After the Realignment Resolution passed at the 2007 Diocesan Convention, Calvary took the position that if Realignment occurred after a second reading of the resolution at the 2008 Convention, then the Stipulation would act to bar the Diocese from continuing to use and administer Diocesan property. We opposed this argument, advising the court of our position that the Stipulation did not address realignment. We advised the court that the process for Diocesan realignment was in place and that we intended after realignment to continue to hold and administer Diocesan property for the beneficial use of all the parishes.
This process was transparent. We have tried to follow the good example of St. Paul in the 26th chapter of Acts by speaking and acting openly, and “not in a corner.”
The leaders of the new diocese challenge the validity of the Diocesan realignment. Although we strongly disagree with this position, we recognize that some of these leaders publicly took this position at our 2007 and 2008 Conventions. In this respect, it is right to acknowledge that their position on this issue is consistent, and to recognize that they believe it their duty to challenge the legitimacy of the Diocesan action.
The same cannot be said, however, for the new diocese leaders’ recent adoption of Calvary’s arguments regarding the 2005 Stipulation and Order. On behalf of the new diocese’s Standing Committee and Board of Trustees, Dr. Simons and Mr. Ayres (the presidents of each body) have written: “We call attention to the stipulation signed in good faith by Bishop Duncan’s attorneys on October 15, 2005, which clearly defines how assets are to be disposed of, if any attempt to leave the Episcopal Church occurred – they are to stay in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church.”
The statements made, and the inferences apparent for readers to draw, are both incorrect and unfair. The reference to “good faith” and “Bishop Duncan’s attorneys” appears to be an attempt to personalize the present dispute as being about my actions alone, and they question my good faith. Our counsel represented me as Bishop of the Diocese, but also represented all of the other defendants in the litigation, including the then-members of the Standing Committee, and the Diocese itself as an entity. Personal attacks on me during the litigation are not new, but I reject the improper personalization of my role as Bishop. On issues of property and fiscal stewardship, the Bishop operates within a well-defined role outlined by the Diocesan Constitution, Canons, and Financial Regulations. This structure delineates the proper role of not only the Bishop, but also the role of the Standing Committee, the Board of Trustees, the Diocesan Council, and the Diocesan Convention. I have faithfully exercised my duties on all of these issues.
Rest assure, +Bob, you have the support of so many of us in the diocese, and we do know the truth.
Is this really a pastoral letter?
Is the Pittsburgh Diocese (Southern Cone) in financial trouble? Sounds like he is rallying the troups.
Sounds very defensive, even naming his foes! Too bad
Eugene: He is simply responding to a pretty dishonest letter written by the leadership of the PB’s new diocese in Pittsburgh. First read what Jim Simons wrote, then read the actual text of the stipulation. If you do so with an open mind, you will quickly see why Duncan is upset. Simons pretty grossly misstated what the stipulation said, and then implied that Duncan had been dishonest. Too bad Simons didn’t just quote the stipulation and let people make their own judgment about it…I guess its because the facts didn’t support the insinuations Simons was attempting to cast.
In response to Eugene’s dart thrown at Bp Duncan:
The word pastoral in it’s etymology has in its core tending to the flock. Bp Duncan’s flock is under attack. He reminds us:
[blockquote] For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.[/blockquote]
He exposes the lies that come from the father of lies. Just like Satan’s words to Jesus in the wilderness, there is some truth in them which is twisted to their designs, and those designs are for the few parishes of the reorganizing diocese to have the keys to and kick out the parishioners of the true diocese of Pittsburgh that has acted in an open and canonically sound manner.
In contrast to Jim Simons’ letter, note that Bp Duncan does not lose sight of the prize: “And alongside this, our commitment is to stay focused on the mission of fishing for men and women, boys and girls, in the deep waters to which Jesus has directed us (Luke 5:1-11).”
