So exactly how could any Deputy challenge President Anderson’s “joyful” ruling in favor of seating the deputation from Pittsburgh, “immediately after [the] decision [is made]”, when that ruling was made in January and the Convention would not open until July?
And there you have it — a little window into how the insiders at ECUSA get things done.
Precisely. As with the uncanonical depositions, TGC makes up the rules as it goes along now. It’s the rule of men, not the rule of law or, Heaven forefend, the Rule of God.
Violations of the Constitution and Canons of the EC….I mean what else is new…they only apply when they are used against Reasserters.
Now that Mr Haley’s published this expose’, it’ll be interesting to see what spin Schori and Company will try to put on it. I don’t think they’ll like having their scheming behavior exposed for all to read. And I’m interested in reading his coming article about TEC’s financial shenanigans.
#3 Cennydd,
The PB and her legal henchmen will ignore it.
The real question is whether the faithful remaining in TEC will see this as the final straw and abandon 815.
[blockquote]It’s the rule of men, not the rule of law or, Heaven forefend, the Rule of God.[/blockquote]
No, no. It’s worse. It’s the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Blast_of_the_Trumpet_Against_the_Monstrous_Regiment_of_Women]Monstrous Regiment of Women[/url].
Isn’t the whole of Haley’s piece predicated on being oblivious to the act of unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of General Convention made by any diocese at the time of its union with General Convention?
Surely Haley must realize because of the unqualified nature of the accession that an action to remove the accession clause from a diocesan constitution can only be a show for the grandstand.
stabill,
You simply make me laugh. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
and
sophy0075,
THose who have felt called to stay in TEc will not see this as the final straw. Those who truly feel called to weather the violent storm of 815 and the real authority and power GC, will stay and stand firm.
#5…Can we raise the bar here?
Thanks-
Intercessor
I don’t know about those who’ve decided to stay and stick it out in TEC, but [b]I don’t appreciate being lied to.[/b] I was lied to, hoodwinked, bamboozled, and deliberately deceived by TEC until 2003, when VGR was elected and “consecrated,” and I left with my bishop and diocese. Sooner or later, those same people are going to wake up and finally admit that they too have been “had.” Guaranteed. It will happen.
stabill
Here, in a nutshell, has Mr Haley described the real problem with his gigantic amount of posts:
(Note to those in Pittsburgh: while I make my bias plain, it is not arbitrary. I base it on what I believe are the historical facts about the nature of (P)ECUSA when it was founded, and on long-established principles of law about voluntary associations. Thus I absolutely refuse to refer to the remnant groups as “dioceses” unless and until they each go through the proper steps to be readmitted as such. To engage in such terminology is to further ECUSA’s strategy of Orwellian doublespeak, whereby the outcome it desires is simply brought about by speaking as though it were already a fact.)
It is simply that he will not recognize reality. Every single time there is a ruling against a former TEC group (which is virtually every single time) he claims that the multitude of judges in multiple States simply do not understand the law. The only time he has ever veered from this claim (and I would not be surprised if he has spent nearly 1000 pages of writing on the topic of “misapplied” law) is when the Diocese of San Joaquin lost their last hearing. Then he said ‘well, it doesn’t really matter.’ Anyone spending so much time compiling voluminous screeds on why he knows better than all of the courts in the land is not going to listen to reasoned arguments. If the law isn’t able to understand the law, then in his mind how can anyone else.
It is good and right to ask the questions though. They interject reason into people who like to use ‘TGC’ (for The Gay Church) and TEc (note the small ‘c’ – get it?). When reason, logic and integrity fail you, you resort to cutesy word games. In the end, the people using them feel better as they sit in their rented worship spaces.
I would be glad to share some thoughts about reality in this context, Brian “from T19”, which of course is not your reality.
Stabill, whether the current topic is accession, or not, the mode of business, and as I read it the point of Mr Haley’s post to show, is presupposition, presumption, and preclusion, when the canons consistently demand convening, discussion, voting and/or concensus; and the examples are continuing to mount. That being said, how many examples do we need to all say together (because if it happened to you, you would agree) “That is not valid. That is not canonical (illegal). That is unethical. Back up the bus.”
The wisdom of God on this matter taught consistently throughout the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, is that where community parameters are not in place, due to being broken or otherwise, chaos ensues. And chaos, among the Holy Nation, is not of God.
Here is truth, and you may feel some Ephesians 4 anger coming your way (which I will indeed set aside before going to bed tonight) : Are the two of you naive enough to not see the chaos that is ensuing in TECUSA? You are called to be part of the kingdom solution, not part of the problem by denial.
