Saying that all property held by or for a diocese can only be used for the mission of that diocese and the Episcopal Church, the church has asked a Pennsylvania court to allow it to join an ongoing case concerning the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
In papers filed February 13 with the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, the Episcopal Church also asked the court to declare:
”¢ that the members of the diocesan leadership now recognized by the Episcopal Church are “the proper authorities entitled to the use and control of the real and personal property” of the diocese,
Ӣ that the property may be used only for the mission of the diocese and the wider church,
Ӣ that deposed Bishop Robert Duncan and the leaders of the group of Episcopalians that left the diocese on October 4, 2008 must provide an accounting of that property, and
Ӣ that Duncan and the breakaway leaders must vacate the diocesan offices and turn over control of the property to the current leadership.
The petition to intervene in the case is available here. It was signed by retired Diocese of West Missouri Bishop John C. Buchanan, who is the parliamentarian for the House of Bishops and is described in the petition as trustee ad litem (Pennsylvania law requires unincorporated associations, like the Episcopal Church, to sue in the name of one of its members as trustee ad litem).
This is a boiler plate filing…and then becomes the initial basis for a suit…it will be years before they will need to move out…look at all the churches fighting with TEC, until the appeal is over, the remain in their properties.
I still like the idea of having both diocesan offices in Trinity Cathedral (where the undivided diocesan offices used to be), though probably on different floors. It would save everyone the rent paid on the Oliver Building offices (does the remaining diocese appreciate the costs involved in taking over that space?) during the recession and actually make use of Trinity’s neglected space. I know it probably won’t happen, but we can all dream.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Can’t you just feel the “gracious restraint”?
[blockquote]Approximately 28 congregations, or about 40% of the Pittsburgh diocese prior to the October separation, remain active in the life of the Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]These 40% include a few congregations who voted to not join Bob Duncan in the realignment as well as those “reconstituted” congregations who are claiming rights to parish properties.
Heh. Great line you pointed out, Piedmont. It’d be like the ACNA using *congregations* rather than ASA to point out that they equal “53%” of the TEC number of congregations.
“28 congregations” . . . but some with 20 people in them.
As a recent posting on T19 indicated, the Pittsburgh area is strongly religious and traditional in its practicce of religion.
Given that, the orthodox Anglicans will probably be perceived as true Christians adhering to “…the Faith once given…,” while the ECUSA revisionists will probably be perceived as unChristian radicals who are attacking the faithful.
So, even if ECUSA prevails legally to any degree, ECUSA may well be seen as a bunch of left-wing political radicals attacking ‘the church.’
This will serve to drastically diminish the influence of ECUSA in the greater Pittysburgh area. This would be a truly ‘hollow’ or ‘pyrrhic’ victory for ECUSA.
As ECUSA bleeds from the ‘thousand cuts’ that it is inflicting on itself through unChrisitian lawsuits, it may well end up with a cumulative “hollow victory” of very large proportioms.
Schori and Company are frantically grasping at straws in this case, and they will eventually lose the war……even if they DO regain control of the properties. And as you say, JoePewSitter, it will be YEARS before this case is decided by the courts. In the meantime, the REAL Diocese of Pittsburgh…..Bishop Duncan and his faithful people…..will grow and prosper.
Dear AnglicanFirst,
ECUSA is striving for hollow victories. With their theology, those are the only kind they can get. — Stan
#4, you write
[blockquote]These 40% include a few congregations who voted to not join Bob Duncan in the realignment as well as those “reconstituted†congregations who are claiming rights to parish properties. [/blockquote]
Just for clarity, first, no legal actions related to parish property have been initiated in Pittsburgh. You may be thinking about San Joaquin, where the situation is quite different. For various reasons we really don’t have, for example, many “meeting in exile” groups on either side of the aisle–which is where those contests over parish properties seem to come from.
To outline: the “whole parishes” voting to remain in Pittsburgh-TEC are to date: Blairsville, Brackenridge, Brentwood, Brighton Heights, Canonsburg, Crafton, East Liberty, Franklin Park, Highland Park, Homestead, Homewood, Indiana, Jeanette, Johnstown, Kittanning, Ligonier, McKeesport, Mt. Lebanon, North Hills, North Versailles, Oakmont, Scottdale, Somerset, Squirrel Hill, and Wilkinsburg. Trinity Cathedral has voted to hold dual citizenship in the TEC and Realigned dioceses, and Emmanuel on the North Shore hasn’t yet voted, though their clergy and lay deputies participated in the reorganizing convention of the TEC diocese.
