The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh announced Friday that its leaders will ask a state appeals court for another hearing to reconsider its ruling that $20 million in endowment assets will stay with the Episcopal diocese from which it split.
The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh announced Friday that its leaders will ask a state appeals court for another hearing to reconsider its ruling that $20 million in endowment assets will stay with the Episcopal diocese from which it split.
I would point out that the very first paragraph of this article assumes without question a disputed point that is at the very heart of the disagreement.
There is no question that the diocese now called (by court order) the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh split from the Episcopal Church. However, the position of Pittsburgh Anglican is that it did not split from the group now calling itself (and claiming to be) The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, for that group did not exist.
Rather, the original Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted (as a diocese) to split from The Episcopal Church, and did so within its legal and canonical rights. It has always been, and continues to be, the same entity, and, therefore, any property that belonged to The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh still belongs to that diocese.
The current group now calling itself The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is a new entity, formed after the split, from members within the original Episcopal diocese, who, dissatisfied with the decision of the original Episcopal diocese to split from TEC, formed a new diocese, which now calls itself the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The group now called the Anglican Diocese did not split from that group, since it did not yet exist. Nor did the Anglican Diocese split from “the Episcopal Diocese.” That would mean splitting from itself.
That TEC recognizes the new diocese as its legitimate representative is not surprising. Nothing prohibits former members of the original Episcopal diocese, who, dissatisfied with its decision to disassociate from TEC, to form a new diocese and align themselves with TEC. However, what is at question is whether this new entity (and it is a new entity) has the right to claim that it is actually the old entity, and, that the original diocese, in leaving TEC, also left the diocese. The claim of the Anglican Diocese is that it did not leave the diocese. It is the diocese.
That is the point at issue. Although the judges were not supposed to decide the question of whether the Anglican Diocese (as a diocese) could leave the Episcopal Church, it would seem that in this decision, that is exactly what they did. For, in claiming that property of the original Episcopal diocese now belongs to this new entity, they are in effect claiming that this new Episcopal diocese is in fact the original Episcopal diocese, and that, in leaving the Episcopal Church, the majority of those in the original Episcopal diocese, left, not only the Episcopal Church, but also the Episcopal Diocese. That is, in leaving the Episcopal Church, the group now called the Anglican Diocese, lost its identity as the original diocese, and so split not only from TEC, but also from the Diocese. That is to assume as settled a point that is in dispute.
Dr. Witt,
While I in no sense welcome the outcome, presumably you would concede that whereas in the case of the other three dioceses the issue is simply over the constitutionality of withdrawal, which – after some painful hours in TSM Library – I believe to be the case, in Pittsburgh it revolves around the 2005 Stipulation and Order.
I was re-reading Archbishop Duncan’s [url=http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10009]February 2009 Pastoral Letter[/url] from which I quote the following:
[i]”Property, whether real or personal, (hereinafter “Property”) held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter “the 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.”
It is my strong conviction that two points are, indeed, “clear” from this language. First, this paragraph addresses “parishes in the Diocese” deciding “not to remain in the Episcopal Church.” It does not address the Diocese as an entity deciding “not to remain in the Episcopal Church.” Second, the context of paragraph 1 is that the Diocese agreed that if parishes left the Episcopal Church, Diocesan Property would “continue to be … held and administered” for the “beneficial use of parishes and institutions of the Diocese.” The paragraph does not require the Diocese to “transfer” property, or to “abandon” property (as would be the case if the Diocese were to “leave property behind”), but instead states how Diocesan property “shall continue to be … held or administered.” Applied to our current situation, it is plain that we are not violating the Stipulation. The Diocese “continues” to hold and administer Diocesan Property, and does so “for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese.”
Beyond the words in the Stipulation and Order, there is the context of that agreement. The purpose of the Stipulation was to settle litigation, litigation in which Calvary sought to impose sweeping restrictions on the ongoing use of Diocesan assets, including in the event of Diocesan withdrawal from TEC. Calvary was aware of the possibility of Diocesan withdrawal before the settlement, but withdrawal is not addressed by the Stipulation.
