…Am I surprised that TEC’s next target will be Bishop Mark Lawrence, or the Diocese of South Carolina, or parishes within that diocese? Absolutely not, albeit that I must admit to being somewhat taken aback by their timing.
My lawyer instincts suggest to me that South Carolina’s initial response to the requests made to them by local counsel hired by 815 and seeking diocesan documents, including documents specifically related to certain parishes was absolutely the right one – – “no.” More importantly, the fundamental initial reason for the refusal was quite properly to point out that any such requests, if proper at all, should be made from Katharine Jefferts Schori in her capacity as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to Bishop Lawrence as the Diocesan of The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (and assuming that “her office” affords her any basis to make such requests). After all, there is no pending litigation and, if as the “local lawyer” suggested in his request that there are no plans for litigation, one must logically conclude that there is no need for lawyers to be the vehicles for communication. Of course, we all know that litigation is precisely “the plan” and therefore there is no foundation for trust between the Chancellor and counsel for the Diocese of South Carolina and 815’s “local counsel….”
If the initial requests came from Katharine Jefferts Schori to Bishop Lawrence, the answer should still have been “No.” Or maybe, “Sorry Hon” (pronouced “Hun”).
Nobody expects the Schori Inquisition! Oh, yes, we do.
Thanks for the article Joe. The worst thing anyone can do at the present time is keep silent. At least you have spoken out .
I would think there would have to be something in all this that would send a chill into the spines of moderate and lightly liberal pew-sitters everywhere. Not that many of our clergy and perhaps bishops are not prisoners of this Reign of Terror as well. It is sad to see a once-proud church self-destruct like this.
It appears that these are more like devils in wolves clothing than wolves in sheeps clothing. One must assume that the SC bar will investigate the ethical allegations that have been made against one of the parties.
The actions by the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor should be realized as a threat to all Bishops and Dioceses of the EC. Anyone who has read the Constitution and Canons of the EC knows that the Presiding Bishop does not have the authority or power to take the action she is taking. Nor did she have the authority or power to do many of things she has done in the past. But she was allowed to get away with these actions but the House of Bishop. Thus, she believes she can do it again.
If she can do this to the Diocese of SC and the leadership of this diocese and the House of Bishops allows it, then all dioceses and their bishops are at risk if they do not do as she directs.
The argument that the EC is tolerant and all are welcome and that we can agree and all go to the table is a fable. Liberal bishops should realize that all are at stake as much as those on the other theological side.
What exactly is the Presiding Bishop doing in this instance? When I first read about this, I thought it sub-optimal and needlessly formatl that a lawyer would be making the first inquiries, as opposed to the Presiding Bishop and the Diocesan Bishop being in direct communication about what is happening. Perhaps there has been communication between them, perhaps not. But it doesn’t strike me as unusual that the Presiding Bishop and the national Church would have a keen interest in how the Diocese intends to protect property in parishes where parishioners have decided leave the church and to affiliate with different denominations. Having an interest and asking for information leaves to one side what the national Church can ultimately do, if the Diocese itself has very different plans.
#7. NoVA Scout,
[blockquote]But it doesn’t strike me as unusual that the Presiding Bishop and the national Church would have a keen interest in how the Diocese intends to protect property in parishes where parishioners have decided leave the church and to affiliate with different denominations.[/blockquote]
Let’s just say for the sake of discussion that the Diocese does not take any legal action against a departing parish. What then? Can/should the PB/TEC take action against the departing parish? Against the Diocese?
It seems to me that the courts in South Carolina just made it reasonably clear exactly what 815’s legal interest is in the property of parishes that decide to leave the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. None.
Given the recent court decision it would be legally and morally irresponsible for Bishop Lawrence to pursue ANY action against such parishes. What would be the point as the court has already made clear that in South Carolina such parishes own and control their property? It would rather be BAD stewardship, and improper waste of diocesan funds to pursue legal action against departing parishes when the court has already made clear that there is no chance of winning. The South Carolina diocese has already lost a good deal of money on one such lawsuit. Another would be a frivolous waste of time and money.
Or have KJS and David Booth Beers not been paying attention to the news?
I’ll tell you a good reason not to pursue legally a departing church. “The wasted money that should be used for the Lord’s work.” # 8 can hardly defend that the Lord’s work should be about suing churches departing when the courts in SC have already given them the right to do so. It would be a wiser and more faithful policy for 815 to embrace those with differing views in the church and entreat them to stay rather than seeking to purge the rest of the orthodoxy from TEC.
