OOPS! The Episcopal congregations voted and then – following the Diocese of Virginia’s Protocol for Departing Churches – filed that vote in their local court house. WE DID NOT, repeat, did not seek the court’s declaration. We thought we were following the Diocese of Virginia’s Protocol and that we were entering into property negotiations by joining Bishop Lee’s official Diocese of Virginia Property Committee (the Diocese fails to mention that part – or the Standstill Agreement that the Diocese entered into with the Virginia Churches as we prepared for the next phase in the Protocol). The property negotiations had all ready been modeled for us by the property negotiations between the Diocese of Virginia and All Saints, Dale City. This all came to a sudden halt in January 2007 following a meeting of the Diocese of Virginia’s Standing Committee, Executive Board, and Bishop Lee with the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, David Booth Beers. Within days of that meeting, the standstill agreement was abruptly cancelled, lawsuits against the 200 lay volunteers and their clergy were filed by the Diocese and then another set by 815, the clergy were inhibited (even the ones who were remaining Episcopalian), and health benefits for clergy and staff were cut off, including COBRA benefits that cost the Diocese nothing but their honor. One thinks that David Booth Beers could not have the Diocese of Virginia declaring the facts that division had indeed occurred (as the Protocol stipulated) or their whole House of Cards would tumble.
There’s a lot of hooey here but this one:
“The Diocese and the Episcopal Church responded to those filings and are defendants in those cases.”
would appear to be an irrefutable lie (let’s hope the judge sees it) and defamatory to boot.
My prediction is that the post will be substantially edited as word of this spreads through the blogosphere…
I concur with Chris, this claim by the Diocese of Virginia is an outrageous lie:
“The Diocese and the Episcopal Church responded to those filings and are defendants in those cases.”
If this were the case, I would love to see the Falls Church, Truro Church et al and all the other named parties (styled “defendants” on the lawsuit), file a motion to dismiss, [i]with prejudice[/i] (meaning the case is done and can’t be refiled).
Chris, if is, we’ve at least gotten it unedited!
good – and that’s you show to the judge…..
I concur with Baby Blue’s assessment that the Diocese of Virginia is playing rather carelessly with the truth in the statements about how the legal actions got started. One might even be tempted to infer that the Diocese of Virginia is guilty of lying and slander. The Diocese and departing parishes signed a Standstill Agreement to halt any legal action, as reported in the Dec. 18, 2006, diocesan press release, also avaliable at the diocesan web site. This press release says “Under the standstill agreement with departing members, both sides have agreed not to initiate any litigation for a period of 30 days, and the departing members have agreed not to attempt to transfer Church property.”
The actual text of the Standstill Agreement, agreed to by representaatives of the Diocese and the departing congregations and available as a link from [url=http://www.trurochurch.org/content.asp?contentid=15386]the Truro web site[url] is more specific. According to items 2a, 2b, and 3a of the Standstill Agreement:
2a. The Congregations “will not initiate any transfer or conveyance of their property.â€
2b. The Congregations “will not initiate any civil legal action against The Diocese/TEC, but may report their congregational determinations by filling a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Courts pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement. The congregations’ Va. Code 57-9 filings will state that notice has been provided to The Diocese/TEC. The congregations will not take any further steps to bring the Va. Code 57-9 filings to judgment. Upon the Diocese’s request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va. Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese’s request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. …â€
3a. The Diocese/TEC and each of the congregation “ will seek in good faith to negotiate with each other an amicable resolution of their differences concerning property and clergy status.â€
The text speaks for itself. It is very hard to make the case with a straight face that the departing congregations initiated legal action against the Diocese. Under the Standstill Agreement, the Diocese agreed to the filings relative to Va 57-9 ( the “division statute”), the departing churches agreed not to take any steps to activate any such claims (even agreeing to work with the Diocese to see that this does not happen), and both sides agreed to enter into negotiations. Bishop Lee even announced the formation of a Diocesan Committee to undertake such negotiations. The names of the appointees were announced in the Dec. 18, 2006, Diocesan press release. It was the Diocese that terminated the Standstill Agreement in January 2007 so that it could file lawsuits against the departing churches and their vestries.
Hmmm. Baby Blue must have not read the Standing Committee’s Nov 17th letter. Let’s quote a little bit:
“At a joint meeting Nov. 9 of the Executive Board with the Standing Committee, both bodies voted to receive the report but did not endorse or approve the report.”
Or the Bishop’s Dec 1st letter. Here’s a quote from the press release “The letter also explained some of the potential legal and canonical consequences of a decision to separate from the Episcopal Church, addressing issues of property and personal liability.”
It ain’t a wedding if one party doesn’t show up. Clearly the bishop and the standing committee with clear warning told the various parishes that their actions were NOT approved and WOULD have consequences.
No mystery here.
