imagine numerous other scenarios.
I would wait on jumping to conclusions until one heard further clarification on what this supposed statement was, who made it, what they actually said, what authority they had to make it, what they actually meant by the statement they made, and whether the statement was made unconditionally. In the meanwhile, we have the claims of very interested parties in a lawsuit about a statement supposedly made by an unspecified someone purporting to represent those they are suing–a statement that seems implausible on its face, and goes expressly against the public statements having being made by the bishop and other diocesan representatives for the last several years.
I have my doubts.
Thank you WDG
It is not quite as clear cut as the heretics would like to claim. Clause 1 is clearly the crux of the loyalist’s case. The references to “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” creates an implication that while parishes might defect, the diocese can not. Were this not the case one could argue that the line is deprived of coherent meaning. And If the document stopped with clause 1; I think the D of P would be in serious legal trouble.
But it doesn’t.
Much of the rest of the document makes references to parishes disaffiliating from the diocese and the network, effectively undermining any claim that the diocese can not secede. Those clauses establish a powerful preponderance of evidence that this document was drafted with a view to the secession of the diocese from TEC and the protection of the minority parishes that wished to remain with TEC. IMO there is no way to reasonably interpret it in any other light. And the document expressly reserves the property to the diocese in clause 1. Why would parishes remaining loyal to TEC need to worry about disaffiliating from a diocese that they are claiming could not leave TEC?
Perhaps someone with some heavy legal expertise could try to give an alternative interpretation to this, but I don’t see how a reasonable person cold look at this and see what TEC is claiming.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
My mistake. I didn’t notice the link to the 2005 statement by #5. The document states:
[blockquote]Property, rather real or personal . . . held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America . . . 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 to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.[/blockquote]
The document is actually fairly clear. It distinguishes between “the Diocese” and churches “in the Diocese,” and states that property of the Diocese shall remain property of the Diocese, even if churches in the Diocese leave the Episcopal Church.
This is exactly what has happened. The majority of the churches “in the Diocese” have chosen to leave the Episcopal Church as “the Diocese” has realigned with the Southern Cone. In this case, “the Diocese” (meaning the legal entity identified in 2005 as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church in the United States, and now legally identified as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)) retains its property. The statement says nothing about the Episcopal Church in the United States retaining this property (which it never owned), nor that the property shall pass to a new legal entity formed by those who choose to form a new Diocese should the current Diocese leave the Episcopal Church.
That a new organization calling itself the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in the Episcopal Church” has now been formed is rather irrelevant to this 2005 statement, as this organization did not exist in 2005, and is certainly not the entity identified as “the Diocese” in this statement.
Should Elizabeth Bennett marry Fitzwilliam Darcy, her name might change to Elizabeth Bennett Darcy, but she continues to be the same person, and continues to own any personal property that she might have made claim to before the marriage.
Should Emma Woodhouse decide to change her name to Elizabeth Bennett, she would not have the right to claim Elizabeth Darcy’s property on the ground that the former Miss Bennet is now Mrs. Darcy, and the former Miss Woodhouse is now Miss Bennett.
Re #7
William,
The document was linked in post # 6. My guess is that it was signed under the same authority that corporations have when it comes to signing contracts. Which is to say that at some point authority was given to officers of the diocese to enter into contractual agreements on behalf of the diocese. This is pretty routine. It is difficult to imagine how a diocese could operate if every time they wanted to sign a contract or legal document they needed the OK of a diocesan convention.
That said, as I note in my post # 8 TEC seems to be vastly overplaying their hand. IMO the document does not say what they are claiming. In fact if I were a judge I would be rather inclined to look at this document as a de facto concession to the possibility of a diocese seceding from the province.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
John #10,
As I noted in my #9, I missed the link. I suspect I may have been typing even as it was posted. My own reading (#9) agrees with yours (#8), posted while I was reading and posting my #9. I think the statement in the original document is precisely the kind of thing that diocesan legal representatives would have the right to sign because it simply states the understanding that the Diocese held–that the property in the name of the Diocese belongs to the Diocese, regardless of the decisions of individual parishes or of the Diocese itself. On a plain sense reading, the document is saying that, whether the majority leaves (meaning the Diocese leaves) or the majority stays (meaning the Diocese stays), the Diocese’s property remains the Diocese (whether it stays or leaves).
