“The judge put a fairly tight deadline on getting things moving … and to present some evidence of what the orderly transition would be. We intend to fully cooperate with that,” said Rich Creehan, a spokesman for the Episcopal diocese.
Anglican leaders have asked their clergy to fast and pray this week over whether to appeal.
“We were dismayed and surprised by the decision,” said the Rev. Mary Hays, canon to the ordinary of the Anglican diocese. “But there’s a lot to consider in an appeal. Financial resources and energy resources are required, so we have to consider whether we want to be side-tracked from our mission, which has nothing to do with litigation.”
The Episcopal trustees reported that in July the total endowment was worth about $17 million, although some of the funds were held for parishes that now belong to the Anglican diocese. The funds have been frozen due to the litigation.
After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that TEC does not believe in doing anything in “good faith” when dealing with us dissidents. It’s “all or nothing” for them. They want it all, with little or no thought for what it means to those who disagree with them. What a shameful way to treat people!
Dr. Simon claims: “We consult with the presiding bishop’s chancellor on matters of canon law, but we have not been given any direction by the presiding bishop or her office on how we need to proceed.” And if you believe that . . .
#1 ~ When those who disagree with TEC want it all with little or no thought for what it means to those who disagree with them, why do you complain when TEC acts in a similar fashion? Honestly. Through this whole ordeal comments have been made about how TEC will never get the property, how they’ll never get past your lawyers, how they’ll never win in this court case then the next court case,etc. etc. etc. and then, when the dissidents lose, you complain that they are not being fair. It doesn’t make sense. It’s like you declared war and then, when you lost, complained that you weren’t being treated right.
I have too many dogs in this hunt to be, in any way, shape or form neutral. I DO beg my friends and neighbors to promptly lock me up the next time I believe anything that spews forth from the mouth of the “new” diocese…
Vintner – I suggest you listen to both “sides” before making a declaration of other people’s intentions.
Here are some facts:
–The Anglican diocese has been ready, willing, and able to negotiate with the “new” diocese from the very beginning – over property and other assets.
–The “new” diocese has rebuffed the efforts of the original diocese from the beginning – preferring the “all or nothing” policy of TEC.
–The whole lawsuit mess started when the original (now Anglican) Diocese wanted to make sure that parishes could retain their property and assets (without penalty or “paying” for assets they already own) if they decided to distance themselves from the Diocese. Calvary and others brought the lawsuit then, on behalf of TEC.
–KJS and her minions have declared that they do not approve of property negotiations with “other Anglican entities”.
It seems that you are making assumptions about things – and you know what happens when you assume.
vintner i don’t remember anyone claiming that TEC would never get the property. it really would have taken very little effort to try to negotiate on their part. it is really telling how they have handled this whole thing.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Just my view from a far country, but I have read all the reasons given by the standing committee for why it is the kind and loving thing for them to do to remove the ordinations of the departed clergy and how they are now going to continue to do the right thing. And yet preparations are being made to appoint Mrs Schori’s nominee as bishop with no apparent guarantee that the standing committee’s promises will be honored given that he will now be the bishop and presumably he has come in with a briefcase of legal papers from Mrs Schori’s lawyers all ready for use.
It is depressing seeing what appear to be these good priests and Christian brothers and sisters apparently ready to be the instruments of persecution of other Christians.
What happened to the soldiers of the Cross between the Rome of Paul and 2009 Pittsburgh? Will no one stand up for Jesus?
And that leaves on one side the willingness to use a canon which requires a renunciation IN WRITING from the priest concerned to just remove their ordained status anyway.
Is there no one who honors the commandment not to bear false witness against their neighbor?
Mrs Schori has done it again – this time to Bishop Ackerman – never mind the language of the canons, it is the intent that counts.
http://www.episcopal-life.org/81803_115631_ENG_HTM.htm
Tomorrow belongs to you Pittsburgh!
I have never posted before, but am doing so now as I think both sides to these disputes are really missing the forest through the trees. As a practical matter, there is little objectivity or sense of Christian values being promoted by either the “new” Diocese or the “Anglican” Diocese. Rather, when you look at what both sides actually say and do, both sides simply posture and make self-serving statements attempting to portray themselves as victims. In short, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. The one great exception in all of this mess is Trinity Cathedral. In my opinion, Trinity Cathedral is the only group consistently reaching out to both sides in the spirit of true Christian reconciliation.
I am a lawyer and have studied the position of both sides legally and otherwise. Clearly both sides have carefully reviewed their legal positions and taken specific, premeditated actions on the advice of their counsel to protect their property rights to the greatest extent legally possible. Both sides are guilty of positioning the dispute in such a manner that protracted and expensive litigation is a virtual certainty. In my view, the leaders of both sides, and in particular the clergy, have a much higher duty than simply advancing the strongest legal arguments and engaging in effective public relations. Ironically, both groups appear to have small groups within their leadership for whom any type of compromise is not acceptable.
The majority of people attending parishes in both groups simply want all of this to end and to worship at their parishes. At a time when we are experiencing some of the worst economic conditions in decades, all we hear about TEC and the ACNA in the media here in Pittsburgh concerns lawsuits and fights over $15,000,000 endowment funds. What a great way to motivate people to come to an Episcopal or Anglican church. All we hear from the “new” Diocese is they have a duty to safeguard the property entrusted to the Church, and all we hear from the “Anglican” Diocese is how separating from TEC and becoming part of a new Anglican Church is the only way to safeguard “orthodoxy” in the Church. How about the obligation of both sides to promote the Kingdom of God and as St. Paul says, to avoid lawsuits, even if that means to be wronged or defrauded? I have stopped attending Episcopal and Anglican Churches because I am tired of spending significant amounts of time having to explain to my young children why all the church people are fighting with each other. I would love to return some day, but it will take some real Christian leadership on the part of both sides to stop the legal posturing and find a way to settle these disputes. The recent numbers released by TEC suggest I am not alone. Is anyone in leadership positions in these groups paying attention?
#5 and especially #6, my comment was addressed to #1 who has repeatedly taken the position I outlined in SJ.
#11,
Thank God for a lawyer articulating what seems to many of us to be common sense.
I know from someone who was and is much involved in diocesan affairs that before the 2008 vote there were two sets of discussions composed of representatives from both sides, which produced protocols suggesting an equitable way in which both diocesan and parochial property might be divided up. Those involved (at least on the ACNA side) were not known for their arts of compromise. These protocols were taken back to the respective leaderships [i]and both sides said “no.”[/i]
I can’t help but think of those lyrics from “Come Holy Ghost, Our Souls Inspire,” that affirm: [i]Enable with perpetual light; The dullness of our blinded sight.[/i] Today’s vision is most definitely blurred.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]