Leaders from all 55 parishes in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh met with diocesan leaders to worship and discuss the current status of the litigation with The Episcopal Church. Archbishop Duncan read a prepared statement, which addressed financial concerns, timelines, and the way forward in mission. Bob Devlin, chancellor for the diocese, and members of the standing committee responded to questions and concerns from parish leaders. Parish leaders were also given various resources to guide them in moving forward with their mission.
To view Archbishop Duncan’s statement, click here.
To view a Frequently Asked Questions sheet from this meeting, click here.
“The Bishop and Standing Committee have a confidential fee agreement with our counsel.”
why is it confidential? certainly they don’t want to be emulating the secret nature that has plagued ECUSA?
I imagine they don’t want any information to leak out to the wrong parties. A smart move, I think.
Stipulation 1 of what the former Bishop of the EDP, ECUSA (and now the Archbishop) and Calvary church agreed to in 2005 is shown below. The court has interpreted the EDP of the ECUSA as the one in communion with the ECUSA and not the one named ADP. This decision is being appealed by the ADP.
1. Property,.whether real or personal (hereinafter “Property”), held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America
(hereinafter “Diocese”) for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held or administered by the Diocese regardless of
whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. For purposes of this paragraph, Property as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish of the
Diocese shall not be deemed Property held or administered by the Diocese.
The primary concern of the Bishop and the Standing Committee has to do with the “wrong parties” who have given evidence time and again in the legal struggle that one cannot assume they are trustworthy.