I thought this line was interesting: “In this diocese, with a few exceptions, you won’t be allowed to serve on a vestry or be a delegate to the diocesan convention unless you’ll vote the way he thinks you should.”
Those are parish decisions — not bishop decisions. Sounds as if most of the parishes are voting for people for vestry who represent their values, which happen to be reasserting. Why blame this on Bishop Iker?
One theme of the letters seems to be that Bishop Iker ‘is not inclusive enough.’
Well, in the Church Catholic, ‘inclusiveness,’ does not ‘include’ permissiveness towards those unrepentant congregants who are engaged in active sexual relationships outside of the sacrement of hetero-sexual marriage nor does it include encouraging, abetting or assisting women who wish to kill their unborn children.
‘Inclusiveness’ does include welcoming those who are repentant and welcoming them to the full sacrements of the church. It also means that the church must reach out to those who disordered and confused in their behavor and helping them to change their behavior and seek Salvation through Jesus Christ.
William Witt [#4], as usual you’re omitting that “our rebellion” isn’t a rebellion; it’s the prayerful action of a duly-constituted majority, in accordance with previously-agreed governance processes. A deal’s a deal; you folks are reneging on it.
(And no, keeping our beliefs frozen in amber for all time, no matter what evidence to the contrary is revealed, was not part of the deal — or at least not since Copernicus and Kepler.)
#5
Hmmm. Isn’t the Diocese of Fort Worth “a duly-constituted majority, in accordance with previously-agreed governance processes?” Doesn’t it, then, have the same ‘rights’ as the national Episcopal Church to vote its differences from the national church in the same way the national church has voted on its differences from the Anglican Communion? Or does a passport make a difference?
RevK [#6], remember that the Diocese of Fort Worth was a creature of General Convention in the first instance (as were all but the original 9 dioceses). If Fort Worth wants to rescind its accession to TEC’s constitution and canons, it needs to restore everything to the status quo ante — which of course would mean that Fort Worth (and its property and clergy) would return to being part of the Diocese of Dallas, whence it was carved out.
But we don’t need to go there, because Fort Worth’s ‘realignment’ votes are ultra vires, on a par with the managers of GM’s Chevrolet division voting to secede from the company — it’s just talk, with no effect.
[blockquote]William Witt [#4], as usual you’re omitting that “our rebellion†isn’t a rebellion; it’s the prayerful action of a duly-constituted majority, in accordance with previously-agreed governance processes[/blockquote]
No, D.C., it is not a duly-constituted majority. Unless you know some kind of new mathematics in which TEC’s rapidly diminishing 1.5 million membership constitutes a majority over against the Anglican Communion’s 70 million. Not to mention the virtually unanimous position of the entire history of Catholic and Evangelical Christianity.
TEC’s position is a majority only in the sense in that a majority of non-representative diocesan politically-obsessed church rats of a tiny American sect finally managed to push their agenda through a General Convention highly stacked with like-minded liberal Protestant elitists. There has never been an impartial poll of the laity even within TEC.
Wm Witt [#8], unless and until we agree on some sort of supra-national polity (there’s that word again), the other 68.5 million Anglicans don’t get to vote here, any more than TEC got to vote on the Church of Nigeria’s amendments to its constitution.
Wm Witt [#8], our predecessors agreed on the governance processes for the church. In material respects, those processes aren’t materially different from those of any other organization with millions of members. In my diocese, those processes are likely to result in ‘my side’ coming out on the losing end within a few years. But until the processes are duly changed (or someone decides to renege), a deal’s a deal. It comes across as more than a little petulant to be complaining that “a majority of non-representative diocesan politically-obsessed church rats of a tiny American sect finally managed to push their agenda through a General Convention highly stacked with like-minded liberal Protestant elitists.”
As for “an impartial poll of the laity,” that was never part of the deal; TEC has never been (and couldn’t practicably be) a town-meeting democracy.