#10. aldenjr,
[blockquote]# 8 can hardly defend that the Lord’s work should be about suing churches departing when the courts in SC have already given them the right to do so.[/blockquote]
Pay attention. You’re upset with the wrong dude alden. Our diocese (DSJ) is being sued by TEC. NoVA Scout has no problem with TEC suing for what it claims to be it’s property. I wanted to know what those on the other side think will happen.
Dcn Dale (no. 8) asks the salient question, a question to which I have no answer. It is a unique situation in all this grab the bricks-and-sticks acrobatics that we have seen around the country. The Diocese in SC is openly estranged from the governmental structures of the national Church. If the Diocese determines not to pursue avenues of appeal, can the TEC step in? If the agenda of the Diocese is to march out of the Church to another denomination, can the national Church depend on the Diocese to protect continuing Episcopalians? If not, who does? It seem that we are in straits that may be beyond the current polity of the church to deal with. Of course, my recurring theme is that those who are not able, for whatever brace of reasons, to stay within the Church, should leave. I certainly wish them well. As No. 10 states, there is no reason to pursue in the courts anyone who elects to leave. I am unaware of that ever happening. The only problems occur are when those who leave take things on their way out.
As for the particulars of what has happened in South Carolina, I would think the appropriate discussion at the Diocesan level is whether there are valid grounds for appeal of the state court decision on the departing parish. If so, they are duty-bound to pursue those claims. The discussion with the national Church should be whether such grounds for appeal exist and, if so, can the national Church be certain that the diocese will pursue them. If so, my sense of the correct approach is that the national Church should leave the Diocese to pursue aggressively all elements of appeal to ensure that continuing Episcopalians are protected. My perception of why there has been this back-and-forth between the Diocese and the national Church is that there may be reason to believe that the Diocese’s leadership are not inclined to zealously defend assets to which they arguably have a controlling interest. That brings us back to Dcn Dale’s question.
As to No. 9, if I, in my law practice, stopped pursuing my clients’ rights at a point at which I received an adverse decision in the lower courts, there would have been several significant instances in which I would have allowed a great wrong to have occurred. In virtually all those instances, my client prevailed on appeal. I don’t think it is categorically “morally irresponsible” to pursue rights after a setback in the lower courts. It is only morally irresponsible (or, as I tend to look at it, ethically irresponsible) to pursue claims when it is clear that such claims are frivolous. A discussion of whether there are valid grounds of appeal should be the focus of interchange between the Diocese and the TEC.
[i] Comment deleted per request. [/i]
The case in SC was decided at the level of the State Supreme Court, was it not? If so, is NoVA Scout suggesting DioSC should pursue to the US Supremes?
No. 14. Only if there are valid grounds for appeal. There may not be. I am not that close to it. There are also other issues concerning other properties – are their histories and chains of title similar to the parish that recently prevailed? Does the Diocese have an effective plan of defense for those properties if their status is distinguishable? Are clear signals being sent to dissidents in other parishes that the SC Supreme Ct. decision is not deemed controlling by the Diocese of all parishes and all properties? Are those who may be inclined to stay within the Episcopal Church receiving support and assurance from the Diocese that they will be able to do so without loss of worship space?
If the national church is, however ham-handedly, trying to get to the bottom of these issues in dialog with the Diocese, I would think it a good thing. If the national church is gratuitously alienating the leadership of a Diocese that has every intention of staying within The Episcopal Church (as indicated by No. 13), then they are indeed being very foolish. I would think in a situation like South Carolina’s, every effort would be made by the leadership of the national church to act respectfully and carefully in order not to make a bad situation worse.
Finally, MichaelA, I do understand the importance of not taking appeals without a client. I can assure you we do not do that here. The way it works for me is that I never take an appeal that I am convinced cannot succeed even if the client desires it. We do not have a shortage of lawyers here and there are others available to do that type of work. And I have had many clients decide not to appeal even where my analysis is that they have grounds for appeal. These decisions are based on an analysis of costs, time, distraction to the client from his business, possible future relationships with the opposing party, etc. All those issues might be in play in this situation. However, the ethical and moral implications arise from the Diocese’s responsibility to continuing Episcopalians in parishes where a large number of persons may leave for different denominations, but seek to displace those who stay.