#8–Sorry if I gave offense. I wasn’t being quite serious as I am certainly no Calvinist and do in fact wholeheartedly approve of Catholic queens. But it is true that a large part of the problem is that bishops aren’t gentlemen.
as I read it the point of Mr Haley’s post to show, is presupposition, presumption, and preclusion, when the canons consistently demand convening, discussion, voting and/or concensus; and the examples are continuing to mount. That being said, how many examples do we need to all say together (because if it happened to you, you would agree) “That is not valid. That is not canonical (illegal). That is unethical. Back up the bus.â€
Rob+
The answer to that is the same answer I have given to A.S. Haley’s arguments-reality. Asked and answered. An organized body makes a decision under its rules (Constitution and Canons). The point is raised that this does not comply with the rules of the organization. The organization makes a determination that it does indeed comply with the rules of the organization. People who have the ability to object formally make no such formal objection and the interpretation of the ruling members of the organization stand. This is the situation as it exists today. This is reality. Now if you would like to say that it is unethical, you certainly can (and, for the record, you would be correct). However, to say that it is illegal, uncanonical, invalid or simply can not happen is to ignore the reality right in front of you.
Are the two of you naive enough to not see the chaos that is ensuing in TECUSA? You are called to be part of the kingdom solution, not part of the problem by denial.
As I have said many times and I believe it bears repeating, the HoB and the HoD have created a Golem in this Presiding Bishop and they are paying the price. ++Katharine values property over people. She has dismantled all of the ministry done at the National level and is focusing on tearing things down as opposed to building them up. The situation is untenable.
I was lied to, hoodwinked, bamboozled, and deliberately deceived
Cennydd
I agree. I have also stated many times how your bishop and others now in the ACNA promised their supporters that if they left they would still be members of the Anglican Communion. Unfortunately that is not the case. I hope that the situation resolves itself to your satisfaction.
Crypto Papist, I for one knew it was a joke and was amused. I read that little pamphlet in the course of some historical research, and I’ve been thinking of John Knox from time to time. All-time worst title for a a pamphlet, because, as the Wikipedia article wryly notes, it gave Knox some problems working with Protestant Elizabeth when she ascended to the throne the following year.
I remain convinced that the Departing Diocese Gambit is carefully designed from the ground up as a means of securing physical property and other assets. Were that not the motive (or a substantial component of the motive) it would be far easier and more direct simply to walk out the door and hang up one’s ACNA shingle in a new location. Clearly, a general understanding formed that the Departing Parish Gambit was inadequate, anywhere outside Virginia, to effect a departure without physical sacrifice and without the inconvenient necessity of finding and building new quarters.
I admire A.S. Haley’s attention to detail and indefatigable musings on the subject. He is a very bright and knowledgeable fellow from whom I have learned a great deal. But I agree with Brian that the courts simply do not seem to be buying into his complicated theories. Mr. Haley is very well schooled in the procedural requirements of the TEC and its dioceses. He ferrets out anomalies in compliance to suggest that TEC reactions to the departures are imperfect, and thus void. But the big picture is what the courts appear (at least so far) to be picking up on. Disaffected members, lay and clergy, of TEC are leaving for a variety of reasons, some of which are very sincere theological disputes. The courts get this. TEC gets this. This is a very unhappy, regretted, grieved over event among Christians who leave and Christians who stay. But it is happening. Nothing can stop it. The problem comes when those departing cling to temporal holdings of the church they departed. The courts aren’t getting this. TEC isn’t standing still for it. Those who stay behind are often dispossessed and burdened. It begins to look like some kind of legal sleight of hand to argue that the existing TEC diocese goes poof when 100+ lay and a similar number of clergy vote to leave (as was the case in Pittsburgh). My understanding in the Pittsburgh and Texas situations is that the departing groups even clung to the “Episcopal” nomenclature (I am not sure whether that is still the case since the formation of ACNA). The use of terminology strikes me as a calculated effort to create confusion or advantage on the subject of ownership of assets.
Those on either side of this dispute who throw scathing invective at their Christian brothers on the other side all deserve a good bit of discomfort, in my opinion. This whole sad story has a very large component that seems more like the tawdry political discourse that besets the country and less like a genuine and sincere effort of Christians to discern, even if through a glass darkly, what God requires of us. But the core of the dispute, without which folks would have just gone their separate ways, is the effort to hold property. As with the sin of slavery earlier in out history, this sin bleeds both sides and both are punished to the detriment of the strength of Christian missions in the United States.
Hey Rob, as nearly as I can tell, the thesis now for those who have lost the “canonical” debates with Haley is that once a country [or any other entity] violates its law, the law itself is “re-written” or “reinterpreted” by that very violation such that it’s actually “keeping the law” since it — the country [or you can substitute “organization”] — “makes a determination that it does indeed comply with the rules.”
It’s deconstructionism at its most rank and transparent and corrupt. But that’s where people are right now ethically and spiritually.
Once one acknowledges that and recognizes it, there’s not a whole lot more to say or converse about.
The fortunate thing is that, once one recognizes that frank and brazen deconstruction of words, laws, concepts, canons, etc, etc, there’s not really any way that such people can coherently enter into the conversation with Haley or others on actually looking at the words, the texts, and their meanings and consistency and “discipline” or cohesiveness and integrity. The time-honored ethical tradition of trying to discern if, say, Germany or another country or organization followed its own laws during the 30s . . . or any other close reading of an organization’s texts — like, say, Holy Scripture — is no longer available to them at least in “mixed company.”
That’s basically the problem between those of the two differing gospels in TEC. One group believes that “words are written in water” and that whatever the organization says about those words — whether scripture or canon or anything else — is what they mean.
