Bishop Jefferts Schori’s views come in direct opposition to those of her predecessors, who historically held that parish property disputes are internal diocesan matters, not subject to the review or oversight of the presiding bishop.
Speaking to the Diocese of Western Louisiana on May 11, 2006, former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said the interpretation of the national church’s property canons was a diocesan matter, and that the national church only became involved in parish property disputes if invited by the local bishop and diocesan standing committees.
The Presiding Bishop’s legal advice may not be enforceable in many US states, as contracts may not incorporate illegal provisions within their terms. The US Constitution and many state constitutions prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion — making a ban on a bishop a dodgy legal stratagem, American contract lawyers tell Religious Intelligence.
Nothing new here. The current Presiding Bishop has been overstepping her authority since day one. She herself as an archbishop of a province and not simply a presiding bishop. The recent GC did not even address the shadow dioceses she set up in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Ft. Worth…which is required…they simply accepted it as fait accompli…
This is sad…for she is running roughshod over the Constitution and Canons of the EC and no one has the courage to say no!
Other previous presiding bishops understood and accepted their limitations…this one has none and as long as the HOB and Executive Council support her the abuse of canons and authority will continue.
In my view the Presiding Bishop, on behalf of the Episcopal Church, may well have a necessary interest in defending the Dennis Canon and in requiring that diocesan Trustees are held to strict standards of fiduciary responsibility. But to step beyond those two concerns is to step too far. I suppose she can express a wish or an opinion, which may or may not influence diocesan Trustees–but the decision about these matters is simply not hers.
Bruce Robison
Has she tried to “defend the Dennis Canon” in Texas yet?
A year or two ago we had some lengthy discussions in a couple T19 threads about exactly what behind-the-scene mechanisms KJS uses to bend otherwise reluctant diocesan leaders (those reluctant to sue departing parishes) to her will.
It was clear that this happens — e.g. the historical 180-degree reversal of Bishop Lee made that clear — but no one was able to definitively explain what these methods were.
The situation may be different (and clearer) now than it was then. She seems armed with more implicit terror (e.g. the fear that if a bishop even expresses a THOUGHT that she or Beers do not like then that could be grounds for expulsion) than she was back in the days of the Falls Church debate. And of course she has the implicit/complicit endorsement of the HOB in her policies and expulsions of the last three years.
I am pleased to see that Bruce is willing to quietly express a mildly critical opinion about KJS. Have any of the shadow bishops or any members of shadow standing committees ever gone on record as saying anything even mildly critical of 815 abuses of power?
Here’s another one that won’t fly in court.
Umm, the Presiding Bishop is not an Archbishop in the same sense as ++Duncan and others, even though General Convention now refers to the office of Presiding Bishop as “Primate of The Episcopal Church;” in much the same manner as the head of the Scottish Episcopal Church is referred to as the “Primus.” Until such time as they get around to officially changing the title, the senior bishop of TEC is still just the Presiding Bishop and nothing else.
As for not allowing the sale of properties, Dr Jefferts Schori does not have that authority, and she has very clearly overstepped the bounds of propriety.
She definitely is not squat and does not look like a toad, but her behavior certainly reminds some of Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter: new edicts and rules with each passing week.
Hursley’s Wife