Small “Remnant” congregations of TEC-Loyalists from Realigning parishes would include for the moment, so far as I know, only a group meeting in Greensburg (former members or “members in exile,” as you like) of Christ Church. There may be one or two others that I don’t know about. Lay members of Homestead, Murrysville attended the TEC-diocese special convention, as did Lay members of McKeesport the Realigned-diocese special convention.
Small “Remnant” congregations of Pittsburgh-Realigned Loyalists from TEC parishes are meeting in Johnstown, the Ligonier Valley, Indiana County, and possibly Oakmont. The Somerset parish divided prior to October 4.
The 60% Realigned, 40% TEC figure was derived from 2007 ASA statistics. It’s all ballpark, of course. Over the past year there has been some significant movement back and forth of individuals and families between TEC and Realigning parishes, especially in the city and near suburbs, where there are a large number of parishes in geographical proximity.
From where I sit the TEC parishes that seem to have lost at least more-than-a-few would be Indiana, Johnstown, Ligonier, McKeesport, and Oakmont, the main Realigned parishes that seem to have had more-than-a-few losses would be Fox Chapel and Oakland. Despite losses, all these parishes on both sides of the aisle seem to be doing o.k.
The statistical sorting out of all this won’t show up in the 2008 collation, but should begin to be seen (if we have such statistics available) when the 2009 statistics are published, and certainly by the 2010 census.
Bruce Robison
Hmmm. I will bet that Bp. Duncan would gladly vacate this office space if KJS would give up HER Office.
Perhaps a negotiating team could start working on that now.
Until something like that happens, only the lawyers will profit from this mess.
BMR+ (#9.), thank you for your report on the Pittsburgh situation.
With regard to the term “loyalist,” I do do have some reservations regarding your use of that word.
Since the ECUSA revisionists started the divisiveness in ECUSA with their radical innovations to “…the faith once given…,” I find it difficult to consider them “loyalist” in their intent and behavior. In fact, “revolutionary” might be a far better term.
I do accept that there are those within ECUSA who consider themselves to be loyal to “…the Faith once given..” and to ECUSA as an institution, but there is, in the beliefs of many, a dichotomy between loyalty to ECUSA and loyalty “…the Faith once given….”
For many people, to be loyal to what ECUSA has done, is doing and seems sure to do constitutes disloyalty to “…the Faith once given….”
In a war of beliefs and ideas such is now occurring among Anglicans in North America, one’s choice of words can have a powerful influence on how those words are perceived/received by others.
Therefore, the “loyalists” in Pittsburgh should be specified as being “loyal” to ECUSA as an institution and/or as “loyal” to the revisionist leadership of ECUSA.
And a third type of “loyalist” should be specified as those “loyal” to “…the Faith once given….”
#10. And that is the point: it is Katherine and company who have abandoned the faith and communion of the church.
#11. Apologies, and I would revise. Certainly my intention in talking about “loyalists” is simply to describe their “persisting institutional identification.” We have those “loyal” to Pittsburgh-TEC and those “loyal” to Pittsburgh-Realigned. My own view is that in the larger context of orthodox and catholic Christianity both groups would be considered “selectively loyal,” if such a think were possible. But that’s another subject.
Bruce Robison
Bruce Robison
My former parise left TEC with the (only legitimate) Diocese of Pittsburgh. They were subjected to a telephone campaign to alll the membership telling them that they wold lose all the church property if they didn’t go back to TEC. At a special Parish Meeting in January, they voted to return to TEC.
To be fair both sides have parishes with 20 people in them, but it is strange that a parish with an ASA of 12 actually had a split over this realignment. I speak of St. Peter’s Blairsville which sided with TEC and has members joining with parishoners from TEC loyal Christ Church Indiana to form a new church in [url=http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/harvest011209]Homer City[/url].
The “property” is an idol.
Let’s refocus our attention on Him.
bl
#15, you may be speaking of St. Mark’s, Johnstown. My sense is that the position of the much beloved former rector was probably as influential as any phone campaign (of which I hadn’t heard before). But I don’t doubt it, as feelings have been so very high on both sides. Pro-realignment persons within and beyond the parish also have waged pretty intense “secret campaigns” in Oakmont and McKeesport. There have been lots of rumors spread by folks on both sides. In the end, though, I think if you look at the rosters, there really weren’t any big surprises.
Bruce Robison
I am starting to see this as a matter potentially headed for the U.S. Supreme Court because a purportedly national organization (TEC) could potentially be faced with different outcomes in different states. I think it is good that the realigning dioceses are conceding nothing, including the word Episcopal.
What is the 800 number for General Steel? Or aren’t there enough closed city churches going for a song? Move on.