The other group recognizes that it’s like arguing with the Red Queen.
And the effort at dialogue or conversation or debate or engagement essentially dies away.
One of the nicest things in the world is to find an “old-fashioned liberal” who still believes in words meaning things and who believes that there is such a thing as an organization violating its own rules [rather than simply rewriting them through taking actions-of-power like Nietsche]. In our country and certainly in our church the only real debates one can have is between conservatives and those old liberals — or amongst conservatives themselves who also are capable of honoring the integrity of words and their meanings.
All of the above, of course, is why the rifts in our country will grow broader and broader between the Red Queen groups and the Alice groups. One side is using Nietsche and deconstruction as their MO and the other is gradually recognizing that the debate and argument and rhetorical skills that they value are pointless. Eventually, both parties end up picking up the guns [currently metaphorically speaking of course] and then it’s all about raw and naked power. That’s essentially where we’re moving in this country. The Alice groups are going to have to continue the debate amongst themselves and the old-fashioned liberals, but engage in the battle with the Red Queens.
History is, it seems, often like this. Eventually for all of Chamberlain’s efforts, Germany invaded Poland.
NoVA Scout, watch out how you fall into TEC’s verbal pits. The elected representatives in the departing Diocese do “vote to leave”, but they do so by voting to amend their governing document, to remove the language of accession (qualified or unqualified, it makes no difference — [i]pace,[/i] stabill). This leaves the Diocese itself intact — it does not go “poof”. It is still there, but with an amended Constitution that makes it [i]ineligible[/i] to be a Diocese within TEC any more.
Those who dissent from the vote are free to “remain” in TEC, but to do so, they themselves first have to [i]withdraw[/i] from the Diocese of which they no longer wish to be a part. Then they come together, form a new Diocese, and apply for admission to General Convention by adopting the appropriate accession clause in their new Constitution. (The fact that it uses the same words as the “old” one — the version as it existed before it was amended — does not make it the same document as that old one. That old one had been adopted and voted upon by the group that decided to amend it, and it is still [i]their[/i] document. The group that wants to remain can no longer claim it, because it has been amended — by majority vote, which is the rule in such matters — to their dissatisfaction. So they have to adopt a new version. It can have the same words, but it is a new document, because voted upon by a new and different group from the one that adopted the old one.)
Chancellor’s argument assumes that it is possible to amend the governing document in this way. So far the courts have decided that it is not.
Brian from T19, I’m afraid that you misunderstood me……or perhaps not. In any case, I was lied to, bamboozled, hoodwinked, and deliberated deceived, alright, but NOT by my bishop and our new province……and what’s more, you know it.
I think that TEC should give all the colonial churches’ property back to the Church of England.
Then I think that the Church of England should give all the church’s property back to the Bishop of Rome.
Brian, you mention the situation between us and the Communion, and I remind you that the Church of England’s House of Bishops will discuss that situation when they meet next month. I have been reliably informed that the support for our inclusion in the Communion as the 39th province is growing and may very well become a reality when their Synod meets next February. What will TEC’s reaction be when, and not if, that happens?
Is it true that “unqualified accession” is accession to a hierarchy that ignores its own rules?
In other words, the accession is to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. [b]At the very least[/b] that should mean that the officers of said corporation operate according to those Constitutions and Canons to which the diocese acceded.
But what we are seeing are repeated examples where the Presiding Bishop, the House of Bishops, the Executive Council and the officers of General Convention have acted [b]outside[/b] the scope of their constitutional and canonical powers, if not outright [b]violated[/b] the provisions of the Constitution and Canons.
Of course what should be happening is that the few remaining faithful bishops and standing committees should be bringing charges against the Presiding Bishop and others of the House of Bishops for their violations of the Constitution and Canons.
I would also suggest that these violations of the national church negate any contract implied in “unqualified accession”–not to the BP, not to the Executive Council, not to the officers of General Convention–but to the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
Thanks Cenny…well said.
Intercessor
Aside from the often absurd precedent set by a particular act of those leading TEC in disregard of its rules of order/canons/constitution – there is the really cool precedent that those in power can do whatever they like, until someone else gets in power, and then they get to do whatever they like, and so on. And to think this situation was encouraged by a group named integrity: oh irony, thy name is TEC.
😉
New motto for TEC: Dies juridicus est dominicus.
“Once one acknowledges that and recognizes it, there’s not a whole lot more to say or converse about.”
Which is why, Sarah, wisdom has prevailed in our parish following our own protest.
You see, Brian, the point is not the machinations, the point is putting light onto (or if you like, into) the darkness so that truth and falsehood might be seen and recognized. So now, only for review, as this incensing incident is no longer part of our every waking moment’s thoughts:
We DID make an official protest in March, 2008, to the PB’s absolutely over-reaching, (admitted by her) under-informed response to the Standing Comm of San Joaquin who had chosen to remain TECUSA, as well as to the overt exclusion of the parish by those in the diocese, thereby breaking their own rules freshly established, and the response was saying, “Ditto to what the PB said.” (No formal response was ever made to the exclusionary issue). Problem was, the PB made her response to my Standing Comm membership protest — she was aware of our protest to be given — PRIOR to the official business portion of Convention, and thus Prior to the protest.* The Chair’s response was not a point by point refutation or inquiry or whatever except to say “What she said.” And that has been the MO. Haley’s point, I believe, is “there is a pattern, it can be seen, it must stop, where will it?”