You vote under a protocol that was negotiated but not approved, then you file your property claim, you bet the diocese is going to go to court to defend itself. Who gets captioned as P or D in the court documents regarding these matters has little to do with who is the aggrieved party.
I certainly don’t speak for the bishop or diocese.
That the DioV would go to such lengths to spin the truth is an indication they are feeling uneasy with how their actions play in the light of day. (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain – -why, bless my soul if it isn’t DBB)
I still don’t understand how they could legally cut off COBRA benefits.
Purple mendacity.
It was soon after GC2003, listening to Bishop Lee try to explain in increasingly inconsistent terms what was going on, that it first dawned on me that the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia was led by liars. For some reason, the phrase “Father of Lies” kept rolling around in my consciousness.
[blockquote]8. Katherine wrote:
I still don’t understand how they could legally cut off COBRA benefits. [/blockquote]
Basically, it’s a church-state matter. The state isn’t dictating to a religious organization how to operate. ERISA, which codifies COBRA, provides, in relevant part,
[blockquote](b) The provisions of this title shall not apply to any employee benefit plan if- . . .(2) such plan is a church plan with respect to which no election has been made under section 410(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . . . .[/blockquote]
29 U.S.C.A. §1003, subsection (b)
mis. sin., you seem to be suggesting that there’s something arbitrary about “who gets captioned as P or D in the court documents.” Actually, it’s not arbitrary at all, nor does it have anything to do with who is “the aggrieved party.” Court clerks don’t sit around and speculate about who should get the “caption” Plaintiff and who Defendant. It’s really quite simple: the one who files the suit is the Plaintiff, whereas the one who is named in the suit by the Plaintiff is the Defendant. Ergo, those who file suits but refer to themselves publicly as defendants are not speaking truthfully, whether they are “aggrieved” or not. (See how much I remember from my high school civics class?)
Alan Jacobs: I didn’t mean to say any part of court filings are arbitrary. Actually, I think we agree on how it’s done.
Peace,
-MS
Admitted to practice in VA
#6 said: “You vote under a protocol that was negotiated but not approved”. The Diocese of Virginia and TEC keep trying to edit the past in hopes of digging itself out of a hole. Let’s look at what really happened. I hate to quote myself, but I’ll just drop in my last response to this:
[blockquote]I think you are revising and editing the history. The bishop appointed a committee, including his chancellor, which agreed upon the protocol. There was nothing in the protocol that required standing committee approval, not surprising since drafted by the chancellor familiar with the canons. (Final approval for the terms of any sale of real property was left with the standing committee, which is what the canons provide for.) The bishop had the ability to enter into the agreement under the canons, and did so. He told the parishes to proceed under it. (Do you not think that constitutes “endorsementâ€?) It was subsequently presented to the standing committee, which tried to amend it, and the amendments were rejected. Which, since it was a protocol the committee “offers†to “departing members†and not a report to the standing committee (the word “report†appears nowhere in it), was appropriate. There was a unanimous vote of the standing committee, which was either to “receive†it or “accept†it – it seems unclear. The only truth in your statement is that the standing committee did not vote to “approve†it. Though accepting it can constitute an approval, which is undoubtedly why it is now characterized as “received†by the standing committee. Receiving it (or not) would not have been the proper action however, and that whatever the action was, it was done after defeating amendments and without any final objection, suggesting that in fact what was done was that it was accepted. The lawyers can argue that. Only after the parishes had begun acting in reliance on the protocol did the standing committee object that the manner in which it was received meant that it was not “approvedâ€. Since the approval of the standing committee was not required for the protocol – it was within the power of the bishop under the canons, the standing committee was only to vote on any real property transactions, such approval would not be necessary in any event. And just to show that the bishop thought so, too, the bishop then appointed another diocesan committee to negotiate the property transfers. I seem to recall reading that the bishop then terminated that committee after one meeting or so with the parishes, after which he commenced the litigation.
You can read for yourself here:
http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/pressroom/docs/special_committee_report.pdf
In any event, the Diocese of Virginia and 815 want to argue that the protocol was never agreed to. The facts indicate otherwise, I think. If someone has some other facts, let us know. [/blockquote]
I reiterate that: If someone has some other facts, let us know.
To use the wedding analogy, you can’t just go through the ceremony and afterwards try to tell everyone you had your fingers crossed, and so didn’t really agree to be married. Or you can’t enter into a contract, tell the other party to proceed under it, have them do so, and then tell them you signed in disappearing ink and it is not binding. Well, you can, but we’ll see if the judge buys it.
Pendennis88:
Which part of +Lee’s December 1, 2006 letter was unclear to the clergy, parishes and vestries?
miserable sinner,
Much of the letter might be considered unclear. Mr. Lee appears to make the suggestion that the parishes be on guard, since he can’t control what the loose cannons at 815 might do:
At the same time, he continues to endorse the committee’s work – as long as the procedures have been followed:
As pendennis has pointed out, while “neither the Executive Board nor the Standing Committee has endorsed or approved [the report],†neither had to: Lee had the authority under the canons to follow that process on his own.