What the Document does not say is that property in the names of the parishes (whether they leave or stay) belongs to either the Diocese or TEC, or that if the Diocese leaves, property in the name of the Diocese will pass to a new legal entity formed after the leaving, and now claiming the name of the Diocese. Such a concession would indeed require a special meeting of Diocesan Convention for it would mean a new understanding of Diocesan property ownership, and it certainly would not have passed. That no such motion was ever voted on at Diocesan Convention indicates that the correct reading is the plain sense reading that the Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) continues to hold its property.
BTW, I do remember Bishop Duncan stating a year or so something to the effect that Calvary had made a mistake in their suing the Diocese because it resulted in a legal decision that it was the Diocese (meaning the then Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh TEC) that was the decisive legal entity as far as property ownership. I think he may have been referring to this document.
To #8: I do not see any language in the stipulation that anticipates that the Diocese itself could formally disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church. The concern that prompted the original lawsuit was that the plaintiffs (Duncan, et al) might attempt a de facto realignment by allowing large numbers of parishes to disaffiliate and take the property with them, including taking a portion of the Diocesan property as well as individual parish property. Paragraph 1 stipulates that no Diocesan property may be taken. Paragraph 2 anticipates the possibility that parish property might be taken (but does not stipulate that that must be allowed).
Of course, that is not what ultimately happened. What actually happened was that the plaintiffs attempted a de jure disaffiliation of the Diocese itself. The issue at hand is whether an “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh” not of the Episcopal Church, can be the legitimate owner of property that paragraph 1 stipulates must remain with “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.”
To an outsider, it sort of sounds like the nomenclature (Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh) is being gamed to avoid the language of the stipulation. Why stand for scriptural integrity alone when one can have scriptual integrity and plenty of swag to go with it?
As a four-year member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, whose sympathies are split between the new Anglican Diocese and the more conservative stayers, it is the “legalese” surrounding this whole business of what actually constitutes “the Diocese” that I have found most depressing.
Knowing some of the parties advising Bishop Duncan, I don’t think that anyone on the realigning side is deliberately promoting something that they do not believe to be true. Bishop Duncan himself stated at a recent cathedral chapter meeting that he doubted whether legal proceedings would be pursued or defended against indefinitely, if the cost – and not just the financial cost – was judged excessive. Looking at even a small portion of the legal argument, however, leads me to see an enduring institutionalist mentality in the way we continue to do business.
Of course, I have less to lose than some and – as a number of people have pointed out to me over the past few months – I may underestimate what it is like to start again with nothing (apart, of course, from the resources of the actual parishioners, who are the real asset).
I can’t say I think much of the way Jim Simons has conducted business either, not so much in terms of the present issue, but more in terms of failing to assert the continued inherent worth of those who have realigned (many of his fellow stayers don’t have that problem).
More and more do I begin to appreciate the strategy of AMIA (not necessarily its theology) and of the churches aligned with Uganda. If we’re going to be this postcolonial missional church, why can’t we start again without baggage – even that to which we are ‘entitled – and follow where the Holy Spirit leads us?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
The divorce of the actual Diocese of Pittsburgh from ECUSA is complete.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh tried to be even handed in its treatment of those persons wishing to remain within ECUSA and now some of those persons want to turn what had been an honorable situation created through the actions of Bishop Duncan and the diocese into a nasty divorce fight over the division-of-property.
The blame for this turn of events fall directly on the shoulders of the ECUSA activists who did not follow their diocese or their bishop.