For me, that point is not simply swept under the rug because it won’t make any difference. The point is usable for future interactions, as it must be.
*Somewhere – I cannot find it now anywhere – part of the legal papers from TECUSA San Joaquin included a couple of paragraphs regarding this protest, and they got the scenario false, testifying the protest happened before the convention started officially, and their conclusion being that therefore the protest was not made in any official capacity. That’s quite the story — and the press were there to record the real story. The legal results would all be the same, though. Still, it is an un-concluded matter, but one we’re not going to throw mission money at.
Ken Peck
But what we are seeing are repeated examples where the Presiding Bishop, the House of Bishops, the Executive Council and the officers of General Convention have acted outside the scope of their constitutional and canonical powers, if not outright violated the provisions of the Constitution and Canons.
I think Sarah gives a good example of Germany in the early 1930s. After Hitler’s failure to stage a coup, he was determined to win power by legal means. He succeeded (albeit through unethical means) in becoming Chancellor and continuously modifying and adapting the German constitution to fit his needs. Eventually his authority became unassailable.
++Katharine consolidated powers quickly and then ruled by fiat. The key thing here, and this is absolutely necessary to understand, is that those who have the Constitutional and/or canonical authority to challenge these arbitrary interpretations have either failed to make or lost their challenges. This is critical. Again, those who have the authority to challenge have either failed to do so or chosen to remain silent.
I would also suggest that these violations of the national church negate any contract implied in “unqualified accessionâ€â€”not to the BP, not to the Executive Council, not to the officers of General Convention—but to the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
But here again, the Church is following its own rules because it was asked about its interpretation, made a ruling, the ruling was questioned, the ruling was defended and no one did anything further. The impotence of those with authority has created a new interpretation of the C & Cs that has gone through the process and been sanctioned.
For me, that point is not simply swept under the rug because it won’t make any difference. The point is usable for future interactions, as it must be.
No doubt history will judge her nine year Reich, however, my original point is that it does little good for Mr. Haley to spend so much of his life engrossed in trying to convince us that every court in the land is wrong. If you recall the absolutely ridiculous movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore says “I was elected President of the United States.” Of course he was not. Mr. Haley’s life’s work may be an interesting reference work, but it remains “A tale…full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
Still, it is an un-concluded matter, but one we’re not going to throw mission money at.
Unfortunately the former Bishop doesn’t agree with you.
Brian,
I got what your peeve is, but, then, that’s the Curmudgeon’s call, isn’t it? I would call his writing prolific, because that’s just his nature. And perhaps that’s just what it takes for him to actually weigh everything, mark, learn, and digest, until he can say it all in one sentence. I have learned a lot from his “sound and fury”, thus signifying something. Your own judgement awaits you, too. But back to my challenge to you, you enigmatic person, you….. it doesn’t help to diss those engaged in laying out the problems before us. Third party observations are now behind us. What then shall we do, Brian? Surely, at this new moment, you (and I am not being sarcastic, but respecting your abilities) have something to offer?
“Unfortunately the former Bishop doesn’t agree with you.”
Tragically, Brian, NONE of the bishops involved in the San Joaquin situation agree with me. The Presiding Bishop – by her actions regarding the Standing Committee in San Joaquin alone – has cost TECUSA $750,000 to $1,000,000. And that’s without adding up litigation costs since.
Chancellor, #18:
[blockquote]
… The elected representatives in the departing Diocese do “vote to leaveâ€, but they do so by voting to amend their governing document, to remove the language of accession (qualified or unqualified, it makes no difference—- pace, stabill). This leaves the Diocese itself intact—- it does not go “poofâ€. …
[/blockquote]
The word “unqualified” in Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution is important: it means that the diocese has no right of withdrawal.
An organization cannot become a diocese of The Episcopal Church, use the Church’s “brand” while raising money, and then skip out. I mention this by way of pointing out that the requirement of unqualified accession is reasonable.
[blockquote]The word “unqualified†in Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution is important: it means that the diocese has no right of withdrawal.[/blockquote]
What kind of organization has “unqualified” accession–besides the Cosa Notra, that is?
What else happened in 1789?
A.S. Haley inquires
The U. S. Constitution went into effect. The first Congress convened and George Washington was unanimously elected President. The French Revolution. The mutiny on the [i]bounty[/i]. Alexander Suvorov roundly defeats 100,000 Turks in the Battle of Rymnik. Congress proposes the Bill of Rights. Pope Pius VI appoints John Carroll the first Roman Catholic bishop in the United States. Thomas Jefferson returned from Europe with a macaroni machine. And a bunch of other stuff. It was a very busy year.
