Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican), said he had not seen the ruling and that members of the diocese would be disappointed if the court had awarded the assets to the Episcopal Diocese. But regardless, members of the seceding diocese are confident about their new life together, he said.
“We have managed the last year without any income from our assets,” he said. “We are doing well.”
Rich Creehan, communications director for the Episcopal Diocese, said after the assets are transferred, the diocese will begin working on how to transfer buildings and land to the seceding parishes that want them.
“Anyone who wants to come back to the Episcopal Church is welcome, and we hope to find a way to proceed with those who don’t [want to return] in a spirit of reconciliation,” he said.
“Anyone who wants to come back to the Episcopal Church is welcome, and we hope to find a way to proceed with those who don’t [want to return] in a spirit of reconciliation,” he said.
That amazing spirit of reconciliation which motivated the lawsuit and the subsequent behavior of those remaining with TEC. The Schori diocese has achieved new heights of Orwellian doublespeak.
“Anyone who wants to come back to the Episcopal Church is welcome, and we hope to find a way to proceed with those who don’t [want to return] in a spirit of reconciliation,” he said.
This is at least a little unclear. Does the editorial insert in square brackets cover up a comma in the original statement? That is, is the spokesperson quoted suggesting that TEC Pittsburgh wants to proceed in a spirit of reconciliation, or that ACNA Pittsburgh has no spirit of reconciliation unless it wants to return?
I’m perplexed.
Beware secessionists in South Carolina. So far the courts have come down entirely on the side of the Episcopal Church against the breakaway dioceses (Ft. Worth is pending). The Pittsburgh and San Joaquin case rulings are very similar. Those delegates to the upcoming special convention who vote “Yes” on Resolution No. 2 had better understand they are giving the bishop and standing committee dictatorial power to withdraw from the governing bodies of TEC. That is a wide open door to secession and all that that entails. Vote “No.”
I don’t believe there is anything in the TEC canons (at least not yet) that forces anyone to go anywhere, including convention. AND, I sincerely doubt that anyone except the reasserters will vote NO.
Grandmother in SC
I am, and have been for quite some time, disturbed by the fixation on material property in a lot of the discussions on these boards. As an outsider looking in I think the only thing that matters is the Faith. Everything else (and I do mean EVERYTHING ELSE) is at best secondary in importance. There is not one word in scripture where Christ commands people to take their property when separating from heretics. To the extent material possessions are discussed at all it is usually in a rather disdainful or negative way.
My advice remains what it has always been. Call the bishop (or Ms. Schori if your leaving as a diocese), tell them where you are leaving the keys and remember to shake the dust from your sandals as you walk out the door for the last time. If you are meeting in someone’s living room or garage you are more the Body of Christ than those left in possession of empty buildings. And the statement made by leaving in this manner is far more profound.
All of these lawsuits are spiritually damaging and are utterly irreconcilable with scripture. Nor do I really care for all the finger pointing. If you are participating then you share part of the blame. There is no “except for” clause in the prohibition against suing one another in the Bible.
Under the mercy,
John
While I agree with the Anglican Curmudgeon that this is a horribly illogical and poorly reasoned decision which just goes to show you that judges ought not to be automatically accorded the respect so many Americans unthinkingly give them, nevertheless, I would also suggest that the Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) received poor legal advice some years ago when it signed the stipulation (mind you, I think that the judge has read into the stipulation things that simply aren’t in it).
I still wonder why the seceding dioceses did not take the following strategy:
1. Begin with a transfer of parish property to an independent third party non-profit holding company such that it would not be touchable by the National Church. Do this while the conservative bishop remained fully a part of TEC.
2. Dare the PB to try to launch a lawsuit against the diocesan bishop for letting the parish properties go. It would have been extremely difficult for the PB to have won any such lawsuit.
3. Once the threat of a lawsuit from the PB expired, then proceed to disaffiliate the diocese.
We conservatives have made things much worse for ourselves then they need to have been.
jamesw: I think the Calvary lawsuit kept that very thing from happening! I think Bishop Duncan’s lawyers were outsmarted by the Calvary lawyers
While I appreciate the comments by jamesw (as always, #5), and Ad Orientem (#5), what I found striking about this clearly biased report is the calm quote from +Bob Duncan the Lion Hearted. He confidently noted that, [i]”We have managed the last year without any income from our assets. We are doing well.”[/i]
Of course, even though the diocesan bank accounts have been unfairly frozen, the conservative majority have also continued to use their buildings. Which is only right and just.
As for Alabamian (#3), it’s simply by no means true that all the lawsuits have gone in favor of TEC. Remember the Virginia cases. Remember the case of All Saints, Pawley’s Island, etc.
Let the folks in SC “count the cost” of discipleship, or at least the potential cost. But let it not stop them from following Christ obediently, in the way they deem best. Just as the orthodox in Pittsburgh have done in their own way
David Handy+
I posted the following over at StandFirm and it expresses my problem with this decision:
It seems to me that the judge in this case takes his leave from the ordinary rules of logic and common sense when he writes:
First thing to ask yourself is what it means for the withdrawal of the Diocese to be valid? Surely if it means NOTHING ELSE it must mean that the DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH VALIDLY WITHDREW FROM TEC!!!!! Does anyone disagree? And the judge claims that this is what he ASSUMED!