Who is following Paul’s instructions to Christians regarding disputes in the church? Bishop Duncan, who is trying to divide the assets fairly among all parties (even those that have been vilifying him for years) through a negotiated settlement? Jim Simons and the Calvary litigants who have firmly rejected mediation in favor of a lawsuit to get everything, based on a bizarre interpretation of the Stipulation? The most interesting thing about Simons’ letter which triggered Duncan’s response is his promise that the TEC loyal diocese WILL sue each individual parish for the buildings and property. I guess God has told them through their lawyers that it is His Divine Will that a negotiated settlement is morally wrong and impossible…
It strikes me that both letters–the one from Jim Simons and the SC of the TEC diocese and now this one from Bishop Duncan–are engaged primarily in the task of “reassuring the base” through a process of spin. In this case, the status of the Toth/Wicker initiative is misstated, and the willingness of the Southern Cone diocese to “negotiate” is overstated. Nonetheless, I believe Bishop Duncan gets it right, with the focus on three little words of assertion.
[blockquote]The real point clear from the letter is that the new diocese’s true argument is not that the Stipulation has been violated, but that the Diocese’s withdrawal from TEC is invalid. There is only one way that Diocesan assets could “stay in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church”, and that is if the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church” was a continuing entity, i.e., the Diocese’s realignment was invalid.
If, on the other hand, the Diocese’s realignment was valid – [b]which it was[/b] – then the Diocese “continues” to exist as it always has, but is now aligned with the Province of the Southern Cone (and very soon with the Anglican Church in North America.)[/blockquote]
It seems to me that if “which it was” is a correct statement, then Bishop Duncan’s and the Southern Cone diocese’s position is fully defensible. If, however, it isn’t a correct statement, then in fact the 2005 Stipulation would fully apply. This is the foundational matter of controversy, and is the question that will be answered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in due course.
Bruce Robison
If Bishop Duncan wins in court I bet St. Andrew’s keeps its building and property. If the Simons/Calvary litigants win in court you know what will happen, after all, Jim Simons just promised they would be bound by the canons of TEC in such a case and there is ample precedent for what happens under that scenario. We all know who the good guys are here…
Nevin,
Whoever prevails in court will then have the legal duty to act as fiduciary. While Bishop Duncan used generous general language in discussion about the disposition of parish properties, he has not since realignment used the absolute language you use in the first sentence here. Nor would I expect him to. I would imagine that if the Southern Cone diocese prevails, there would need to be a parish-by-parish negotiation–with generous intent, but also a need to comply with the trust implied in the diocesan canons. My own strong commitment, should I have a role to play, would be that if the TEC diocese prevails, the subsequent parish-by-parish negotiation would be conducted as well with a generous intent. The canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, which govern both entities, give the duty of stewardship in these matters to the Trustees and Standing Committee. I know many of the members of “both” bodies, on both sides of the stream, have known them for many years. We are all of us Christian friends with a long history of shared collegial ministry in this place. There are doubtless some on both sides who are more reactive, but I believe in the end the leadership “on both sides” will act with grace and charity.
Bruce Robison
Bruce Robison, I honestly don’t see how you can say the final sentence in your comment, as all of us with eyes to read his writings discern how full of bitterness and anger Jim Simons is. Can you honestly not see that?
Sarah,
It seems to me that I have been with Jim Simons twice a week or more for the last couple of years. I consider him and Lisa to be good personal friends, and his son lives in my end of the city and attends services frequently at St. Andrew’s.
I have not seen in Jim at any time a man “full of bitterness and anger.” He is a thoughtful and compassionate pastor, with a great sense of humor, in an extremely conflicted and challenging situation.
Bruce Robison
Well, okay.
But it’s almost impossible to miss from his writings — from his blog to his public letters and communications, and on and on.
Either we’re seeing wrongly, or you are. Both can’t be right.
I guess we’ll see soon enough. But almost every time he has put pen to paper in the past year, it has confirmed my and others opinions.