Suppose Charlie Brown meets some folks and finds that they also believe in the Great Pumpkin. Suppose further that they discover that there is an American Great Pumpkin Church (AGPC). So Charlie and friends form the First American Great Pumpkin Church of Santa Rosa. They give unqualified accession to the rules of the AGPC. They buy a pumpkin patch, pay to cultivate and maintain it. Then the AGPC Great Council adopts a rule that says that local AGPC congregations hold their pumpkin patches in trust for AGPC. All goes well. Charlie and friends tend and care for their pumpkin patch. They win new members for their patch. Every October 31st they meet in their pumpkin patch to see if the Great Pumpkin comes to their patch. They send money and seeds to the AGPC to support the mission of the AGPC.
But then the AGPC Great Council votes that the church no longer believes in or worships the Great Pumpkin, that it was all a myth invented by some guy named Schulz. There is no Great Pumpkin. Instead all the pumpkin patches are to become to rutabaga patches.
But Charlie and his friends still believe in the Great Pumpkin. They really, really detest rutabagas. They know that there is a worldwide fellowship of Great Pumpkin churches, which supposedly the AGPC is a constituent member. And they vote to change their constitution and by-laws to remove the unqualified accession to AGPC and to join with the Great Pumpkin Church Fellowship of Andora.
Now where is the justice in saying that the Great Pumpkin Patch of Santa Rosa belongs to AGPC and not to Charlie’s group, which is now a member of the Great Pumpkin Church of Andora? And where is the justice in insisting that the Great Pumpkin Patch of Santa Rosa cannot be sold to Charlie and his friends? And if the Pumpkin Patch is sold to McDonald’s, no member of a Great Pumpkin Church can set foot into the McDonald’s.
It makes no sense whatever.
Now where is the justice in saying that the Great Pumpkin Patch of Santa Rosa belongs to AGPC and not to Charlie’s group, which is now a member of the Great Pumpkin Church of Andora? And where is the justice in insisting that the Great Pumpkin Patch of Santa Rosa cannot be sold to Charlie and his friends? And if the Pumpkin Patch is sold to McDonald’s, no member of a Great Pumpkin Church can set foot into the McDonald’s.
It makes no sense whatever.
The justice is in the process. The AGPC Great Council voted. Charlie had ample opportunity to be represented at the Great Council. Charlie also is completely, 100% free to grow as many pumpkins as he and his group will. But the problem with Charlie’s view of justice is that he agreed to the AGPC property decision and he chose to do nothing about it for years. Charlie was content. Now Charlie wants to change the deal because it doesn’t suit him. He could do the honorable thing and plant a new Pumpkin patch, but he won’t. You see, the AGPC says up front “we don’t care about the Pumpkins, we want the patch.” Charlie Brown says we care about the Pumpkin, but his actions are all about the patch. Poor Ol’ Charlie Brown.
stabill (#30), you are misusing the English language. “Unqualified” does not mean the same as “irrevocable.” I may give my unqualified assent to your writing my biography, but if you dally for the next three years and write nothing, I can certainly withdraw my previously “unqualified” assent. It is not that I have now added a qualification to my original consent (“write it within three years, or else”), because if I had said that when you proposed to do so, [i]that[/i] would have been a qualification on my assent.
But when I cancel your authorization to write my biography after waiting three years for you to begin doing it, I am simply pointing out that my consent was operative only so long as you were performing, in good faith. If you stop performing, or never begin to perform, I can take back my consent, because even though it was unqualified to begin with, it was never [i]irrevocable[/i].
In exactly the same way, if I as a diocese join TEC in the expectation that it will always remain faithful to Scripture as the Church has traditionally understood it, then my consent in joining may be revoked if I perceive that TEC is doing something different. I had no reservations whatsoever when I joined ([i]i.e.,[/i] my joining was “unqualified”), but in light of TEC’s recent actions in General Convention, I now have my doubts. I decide to withdraw, and that is my full right as a member of a [i]voluntary[/i] unincorporated association — I may remain a member only for so long as I agree with the goals of the group. If I come to disagree, the fact the association is “voluntary” means that I may withdraw from it at any time (so long as my dues are paid up).
The law requires any consent that is to be “irrevocable” to be expressed as such, in a writing that can be plainly so understood. If there are no words used such as “irrevocable,” “in perpetuity”, “forever”, “for all time”, or similar construction, then any granting of consent is good only for so long as the person consenting wishes it to last.
So please, let’s keep the English language clear and unambiguous — to the extent it is within our power. Do not equate “unqualified” with “perpetual”.
And Brian from T19 (#19), let us also be accurate: “the [i]courts[/i]” have thus far decided no such thing. They have ruled only in the case of parishes trying to pull out from dioceses, and have used the Dennis Canon against any attempt to retain parish property in the name of the departing diocese. Before the interim ruling in Fresno, no court anywhere had decided the issue of whether a withdrawing Diocese could not hang onto its property. There are different rules involved: for example, the Dennis Canon applies only to property owned by or held for the benefit of parishes, not dioceses.
