Accusing someone of being a liar is a strong statement but I think it is appropriate here as ++KJS was finally forced to confirm that she outright lied to her fellow primates:
Katharine Jeffert Schori’s testimony from her video deposition (she is out of the country and not able to come to Virginia we were told by the TEC counsel) was for the CANA Churches presentation. She said several things in her deposition – including finally admitting under oath that when asked if she agreed with the Primates Dar es Salaam Comminque after repeatedly being asked (and giving evasive answers) she finally said no. Period.
I am not certain how this will go over as a matter of law–it may actually help TEC by showing that there is no hierarchical authority within the global Communion whatsoever. However, this duplicitousness will be greeted poorly by primates that are currently on the fence concerning TEC, and it is very, very unchristian.
This is a cross post but an important one, I think. Could the legal eagles weigh in on what I said at Stand Firm?
[blockquote]
I believe the whole (ridiculous) contention of the TEC case [i]is that there is no division[/i], hence the 1867 Virginia law on property resolution in the case of church division does not apply. A reader of BB’s found this [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80625_ENG_HTM.htm ]quote from ENS, the mouthpiece of the TEC corp[/url]:
[blockquote]Jefferts Schori called on the rest of the Episcopal Church to “remember to pray for everybody involved – those who feel a need to leave and those who remain – to pray that those people and their families can find some peace and remember that communities can reach beyond this kind of [b]division[/b]â€[/blockquote]
Sort of shoots their case in the foot, I would think. Case dismissed!
[/blockquote]
The ENS article is from Dec 18, 2006.
Rob Roy–The quote from the article does give evidence supporting the division argument. However, TEC’s rejoinder is that “division” is a term of art and, for purposes of the statute, it can only mean a division consented to by TEC through its national governing structures. Thus, although KJS may use the term division in conversation or in comments to the media, she has no authority on her own to declare a division for purposes of triggering the Virginia statute. What this will come down to is whether the judge accepts TEC’s attempt to insert into the statute a meaning that I think is plainly missing, that a divison must first be consented to and approved by the governing authorities of the church being allegedly divided. If you read the CANA parishes’ brief, which contrasts the language of the division statute to other Virginia statutory provisions that do specifically contemplate decisions by church governing authorities, I think TEC’s arguments are tenuous.
Division is like pornography…I know it when I see it.
It would be totally contrary to the writers of the Virginia 57-9 law that allows one side to define division, or rather put a sack over their heads and say, “I don’t [i]see[/i] any division” or rather, say there is division a year ago, then say there is no division now (after David Booth Beers reminded them of the wording of the law).
An aside: Mary (Baby Blue), we love you but the white text on your black background is very hard to read. How about black text on a…baby blue background???
I understand, robroy! I guess the best way I can explain it is that it’s a bit of a low-key noir-expressionism on my part emphasizing the events that we talk about at the Cafe. It’s a mood.
Accusing someone of being a liar is a strong statement but I think it is appropriate here as ++KJS was finally forced to confirm that she outright lied to her fellow primates:
I am not certain how this will go over as a matter of law–it may actually help TEC by showing that there is no hierarchical authority within the global Communion whatsoever. However, this duplicitousness will be greeted poorly by primates that are currently on the fence concerning TEC, and it is very, very unchristian.
This is a cross post but an important one, I think. Could the legal eagles weigh in on what I said at Stand Firm?
[blockquote]
I believe the whole (ridiculous) contention of the TEC case [i]is that there is no division[/i], hence the 1867 Virginia law on property resolution in the case of church division does not apply. A reader of BB’s found this [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80625_ENG_HTM.htm ]quote from ENS, the mouthpiece of the TEC corp[/url]:
[blockquote]Jefferts Schori called on the rest of the Episcopal Church to “remember to pray for everybody involved – those who feel a need to leave and those who remain – to pray that those people and their families can find some peace and remember that communities can reach beyond this kind of [b]division[/b]â€[/blockquote]
Sort of shoots their case in the foot, I would think. Case dismissed!
[/blockquote]
The ENS article is from Dec 18, 2006.
Rob Roy–The quote from the article does give evidence supporting the division argument. However, TEC’s rejoinder is that “division” is a term of art and, for purposes of the statute, it can only mean a division consented to by TEC through its national governing structures. Thus, although KJS may use the term division in conversation or in comments to the media, she has no authority on her own to declare a division for purposes of triggering the Virginia statute. What this will come down to is whether the judge accepts TEC’s attempt to insert into the statute a meaning that I think is plainly missing, that a divison must first be consented to and approved by the governing authorities of the church being allegedly divided. If you read the CANA parishes’ brief, which contrasts the language of the division statute to other Virginia statutory provisions that do specifically contemplate decisions by church governing authorities, I think TEC’s arguments are tenuous.
Division is like pornography…I know it when I see it.
It would be totally contrary to the writers of the Virginia 57-9 law that allows one side to define division, or rather put a sack over their heads and say, “I don’t [i]see[/i] any division” or rather, say there is division a year ago, then say there is no division now (after David Booth Beers reminded them of the wording of the law).
I hope the judge sees this farce for what it is.
An aside: Mary (Baby Blue), we love you but the white text on your black background is very hard to read. How about black text on a…baby blue background???
I understand, robroy! I guess the best way I can explain it is that it’s a bit of a low-key noir-expressionism on my part emphasizing the events that we talk about at the Cafe. It’s a mood.
bb
This elf also finds the white on black really hard on the eyes. I usually read the posts in an RSS feed, or copy and paste them into a word processor.
But no matter what color, please keep up your wonderful reporting BB. It’s been fascinating reading. You rock!
Dr. N (not Noll) over at SF wrote:
[blockquote]Has division, sex, and “is†been defined yet?[/blockquote]
It is always helpful to have a laugh in the midst of our tears!