John Rodgers (former Dean of Trinity School for Ministry) and retired AMIA bishop has a helpful article [url=http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9729]here[/blockquote].
I linked that wrong. Try again here.
This, of course, is the same John Rodgers who – so I was told by Henry Scriven – complained at GAFCON that he was disappointed that a more formal separation from the institutional structures of the Anglican Communion was not being contemplated at that time.
I have no problem with the idea of the diocese as the essential ecclesiastical unit and accept that it does have the ability to take the decision to realign (after all, I voted that way in 2007). .
Nevertheless, just as I find uncongenial the approach of liberal institutionalists – like [url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2009/01/historical-response-to-jim-stockton_03.html]Jim Stockton[/url] who argue the historic American Episcopal attitude to Communion relationships based on formal institutional structures, or, rather, the lack thereof, so I find the present emphasis on what the pre-realignment Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh did [b]constitutionally[/b] and [b]legally[/b] to miss the mark [b]ecclesiologically[/b].
So much ink has been spilled asserting that we are not – and have not been – just another “democratic” American denomination, but something more, yet the present fracas belies this. Again, what we are entitled to may matter less than how we choose to “be”.
Jeremy,
I’m very appreciative of your perspective here. What seems to me to be true is that in a profound sense both the EDoP-TEC and the EDoP-SC/ACNA are in continuity with what was the EDoP on October 3rd, 2008, the day before our “realignment” vote. And that it is also true that neither is [b]perfectly[/b] in continuity. There are connections and disjunctions in terms of personal relationships and institutional identities, and we are only a few inches off the starting blocks in sorting all that out. I hope that we will do so prayerfully, generously, and in a spirit of collegial friendship.
It is the case in civil society that, muddled as our ecclesial identities actually are in the realities of our lives, a brighter line is required. There is before the courts of the Commonwealth this longstanding legal interaction between Calvary Church and the EDoP. Judge James needs to determine who the parties to the continuting action are, according to Pennsylvania law. Both the EDoP-TEC and the EDoP-SC/ACNA have reasonable cases to make. He will make a decision between them, and then whichever party is on the off side will appeal. The courts of appeal will review and have their say, and then, sooner or later, the question of which group is the legal successor to the October 3rd EDoP will be established. That this determination would need to be made, and that the question would be contested, was inevitable as morning.
Whichever way the legal determination goes, there will be much room for grace, good-will, affection, and continuity of shared life and ministry here in our corner of the world. The law works through an adversarial process, and the danger, which is the spiritual danger at the core of all those New Testament premonitions, is that a community of Christian friends who must turn to the law to resolve a difficult question might be sucked into this adversarial model beyond the doors of the Court House on Grant Street. Then we end up looking like the last scenes in the movie, “War of the Roses.” Which is not, I know, where any of us really want to be.
Bruce Robison
Jeremy,
The language that is being appealed to by the “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America” appears originally in a court document that came about as a matter of lawsuit filed by a individual church against the Diocese. To complain that an emphasis on what the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (before the realignment) did constitutionally and legally “misses the mark” ecclesiologically misses the context. The Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) is being sued, a lawsuit which it did not instigate, and to which it is responding legally–and really has no choice. Even if the Diocese were simply to hand the property over, it would all have to be done legally, with many lawyers making sure it was all done “constitutionally and legally.”
Ecclesiologically, one could argue that aggressively suing other Christians is lacking in Christian charity, but to complain that the legal response to legal actions uses legal language, and raises legal points, seems to me a category mistake.
I’m a little hazy on this now due to the passage of time, but I recall that the stipulation developed out of a suit filed against Duncan or the Diocese by the Rector of Calvary Church. The Stipulation was in the nature of a settlement so that the legal expenses would not continue. As part of the settlement, a court-appointed watchdog was to inventory the assets of the then-existing diocese and present such inventory to the court. I don’t know if this has been done, or if the court has taken further action. this was the status as of 2005 or 2006, long before the departure of the Diocese for the Southern Cone, and the organization of a new Diocese of TEC as successor to the Departed.