It’s easy to claim success when you misread the cases, and jump on what you read as a bandwagon. The ruling in Fresno is not a final ruling, and cannot be cited to any other court. To speak accurately from a legal standpoint, there is at this date [i]no[/i] final decision by any court which decides the issue. Your claims about what has actually been decided to date, therefore, could not be more mistaken.
Sorry for the typo — that second sentence in the next to last paragraph should have read:
[blockquote]They have ruled only in the case of parishes trying to pull out from dioceses, and have used the Dennis Canon against any attempt to retain parish property in the name of the departing [b]parish[/b]. . . . [/blockquote]
35. Brian from T19 wrote:
[blockquote]The justice is in the process.[/blockquote]
That is a curious definition of “justice”. (To step out of the supposed case of the First American Great Pumpkin Church of Santa Rosa for a moment: TEC claims that the ordination of women, the blessing of same sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians are matters of justice. But in doing so, individuals in TEC have repeatedly violated canons and repreated resolutions of General Convention. It hasn’t been a matter of “process”, it has been a matter of the violation of “process” in the name of “justice”.)
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Charlie also is completely, 100% free to grow as many pumpkins as he and his group will.[/blockquote]
Actually no. The AGCP Great Council said he must grow rutabagas and not pumpkins. If he and his group continue growing pumpkins, the High Priestess of the Patch will declare that they have abandoned the Fellowship of the Patch, put up a high fence and guards to insure that Charlie and his friends will no longer access to the patch to grow pumpkins.
[blockquote]But the problem with Charlie’s view of justice is that he agreed to the AGPC property decision and he chose to do nothing about it for years.[/blockquote]
Again to depart from the hypothetical for some real cases, I was priest-in-charge of a mission congregation which had bought a house which they were using for church services. They were a part of the Episcopal Diocese, although interestingly, the diocese had not put up one cent for the church or its maintenance or my stipend for coming into town once a week to celebrate the Eucharist with them and preach–oh and occasionally meeting with their bishop’s committee and other special functions. About that time the diocese became concerned about church property for which the local congregations held the deed and were the owners of record and asked that the respective vestries and bishop’s committees transfer title to the diocese. (Interestingly, the Diocese of Virginia was faulted by the courts for failing to do precisely that.) Now in the case of this mission, the committee decided to do nothing–to be silent, so the deed remained in the name of the committee, not the diocese. And certainly the deed of record reflected that they, not the diocese owned the property. Now your argument is that “Silence means assent”, but that isn’t always the case. To use an example from [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1qlJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=silence+means+assent&source=bl&ots=cHSIbmNStN&sig=NjWlIEuf8KflG6JRnwIdNh3gcE8&hl=en&ei=cVGBSvTrL5WEtger2ezMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=silence means assent&f=false]a law lecture on the subject[/url], if I e-mail you that I am selling you 100 shares of American Widget at $25 a share, if you do not agree you must notify me by next Thursday, the fact that you do [b]not[/b] respond (are silent) does not mean that you have assented to the contract. No contract exists. I dare say no contract exists even if you had given “unqualified accession” to my brokerage firm, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe LPP. And, I dare say, I would be able to withdraw my “unqualified accession” and take my investments with me in any sane justice process.
Even if Charlie did not protest the rule that his property was held in trust for AGPC, it does not mean he gave assent to the new rule. And he certainly did protest when AGPC changed its policy from promoting Pumpkinism to promoting Rutabagism.
[blockquote]Charlie was content.[/blockquote]
Charlie was content so long as AGPC promoted Pumpkinism; but he was not content when AGPC switched from Pumplinism to Rutabagism.
[/blockquote]Now Charlie wants to change the deal because it doesn’t suit him.[/blockquote]
Charlie wants out of the deal because AGPC changed the deal. He was content as long as the deal was Pumpkinism; but AGPC changed the deal.
[blockquote]He could do the honorable thing and plant a new Pumpkin patch, but he won’t.[/blockquote]
That has, of course, happened in many real cases. It has also happend that a sensible arrangement has been worked out whereby Charlie could keep his pumpkin patch. But it has also happened that the High Priestess of the Patch has forbidden any such sensible, just resolution. Now the only alternatives are to give the property to devotees of rutabagas or else sell it to McDonald’s with the curious deed restriction that no devotees of the Great Pumpkin can set foot on the property.
[blockquote]You see, the AGPC says up front “we don’t care about the Pumpkins, we want the patch.â€[/blockquote]
Yep, that’s what they say.
[blockquote]Charlie Brown says we care about the Pumpkin, but his actions are all about the patch. Poor Ol’ Charlie Brown.[/blockquote]
Not at all. He and his fellow Pumpkinites continue to cultivate pumpkins and to gather on October 31st in the patch to await the coming of the Great Pumpkin. It is, after all, a pumpkin patch and not a rutabaga patch. And his “unqualified assession” was to a fellowship of followers of the Great Pumpkin, not to a fellowship of followers of the Great Rutabaga.
Chancellor #36,
[blockquote]
… you are misusing the English language. “Unqualified†does not mean the same as “irrevocable.†…
[/blockquote]
The meaning of “unqualified” depends on the noun it modifies and the context in which it is used. So, in particular, the question here is what it means in Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.