I don’t claim to know if Jim Simons is bitter and angry. But I do know he views those who have left TEC with great contempt. Have you read his blog? For lo many months he lost no opportunity to deride his former colleagues with multitudes of mocking cartoons. He has denounced the “culture” of the former diocese as a sort of nightmare of “fear and control”.
What evidence is there that he will be generous to the “lemmings”? I point instead to his claim that he must pursue the lawsuit for control of diocesan assets- his hands are tied by TEC canons and he is unable to negotiate despite offers to do so (BTW if one side refuses to even talk about mediation how does one begin to know what will be offered?). He now says those same canons that will not allow for negotiation over diocesan assets will guide him in the individual parish cases. I don’t sense any “generosity” will be forthcoming. Besides, even if he was willing to be generous his will be a minority opinion in a diocese which is now in the complete control of the Calvary litigants…
In October, 2008, the Chancellor of the reorganizing Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-TEC contacted the Chancellor of the realigning Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-Southern Cone with a request to meet to discuss the disposition of diocesan assets. The request was refused.
Bruce Robison
C’mon, we all know exactly what he wanted to “discuss”. How long it was going to take to return all the stolen assets of TEC…
Bruce
Attorney Roman’s letter in October 2008 requested that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) begin the process of handing over all the diocesan assets to his clients as soon as possible. I read the letter myself as President of the Standing Cmte.
I suppose his negociating strategy is based on the premise, “give it all to us because we say it’s ours and then we can negociate how much we might or might not give back to you”
Bruce
I attribute Jim Simon’s assertion that all the realigners are lemmings and Bishop Duncan is Yertle the Turtle as an attempt at humor. If it was more than simply that, then it was hurtful, antagonistic and disrespectful and it belies a side of Jim Simons that I do not know.
Thanks David Wilson for confirming my suspicions about the “discussion” proposed by the TEC loyal diocese.
I simply don’t trust the TEC diocese to even negotiate, much less be generous. The track record is horrible- how many empty church buildings are there by now? My TEC loyal diocese appears to be in the pocket of the PB and TEC has now entered into the legal battle. When your hands are tied by the PB and her lawyers and TEC canons- forget generosity…
If you want disrespectful, follow Jim Simons’ link to the GAFCON parody site. That Simons finds humor in that speaks volumes…
RE: “In October, 2008, the Chancellor of the reorganizing Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-TEC contacted the Chancellor of the realigning Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-Southern Cone with a request to meet to discuss the disposition of diocesan assets.”
“Attorney Roman’s letter in October 2008 requested that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) begin the process of handing over all the diocesan assets to his clients as soon as possible. I read the letter myself as President of the Standing Cmte.”
Um.
It appears that Bruce Robison is not above a little try at spin as well.
RE: “If you want disrespectful, follow Jim Simons’ link to the GAFCON parody site. That Simons finds humor in that speaks volumes…”
Nevin — I just don’t see that he “finds humor” in it.
I suspect he’s too angry for that. One can sort of see evidence of that from the attempted insults. . . . Not that I think anyone should actually receive any insults from the attempts . . . I think it’s pretty revealing, myself.
Sarah, per my “little try at spin.” Well, maybe so. But the point is that there was an opportunity to sit down at the table and make a presentation, and that opportunity was declined. Similarly, in recent weeks the Chancellor of the reorganizing TEC diocese contacted the Chancellor of the realigning Southern Cone diocese and offered a discussion on an interim agreement to allow normal periodic disbursements to parishes from the now-frozen Pool One funds managed by Morgan Stanley. That offer was also declined. It seems to me that for all the talk about “negotiation,” the realigned authorities do not actually want to give it a try. How it looks to me, anyway.
Bruce Robison
#19, as an outsider, it seems to me that an offer to talk coming from the people who caused the funds to be frozen could reasonably be viewed with distrust.