Then skip down a couple of paragraphs and we read this
And here we have the problem folks. Prior to the diocesan vote, how many Dioceses of Pittsburgh were there? Two?!?!? No, there was ONE. And that Diocese of Pittsburgh was quite accurately referred to as “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.†Note that NOWHERE in the stipulation is there any prohibition of “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America†disaffiliating from TEC.
So, the underlying question is simply – was the purported withdrawal of the Diocese of Pittsburgh from TEC valid or not? If it WAS VALID, then “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America†validly withdrew from TEC. If it WAS VALID, then there NO LONGER EXISTS a “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America†but that the diocese which was previously so called is now “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh†which VALIDLY WITHDREW from “the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.â€
What this judge is essentially saying is this: “I assume that the diocese validly withdrew from TEC, but I am also assuming that the diocese did not validly withdraw from TEC.†He is saying A and “not A†at the same time. This judgment is illogical and self-contradictory.
This would be like me drawing up a sales contract in which I write “I am selling James’ car to Bob for the sum of $1,000â€. Bob then pays me $1,000 and asks for the car. I then say “but Bob, the contract says it is James’ car, therefor it can’t possibly be yours. Bob then goes to court and the the judge says “Whatever car you might have purchased, it can’t possibly be James’ car, and so therefor you are out of luck.â€
“Begin with a transfer of parish property to an independent third party non-profit holding company such that it would not be touchable by the National Church. Do this while the conservative bishop remained fully a part of TEC.” Why? Because that would be a violation of the RICO Statutes and would have resulted in Federal criminal charges. Conspiracy to defaud and all that. Not my judgement. The stategy was raised a few years before this all began and the participants were advised that they would likely do prison time.
Oops, the pragmatic comment by jamesw was #6. Of course, mistakes have been made, and doubtless they will continue to be made, inevitably so, as we humans are so fallible. But that’s part of what it means to walk by faith, and not by sight.
David Handy+
deaconmark: Evidence for your assertion? There are very valid reasons for why a diocese might wish to permit its parishes to transfer their property to third-party corporations.
Echoing, NRA’s posts, we should keep in mind the situation of church property in Ireland. When I visited Ireland, I noticed that all the very old and historic buildings were owned by the Church of Ireland (i.e. Anglican) but they were largely empty. In contrast, the Roman Catholic buildings were newer and uglier but it was the RC churches which had the people’s loyalty. I learned that when the British ruled Ireland, they had taken over all of the church buildings for the Brit’s state church (i.e. Church of England). The RC’s had to come up with their own church buildings. And they did.
And today it still remains that while the Anglicans have the buildings, the RC’s have the people.
deaconmark: Regarding my comment #6, realize that the steps I lay out would have been done without necessarily knowing the end results after each step. You read my recommendations with the benefit of hindsight, and in light of what these dioceses eventually did. But realize that I am suggesting that the actions I suggest ought to have been done as part of a very different strategy then was in the end employed by these dioceses. I am not suggesting that point 3 would have always been the end goal. I am instead suggesting that point 1 ought to have been completed before point 2. And points 1 and 2 ought to have been completed BEFORE point 3 was even CONTEMPLATED.
There would have been very solid grounds to transfer parish property deeds to third party non-profits, including the need to ensure that parishioners continue to give to the parish upkeep (parishioners may have refused to give to a parish knowing that it could be seized by the National Church); the need to keep the parish part of TEC for as long as possible (I actually believe that TEC would have kept more parishes longer had they known that they could leave easily and without strings whenever they chose); and there could have been consideration offered in exchange. This would have all occurred BEFORE the diocese actually would have considered leaving TEC (I would have recommended that dioceses not disaffiliate so soon.). There would have been no reasonable chance of RICO conviction under such a policy.
I know that KJS threatened lawsuits against bishops who sought to work things out on a local level (see the Diocese of Virginia situation) but I believe that any threatened lawsuit by TEC would have been unsuccessful.
Then, IF the diocese still felt it was necessary to depart, it would have been able to do so with much greater confidence and with its legal house in order. Also, with there being no property issues at stake, such departures could have been handled in a much more mutually agreeable manner.
Well said, Ad Orientem.
#4 and #14: I think your comments are valid on the micro level, but not on the macro level. There is something called [b]stewardship[/b]. ++Duncan is the corporate leader of the Pittsburgh Diocese. That is the majority by more than two thirds of the vote at local Convention before the split. He also has the responsibility to protect the assets that were given to the Church. He has the responsibility to do his best not to let those assets fall into the hands of the anti-church. That last term may seem inflammatory, but if we are called to be stewards of our faith, then sometimes we need [b]not[/b] to take the politically correct or even passive or cowardly approach. We all can be Christian and civil in our dealings with the TEC faction of the former Diocese. Some of them are very good people, but with those with an agenda fueled by the non-civil or non-Scriptural faction, and the Nationally led hostile approach to litigation, we and he must not lay over and play dead.
I’m sorry, it is #5 and #15 now that I respond