If one thinks it does not indicate that the accession is not reversible, what might one then think is the meaning of “unqualified” in Article V? Does one think that adjectives were tossed around gratuitously in 1789?
39. stabill wrote:
[blockquote]The meaning of “unqualified†depends on the noun it modifies and the context in which it is used. So, in particular, the question here is what it means in Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.
If one thinks it does not indicate that the accession is not reversible, what might one then think is the meaning of “unqualified†in Article V? Does one think that adjectives were tossed around gratuitously in 1789?[/blockquote]
I would say it means exactly what it says, “an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church”. That is, a diocese petitioning General Convention for union with General Convention would not, for example, have a reservation that unbaptized be admitted to Holy Communion when the canons specify otherwise. I think that someone who did not toss adjectives gratuitously in 1789 would have said “irrevocable” if they meant “irrevocable”.
I’ve not been able to find any where in the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America where withdrawal of “unqualified accession” is forbidden; so a diocese, operating in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the PECUSA and its own constitutions and canons could rescind its “unqualified accession”–in which case it ceases to be in union with General Convention.
In passing, it should be noted that the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council and General Convention tore Article V to shreds in its treatment of the dioceses of San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth.
Finally, I would suggest that if “unqualified accession” means what TEC is claiming it means, that [b]no one[/b] should [b]ever under any circumstance give “unqualified accession” to anyone for any reason![/b] It is patently absurd.
I would also suggest that [b]anyone[/b] who is in [b]anyway[/b] associated with [b]any organization[/b] which has given “unqualified accession” to [b]any organization[/b], including TEC, to disassociate immediately with such organization [b]without delay[/b].
Even reappraisers.
Suppose, for a moment that there is a mysterious moving of the Holy Spirit so that a majority of very militant, zealous conservatives are elected to the 2012 General Convention and works a marvelous and wondrous conversion of a majority of the bishops of TEC to that same faith. And suppose they amend the canons of TEC so as to categorically and without any equivocation, forbid blessings of sexual relationships other than those of a man and a woman, forbid the ordination of those in sexual relationships other than those of Holy Matrimony, and forbid those in such relationships from exercising any ministerial function in TEC. Suppose this reformed TEC began enforcing the constitutional and canonical provisions relating to the exclusive use of the unaltered BCP and the practice of so-called “open communion”. Supposed they proposed and the 2015 General Convention ratified an amendment restricting the orders of bishop and priests to males, either married to one female or entirely chaste and celibate.
O.K., you guys. You gave “unqualified accession” to the Constitution and Canons. You are stuck with this new, reformed TEC. You can either submit or leave — but don’t take any of the assets with you. What your diocese cannot do is rescind its “unqualified accession.”
Let me make one other observation. Since there does seem to be considerable disagreement within TEC as to exactly what “unqualified accession” might actually mean, it was within the competence of General Convention just adjourned to adopt a canon specifying that a diocese could not rescind its “unqualified accession” and it could have proposed similar language to the Constitution pending ratification in 2015. It did not. So, when one gives “unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons” it does not follow that the accession cannot be rescinded by a diocese, because there is nothing whatever in either the Constitution and Canons that prohibits any such action. And General Convention, in its wisdom, has not adopted or even proposed such a prohibition.
A qualified acceptance is: “One either conditional or partial, and which introduces a variation in the sum, mode, or place of payment.” BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY. A qualified acceptance or assent operates to change the expressed terms.
In other words, a qualified acceptance or assent would be, in effect, a “yes, except for” or “we assent, subject to” some change in or deviation from the C + C.
[blockquote]In other words, a qualified acceptance or assent would be, in effect, a “yes, except for†or “we assent, subject to†some change in or deviation from the C + C.[/blockquote]
So what? There is nothing in the Constitution and Canons that forbids a diocese, having given “unqualified accession”, from rescinding that “unqualified accession.” So rescinding the “unqualified accession” isn’t a [b]deviation[/b] from the Constitution and Canons. And General Convention has done nothing to amend either the Constitution or the Canons to prohibit a diocese from rescinding the “unqualified accession.”
What “unqualified accession” actually means is that a diocese agrees to comply with the Constitution and Canons–for example, to require baptism for those receiving Holy Communion. If the pseudo-dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin were to “accede” to the Constitution and Canons with the [b]qualification[/b] that they will practice “open communion”, then it wouldn’t be “unqualified” because they chose to supersede a canonical requirement. Same thing would be true if they insisted on performing same sex marriages.
But since there is no provision forbidding the complete rescinding of the “unqualified accession” they haven’t superseded any Constitutional or Canonical provision; they’ve simply terminated the agreement and are no longer bound by the Constitution and Canons of TEC.
[42] “So what?”
Re-read the post. [39] was wondering what “unqualified” meant.
The implication of [41] is that an unqualified accession is not an irrevocable accession unless the C + C otherwise expressly require such accession to be irrevocable.
[43]
O.K. Then we agree. An “unqualified accession” is revocable unless what is agreed to explicitly makes it irrevocable. Therefore, “unqualified accession” to the Constitution and Canons of TEC is revocable.
