Dear Friends,
Attached is a letter describing an agreement made by Somerset Anglican Fellowship with the TEC Diocese. Some of you have already read about this in the newspaper or received an email; many of you have communicated with me your concerns that there might be many “secret deals” being made which will leave many congregations “on their own.” Here is some information about the agreement, and our current situation, that we thought it would be helpful for you to know.
1) Somerset Anglican Fellowship negotiated this settlement without the input or approval of the Diocese. In fact, we have reason to believe that the lawyer representing SAF advised them not to inform the Anglican diocese. We are very concerned that a congregation thought itself to be so in jeopardy as to necessitate secret legal action.
2) St. Stephen’s, Sewickley and Church of the Savior, Ambridge have consulted legal counsel with regard to individual settlements with the TEC Diocese. Both parishes informed the Anglican Diocese at the time and both parishes have decided not to participate in any settlement without the involvement of the Diocese.
3) To the best of our knowledge, there are no other parishes which are unilaterally attempting to make a settlement with the TEC diocese.
4) The Anglican Diocese remains committed to finding the best solution for each of its parishes in light of the recent legal decisions. We also continue to hope for and look for some kind of settlement that would benefit all of our congregations.
5) Please do not hesitate to email or call Canon Mary, Geoff Chapman (Chair of the Standing Committee) or Jonathan Millard (Standing Committee member) or me if you have further questions or concerns.
In light of these very serious developments, I feel compelled to issue a godly directive to all of the clergy of the diocese not to engage in, conduct, or conclude negotiations without first discussing such actions with me, or with Canon Mary, and with our chancellor.
Faithfully,
The Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan
It is frustrating that even after the separation TEC finds power in its divide and isolate policies.
This is really good news. I’m glad he’s made this clear and public.
I’m not sure I understand what is really good news here, at least for ACNA. It appears Duncan is somewhat concerned about the loyalty of some of the parishes to ACNA and him. To me this letter raises a lot more questions than answers. Especially in light of the last paragraph.
Mitchell,
This seems to be more of a Dio Pittsburgh issue than an ACNA-wide issue. It appears that TEC leadership have been attempting a divide-and-rule tactic, by offering individual deals to some parishes and at the same time insinuating that the rest of Dio Pittsburgh are also doing individual deals with TEC: “So you had better accept the deal we are offering, because if you don’t, one of your fellow parishes will accept it first and you will miss out”. It is a common tactic employed by the secular business world, and it is fitting that the leadership of TEC would do so as well – they would be at home with Gordon Gecko.
From Katherine Schori’s point of view, this tactic has the added advantage of engendering mistrust between the various parishes in Dio Pittsburgh, as each wonders if the others are doing secret deals with TEC.
No doubt this tactic has engendered concern and mistrust within Dio Pittsburgh. ++Duncan has wisely confonted the issue head-on and publicly.
I have the greatest respect for and an affectionate friendship over many years with Archbishop Duncan–which spirit I know is shared by the clergy and people of his Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. There is something I think of the personal, pastsoral appeal here, and I’m sure that will be taken to heart by those to whom the letter is directed. And I would in any case never encourage a priest in any event to ignore the godly advice of his or her bishop.
But just to note here that Archbishop Duncan’s expressed concern seems to be not about the negotiations per se, but about communication between clergy and diocesan leadership. Certainly the news of these first two settlements with the Episcopal Diocese has given rise to pastoral and relational and collegial stresses, as we have seen even in the quotations provided in the newspaper stories about these events–and I would see this letter as an effort to respond to that reality.
The thing to note, though, is that the pattern of negotiation that we’ve seen in the Moon Township and Somerset situations carefully follows the guidelines described in Paragraph Two of the 2005 Stipulation signed by Archbishop Duncan, which indicate that any congregation desiring to remove itself legally and canonically from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church should enter into negotiation about the resolution of property issues and other obligations with the canonical authorities of that diocese–the Bishop and the Board of Trustees.
Near as I can tell there is no provison in the Stipulation or in the canons of the Episcopal Diocese for these canonical authorities to enter into this kind of negotiation with any body other than those individual parishes. That wouldn’t necessarily preclude informal conversations to share interests and concerns with a wider frame of reference, but it seems clear that since each parish has a different history and situation, each negotiation will need to be conducted separately.
