The Pittsburgh Episcopal diocese and 41 breakaway Anglican parishes scattered throughout Western Pennsylvania are ready to discuss their financial differences.
“At this point, negotiations are the way forward,” said Bishop William Ilgenfritz of St. Mary’s, the Anglican parish in Charleroi, which is waiting for the Episcopal diocese to set a starting date for talks.
Negotiations over property issues are expected to take place on a parish-by-parish basis, church leaders said, although it’s not clear when negotiations will begin.
Negotiations are meaningless unless 815 agrees to participate in good faith too. Remember what happened in the Diocese of Virginia. Truro, the Falls Church, and their smaller church companions entered into what they thought were good faith discussions with Bishop Lee – then the negotiations were broken off and the Schori Team went into attack mode.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
Hasn’t Darth Jefferts Schori reserved all such negotiations to herself and her team?
Unless there really is an equitable 50/50 split, with both sides getting an equal share ofthe property and the financial assets, I don’t see this as being the least bit fair. If past experience is any indicator, TEC will finagle their way into getting everything but the air in the buildings. I do not trust them.
They are working a serious “divide and conquer” strategy. The only way that the parishes will have any negotiating power or position is if they negotiate as a block, not individually. Please keep praying for our parishes.
Thanks.
[My first comment didn’t make it past the censor elves, and rightly so, in hindsight]. My comment was, how can the dioceses and parishes involved negotiate at all if the PB has reserved those powers to herself and her people at 815?
And you can be sure that if negotiations are going to go on in a case by case manner between the parishes and TEC, TEC will make sure that everything is stacked in their favor [i]before the negotiations even begin.[/i] There will be no fair play here. As I said, [i]I don’t trust TEC![/i]
Perhaps I do not understand the status of this case. I have been trying to observe this case and understand the implications of the rulings. It appears to me the TEC has won. The court has said the TEC Diocese is the owner of the property, and the ACNA Diocese is occupying property it does not not own. Consequently, the TEC already has everything, and the remaining questions are what property are they willing to sell, how much are they willing to sell them for, and to whom are they willing to sell them. Frankly, I do not understand the 50/50 comment or the divide and conquer analogy.
I said that judging from past experience regarding TEC’s machinations, they will take will insist on taking everything. There will be no 50/50 split, and there will be no fairness. I don’t think that’s in the cards.
I would love to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that will happen. One can hope, though.
As much as I’m not in favor of the TEC Dio Pittsburgh receiving all the property, like Mitchell in #6 I don’t understand most of these comments. TEC won in court, as I understand the status here. They own the property. Why would there then be a “50/50 split”? While I believe the churches which remained in TEC were offered their buildings with the realignment of the traditional diocese, once the remaining churches brought suit there was never going to be a “no matter who is pronounced the owner by the courts, let’s do this fair-and-square”. A 50/50 split would be one group – which sued to keep all the property – saying, “here; you take half”. It makes no sense, given how it all played out and the final decision.
Mitchell at #6 wrote,
[blockquote] “It appears to me the TEC has won.” [/blockquote]
Which begs the question, “If that is the case, why then are TEC negotiating?”
In fact, TEC has not won at all, and this should be obvious to any observer. TEC won an initial round, and this decision is under appeal. The process of appeals and cross-appeals has a long way to go yet.
In the meantime, TEC has to consider that its attempt to take properties from the breakaway parishes may eventually be struck down. The breakaway churches must also consider that they may ultimately lose. An attempt to reach a negotiated settlement is a wise move on the part of all concerned, despite K J Schori’s attempt to adopt a “no compromise ever” approach. Having said that, I agree with Cennydd’s wise advice to never trust any of the current leadership of TEC.
TEC must also consider whether it can afford to win the law suits. It has previously worked on an assumption that “If we win the case and take the buildings, the parishioners will come back to TEC”. So far as I am aware, this has never eventuated, anywhere, ever.
So TEC faces the prospect that it can win these lawsuits and be left with church buildings that it cannot fill, and rates and other overheads that it cannot pay.
Silly, silly K J Schori: she has focussed on all those beautiful buildings, but is slowly learning that they aren’t important. Its the people that are (or are not) in them that are the key factor.
I’m not on the committee working with Bishop Price, the Chancellor, and the Trustees on these property matters, but I would simply want to add a couple of observations. First, there are occasionally here references to “lawsuits.” Please note that the only action in court by the Episcopal Diocese since October, 2008, was to join in the request to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for enforcement of the agreement Archbishop Duncan and Calvary Church reached in 2005 to settle the action brought by Calvary Church. The Episcopal Diocese hasn’t initiated any other legal actions, but has simply responded as required as the Anglican Diocese has appealed the Court’s enforcement of the 2005 agreement.
The officers of the Episcopal Diocese are in fact under legal and canonical obligations to act as fiduciaries. In that context, though, the diocese has been clear from the start about the desire to find mutually acceptable resolutions which may, when possible, allow congregations to continue life and ministry in their historic locations, even if they are no longer to be parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The specifics of course will vary based on the particulars of each setting. My conversations with clergy and members of congregations in the places where negotiations have been successfully concluded indicate that folks on both sides of the negotiation conducted themselves with integrity and mutual respect and concluded their work in a spirit of friendship.
Bruce Robison
The problem that some might have with mutually-negotiated agreements is the possibility that, in any agreement, there might be a restriction from affiliating with the ACNA for a period of years…..thus many, myself included…..see this as attempt to undermine the ACNA. This has already happened in one instance in Pennsylvania.
RE: “In that context, though, the diocese has been clear from the start about the desire to find mutually acceptable resolutions which may, when possible, allow congregations to continue life and ministry in their historic locations, even if they are no longer to be parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
Heh — yes, as long as they are not allowed to affiliate with any Anglican entity.