Ken Peck, #42:
[blockquote]
… There is nothing in the Constitution and Canons that forbids a diocese, having given “unqualified accessionâ€, from rescinding that “unqualified accession.†…
[/blockquote]
Indeed, is there anything in the Constitution and Canons that deals with the hypothetical case of a diocese leaving its union with General Convention?
If not, then why? Was leaving it out an incredible oversight?
Actually no. The AGCP Great Council said he must grow rutabagas and not pumpkins. If he and his group continue growing pumpkins, the High Priestess of the Patch will declare that they have abandoned the Fellowship of the Patch, put up a high fence and guards to insure that Charlie and his friends will no longer access to the patch to grow pumpkins.
And this is patently false. No one is forcing Charlie to do anything…yet. This is more of the ‘spiritual warfare’ hyperbole engaged in by the reasserting side. Claims of ‘evil forces’ encroaching on them and danger to the eternal souls of their children. Scare tactics.
As for your law school contracts analogy, it doesn’t apply because there was already existing offer and acceptance.
But Ken, you can go on interpreting the law the way you and A.S. Haley want tit to be and the courts will continue to interpret it the correct way.
Stabill writes (#39):
“If one thinks it does not indicate that the accession is not reversible, what might one then think is the meaning of “unqualified†in Article V? Does one think that adjectives were tossed around gratuitously in 1789?”
Tossing words around gratuitiously in 1789 would not appear to be the issue, since the word “unqualfied” did not appear there in 1789. Perhaps Stabill means 1983. But even then, an unqualified accession does not require use of the word “unqualified”; it just needs not to be qualified. Not so for revocablitity.
Since the argument here seems to be about the effect on the ability to disaffiliate (e.g., #30), consider what the default rules are in similar organizational contexts. For example, Section 20 of the Revised Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act (RUUNAA) and accompanying commentary, published by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, provides that a member of an unincorporated non-profit association may resign in accordance with the organization’s “governing principles†and that in the absence of applicable governing principles, a member may resign at any time. A comment to Section 20 states that “[p]reventing a member from voluntarily withdrawing from a UNA [unincorporated nonprofit association] would be unconstitutional and void on public policy grounds. TEC, of course is an unincorporated association. RUUNAA, although of recent vintage (2008) and presently in effect in only one state (Nevada), has been approved by the American Bar Association. Moreover, similar default rules appear in statutory law applicable to other organizations such as that relating to withdrawal by general partners and members of limited liability companies. TEC’s “accession clause†argument against the ability of a diocese to withdraw consists not only of a misuse of words, but also a category mistake in contract fundamentals – treating the question of whether an agreement to associate is binding as the same as whether a party may withdraw from the association thereby terminating unaccrued obligations.
46. Brian from T19 wrote:
[blockquote]And this is patently false. No one is forcing Charlie to do anything…yet.[/blockquote]
Well, actually it is quite patently true. For a number of years now General Convention and the Executive Council have been attempting to force the dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin to accept women priests and to ordain women as priests. That is one of the reasons they decided to rescind their “unqualified accession”. It is only a matter of time until General Convention and the Executive Council attempt to force blessings and ordination of same-sex couples on bishops and priests. It’s already written into the canons and while there was some attempt to delete the language this year at General Convention, I think it failed.
[blockquote]This is more of the ‘spiritual warfare’ hyperbole engaged in by the reasserting side. Claims of ‘evil forces’ encroaching on them and danger to the eternal souls of their children. Scare tactics.[/blockquote]
Jesus had a few things to say about endangering eternal souls of children. It wasn’t exactly pleasant.
[blockquote]But Ken, you can go on interpreting the law the way you and A.S. Haley want tit to be and the courts will continue to interpret it the correct way.[/blockquote]
To the best of my knowledge, the question of whether or not a diocese may rescind its “unqualified accession” to the Constitution and Canons of TEC has not been decided by any court of law. The matter is still in the courts and at a very preliminary stage. As far as I’ve heard, there is only one temporary ruling of one judge in one low level state court, which has a way to go before becoming anything definitive even at that level–and will be sure to be appealed at least to the state’s highest court no matter what the lower court decides. And when that matter is decided at the highest state level, it doubtless will be appealed to federal courts–particularly if there are contradictory state rulings in California, Pittsburgh, Illinois and Texas.
Ken
Well, actually it is quite patently true. For a number of years now General Convention and the Executive Council have been attempting to force the dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin to accept women priests and to ordain women as priests.
It would help your case if you stuck to fact and not supposition. For example, you claim that Charlie was forced to grow rutabagas and I say that that is false…no one was forced to and then you talk about “attempting” and claim “it is only a matter of time.” So, which is it. I believe you know that you were never forced to grow rutabagas, but want to justify the pre-emptive moves by those Dioceses.
Mike Watson, #47:
[blockquote]
“…Does one think that adjectives were tossed around gratuitously in 1789?â€
Tossing words around gratuitiously in 1789 would not appear to be the issue, since the word “unqualfied†did not appear there in 1789. Perhaps Stabill means 1983.
[/blockquote]
Indeed. I stand corrected.