And this actually converges, as I understand it, with the canons of ACNA and of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, which specifically reject the kind of trust interest expressed in the Dennis Canon and make clear that the local congregation alone has full authority in matters related to its assets. There is no sense in Archbishop Duncan’s communication that the people of St. Philip’s Moon and the Somerset Anglican Fellowship have done anything out of order–though the issue of “surprise” is clearly one that has impact on a personal, relational level.
My guess is that my colleagues in the Anglican Diocese will be dealing with a certain calculus. For some–if there are, for example, plans for the purchase or sale of major assets, significant capital expansion, growth or change of ministry, calling of a new rector, etc.–there might be a more urgently felt need for a resolution of issues that might overhang the future.
I would imagine, for example, that banks might be reluctant to provide mortgages without more clarity as to the clear title of collateral, that major donors likewise might be hesitant to donate without more certainty of the long-term stability of the parish, that a new rector would want to know that the electing parish had a clear picture of any future obligations.
On the other hand, in situations where significant financial/property/ministry concerns are not on the front burner, there might not be such a sense of urgency. It might feel o.k. just to wait for a while and see how other institutional stories unfold. Judge James has indicated in his ruling that congregations are not to be ejected from their places of worship–and I see and hear no sentiment in that direction among my Episcopal Diocese colleagues in any case. The desire near as I can tell is to resolve issues is an orderly way, while respecting the fiduciary responsibility and canonical authority of the Episcopal Diocese (which is I know and understand, with sadness, is and will be a principled and perhaps costly stumbling block and impediment to resolution for some).
In any event, per #4, at least as I understand it “deals” have not been offered by the TEC diocese to any parishes. I believe the position of the TEC diocese is that parishes are invited to make use of the Paragraph Two negotiation process, if they, affirming their intention to separate from the Episcopal Church, wish to resolve any concerns about what may be overhanging legal and canonical obligations to the Episcopal Diocese.
We know now that two parishes have entered into and successfully concluded such negotiations, and Archbishop Duncan informs us here as well that two other parishes, Ambridge and Sewickley, have entered into these negotations but have not, at least to this point, reached a successful conclusion.
Bruce Robison
This might get picked up as a separate thread, but it is relevant here as well.
[url=http://www.episcopalpgh.org/property-settlements-guidelines/]Letter from Episcopal Diocese[/url]
Bruce Robison
Good to see what everybody already sees, now in writing by the Episcopal “diocese” leaders.
Divide, conquer, and cut the legs out of the ACNA Pittsburgh diocese was the plan. Thankfully and hopefully Archbishop Duncan has squelched that notion nicely.
The nice letter by Bishop Price obfusticates the facts. In order to even enter into negotiations with TEC Pittsburgh a parish must 1) agree in advance that everything belongs to TEC Pittsburgh and then 2) wait and see how generous TEC Pittsburgh will be. And as we have just witnessed the wretched Shylockian pursuit of the very last paten we all know exactly how that “generosity” looks…
BMR+’s summery is an excellent presentation of the facts and reality of the situation in Pittsburgh. Whether or not you like the present reality, based on a legal document signed by Bp Duncan and Calvary Church, (doing 815’s bidding some would say) and upheld by the courts, is a debate not related to this thread exactly. This is where we are, and it is not helpful for one side to be vindictive, or the other side to imply that they have been victimized. We (all of us) need to get on with ministry, and that can now only happen if both sides put forth their best side. Admittedly, that has not always been the case for either side.
RE: “BMR+‘s summery is an excellent presentation of the facts and reality of the situation in Pittsburgh.”
And it’s irrelevant to this thread and this excellent letter from Duncan. We all know and see what the leaders in the TEC “diocese” are trying to do. And Duncan is stopping that.
Good.
There is no “victimization” here on this thread. Nobody feels like a victim. Everybody sees rather clearly what the “diocese” is trying to do. And Duncan is doing a great thing by eliminating that possibility with this nice letter.
RE: “We (all of us) need to get on with ministry, and that can now only happen if both sides put forth their best side. Admittedly, that has not always been the case for either side.”
Oh, I think both sides have “put forth their best side” rather effectively. And all of us see each sides “best side.”