Here is one:
Proposed Resolution R-2 2010 Convention
Offered by: The Standing Committee
Subject: Response to Ecclesiastical Intrusions by the Presiding Bishop
RESOLVED, That this 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina affirms its legal and ecclesiastical authority as a sovereign diocese within the Episcopal Church, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and be it finally
RESOLVED, That the Diocese of South Carolina demands that the Presiding Bishop drop the retainer of all such legal counsel in South Carolina as has been obtained contrary to the express will of this Diocese, which is The Episcopal Church within its borders.
Bravo to DioSC. Stand firm.
Fr Darin Lovelace
St John’s Anglican
Park City UT
Memo to Diocesan Webmaster:
Use darker and larger fonts. Gray font blends in with white backgrounds.
Otherwise I applaud the proposed resolutions (if I read them correctly).
Fort Sumter, anyone?
Let’s do some math. The DioSC was founded in 1706, making it 304 years old. And that creature of it and eight other colonial dioceses, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America with its much ballyhooed General Convention and Presiding Bishop is how old? 2010 – 1789 = 221 years.
The Diocese of South Carolina has had conventions for 219 times while existing in situ since 1706. The General Convention has only existed since 1789 and has met all of 76 times.
I’d offer the chicken the old chicken and the egg joke, but I doubt the chicken would get the point.
LOVED the final clause of Resolution 1
[blockquote]RESOLVED, that we promise under God not to swerve in our belief that above all Jesus came into the world to save the lost, that those who do not know Christ need to be brought into a personal and saving relationship with him, and that those who do know Christ need to be taught by the Holy Scriptures faithfully to follow him all the days of their lives to the Glory of God the Father [/blockquote]
AMEN & AMEN! May the Lord grant grace that it will be so – for ALL of us who know Him, not just the Dio. of SC.
Grace to you, Kendall, and prayers ascending
will the liberal SC parishes publicly fall in behind ECUSA on this? and reveal themselves to favor the possible destruction of the diocese to which they belong? some tough choices for them….
Everyone, please keep +Lawrence and his diocese in your daily prayers.
“this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina”
Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?
After all, R-1 lays the legal groundwork for the coming property battles (“That this 219th Convention acknowledges that for more than three centuries this Diocese has represented the Anglican expression of the faith once for all delivered to the saints”–i.e. we predate TEC and we can postdate ’em too!), then R-2 attempts to deprive TEC loyalists of legal protection when the reasserters make their move.
I wonder if the current Bishop of SC is ruing the day the past Bishop of SC joined TEC in a lawsuit against a church trying to leave TEC…after all, who is to say that AMIA doesn’t “represent the Anglican expression of the faith once for all delivered to the saints”?
Oohhh, Her Syncretic Majesty is not gonna like this!
I assume that this resolution is either very much tongue in cheek or extremely clumsily drafted. Surely we are not saying that the national Church cannot retain attorneys in South Carolina to protect its interests and the interests of those who have not heard the clarion call to depart the Episcopal Church. AS one readds the bare words, it sounds like the Resolution is taking the position that the national Church cannot hire lawyers in South Carolina without the permission of the Diocese. Although I take at their word those who say that the Diocesan Bishop’s intent is to stay within the Church and advocate for sound theology, it would be a mistake to try to stake out ground that the Presiding Bishop cannot retain counsel without his permission. The rest of the verbiage appears to be just completely snarled in semantics.
Re: “Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?”
Oh . . . no prettier to think so than Resolution D017, [i]Cancellation of Third World Debt[/i].
And no prettier to think so than Resolution D039, [i]Fix Our Broken Labor Laws[/i].
And any number of countless scores of other pretty, Code Pink, MoveOn examples of inane, chattering vacuity.
Tee hee.
In fact . . . at least this prettiness has to do, you know, like . . . with a diocese and its autonomy.
Too sweet. ; > )
NOVA, to me the wording is pretty clear. 815 needs to stop hiring lawyers that pretend to represent TEC in a diocese of TEC’s borders as if somehow that diocese isn’t TEC within that geography.
“That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.”
The Episcopal Church in South Carolina’s ecclesial authorities are the bishop and the Standing Committee.
It all seems pretty clear to me — and pretty too, though not as pretty as The Top Most Favorite GC 2009 Resolutions. ; > )
Sarah: are we saying that TEC cannot hire lawyers to advise it in South Carolina, or are we saying that when TEC hires lawyers in South Carolina it cannot say that it is doing so? Under this approach, can TEC hire lawyers in any Diocese, or is that an activity confined to the Diocese?
Neither one, NoVA Scout.
The resolution does not say either one that you postulate above.
It says — simply — this: ““That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.â€
I’m assuming then that there are all sorts of other possibilities other than claiming that one’s attorneys are “the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.”
It might be, for instance, that the Presiding Bishop hires, say, an attorney representing . . . [i]the Presiding Bishop[/i].
And I’m sure you see where that takes us — ie, The Truth.
All of the PBs little efforts are pretending to be about what she herself describes as “TEC” when in reality they are about . . . she herself.
They’re not about the House of Bishops. They’re not about the Executive Committee. They’re not about “TEC.” They’re about *her*.
Other possibilities might be: 1) The HOB hires a lawyer, 2) the Executive Committee hires a lawyer, 3) 815 non-unionized staff hire a lawyer or 4) any number of other possibilities.
But hiring a lawyer for yourself and your efforts is not “the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina” or TEC “hiring a lawyer” — although it is certainly “pretty to think so.”
