The following is a statement just received from Bishop Iker’s office (I have added the bold for emphasis):
In a hearing this morning before Judge John Chupp in the 141st District Court in Tarrant County, our attorney filed a motion that requires the lawyers who have brought litigation against us to prove that they had the legal authority to bring the suit. They moved for a continuance, which the Judge denied.
At 10 a.m. Judge Chupp adjourned the hearing due to the fact that a jury trial in another case was scheduled to resume in his court. The hearing on our Rule 12 motion will reconvene at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 16.
Please continue to keep this situation in your daily prayers, and pray for Judge Chupp and attorney Shelby Sharpe by name. As you did last Sunday, please pray during worship this week. For those who are able, fasting as well as prayer will be appropriate and appreciated on the 16th.
Bishop Iker
Excellent. Excellent. Perhaps -just perhaps- we shall see a case decided on the plain facts of law and not on smoke and mirrors befuddling a naive judge.
Uh, denial of a continuance (postponement) is seldom an indicator of the judge’s views on the merits — some judges just like to keep their dockets moving and routinely deny nearly all requests for continuances. Also, this judge is newly-appointed, which may have some relevance.
Obesssion
#3 Obsession, perhaps. But whose, and with what?
“Newly-appointed,” yes…..and quite possibly with no pre-conceived notions.
Perhaps -just perhaps- we shall see a case decided on the plain facts of law and not on smoke and mirrors befuddling a naive judge.
It does seem amazing just how many naive judges there are in the US. If one extrapolates, it is far greater than 90%. Too bad that so many misunderstand the law. Thanks goodness you and A.S. are here to let us know what it should be.
Each case is different, Brian (#6), depending on the specific circumstances of the case together with each state’s particular the statutory and case law together with applicable Federal laws. The particular state of mind of the judge, her/his own personal biases, experiences, presuppositions, often result in decisions which have little relevance to the case itself. That was the problem in the old South on so-called race matters, as just one example. Mrs Shori and her lawyers can say TEC is a ‘hierarchical’ organization, but that does not make it one even remotely on a par with the hierarchy of the Federal government vis a vis the states, or Roman Catholic or Mormon churches, though she might act as if she has the authority of a Pope or the LDS Prophet and President. I’ve been around TEC long enough to recognize that she has arrogated to herself, to her soi-disant ‘office’ functions and powers never dreamed of by any of her predecessors, and most certainly not by the Constitution and Canons. Has any PB of the PECUSA, ECUSA, EC, TEC ever claimed to have the authority she claims to have, and exercises? The answer is no. Never. Ever. This whole ‘hierarchical’ chimera is a recently invented fiction, minted after she took office. We all know it. My bishop clearly knows it, but plays along with her because he feels that if he doesn’t the institution he’s pledged to serve will dissolve before his very eyes. To my mind those who claim to not know truth of this either haven’t been part of the governing structure of TEC over a long period of time, or are indulging in self-delusion, or are playing along with the powers-that-be because their party is the one in the driver’s seat. I abhor hypocrisy and injustice, but these are two qualities I have seen my beloved church develop into an art form since 2003 in particular.
Dedmon nailed it.
Senior Priest
To date, there has been 1 loss for TEC in Virginia and every other case has been won by TEC. Are all of those other judges befuddled? Biased? Subject to the overwhelming power of ++Katharine? I think the odds are vastly against that being the case. Those opposing TEC should try to win at least one more case before claiming that the entire legal system is corrupt or mistaken.
Yes, o ye who are tired of hypocrisy, “obesssion” certainly does “nail it” — the judge in Fort Worth will no doubt bow to superior erudition, and decide that those who are obesssed do not deserve to be heard.
Not [i]every[/i] other case, Brian from T19: TEC lost its case to the parishes in the following decisions:
Bjorkman v. Protestant Episcopal Church in U. S. of Am. of Diocese of Lexington, 759 S.W.2d 583 (Ky. 1988); and Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker, 115 Cal. App. 3d 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). More recently, courts have gone against the idea that local title and deeds mean nothing against implied church claims in these and other decisions: Trinity Presbyterian Church v. Tankersley, 374 So.2d 861 (Ala. 1979); First Evangelical Methodist Church v. Clinton, 257 Ga. 459, 360 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 1987); and most recently, Berthiaume v. McCormack, 153 N.H. 239, 891 A.2d 539 (2006).
So this is by no means a “90%” bandwagon, as you claim. Where TEC has prevailed, it has been on the basis of express language of subordination of the parish [i]to a Diocese and to the Church[/i] that is nonexistent in the case of a diocese “acceding” to the Constitution and Canons, without in any way thereby becoming “subordinate” to any body in TEC. Such a diocese voluntarily [i]agrees[/i] to abide by the Constitution and Canons for as long as it wishes to remain in TEC; when it no longer wants to “accede” to them, it amends its Constitution to remove that language. Once that amendment passes, the diocese is no longer eligible to be in TEC — but it cannot be denied that with the amendment, that diocese has left the Episcopal Church.
#7. By referring to “Mrs Schori” do you mean that she is not really a Doctor of Philosopy? And not really a bishop?
We can say or believe what we like but all churches are hierarchical to a degree. So are the Courts. So is the state. This means that we have to accept that others will decide how things are even if we disagree with them. That is because it is their place to decide and not ours. Thus, the Courts decide who rightly owns property. The universities decide who qualifies for the title of Doctor. The Church decides who is consecrated Bishop.
Anarchy and solipsism are an option, but not usually in the Church or in the state.
Part of the problems with which we all are dealing is that TEC canons haven’t caught up with reality as it is. Therefore, since they never envisioned a situation where entire dioceses would decide to change to more salubrious jurisdictions there is not explicit canonical prohibition against doing so in TEC. So, today we have to utilize the civil courts to decide who owns what. We have an ecclesiastical situation which if not anarchistic, certainly qualifies as an undefined situation. Having myself been around during the prophetic irregular ordinations (subsequently regularized) of the first women priests, the present-day widespread bishops’ officially unofficial winking at all sorts of canonical violations (the number of which have only increased rather than decreased in recent years -does anyone require a recital for proof?), Frank Griswold’s signing one thing and doing another in October 2003, Katharine Shori’s conjuring from thin air of all sorts of powers and prerogatives for herself, ad infinitum, I sincerely doubt that anarchy and solipsism are the particular specialty of any one person or organization. The officially condoned -and indeed, encouraged- anarchistic elements of the TEC’s own church life are encouragement and permission enough for anyone to call KJS by any of her socially recognized styles or titles. ‘Mrs’ is certainly as honorable as any of the others, and in eyes of far, far, far more Anglicans than not, less offensive.