[blockquote] the other 68.5 million Anglicans don’t get to vote here[/blockquote]
Thank you, D.C., for illustrating my point so well. The advocates of TEC’s new thing have absolutely no interest in Catholic Christianity in any historic sense. They are a schismatic gnostic sect, and happy about it.
[blockquote] As for “an impartial poll of the laity,†that was never part of the deal; TEC has never been (and couldn’t practicably be) a town-meeting democracy[/blockquote]
And, once again, thanks. This is indeed the polity of an elite, riding on the backs of a preferably ignorant hoi polloi, who had best shut up and keep paying the bills. If they’re not happy, they can leave, and TEC will keep their property, thank you very much. TEC will sue them just so they will remember who is in charge.
That first letter to the editor really ticks me off. I am the newsletter editor for St. Alban’s (Arlington, TX) and I absolutely REFUSE to include political articles. One reason for this is that to be “fair” I’d end up using so much space that there wouldn’t be room in it for information pertinent to the parish itself, the other reason is that there is no need for a [i]parish[/i] newsletter to print it. Also, I know that if something controversial is printed and someone disagrees with it, it’s automatically the editor’s fault in the public eye no matter WHO wrote the article.
The parish newsletter is to keep parishioners updated on goings on in the parish and diocese (if it pertains to the parish). We had a “town hall” meeting for our parish a couple of months ago and the question was raised about why the newsletter didn’t have any information about the current divisions in the church. I stood up and said that if the newsletter became a political battleground, I would quit as editor. I don’t need that kind of stress.
That guy should have known better than to use his position like that. I don’t blame the interim priest for removing him as editor.
Just to explain about printing diocesan information, by that I mean announcing upcoming events (such as convention) and listing our delegates. So far the only articles I’ve printed about Bishop Iker himself were about his recent visit to St. Alban’s for confirmations. As much as I admire him and the work that he is doing, I cannot abuse my position as editor by promoting one side over the other.
Please don’t mind me being a bit random here, I use the excuse that the baby has eaten my brain and have a bit of trouble writing coherent sentences. I was just trying to make a point…
Methinks I should add that I am supported in my refusal to let the newsletter become political by both the clergy, office staff, AND vestry. I had several people come up to me after that meeting and tell me they were glad I wouldn’t get the newsletter involved.
Well, they are broadcasting their convention live over the internet as we speak. I don’t recall the recent meeting of the Executive Council (or even General Convention) ever being broadcast over the internet.
D.C.
I disagree; the Diocese of Fort Worth is not a creation of General Convention or the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Forth Worth – under Texas State non-profit law – was created as a separate non-profit corporation and then accepted into membership of the national church. Under Texas state non-profit and trust law, unless the Diocese of Fort Worth was joined to the General Convention/national church IRREVOCABLY (key word – and that word must be in the charter papers) by vote of the Diocese of Forth Worth (not the national church), then the Diocese can ‘unjoin’ the Episcopal Church in the same way it joined.
To address your analogy, it isn’t Chevy and GM; it’s Canada and the United Nations. Canada can leave anytime it wants to.
RevK [#16], to be sure, the Diocese of Fort Worth happens to be a non-profit corporation for purposes of property ownership, and state law can indeed set the rules for such matters. But as to whether the diocese can withdraw from TEC, I seem to recall that the Supreme Court has taken exactly the opposite view from yours: Under the First Amendment, secular governments are constitutionally prohibited from playing any role in churches’ internal affairs. Whether a diocese is or is not part of the national church is quintessentially such an internal affair, and thus Texas non-profit law is irrelevant to that question.
17
I’m interested. What case is it that you are siting?
If you are not siting case law, but asserting the First Amendment right of religion, then you are only partially correct. If you are saying that the national church can declare the Diocese of Fort Worth null and void; or as extant with a remnant of prior Fort Worth members (Fort Worth via Media?); they can certainly do that. They can even declare that they are still in fellowship with Uganda, Nigeria and Fort Worth; but they cannot claim ownership of the property and they cannot interfere with Forth Worth’s right to say that they are not in communion with the national church, just because at one time Fort Worth was a member of their club.