Had Calvary sought to have Diocesan withdrawal covered by the Stipulation, we would not have, and could not have, agreed to such a settlement. Calvary now reads the Stipulation as if it documents the Diocese’s unconditional surrender and Calvary’s complete victory in the litigation. In addition to being incorrect, this interpretation just doesn’t make sense.[/i]
Perhaps it’s just me – and we had only been in Pittsburgh about six months at the time – but it always seemed as if the 2005 stipulation was about putting off the evil day in the hopes that the 2006 General Convention would involve either a stepping back from the precipice or the prelude to Dar-es-Salaam. As we now know, it led to the latter outcome, but not quite in the way that Archbishop Duncan and many of the rest of us had hoped.
Parsing Archbishop Duncan’s recollections four years later, I’m not sure that I can see as clearly why Calvary would have been willing to embrace an agreement on the interpretation that he himself sets. Why, if one were seeking to keep diocesan endowments under “Episcopal” control, would one sign onto a document that says if a “majority” of the parishes in the Diocese (which is tantamount to saying the Diocese as a corporate entity) might decide to disaffiliate, they get to keep the diocesan endowments as well? That was precisely what Calvary was seeking to frustrate.
In other words, the Pennsylvania courts may be ignoring the deeper question of whether a diocese can disaffiliate, but they are giving countenance to a document that Archbishop Duncan himself endorsed.
No. 2 provides a useful background that indicates this particular dispute is sui generis.
Re No.1 (and looking at the diocesan secession issue more broadly), what are the canonical provisions that govern disaffiliation of an Episcopal Diocese intact to join another denomination? Are procedures specified (e.g., who participates in the decision, what thresholds must be met in the votes -if there are votes – etc)? Do the canons specify that if a Diocese does disaffiliate, the Episcopal Diocese is extinguished and has no continuing remnant or existence? Is this clearly contemplated, or is the argument for secession somewhat like that advanced by the seceding states in the mid-19th Century – that the association was freely formed, and the absence of an explicit prohibition on withdrawal must mean that withdrawal is permitted, given the nature of the initial formation? If this is the controlling principle, I would think that issues of continuing existence of non-withdrawing elements, the appropriate mechanics of withdrawal, and the legal implications for property where there are elements that purport not to have withdrawn, would be much more uncertain than is sometimes conveyed in these discussions.
I have long been wondering why the ACNA diocese would ever agree to this stipulation, and I am interested to see Jeremy Bonner’s suggestion.
And the comments about Calvary’s intentions are right on point. As ++Duncan says, he would never have agreed to the stipulation had he knew it meant what Calvary thought; but conversely it must be obvious that Calvary had no reason to enter into it had it meant what ++Duncan thought it meant.
That the sides had different interpretations was immediately obvious from the stories in the Pittsburgh paper on the settlement/stipulation.
The damning evidence against the TEC interpretation, insofar as extrinsic evidence is relevant, are the letters/memos from the Calvary lawyers to the ACNA diocese lawyers (published as exhibits to Calvary’s briefs at trial) specifying that they would only accept wording under which the ACNA diocese would *not* keep the property — otherwise no settlement. The ACNA diocese lawyers received this information — yet kept negotiating. The only explanations for this I can think of from a legal POV are (1) that the ACNA counsel thot it had “out-lawyered” the Calvary counsel by getting it to agree to language that meant other than Calvary counsel thought it meant; or (2) a terrible legal mistake by ACNA counsel.
ACNA supporters have underestimated the strength of the argument, aptly described as ‘metaphysical’ at trial by ACNA councel, that the ACNA diocese cannot by its own actions destroy the Episcopal Diocese of Such-and-Such of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. Upon the withdrawal or deposition of its officers, the diocese is still there, although temporarily lacking a bishop, a standing committee, staff, and a place of habitation. Further, complaints that TEC did not follow its proper procedure in reconstituting the diocese are unlikely to be listened to because an ACNA diocese has no standing to make them, neither being part of TEC itself, nor claiming to be the true TEC diocese.