Dumb Sheep.
Dr. Witt,
My point is – very simply – that the ecclesiological model of “the Church” that has been promoted in Pittsburgh over the past thirty years has been decidedly anti-institutional. It follows logically – at least to me – that this should lead one to view endowment and even structures as things that should be negotiated for, if possible, but otherwise abandoned. It pains my dear friend Wicks Stevens for me to keep saying that the secular legal position doesn’t matter, but my gut feeling is that this is the case.
It seems that there will be no informal negotiation to divide assets, only resort to the secular courts. If we’re going to dedicate limited resources – I pledge to the Anglican Diocese under the procedures agreed by Trinity Cathedral for redirection according to individual wishes – I would rather be storing up resources to support legal counsel in challenges to the Freedom of Choice Act, not for this. I felt this when the Anglican District of Virginia was on a winning streak; I feel it now after the news out of California. I’m not even convinced that the secular world would be that impressed if we won – it would just be business as usual in the saga of American denominational struggle.
A couple of comments on John Roger’s article (#16 & 17 above):
He states
[blockquote]There is nothing in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal “Church” that prohibits a diocese from separating from the Episcopal “Church”.
(If I am correct, dioceses did separate from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America at the time of the “Late Unpleasantness”. When the Southern Dioceses returned there was no denial that they had left nor was there any amendment to the Constitution of the Canons to forbid such departing. If this is true, then there is legal precedent on the side of the dioceses who have voted to separate from the Episcopal “Church”.)[/blockquote]
It is true that there is nothing explicitly prohibiting a Diocese from separating, however there are explicit provisions (Canon I.11.3(b&f;)) providing for the transfer of “a Missionary Diocese beyond the territory of the United States of America” to another existing or newly forming Province of the Anglican Communion. The fact that no such provisions are made with respect to a regular Diocese within the United States implies that such a transfer is not considered to be legitimate–but that may be considered a matter of interpretation.
The Episcopal Church did [i]not[/i] recognize that the Southern Dioceses had separated from the Church during the Civil War, only that they were absent for the duration. During the war they were still included in roll calls at national convention. After the war the members of those Diocese were welcomed back, but there was never any concession that the Dioceses themselves had separated.
Dr. Witt says [blockquote]The Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) is being sued, a lawsuit which it did not instigate, and to which it is responding legally–and really has no choice,[/blockquote] But that is not the case.
The formal Stipulation settled in 2005 a suit brought by Calvary Church against the [i]Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A.[/i]
Calvary Church has in 2008 asked the court to confirm that the provisions of that Stipulation are still being followed by the parties, and the action filed this week has to do with the identification of the parties subject to the Stipulation.
#21 speaks of [blockquote]the organization of a new Diocese of TEC,[/blockquote] but that is an assertion of a state of being not yet determined legally.
In November of 2009 the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church, U.S.A., will gather for an event that will be called the “144th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” Among its officers presently are clergy and lay members of Diocesan Council, Board of Trustees, Standing Committee, and General Convention Deputies who were elected by earlier (“pre-realignment”) diocesan conventions, and this “continuing” (in its own view) entity has indicated that it understands itself to be bound by all legal and canonical actions of the pre-October 4 diocese–with the proviso that actions separating the diocese from the Episcopal Church are understood to be uncanonical and without force because they violate provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the Executive Council have recognized this body not as a “new” diocese of the Episcopal Church, but as the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Clergy and lay deputies–half of those having been elected prior to October 4 by the “pre-realigned” diocese and half having been elected to fill vacancies created when previously-elected deputies indicated they no longer intended to remain in office within the Episcopal Church–will be seated in regular order at General Convention in Anaheim this summer. No action to “admit a new diocese” is considered necessary.