If your point, Sarah, is that you have certain knowledge that the Presiding Bishop engaged counsel purely for her own personal purposes and that that counsel, knowing that it was purely a personal matter, misrepresented the scope of his representation to others, I would think that the complaint would be to that attorney (although I don’t think a Diocesan Resolution would be the logical or most effective means to get clarification of that point). Lawyers generally are fairly sensitive to the need for clarity about whom they represent and in what capacity. If, however, there is a connection between the retention of the lawyer and the business of TEC, I would think that the resolution is all bolloxed up in the semantics of whether “the Episcopal Church in South Carolina” refers to TEC and whether that was the terminology that was actually used. My question was whether the force of the resolution was that the national church (TEC) could not hire a lawyer in a Diocese to represent TEC. The wording seems to suggest that unless, as I alluded to earlier, it is just clumsily drafted. Surely that is not the position being espoused, is it?
I find it difficult to think that TEC is so badly managed (I know, I know, it has its faults on that score) that one person there, even the Presiding Bishop, could hire a lawyer on a personal matter and then have him represent that he is acting for the Church without there being fairly severe negative reactions from within the organization. Is it possible that your information about the personal nature of the representation is mistaken?
RE: “If your point, Sarah . . . ”
You know what my point is, NoVA Scout. And you don’t like it. Which is why you keep changing the words of the resolution and pretending not to understand it. It’s good to see that you don’t like the point.
My point — for others reading this thread, in case it is not clear — is that the personal goals and corruptions of Schori are not, in fact, TEC, no matter how much she may foster that illusion.
RE: “My question was whether the force of the resolution was that the national church (TEC) could not hire a lawyer in a Diocese to represent TEC.”
Heh — no. The force of the resolution was — again — that the *Presiding Bishop* could not “has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.”
But then — that’s clearly stated in the resolution. And you — just as clearly — substituted the words “national church” for “Presiding Bishop.”
Which is how we all know that you 1) understand the point, and 2) don’t like the point.
With that patient and gracious explanation, Sarah, I will walk away with the assurance that you (and the sponsors of the resolution) know the retention was ultra vires on the PB’s part and was intended to pursue personal business (corrupt at that), rather than having any connection to her duties with the Church. I would have expected to hear more of that in other circles were that clearly apparent, but, then again, I am not always the best informed person around here. I guess, if your premise is correct, and your explanation of the wording is universally clear (i.e., the confusion is mine alone), I would find the content of the resolution rational, although I still wonder whether a Diocesan resolution is the best way to get at the particular problem you raise (which is kind of like taking pens from office supply, except on a massive scale – lawyers are not cheap these days). It is indeed a problem that people in any organization, especially a religious one, would use the resources of the organization to pursue purely private, personal matters (especially when they involve corruption). By the way, since you’ve raised the topic, what IS the personal corrupt matter that spawned this particular retention of counsel?
Well, Sarah, if we can rely on your description that the PB was acting ultra vires on a purely personal frolic, then it is indeed a problem (it’s essentially the same problem of employees stealing pens or copying paper from Office Supply, but on a massive scale – lawyers are not cheap). I’m not sure that a Diocesan resolution is the best way of addressing that. But, despite the lack of clarity of the resolution (and you may be right, it may be just thickness on my part), if you and sponsors/supporters of the resolution are willing to acknowledge that there would be no impediment to TEC retaining counsel in the Diocese of South Carolina (or any other Diocese) to advise it on issues of institutional concern to the Church, the resolution is simultaneously unobjectionable (except for the waste of time it takes to write, consider and vote on it) and without meaning. I do think, however, it would improve the clarity of the measure to specify exactly that the rub is that the PB is acting on not just a personal project (bad enough, that) but also a “corrupt” personal project. And stating the details of what that is would be helpful also.
RE: “I’m not sure that a Diocesan resolution is the best way of addressing that.”
Oh, I think it’s the best way to address it for the Episcopalians in that diocese. Perhaps diocese to diocese needs to assert such a resolution and place itself on the record.
RE: ” . . . if you and sponsors/supporters of the resolution are willing to acknowledge that there would be no impediment to TEC retaining counsel in the Diocese of South Carolina (or any other Diocese) to advise it on issues of institutional concern to the Church . . . ”
First you’d have to define what portion of “TEC” is being represented. Is it the Executive Council portion? The HOB portion? The HOD portion? The PB’s office? “TEC” is not made up of solely those portions — it is a composite of many portions.
I have no difficulty with the HOB saying “we are hiring a lawyer to represent us.” Or the Executive Council stating the same.
RE: “the resolution is simultaneously unobjectionable (except for the waste of time it takes to write, consider and vote on it) and without meaning.”
So says NOVA — but it’s clearly with meaning for the Episcopalians of SC — we’ll see how it flies.
RE: “And stating the details of what that is would be helpful also.”
No — because that would make the resolution apply only to those specific details. Much better to simply place the diocese formally on record with a blanket condemnation of Schori usurping the authority to hire lawyers that “present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina” when they are not and when she herself has no authority to claim that she in any way is “the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.” She is not, nor should she hire lawyers purporting to represent them.
It is wrong, and it is good that the diocese will hopefully vote to go on record pointing that out.
Surely if this is a personal and corrupt act, you know what that personal and corrupt act is. There is no reason not to identify it.
I am still unclear as to the structural issue you raise. Under what circumstances can TEC as an institution retain counsel? Only by action of all its “portions” (a term with which I am unfamiliar in canonical terms)? Does each “portion” have to act separately or, alternatively, in unison with all the others to retain counsel? You say that the HOB or the EC can do so? How does TEC do so? Is the objection here that the appropriate elements of the national Church have not acted, or is it that you do not think there are circumstances in which TEC, as an institution, can retain counsel in the Diocese of South Carolina?