Second Fort Worth hearing transcript

Check it out (58 page pdf).


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Fort Worth

2 comments on “Second Fort Worth hearing transcript

  1. Ken Peck says:

    I think the opening remark of Mr. Nelson is a bit curious.
    [blockquote]MR. NELSON: I think that the Episcopal Church oversees the diocese….[/blockquote]
    In a truly “episcopal” church, it is the bishop who “oversees” the diocese. The word “episcopal” means “having bishops.” The word “episcopal” comes from the Greek episcopos which quite literally means “over-seer”–and so it is frequently rendered in the Hebrew->Greek->English Old Testament. In an episcopal church it is the bishop who oversees the diocese, not some super-diocesan organization.

    Maybe I need to reread TEC’s constitution and canons, but I don’t think they ever speak of TEC’s “oversight” of dioceses. I rather suspect that most dioceses would never have signed on to such a notion. My impression of the constitution and canons of TEC is that it is an association of dioceses cooperating, primarily toward the end of mission. TEC has mechanisms to discipline wayward bishops (which unfortunately are used to advance a particular political cause), but it has no constitutional or canonical mechanism to discipline wayward priests, deacons and laypersons; such reside in the bishop–i.e., the over-seer–of each diocese.

    I also wonder just how comfortable the several dioceses from California to Massachusetts actually are with the idea that TEC exercises “oversight” of them. In ordaining partnered homosexuals and in blessing same sex unions, many dioceses assert their autonomy of TEC. If anything those autonomous dioceses “oversee” General Convention, the Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop. Furthermore, quite frankly, it was the attempt by General Convention and the Executive Council to “exercise oversight” with respect to the ordination of women that led to the secession of the dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin–possibly more so than the actions of the 2003 and 2006 General Convention.

  2. Ken Peck says:

    P.S.: I hope some friend of the court gives Judge Chupp a copy of the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in All Saints v. Campbell. Maybe with this sentence highlighted:
    [blockquote]It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another.[/blockquote]
    That, along with

    1. doubt that the so-called “Dennis Canon” was ever finally adopted by General Convention and

    2. the numerous failures of TEC to follow its own constitution and canons with respect to the secession of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and the creation of the faux “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” under Bishop Gulick created by Jefferts-Schori’s fiat

    should doom the case of the faux “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth”.

    Judge Chupp does seem to be leaning toward requiring that folks follow their own by-laws in property cases.