So, what the action filed this week says, as I understand it, is that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church understands itself to be the entity subject to the provisions of the 2005 Stipulation, and is prepared to comply with them to the satisfaction of Calvary Church. The action says that the attorneys representing the diocesan entity now relating to the Southern Cone/ACNA should no longer be regarded by the court as interested parties, because the entity they represent is no longer the entity named in the Stipulation.
Again, Judge James will read the arguments, then make his decision–and we’ll all see where we go from there.
Bruce Robison
I am not close enough to the details of the case to know for sure what to make of the stipulation and the legal interpretations thereof. But I ask: is there any doubt but that this action is in line with the scorched earth policy of TEC everywhere else: in N.Va. in Binghamton, in LA? Is there any doubt that the motive of this action is either fear or vindictiveness, that those bringing this suit have no serious intention of filling the churches that would be emptied if the suit were won? Is there any doubt that Bishop Duncan and the churches of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh would make a fair settlement out of court if that option were offered?
TEC should agree to sell some of its property to the new diocese for a nominal fee, at a low mortgage rate. Let the conservative parishes by the poor, struggling liberal parishes out.
Buildings are an albatross around a growing church’s neck. Sell them to the enemy. The wost thing the reasserters could do would be to give us our buildings.
But a fair price for them.
It griieves me to make this comment, but I think I must. I am not addressing the Calvary group, but those who know better. I believe, when all the rationalizing is put aside, you stayed with TEC because you could not imagine your church – your people and your ministry – deprived of its place, its connectedness to the past. I think that decision could be made in good conscience. But I do not see how you can be party to a lawsuit that would deprive your brothers and sisters in Christ, your friends, from their churches and their history. I urge you to separate from this vile and godless lawsuit.
There [i]is[/i] as yet no “new” diocese in the Pittsburgh area; nor could there be until General Convention meets again in 2009 and makes some changes to the Canons.
The group that decided to stay with TEC is staking everything on its argument that the changes voted on were, as Bruce Robison+ states in #24, “uncanonical”. However, with all due respect to those who actually practice law in Pennsylvania, I might suggest that there are some problems with that position.
In the first place, there is no juridical authority [i]within[/i] TEC that can declare the actions of a diocese “uncanonical”. That being the case, the group led by the Rev. Dr. Simons is going to have to persuade the secular Court of Common Pleas to decide that they were.
That Court will prefer to look at the laws of Pennsylvania, to determine first whether the unincorporated association that is the legal entity recognized by the State followed its [i]own[/i] governing documents in amending them. If the Court finds that it did, whether it goes on to consider the “canonicity” (? “canonicalness”?) of the Diocese’s actions is a matter of contract law. That is to say, there would have to be some [i]written provision[/i] in the national C & C’s which the Diocese’s actions, perfectly legal under State law, violated.
As a canon lawyer familiar with the C & C’s, I just don’t see any such language in them that rises to the level of a contract (compare the language of the Dennis Canon). Moreover, I find it rather two-faced of TEC to be telling the courts of one State (California) that whether the Dennis Canon was properly adopted or not is a matter of “internal governance and polity”, [i]i.e.,[/i] a religious thicket into which the courts should not venture, while at the same time it tells the courts of Pennsylvania that whether the Diocese of Pittsburgh could canonically amend its constitution to disaffiliate or not is a perfectly justiciable question of secular contract law.
For TEC, sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose, and never for the gander.
I return to my earlier question. In most cases where there have been votes of secession, there has been no confusion of nomenclature over who the new entities are and who the remaining loyalists groups are. In the Pittsburgh context, there appears to be a conscious determination by the secessionists to retain a label that includes reference to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. To an uninitiated outsider reviewing this post and thread, it seems that this confusion is intentional, not accidental, and that it is motivated by positioning to claim property. Can someone familiar with the chain of events provide a compelling explanation as to why that dispels that impression?
