The crux of the problem seems to be that some have believed the continual pronouncements from TEC that parishes and dioceses cannot leave TEC, only people can. From this premise follows all the conflict in the EDFW. It is important to check the premise of any argument in order to arrive at a correct result. If the premise is wrong, the result will be wrong. Each time TEC is challenged to defend their position concerning who can leave TEC, they are silent. Their only response is that the Constitutions and Canons of TEC do not allow a diocese to leave TEC. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitutions and Canons of TEC that even address a diocese leaving TEC, let alone prohibiting such action. The rule of law is that any act that is not prohibited in the governing document is, therefore, allowed.
If the founders of PECUSA had intended to prohibit dioceses from leaving PECUSA, they could have placed such a prohibition in the Constitution and Canons of PECUSA, but they did not. In the intervening 200 years, if the Bishops and clergy and lay delegates to General Convention had desired to place such a prohibition in the Constitution and Canons of PECUSA, ECUSA, or TEC, they could have amended those documents. The have not. It not as if this has never been an issue. During the Civil War, the dioceses of the Confederate States left PECUS, and after the war, they returned to PECUSA. No question was raised about whether they could leave PECUSA. The president has clearly been established that a diocese can leave TEC. There is no issue now, except in the mind of the Presiding Bishop of her supporters, about diocese leaving TEC. So far, no court has been asked to settle this question, so that remains to be resolved, but the law appears to be on the side of the diocese in this conflict.
What a poorly written grammatical essay this is — numerous misspellings and incorrect word choices.
but substantively it is correct, #1. Or you would have pointed that out as well I assume…..
Re: #1,
What do you think of his legal argument/reasoning, their merits, or lack thereof?
Substance, please.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Oh dear #1, what is good grammar? English “received” grammar, English grammar as spoken in Harvard Yard, English grammar as spoken on Long Island, English grammar as spoken in Alabama, English grammar as spoken in Alaska?
You know, before the introduction of the printing press into England, there probably was no ‘good’ English grammar except as defined as that spoken by the king.
#1
The only thing as a revisionist that you could do is call this document poorly written as you probably cannot argue with what it presents. THERE IS ONLY ONE MISSPELLING in the document and it is an obvious typo; propositons in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the section “Status After The Convention” should be propositions.
I am merely pointing out what obviously jumped out at me with a quick perusal – an editor should have been consulted.
Second paragraph: should be “precedent” not “president”
Second paragraph: should be “Presiding Bishop OR her supporters” not “Presiding Bishop of her supporters.”
These in addition the ones mentioned above, and of course, this is only the first two paragraphs!
So, #4 – I’m not sure if it’s Long Island English, British grammar, etc. – but just an observation. I won’t comment on this further as I’m sure that Kendall wants this thread to focus on the substance and not the (poorly written) article.
I concur with BillB. There is only one mispelled word and an indendent reader would most likely regarding it as well constructed. Mr. Johnson would be better served trying to rebut the argument rather than throwing mud on it!
Ah, but correct spellings and word choices mean the difference between the “Red Sea” and the “Sea of Reeds,” do they not?
I moderate a health-related forum in spare time, and it used to annoy me when one of our otherwise articulate members would include typos and wierd word choices in his posts, which always contained substance. Then I learned that he was physically impaired and using expensive automated speech recognition software to send his posts. For example, borrowing from the exchange above, if he spoke “precedent” into the microphone, the software might well write “president” on screen. It takes lots of assistance, training, and updating to refine the results. Meanwhile, it’s the substance/meaning that counts.
I’m sure that’s not the issue here. Many of us have written and posted in haste without bothering proof what we wrote. Some posted follow-up apologies and self-corrections; some have not.
Maybe that’s what happened here. Let’s cut those in a rush to get out the door some slack.
w.w.
I don’t think this thread is meant for discussing proper spelling; it’s the content that matters.
BTW: I agree with the author.
The Episcopal Church has gotten very good at developing and propagating myths of various kinds.
1. The Presiding Bishop has the metropolitan authority and power of an Archbishop or Pope. Nay. The founders of the US Episcopal Church went to great lengths to MAKE SURE that was not going to be the case. I can just here them saying, “I told you so.”
2. The Episcopal Church is hierarchical at a national level. Nay. It is a confederation of dioceses. Each diocese has its own hierarchy, of course. Again, the founders didn’t want Virginia (for example) to be messing with Pennsylvania.
The judge in Virginia apparently saw through the spin job from the 815 crew. Perhaps that will also be so when Fort Worth goes into litigation.