NoVA Scout (#3),
As a matter of history, the dioceses are the constitutive units – it’s hard to see how anything else can be when so many of the markers of hierarchy, particularly the existence of an ultimate court, are missing. If you look at the early constitutional histories of the two formerly established colonial churches – Maryland and Virginia – that is all too clear. The national church can admit dioceses into union, but it can’t tax them (assessments are voluntary), change their territorial configuration without consent, or dissolve them.
It’s also the case that the language of supremacy, which is generally understood as the marker of hierarchy, is missing from any constitutional and canonical language pertaining to the General Convention. You only have to go to texts on the nature of the national church and the dioceses penned by faculty at Episcopal seminaries during the 1950s and 1960s to note their frustration at the gap between what they felt was the authority of the national church and what they felt it ought to be.
Thank you, Jeremy. I assumed that something like that was the basis of the position. I take it then that there is no procedure specified for a Diocese removing its relationship to the Church, and the procedures that are adopted to do so are those developed by those in the Diocese who wish to depart.
Correct. But, as I understand it (history is my business not law), in the absence of an explicit statement of supremacy, the lack of stated procedures cannot be presumed to preclude such an action in the context of a voluntary association. All that matters is the determining what is the constitutive unit (which is less good news for parishes, incidentally).
As Thomas Vail put it in 1841:
[i][Each] Diocese is absolutely independent, except in certain particulars, wherein, by its own voluntary union with the others, it transfers its own authority to the General Convention. The connexion or union of each Diocese with the others, through the General Convention, is perfectly voluntary; and any Diocese has a right to withdraw from that connexion whensover it may please. The only penalty for so doing exist in nature – the inconveniences attendant upon such a withdrawal and the sense of having departed from the most perfect unity of the Church in our country. An example of such withdrawal is not, we may add, on record, and from the nature of things, will probably never occur [/i]
Thomas H. Vail, [i]The Comprehensive Church or Christian Unity and Ecclesiastical Union[/i] (Hartford, CT: H. Huntington Jr., 1841), 84.
Note Vail’s qualifier – withdrawal is a consummation devoutly [i]not[/i] to be wished, but it is possible and it can’t be penalized. TEC invokes Murray Hoffman and Francis Vinton (19th century canon lawyers who argued for supremacy), but against them you have future bishops, Thomas Vail and William Perry. It’s far from the case that TEC has [i]ever[/i] been of one mind upon this point.
Jeremy Bonner,
In making my original comment, I was not intending to argue the correctness of the legal ruling. Long experience on T19 has shown me that such arguments are futile. Experience has also shown that they will be engaged anyway, as NovaScout’s rushing in demonstrates, and as I anticipated someone would.
I was pointing to the wording of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which, by reporting the story in the manner in which it did, not only showed its own bias, but also either misled or confused its readers by simply assuming the TEC versions of the facts as the only possible reading.
I agree with you that Calvary would not have agreed to the stipulation if they believed it to have the interpretation that the Pittsburgh Anglican Diocese puts on it. Neither, however, do I believe that the Diocese would have agreed to the Stipulation if they had believed that it had the interpretation that Calvary (and apparently now the court) puts on it. There is an inherent ambiguity to the document, and subsequent disagreement shows that from the beginning both sides understood what they had agreed to differently.
The court has decided to embrace Calvary’s insistence of what was agreed to rather than the Anglican Diocese’s, but I do not think it quite correct to say that “they are giving countenance to a document that Archbishop Duncan himself endorsed.” Rather, they are given countenance to an interpretation of a document that Archbishop Duncan endorsed, but I am skeptical that Archbishop Duncan would ever have endorsed the document if he believed that in so doing he was countenancing the interpretation the court has now given to it.
Of course I do have an opinion about what should have been the correct reading.
Maybe Bishop Duncan had not decided in 2005 that he was going to try to take the diocese out of TEC. If he already decided in 2005, Calvary was correct in thinking that he was trying to do it. If he had not yet decided maybe he would not have had a problem with signing the stipulation.