Stephen Noll’s last comment (no. 27) raises an important point. In virtually all the secession scenarios with which I’m familiar, large numbers of parishioners did not vote to secede. Certainly that is the case in California and in the large Northern Virginia parishes. Noll acknowledges that those who do not choose to secede (or who actively vote against secession) in a given parish can, in good conscience, decide that they wish to continue to worship in their churches because of a sense of place or connectedness with the past. Whether correctly or not, these are important spiritual considerations for some people. But he then asks how these people could deprive their friends, by “godless lawsuit” from “their churches and their history.” If votes in parishes were unanimous one way or the other, this wouldn’t be too tough an issue other than finding a fair way to settle up past accounts (a lot of the investment in these churches, particularly the ones of any great age, was undertaken prior to the vote to secede). But none of these votes are unanimous. Is it not a reasonable expectation that if a group (or an individual) finds an existing church unacceptable for whatever reason and leaves as a result, that they find a new church or establish their own at their own expense? Is that not the expectation of those who decide to leave the Episcopal Church? Is this not what Bishop Minns is talking about when he says “principle, not property”? Is this not the fair way to deal with those who do not vote to leave?
I am dismayed at the schism in the Episcopal Church. I understand and have theological sympathy for much of the dissatisfaction that leads to departures. My own choice has been more in line with the previous post about comments of Fr. Levenson in Houston. But the notion that departing groups can hold on to the real and personal property of historic churches that they have occupied for no longer than their individual lifetimes (and many for far shorter periods) is completely alien to me on a religious, ethical or moral plane. Moreover, the efforts to hold property on departure cloud and obscure the principle of the schism. To outsiders, Christians or otherwise, this tends to look like a bunch of selfish kids fighting over a toy in the back seat. I keep thinking the Driver is going to get very upset.
For my good friend Chancellor #28 I would simply say that I understand that there are two points of view on these issues, and that both will be argued appropriately in the courts of the Commonwealth in robust fashion by excellent attorneys. I am personally content to let the issues of law related to corporate identity and assets work themselves out in this necessary way.
I don’t really see the working out of these questions as, per Steve in #27, [i]vile and godless[/i], though I do know that such a spirit could and to some extent already has manifested itself on both sides from time to time. No question but that he roareth about, seeking whom he may devour.
In the best light, both groups are seeking a way forward of integrity and godly stewardship–and to a considerable extent both groups for the moment seem to have a hard time seeing any of that about the other. I disagree with your characterization of the canonical situation of our continuing diocese within the Episcopal Church, but I suppose all this era will have great material for ecclesiastical historians. Pragmatically, the TEC diocese will be seated at Anaheim, no “new diocese” will be admitted, and the question of whether these actions were proper or not will be argued in classrooms–along with questions of succession in the 16th century, etc. It’s going to be a messy business all around, and in the ACNA as well as in TEC. The question at this point for me is not to dwell on this much, but to do what we can to be faithful within the ecclesial reality in which we believe we are called to serve.
This Saturday evening as I was reading the office I was struck by the simple beauty, elegance really, of the Collect for I Epiphany, ” . . . grant that all who are baptized in his name may keep the covenant they have made and boldly confess him as Lord and Savior.” As our friends in the 12 Step movement would say, a great reminder to “keep the main thing the main thing.” We’ll all be praying that together tomorrow morning.
Bruce Robison
One point of clarification re Stephen Noll’s comment #27: The present legal filing being discussed involves only Diocesan property (mostly trust funds), not any individual parish properties. As far as I have heard the continuing (TEC) Diocese has not yet made a decision as to what to do about the property of re-aligning parishes.
Bill Ghrist
#32, good morning. I would go along this far with you, anyway: that in our past and present actions on both sides of this sad moment there has been a falling-short of the high calling we have in Christ. Both the realigning and “non-realigning” leaders have long since brought their lawyers to the table and engaged with enthusiasm in a chess match of move and counter-move, no matter what the rhetoric of self-absolution may suggest. I believe Mssrs. Devlin, Stephens, DeForrest, and Roman to be good men motivated by their commitment to Christ and his Church, but the reality is that once we on one side bring ourselves onto the field in this way it is a little disingenuous to complain when others do so as well. That’s just the sad truth.
