From the Diocesan website:
Statement from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop
Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
October 5, 2009
The Diocese of Los Angeles greatly appreciates the action and insight of the U.S. Supreme Court in declining to hear the case decided earlier this year by the California Supreme Court affirming that the property of St. James’ Episcopal Church, Newport Beach, is held in trust for the current and future mission of this Diocese and the wider Episcopal Church.
I reiterate that reconciliation and renewal in Christ continue to be our priorities in this matter, with our baptismal covenant calling us to respect every person’s dignity.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s action today follows the strong and comprehensive opinions issued by the California Court of Appeal and affirmed by the state Supreme Court.
St. James’ Episcopal Church was established and continues as part of the Diocese of Los Angeles in which the congregation was formed in 1946.
The Episcopal Church continues to live out its traditional mission of welcoming people who hold a diversity of opinion while remaining united in common prayer.
I would love to comment but I would need confession shortly afterward.
Intercessor
It will be interesting how the diocese proceeds with St. Luke’s. Will there be a conservative priest in charge appointed to try to rebuild the parish? I wonder if it might be awarded to the Integrity crowd as a base for their operations.
The Episcopal Church continues to live out its traditional mission of welcoming people who hold a diversity of opinion while keeping their mouths shut about wholesale changes in the Faith Once Delivered.
Common prayer? To what?
I’m with you, Intercessor. This statement doesn’t bring the best in me, either!
Please see NW Bob’s comment under the ENS article banner.
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/25724/#comments] morning thoughts [/url]
NW Bob
Actually, I believe the Rt. Rev. Mr. Bruno is flat out wrong about the import of a denial of cert. There was no “action and insight” by SCOTUS. It was inaction, without any review of the merits of the petition for a writ of cert. He has to be smart enough to know better, or, at the very least, one would hope that the attorneys have properly advising him. One can only conclude that he is being dishonest.