Do any of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh folk know when he decided that the only way forward was to leave as a diocese?
No. 8: I’m not sure how a comment becomes a “rushing in”. These comments have to be sequenced in some order. In any event, my inquiry was not argumentative and did not address the merits of the Pennsylvania legal rulings. I was attempting to improve my knowledge of a situation with which I was unfamiliar. Mr. Bonner was generous and informative in his response. I am appreciative.
RE: “Maybe Bishop Duncan had not decided in 2005 that he was going to try to take the diocese out of TEC.”
What on earth if Eugene talking about? Why, everybody knows that Bishop Duncan had perfidiously planned on exiting TEC with diocese in tow *from the very beginning* — all the way back to 2003, the day after Robinson was approved at GC 2003 — at least, according to the revisionist activist websites I used to read way back when.
I mean, there is no chance of coming up with an alliance within TEC of traditional Episcopalians without that being Their Numero Uno Strategery from the very beginning . . . according to The Experts I used to read!!!! Because you know . . . an alliance of TEC traditional Episcopalians is far too threatening otherwise, if they have no intentions of departure, and it’s highly likely that if Moderates don’t speedily recognize that the only intention is to depart that . . . they might be a part of such a grouping too. And we certainly can’t have that.
; > )
[Just havin’ a little fun with 2003/2004/2005 hysterical commenting . . . ]
I suspect the Archbishop saw the handwriting on the wall a lot later than a number of his priests saw it. The decision came after the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Organization, and even then he hoped desperately that something might happen to keep him in the church he loved and served so faithfully for so many years. As for Calvary’s subtlety and foresight, well, let’s just say that their motive had much less to do with a profound regard for the Dennis Canon than with the desire to punish those who had so forthrightly stood against the doctrinal and moral innovations of the Organization and make them pay dearly. In this their thinking accorded perfectly with that of their overlord.
[blockquote] I’m not sure how a comment becomes a “rushing inâ€.[/blockquote]
I think you are being a little over-sensitive. I was referring to the following comment, which appeared only two comments after mine:
[blockquote]No.1 (and looking at the diocesan secession issue more broadly), what are the canonical provisions that govern disaffiliation of an Episcopal Diocese intact to join another denomination? [/blockquote]
It is typical that the raising of certain topics on T19 inevitably produces predictable responses, not just when it comes to the current property battles, but also:
1) Anything even remotely having to do with politics or that can even remotely construed as having to do with politics, will result at some point in the thread to a reference to Obama, and the reference will be negative. (Search “Obama” on T19. Obama is referenced more often than “Schori” or “Rowan.” Another popular word is “socialist.”)
2) Anything that can even remotely be interpreted as having to do with Women’s Ordination will inevitably lead to a comment about WO, and the comment will be negative. In a near majority of cases, the WO discussion will then hijack the thread.
There are other issues that will produce identical results. These discussions tend to be endless, and create much heat and cast no light.
If I sound snippy, it is because I am. One of the reasons I post infrequently on T19 is because I am weary of discussions and comments the entire point of which is rhetorical.
I just do not care to keep track anymore of who has scored the most posts on the current thread about . . . WO, the culture wars, or property battles, or . . . whatever.
Now to the answer to your entirely predictable question: You undoubtedly are aware that the canons say nothing whatsoever about whether a diocese can leave the Episcopal Church. Accordingly, what is not forbidden must be understood to be permitted. As dioceses enter into relation with TEC voluntarily, so they may leave voluntarily.
This is, of course, not a new point. It has been reiterated time and time again on T19 and elsewhere This did not, however, keep you from once again raising the question.
RE: “It is typical that the raising of certain topics on T19 inevitably produces predictable responses . . . ”
Actually, it is typical of all blogs that allow comments, because all blogs, by the nature of their particular identities and topics and blogger, gather a certain community of people of fairly similar ideals and values.
I note the irony of the decrial of “predictable responses” — and then the proceeding to rather predictably insert new topics — the ones that engender so much snippiness — with one’s own “predictable responses” too, and not even “on-topic” predictable responses.