Bruce Robison
#31, point taken. However, is there any reason to think that, as a good faith gesture toward a genuine compromise, the TEC group will promise not to try to seize parish property after the resolution of the present suit? I think the answer to that is No, because they are following what I called the scorched earth policy of the national church. The Va. diocese headed that way once, and that was brought to a swift halt by 815. Why would it be any different here, esp. if the TEC group won a legal precedent in their favor?
There are large parishes on each side that made important contributions over the years to that $20 million over which the war is being engaged (and this legal battle is a nasty war being fought with lawyers and is not simply an idyllic sort of letting Judge James make a fair decision). To me it seems terribly unjust for one side in this division to get everything . Especially the smaller side. But even should the leavers win I think it would be very unfair for those staying to be left with nothing, they also made large contributions to those accumulated assets. Both sides claim to be followers of Christ so it seems to me that they should both give up what they believe belongs by right to them and divide the assets in a fair and equitable fashion. I would propose splitting the assets 50/50 and be done with it. No more legal battles and wasted money, no more distractions from mission, no more newspaper articles in the local press about those warring Christians. No one gets the pleasure of taking everything for themselves. But I guess this is just a pipe dream. The Calvary litigants have taken over the TEC diocese and won’t give an inch, people like Fr. Robison are helpless to stop their agenda. And I guess Bishop Duncan doesn’t want to just walk away from the assets because it would simply encourage the other side to come after the properties with increased determination. So I guess we can look forward to the legal battles until one side comes out a complete victor and the other side a complete loser- just like God wants it to be…
wdg_pgh,
RE: “I do not see any language in the stipulation that anticipates that the Diocese itself could formally disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church.”
There does not need to be any such language. The idea that a diocese can secede from one province and move to another is assumed.
Jeremy Bonner,
RE: “I can’t say I think much of the way Jim Simons has conducted business either, not so much in terms of the present issue, but more in terms of failing to assert the continued inherent worth of those who have realigned (many of his fellow stayers don’t have that problem).”
It’s kind of clear from his comments and blogging that he — of all the conservative stayers — is pretty angry. I have not noticed that same level of bitterness from other stayers in Pittsburgh.
BMR+,
RE: “Pragmatically, the TEC diocese will be seated at Anaheim, no “new diocese†will be admitted, and the question of whether these actions were proper or not will be argued in classrooms–along with questions of succession in the 16th century, etc.”
Right — TEC will violate its own canons by purporting to “seat” a “diocese” that isn’t a diocese under TEC’s own canons.
What a disgrace. And the only reason TEC is so violating the canons is [i]so that it can sue for property[/i]. Period. That’s it. The only reason — because other than for that one reason, there is absolutely no reason why TEC would not be willing to follow its own canons in forming a diocese.
Nevin (#35),
I agree with you. Winner-take-all would not be reflective of the contributions all sides have made to making Pittsburgh what it is today – Low, High and Broad. What a waste.
Is there an answer to my question about the similarity of terminology, particularly the use of “Episcopal”, in the name of the departing faction in Pittsburgh? Am I mistaken in assuming it is motivated by positioning to secure property? I am not hearing any compelling statement to the contrary (or even any statement to the contrary).
NoVA,
do a forum search for Dio of Pittsburgh. I seem to recall that there was an explanation given By +Duncan at the time of the convention as to the reasoning behind the choice of name.
Please excuse my delay in responding as civil offices are not open on weekends. In a previous comment (now on a thread I can’t locate but wish this response included there, Ms. Sarah Hey (aka “Sarah”) 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.
The one thing that is clear from this discussion is that different people can look at the same statements and documents and, in seemingly good conscience, come to diametrically opposite conclusions about their meaning. We all filter our understanding through the lens of what we think should be true.
Here is some interesting additional information about this issue:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/dioceses/a_pittsburgh_timeline.html