And this is exactly why Christians should not go to the courts. There is no reconciliation possible at that point. Only submission to the court’s ruling. Each side locked into what looks like a nonsensical (but legally necessary) set of actions and outsiders left to become increasingly strident cheerleaders as the legal maneuvers continue.
Frankly, our opinions and understandings of the legal issues matter not at all. We must sit and await rulings. If we pray very hard and watch what we say about each other, there may be some Christian charity and reconciliation left in us for after the court decisions.
Yes, Katherine, I’m not surprised that the Southern Cone diocese isn’t interested in discussing the frozen assets. From my perspective my TEC loyal diocese has been less than honest about that matter. When the frozen assets first became public they [urlhttp://www.episcopalpgh.org/info-on-recent-court-filings-by-sc-group/]claimed[/url] they were “not aware” of this event, and claimed they “did not ask the funds be frozen”. Of course we then found out, on [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_104592_ENG_HTM.htm] Episcopal Life Online [/url] no less, that indeed this effort to freeze assets is actually legal strategy number one-
The TEC lawyers knew what they were doing and to suggest they did not want the assets frozen is unbelievable. Even now that the facts are out in the open the TEC loyal diocese is unable to acknowledge their role. In the just released [url=http://www.episcopalpgh.org/wp-content/uploads/file/LettertoClergyandLeaders090218a.pdf] letter [/url] from Jim Simons, which was supposed to “communicate clearly and directly”, the assets are just mysteriously frozen by Morgan Stanley- and the blame is pushed onto the Southern Cone diocese for the fact the funds have not yet been unfrozen!
Honestly, after a good morning and First in Lent I’d just like to say thank you to #21, and yes.
There is and has been a certain amount of defensive back-and-forth, of which I have had a good part here, and I don’t think it has been particularly Spirit filled or Spirit directed. My apologies.
The reality is that the breaking apart that we have experienced will inevitably have legal consequences, and in the end the courts are going to tell us what those are.
Perhaps there were better ways to conduct ourselves, on both sides, and different possible conclusions. Certainly there were. But I believe that, with lapses, our leaders on both sides have attempted to move forward with Christian integrity, as best they understand it. But imperfectly.
We now are where we are. Perhaps we might pray through this Lent that we might be cleansed of the bitterness, recrimination, anger, frustration, and resentment that emerge, sometimes with surprising force, in us. My prayer, for myself, anyway. And that down this road a little further and on the other side of Easter our good Lord might guide us in his time to a healthful and faithful reconciliation.
In any case, David and Sarah and all: sorry to have pushed, and pushed back, on this topic. At the end of the day there are going to be a lot of things on both sides that will have been said that we will wish hadn’t been said, things done that we will wish we had left undone. That’s for sure.
Bruce Robison
Perhaps rather than having our lawyers talk to your lawyers, Jim Simons and David Wilson could get together for coffee and pray together about this conflict. I wonder what would happen…
RE: “But the point is that there was an opportunity to sit down at the table and make a presentation, and that opportunity was declined.”
My heavens. It was an opportunity to come to a meeting in order to “begin the process of handing over all the diocesan assets to his clients as soon as possible.”
RE: “Similarly, in recent weeks the Chancellor of the reorganizing TEC diocese contacted the Chancellor of the realigning Southern Cone diocese and offered a discussion on an interim agreement to allow normal periodic disbursements to parishes from the now-frozen Pool One funds managed by Morgan Stanley.”
You’ll pardon me if I don’t choose to believe now that that is the actual story.
RE: “In any case, David and Sarah and all: sorry to have pushed, and pushed back, on this topic.”
That’s okay. And God’s peace to you, Bruce Robison.
Nevin:
Jim Simons+ and Karen Stevenson+ would be the two to sit down and discuss and pray as I no longer hold any elected or appointed leadership positions within the Diocese( Anglican). My focus is about 110% on my “new” parish St David’s, Peter’s Twp.
Bruce:
As I always have, I respect your opinion, value your friendship — you truly are a person of peace