I agree with the other comments. The Pittsburgh faux diocese leaders are who they are — and demonstrably so through dozens of appalling, corrupt, and evil actions that have been emblazoned on these T19 pages.
These TEC people are fooling no one but themselves, and anyone who thinks otherwise is himself a fool. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, and I hope the people of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh aren’t going to be foolish enough to believe anything they say.
And to the people of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, their clergy, and to Archbishop Duncan, I say this: Please, don’t be taken in by TEC’s actions. Be careful; be VERY careful…..before you sign anything.
BMR+, why on earth gives us a very restricted and hedged statement about what the Episcopal diocese has or hasn’t done? How is this germane to either the article or the previous posts?
[blockquote] she has focussed on all those beautiful buildings, but is slowly learning that they aren’t important. Its the people that are (or are not) in them that are the key factor. [/blockquote]
If that is so, doesn’t it beg the further question, Why is the ACNA continuing to fight? Why not just lease vacant store fronts, and move on?
Mitchell at #17,
I am glad you asked. I am not in ACNA, but its members have stated their views publicly often enough that it doesn’t seem to be any secret:
Firstly, one would expect a christian congregation to resist any attempt by an outside group to take their property, when there is no lawful justification to do so. If for example, the owner of the local beer joint decided to sue a church to take its property for a secular purpose, would you really expect the congregation to just hand it over?
Secondly (and probably most important), this is not a disagreement between two christian congregations, e.g. over a boundary dispute. The congregations are leaving because 815 has apostasized. It has openly embraced the un-Christian theology of Jack Spong, and it indulges in un-Christian behaviour such as consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops.
To resist TEC’s law-suits is to *witness*. It is important that the watching world understands that the congregations do not view their dispute with K J Schori as “just another argument over doctrine or church administration”. Rather, it goes to the root of the Christian faith.
Naturally, there are many methods of witnessing against apostasy. Some congregations have chosen to simply abandon the property, and that is a matter for them. Others remain within TEC but cut off funds from 815. Still others were established prior to 2008 by Anglicans in such a way that they were never part of TEC in the first place. Whatever the method, the common theme is that these are faithful christians taking a *public* stand against church leaders who have abandoned the faith once delivered.
I hope that clarifies.
I suppose it’s fair to say that there are complexities on both sides of the divide. Trust is something that is earned over time, and I think there are reasonsfolks on both sides might cite to suggest that the others are less than fully trustworthy. Folks on both side have said and continue to say things that I believe reflect something other than the best that our Lord has in mind for us. There are great Christian clergy and laity who continue to be a part of the Episcopal Church, and there are great Christian clergy and laity who have left the Episcopal Church to witness and minister in another context. I hope that over time we will all of us learn to speak about each other and relate to each other with charity and even affection. I believe it’s something we are working on here in Pittsburgh, imperfectly of course, and I hope you will continue to hold us in your prayers.
Bruce Robison
BMR+,
Gladly, and always.
I can’t help having the feeling that the results of any negotiations between TEC and the Anglican parishes in Pittsburgh are foreordained, and that’s why I don’t trust TEC. As I said, I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Negotiations will result in what each side determines is the best outcome for it under the circumstances. I can’t see any reason to decry a negotiation process, particularly when the alternative is protracted litigation. That one side or another has a more favorable legal position does not militate against negotiation. It is simply a factor that both sides objectively evaluate in determining realistic goals and in formulating their negotiating positions.
Negotiate, yes…..but make sure that each side is treated fairly. So far, TEC’s track record on that score is [i]lousy.[/i] KJS’ treatment of those who disagree with her is abysmal, to say the least. “I talk, and you listen. I give the orders, and you obey.” I still don’t trrust TEC.
Fr. Bruce, God love you for the moderate voice that you bring, but I think you’re just…wrong. We’re not talking about stipulations and legal agreements and settlements, we’re talking about right and wrong.
–It was wrong for Dr. Lewis and the Calvary crew to bring suit against the Bishop in the first place.
–It is wrong for the “remaining” parishes to believe that they are the Diocese, since the Diocese voted as a body to withdraw from the Episcopal Church – weren’t you there that day?
–It is wrong to expect a parish that does not want to affiliate with TEC to forfeit their property as a result of that decision – which was taken (see above) on a DIOCESAN level. It was the Diocese and Bp. Duncan’s intention that the parishes who chose to “stay” would not forfeit THEIR properties – hence the original lawsuit.
–It is wrong to negotiate an “agreement” that denies a congregation the ability to associate with other parishes of their choice – that’s just plain spite.
Where do you find any “rightness” in the TEC Diocese’s position? I just don’t get how reasonable people can convince themselves that ANY of the TEC Diocese’s actions are right – and I’ve heard a LOT of “explanations” and platitudes, believe me. It just doesn’t make sense.
GilliaC, I agree with you. TEC’s leadership…..and PB Schori in particular……have sworn that they will do whatever it takes to win. There is no level to which they won’t stoop, and there is nothing in their bag of legal tricks…..and no doubt, some which haven’t been invented yet, that they won’t try in order to see that they prevail. This is nothing more than another strategem designed to undermine the ACNA and put us out of business……and it won’t work. [b]I DO NOT TRUST TEC![/b]
GillianC agreed.
Katherine Schori and her cronies flourish in TEC because of those who lack the courage to acknowledge the evil in their midst.
There isn’t a TEC bishop who has the moral courage to tell Schori to stop what she’s doing! They would rather ‘go along to get along’ and ensure that their pensions are safe, instead of standing up to her and telling her that she’s wrong. But I guess that after July 1, when the Title IV revisions kick in, it won’t really matter anymore, will it? She’ll have what she’s always wanted: [i]absolute power over them.[/i]