The reign (a word I use advisedly) of ECUSA’s current Presiding Bishop has been marked thus far by a some striking characteristics in contrast to anything that ever came before:
1. First and foremost, the number of lawsuits in which the Episcopal Church (USA) is a plaintiff in court against its own—the initiator of litigation against fellow Christians—has multiplied enormously….
In a christ-like world, both parties might say, “you believe in good faith that the property is yours; take it; go in peace.” Not happening, and we may regret that. But it takes a very narrow, legalistic, and literalistic outlook to say that the fault is all on TEC’s side because they actually brought the suits. TEC is responding to actions on AS Haley’s side of the aisle, actions they know look to TEC like a violation of the commandment against stealing, and these actions have escalated dramatically over the last 3 years. To stand up and say, “Oh my, look how she’s escalated the conflict!” is like that guy in Casablanca who’s “Shocked! Shocked” to find gambling (disingenuous is the word I’m looking for).
The Dar es Salaam comminique, which many of you claim to worship as holy writ, paird “no litigation” with “no alienation of property.” Let the one who has ears hear.
1, part of the problem is that the people claiming the property did not pay for it and may not even use it. All this would have been prevented if either the claiming diocese etc. had titled the property in it’s own name.
2: True. Or if the ancestors of the current Vestry had had the foresight to incorporate as a non-denominational church. I don’t think anybody gave either possibility much thought.
I agree with Haley about the PB with the exception that there has been an “alarming change.” To me, she came as advertised and has conducted herself accordingly.
I am not certain if there has been any person displaying such histrionics in TEC as A.S. Haley. Since his search to understand why anyone could use the 1979 Prayer Book seems to have stalled, he has hyper-focused on his understanding of the law. His stated occupation is “Church attorney,” but never have I seen someone so consistently wrong who actually has the benefit of legal opinion! When the courts decide in TEC’s favor, he posts “Here is why the courts don’t know what they are doing and I have a better understanding of law…” posts. When the PB’s actions are legitimized, he posts “Here is why the legitimizing authorities don’t know what they are doing and I do…” posts. When the different Houses of TEC interpret the Constitution and Canons, he posts “Here is why the ruling bodies don’t understand the Constitution and Canons, but I do…” posts.
And yet, sites like this admonish us not only to read it, butto read it carefully. Never has someone been so lionized whose record for accuracy is actually worse than your local weather man!
So now, we have more assertions that are claimed to be “not ‘bashing the Presiding Bishop’, or being discourteous to her in any way.”
Let’s look at the situation from the point of view of the apparently unthinkable-those responsible for the Constitution and Canons and the courts of the various States here in the US.:
1. First and foremost, the number of lawsuits in which the Episcopal Church (USA) is a plaintiff in court against its own—the initiator of litigation against fellow Christians—has multiplied enormously.
The number of illegal alienation of property attempts has multiplied dramatically.
2. The amount of its resources which ECUSA is devoting to litigation in the civil courts has multiplied even more enormously.
Because the number of illegal alienation of property attempts has multiplied dramatically.
3. The number of clergy deposed since November 2006 (when the Presiding Bishop’s term began) comes to 121 — and counting.
Because the number of clergy leaving TEC for other churches has increased since November 2006.
4. Three bishops were “deposed” (not canonically) under the current Presiding Bishop, while she “deemed” another six to have voluntarily renounced their orders
9 bishops either left or broke their vows. No canonical violation has been shown or upheld by any authority in TEC, much to the displeasure of those who continue to ‘cry wolf.’
5. Despite an unprecedented downturn in its revenues, with resulting layoffs and downsizing in ECUSA’s staff, the Presiding Bishop has found room in the budget to hire a personal legal adviser, in addition to her Chancellor.
Faced with the number of parishes who are trying to take property, wouldn’t you Mr. Haley? Apparently not.
6. At the same time that she has sought novel ways to fund litigation costs, the Presiding Bishop has urged the Church to hold fast to maintaining the Millennium Development Goals as its “first mission priority”.
And your arguments are as unsound as before.
If not for your own emotional health, then at least for the benefit of those who give your legal musings creedence, you should consider broadening your focus.
Brian’s only “argument” that I can see is that since “authorities” have decided otherwise, Haley’s arguments must be inaccurate.
Brian would have made a good Russian [in the 1930’s], it seems.
I think, regarding Brian’s deep concern over Haley’s “emotional health,” that Haley seems to take great satisfaction out of pointing out the idiocies and incoherences of the ruling power. I think Haley’s feeling pretty good, and thus Brian’s concerns can be at rest.
[Slightly edited by Elf]
#4 — I think Haley agrees with you. His title for the post was “What They Saw Is Exactly What They Got.”
#2 Br. Michael says:
My feeling on the property issues in general is that it’s complicated, both sides have valid arguments to make, and the courts will sort it all out eventually.
But in this I have to agree with Br. Michael: if TEC really wants the property ownership issue to be clear, it should have its name on the title of all the property and just suck up the liability exposure.
Brian’s only “argument†that I can see is that since “authorities†have decided otherwise, Haley’s arguments must be inaccurate.
It’s what those of us who are not convinced of a ‘vast left-wing conspiracy’ rely on. We call it “reality.” It works like this:
1. Action taken by agency (may or may not be valid)
2. Action reviewed by agency authorities and found valid (presumption of validity-although this does not preclude systemic corruption)
3. Action reviewed by independent authority and found valid (this is where A.S. Haley, and apparently Sarah, break from reality)
Thus A.S. Haley and Sarah become engaged in a true Folie à deux
Brian would have made a good Russian [in the 1930’s], it seems.
Hard to say. His definition varied from moment to moment-however I think the difference is that [in the 1930’s] I would most likely be a live Russian and Mr. Haley would not.
[Slightly edited by Elf]
And your blindness, Brian, is that you have no grasp of cause and effect.
Actually Albany+, my visual impairment is the result of a birth defect. My opinion is based on actions and consequences.
RE: “It’s what those of us who are not convinced of a ‘vast left-wing conspiracy’ rely on.”
Well no, it’s what people with weak arguments but whose “authorities” are *currently* agreeing with them rely on.
RE: “We call it “reality.â€
Naw — you call it “power.” ; > )
And “power” means of course — according to Brian — that the reasoning and arguments are truthful and correct.
Again — a good [Russian in the 1930’s] .
RE: “I would most likely be a live Russian and Mr. Haley would not.”
I have no doubt of it, Brian.
Hard for me, really, to think of anything worse to say.
[Slightly edited by Elf]
Brian, I am not aware of your ordinary identity or your health status and mean no offense.
As to your response and my prior comment, “a rose by any other name… .” And don’t you seem oddly allergic to talk of “consequences” in any other sphere — e.g., the Covenant?
Go to the courthouse and look at the tax records of the church property. If the church’s name is on the tax papers then it belongs to the local church and not the diocese.
[i] Let’s return to the original post, please. [/i]
-Elf Lady
I truly believe that position papers such as created by the 11 bishops, and others, who are challenging the current PB’s bottomless power should shake up a few. All the better if the unchecked power of the PB could be challenged on the floor of GC 2009 with a resolution of “no confidence” by the same persons. This would certainly create sufficient doubt among the unenlightened at Convention as to what the issues are. The other lobbies shouldn’t have all the floor and delegates’ attention. This is too important to neglect to raise as a matter of confidence. Now, it remains for the brave who wrote their position paper to take it for a test run at General Convention. Else…it’s just academic, isn’t it? Will this be a “safe” paper, or will it become a brave protest that elicits reform?
[Comment deleted by Elf]