As one whose spelling and grammer are sorley lacking I do believe Mr. Johnson’s “quick perusal” is similar to “Military intelligence”.
It is axiomatic that a subsidiary cannot break away from the parent without the consent of the parent. Of course, all rules are broken in war, including civil war. But to say there is no rule preventing a diocese from leaving the church is like saying there is no rule preventing a bishop from murdering a priest. There is a rule, but you wouldn’t expect to find it in the constitution. It’s a general principle.
The argument advanced in this article is not quite the same as the arguments rejected by the California Supreme Court recently, but it has the same flaws and would likely fail in a Court of law for the same reason. Acceptance of hierarchical church is deeply ingrained in American jurisprudence. I am afraid this article is no more than wishful thinking and self-delusion. Such self-delusion can be very costly. Fighting against the odds is one thing; walking into a line of fire without expecting bullets is something else.
“It is axiomatic that a subsidiary cannot break away from the parent without the consent of the parent.” True, true and irrelevant. A member of a voluntary organization can withdraw membership.
The Denis Canon is inherently conflicted with respect to parishes and doesn’t even speak to diocesan properties:
[blockquote]All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in trust for this Church [i.e., the Episcopal Church in the United States] [b]and[/b] the Diocese[/blockquote].
So you have a self-contradictory implied trust versus solid legal deed documentation.
I’m no lawyer, Robroy, but could the resolution to your perceived self-contradiction lie in the implied principle that the diocese is a permanent constituent of the national church? The only way that property could simultaneously be held in trust for both the diocese and the national church is if they are permanently joined.
As for the essayist’s claimed precedent of the “departure” of southern dioceses during the Civil War, it is my understanding that the national church did not recognize or endorse the secession of those dioceses any more than the national government would recognize or endorse the secession of the states. Those dioceses resumed their membership in TEC after the war without having to be admitted again.
Ladytenor, the national Church (PECUSA) did not make any changes to its Constitution as a result of the withdrawal of the Southern Dioceses during the Civil War, but the Dioceses themselves changed their own constitutions, in order to join the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America. See the discussion at [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-head-is-starting-to-hurt.htm]this post[/url], with links to historical references.
Then they had to change them back, in order to be considered dioceses in PECUSA once again. So the Southern Dioceses during the Civil War (except Louisiana and Tennessee, who never managed during the war to assemble conventions to make the amendments) are indeed a precedent for what has happened in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth and Quincy.
When there is a conflict as to which of two beneficiaries should benefit from trust property, the court will look at the purpose for naming both of them in the first place. And since the national Church can act locally only through a diocese, the court would probably find that the purpose of the trust (with regard to local parish property, at least) was best fulfilled by keeping the property in trust for the diocese, particularly once it is correctly understood that the national Church has no prohibition on dioceses withdrawing, and no way of preventing them from doing so.
The Episcopal Church is a voluntary association of dioceses who come together to legislate national canons and a uniform Book of Common Prayer. There is no national Church judiciary branch, and no national Executive branch (because other than canons—which are enforced by diocesan bishops and standing committees—there are no national “laws” to enforce). So the Church is not a “sovereign union” in the sense that the United States is. As a voluntary association, just like a country club, its member dioceses are free under the law to associate with whom they choose, and thus may withdraw at any time.
So, Mark Johnson, still no refutation of the argument, only a frowny face stamp for poor spelling and grammar? I have heard Bible teachers who know Greek say that Luke’s Greek was elegant and refined, as one might expect from a Greek physician, while John’s Greek was rather rough and perhaps even crude (not profane, just unlettered). The gracious Holy Spirit overlooked both refinement and crudity and included both their Gospels in the Bible. 🙂 I think He done real good! 😉
[blockquote]Ladytenor, the national Church (PECUSA) did not make any changes to its Constitution as a result of the withdrawal of the Southern Dioceses during the Civil War, but the Dioceses themselves changed their own constitutions, in order to join the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America.[/blockquote]
Ah, yes. I’m sure that 11 states changed their constitutions in order to join the confederacy, too. How did that work out for them?
Here you are, Ladytenor—[url=http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=lcsubc&key=Constitutions — Confederate States of America]browse to your heart’s content[/url].
Mr. Fisher’s analysis is only successful if his premise is correct. That is that the TEC is not hierarchical. To date, he has failed to show any legal precedent to support his argument. He relies only on a paper written by Mr. McCall. The California Supreme Court seems to think TEC is hierarchical.