Again, Lee says:
which sounds like it is a way forward.
In sum, Lee likes the process; his Executive Board and Standing Committee haven’t said anything about it; while there are rumblings that ECUSA may be off the reservation. Sounds unclear to me.
#15 – Considering that the 40 days of discernment process for the big CANA churches began September 17, 2006 and ended October 27, 2006, and the vestrys voted mid-November, they probably did not understand much of it at the time. Particularly since Lee had already told them verbally it was the way to go. And how long had he lead the churches to believe that and operate on that basis? Nine months or so?
Listen, I get that the Diocese had remorse that they had entered into the protocol. I just don’t buy that the Standing Committee or the Bishop himself can renege on the Bishop’s agreements after churches have acted in reliance upon them (after the vestries have voted, and just a few days before the congregations voted), just because they decide they don’t like the way the vote is going to go.
Speaking of the Dec. 1 letter, they probably thought that Lee thought “I believe the report is a useful way forward, which I support…,” that they would work towards a “mutually acceptable outcome”, and that Lee had “encouraged the Executive Board and the Standing Committee of our diocese to pay close attention to whether congregations that wish to depart have followed the steps outlined in the report and have engaged faithfully in negotiations that meet the needs of each party in each unique situation.” Are you suggesting it was foolish to take Lee at his word?
So, again, what facts are we missing?
Some interesting further ‘insider’ [url=http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7035] commentary [/url] from a member on the executive board
[blockquote] After we had voted to receive the protocol a discussion then ensued as to whether to ‘receive’ a report, was the same thing as to ‘accept’ or ‘approve’ one. The general sentiment expressed was that there was no practical differences in the use of the words receive, accept or approve and that the diocese was going to provide resources for its part of the agreement. The diocese then proved their de facto reception, adoption and approval of the protocol by implementing the details. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] I cannot believe that the diocese would make such detailed requirements of our churches and even promote the discernment process by supplying materials and people and then turn around and abandon the process [/blockquote]
The facts seem to show the diocese of Virginia behaved less than honorably in this whole mess.
Well, #18, those are some interesting additional facts.
George Orwell forecast ENS-speak in 1984. Tragic to see that it has come to pass.
Sophy
Licensed to practice in VA and DC.
Sadly, Peter Lee is indicative of many “wishy-washy” bishops of TEC. I don’t think he is liberal at his core. His vote to consecrate Gene Robinson in 2003 was not theologically based, but canonically based. He didn’t feel it was his place to disapprove of another diocese’s selection for bishop, even a gay bishop. It was beyond him to interfere in the affairs of another diocese. I suppose that begs the question of why TEC bishops need be “consecrated” in the first place. What he may not have realized at the time was the consequences of his decision. I find it humorous that he thought that his vote was actually affirming the notion of diocene sovereignty. In his naivety, what he has come to realize is that what remains of the TEC has no such notion of diocene autonomy and that in fact he had better “tow the line” of the national church, or face the consequences. So, what has been the single most influential diocese in TEC has been, in effect, rendered impotent. Its probably not the legacy he would have wished for and to pass on to to Bishop Johnston, the “great healer” of what has been bequeathed to him.
Observing & Pendennis88 – Credit where credit is due. Adams+ tells a compelling story. Not sure it changes my anglo-catholic mind though.
Maybe I’ve spent too much time in the land of nuanced language to believe that “a possible way forward” in churchspeak gives carte blance permission to proceed.
His Peace,
Perhaps, #22. But in my land, nuance is not necessarily something that benefits the nuancer. Even if I accept that Lee and the Standing Committee’s either “nuanced” their agreement to the protocol all along, or that their last minute “nuances” revoke any prior agreement, in my area, to nuance your statements in order to give a false impression for others to follow, and then to allow others to act in reliance on your your misleading impression, even to participate in their actions, and then to reject it all afterwards, is quite bad. There are lawyers in the Southern District of NY who earn their keep going after people who deliberately mislead others, and “I cleverly nuanced my language” is not likely to be a terribly good defense.
So let’s review the Dec 1 letter in a bit more detail:
“[b]I remind you that absent a negotiated settlement of property, an attempt to place your congregation and its real and personal property under the authority of any ecclesial body other than the Diocese of Virginia and the bodies authorized by its canons to hold church property will have repercussions and possible civil liability for individual vestry members.[/b]”
Really not nuanced at all. In my book, if one believes in the authority of the bishop, you stop. To be blunt, if you don’t believe in the authority of the bishop (whether you believe all of his actions have been right-minded and correct is another matter), maybe you’re in the wrong denomination in the first place. And, we can all agree on this . . . the actions had consequences.
Agreeing to disagree,