If it did not succeed for Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich, why should that maneuver succeed for Bishop Jerry Lamb? What right, under the Serbian Orthodox decision, does anyone have to come into a secular court and seek a declaration that Bishop Schofield has been duly and properly deposed, and is no longer the “Bishop of San Joaquin”?
And, even more pertinent to the issues at hand, who is to say that the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb is the proper person even to bring such a claim? If we are to look only to the Episcopal Church (USA) to say who is one of its bishops, then as already mentioned, what is to stop the Episcopal Church from picking out any loyal parishioner and saying: “You are now ‘the Bishop of San Joaquin.’ Please sign this lawsuit for us. Thank you.”
The answer to that last question is simply what has already been noted: the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin, as duly enacted and adopted over the years, are the only authority that can specify just who is and who is not a Bishop of that Diocese. Unless and until they have been followed to the letter, the defendants contend that there is no person who can in law (as opposed to whatever the Episcopal Church (USA) wants to do) claim to be that Bishop. And since they were not followed in the case of the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, he cannot, they maintain, be entitled to bring a suit in law as “the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin.”
It seems to me that A.S. Haley spends a great deal of time analyzing why what should have happened didn’t actually happen. Cold comfort.
The ABC helped TEC with a last minute invitation of Jerry Lamb to Lambeth.
Which explains why so many of us……me included……have no use nor respect for RDW these days.
He’s right, but then the law doesn’t really matter anymore in California or to ECUSA. The Right Results are all that concern them.
No matter what happens it appears that the PB is so sue-happey she will continue to sue, sue and sue until maybe she runs out of the borrowed money she has or winds up with a lot of empty churches that she must do something with!!
He’s right, but then the law doesn’t really matter anymore in California or to ECUSA. The Right Results are all that concern them.
Sorry William, the law in CA and/or TEC is exactly what they say it is. Your (or mine or anyone else’s for that matter) opinion does not matter. Nor does A.S. Haley.
Why are so many upset about the law suits. These issues must be resolved and what other viable options are there. This is why the court system exists. To enable people trained in the law to resolve legal disputes. Its not a beauty or fairness contest.
We all must accept the fact that unanimity does not exist in any diocese or parish. Therefore, one way or another someone is going to lose his right exercise his faith in a specific building. Either those who want to leave the Episcopal Church, or those who want to remain in the Episcopal Church. Given the anger engenderd by this issue, who but an unbiased judge can credibly decide which of these will lose something important to them?
Further, why should the Presiding Bishop abandon those who wish to remain Episcopalians by simply acquiescing to the leaders of those who wish to leave TEC and take buildings and gold with them?