Predictable all around.
Further, the WO discussion has not been allowed to hijack threads at T19 for at least two years now, thanks to the diligent efforts of the elves. It is *extremely* rare, and WO comments generally occur on WO threads [with predictable results, though]. And then, of course, the political topics are applied on posts that actually, you know, bring up political topics in the blog post.
RE: “If I sound snippy, it is because I am.”
One only wonders when the bad mood engendered by William Witt’s differences with politically conservative Anglicans will eventually pass.
But to offer some practical hope — the way I have coped with the equivalent of the predictable “Buddhist prayer wheel” of blog comments and exchanges is to simply 1) never engage in debates with people who have thoughtfully and carefully determined their committed beliefs, since I recognize that my rhetoric will in no way convince them — only conversion can [as with me too] — and on the other hand 2) as I find the time to point out faulty reasoning and logic in various assertions of others and 3) assert for the record what I believe in order to engage in clear communication, again, only as I find the time.
Blessedly, once we return to the topic at hand, I can entirely agree with this: “It has been reiterated time and time again on T19 and elsewhere This did not, however, keep you from once again raising the question.”
One of NoVA Scout’s little affectations in commenting is to pretend to be confused. It’s just his thing.
RE: “You undoubtedly are aware that the canons say nothing whatsoever about whether a diocese can leave the Episcopal Church. Accordingly, what is not forbidden must be understood to be permitted. As dioceses enter into relation with TEC voluntarily, so they may leave voluntarily.”
Yes, he was aware of that.
[blockquote] One only wonders when the bad mood engendered by William Witt’s differences with politically conservative Anglicans will eventually pass.[/blockquote]
Sarah,
My bad mood is not with politically conservative Anglicans. I work at a seminary with faculty and students whose views on political issues run the spectrum, and we get along well. I teach courses on Christian ethics and Christian Social Ethics in which the relation between Christianity and politics is a central focus. We engage in fairly vigorous discussion in my courses, and the more vigorous, the better. Neither do I impose my views on my students. Some complain that they don’t always know where I stand on a give issue precisely because I do not impose my views. And my mood is great.
There is, however, a difference between rational discussion and mindless rhetoric that simply repeats the same tired cliches over and over again. There is also a difference between strongly held ethical, theological, philosophical, and political beliefs, and ideology.
Any political view that subverts faith to politics is an ideology. Ideology is a form of idolatry, and is, as such, a heresy. It does not matter whether the ideology is on the right or on the left. I am very interested in the relation between Christian faith and its political implications, whatever those may be. I am not at all interested in any political ideology that uses Christian faith to promote a secular agenda, whether of the left or of the right.
But my comment to Nova Scout was not about politics. At least I don’t think he was advocating a conservative political position with which I was disagreeing. Rather, I have noticed a shift that has taken place on the theologically conservative Anglican blogs in the last two years towards a knee-jerk negativity that goes across the board–including politics and theology, but not limited to those topics. As a a result, discussion has become more strident, and meaningful discussion with real give-and-take a rarity.
I threw out at random several topics of conversation that produce the predictable responses, and one had to do with politics. But I could have thrown in others. How about: Can an orthodox Christian stay in TEC? Or, does KJS prove that the Anglican Reformation was a disaster from the very beginning, and we all should become Roman Catholics (or Orthodox)? Or, can one be an orthodox Anglican if one does not hold to the proper theological position on [place topic here]?
There is a way to confirm whether I have just become cranky with political conservatives, or whether a real shift has taken place. Compare the discussions in the archives at T19 and StandFirm from three or four years ago with discussions in the last two years. Note also the voices that no longer join in the conversation. Then ask: where did those people go, and why?
But, of course, one can ask why the focus has become so stridently political, and to the right? Why, for example, does Obama’s name appear in discussions at T19 more frequently than either KJS or Rowan Williams? Why is it that StandFirm has more and more gone to topics marked “[Off topic & Political to boot]”?
Now I fear I have gone off topic, for which I apologize.
[i] Now, please get back to the original topic. [/i]
Elf Lady