RevK [#18] writes that TEC “cannot claim ownership of the property and they cannot interfere with Forth Worth’s right to say that they are not in communion with the national church, just because at one time Fort Worth was a member of their club.”
That’s not at all clear. It can be argued (and, I suspect will be argued) along the following lines: The Fort Worth non-profit corporation is in essence a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEC, not an independent entity with its own stand-alone existence and purpose. It then follows that state law cannot trump TEC’s right to manage its internal affairs free of governmental interference.
[I don’t have any specific cases to cite, but I definitely remember that the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments from getting involved in churches’ internal affairs — and the composition and membership of a church are most assuredly internal affairs.]
I can think of a counterargument: TEC, through its unincorporated ‘division’ the diocese of Fort Worth (akin to the Chevrolet division of GM), chose to use a state-law vehicle, namely a non-profit corporation, to hold its property. It set up that corporation in a certain way, with certain rules and by-laws. Therefore, TEC must live with the consequences of that corporate set-up.
I can also think of a rebuttal: The individual people in Fort Worth who set up the non-profit corporation, and those who are managing the corporation now, were and are acting as agents of TEC. They thus were and are obligated to act in TEC’s best interests, without regard to their own interests. In taking the actions they have, +Iker et al. are faithless servants, and the court should undo their perfidy in accordance with standard principles of equity.
I don’t know which of these arguments might prevail, in part because I’ve done exactly zero research into the relevant case law.
To D.C.,
[blockquote] The Fort Worth non-profit corporation is in essence a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEC, not an independent entity with its own stand-alone existence and purpose. It then follows that state law cannot trump TEC’s right to manage its internal affairs free of governmental interference.[/blockquote]
But it isn’t. Texas state law (Title 32, Chapter 9, Articles 1396-1.01 to 11.02) specifically require that a non-profit first be established as an independent corporate entity prior to associating with another non-profit and since the Diocese of Fort Worth has neither put itself into an irrevocable trust relationship, nor an irrevocable association (either/both of which must be stated in the charter and by-laws of a Texas non-profit at its chartering), so they can dissolve their association with TEC in the same way that they began it, by a vote.
[blockquote][I don’t have any specific cases to cite, but I definitely remember that the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments from getting involved in churches’ internal affairs — and the composition and membership of a church are most assuredly internal affairs.][/blockquote] That is because there is no Texas case law to cite (to quote), site (to locate) or sight (to see). The Establishment Clause has to do with doctrine and belief – the government can’t tell you what to believe. But the government will regulate your behavior even if it conflicts with your religious beliefs. That is why Satanists can’t have human sacrifices, Rasta’s can’t smoke Ganja, NAMBLA can’t abuse children and the national church can’t enforce the Dennis Canon – any more than I can assert that because you and I have had this chat, I now own your car – no matter how much I might believe that.
[blockquote]I don’t know which of these arguments might prevail, in part because I’ve done exactly zero research into the relevant case law.[/blockquote] I suspect none of them would prevail in Texas for a variety of reasons. First, I think that they are generally poor arguments in view of Texas law. Texas is still a very independent state and has little time for a New York Corporation attempting to overturn Texas Law. Secondly, in Texas real estate law and particularly with regard to non-profits, the folks with the deed win the argument 9 out of 10 times. Third, the ‘right’ that the national church is asserting is a boot-strapping on the Dennis Canon. So far the Dennis hasn’t prevailed at the diocese-parish level, much less the national church-diocese level. Several of the early cases of parishes leaving the Episcopal Church have occurred in Texas – notably Christ Church, Plano. Why hasn’t the national church pursued these prior to the Virginia churches? I suspect that David Booth Beers knows that he’ll get his head handed to him in Texas and doesn’t want that president. I believe that in Texas, the only way he would win would be to get a judge who didn’t want to interfere in ‘internal church stuff’ and would rule in favor of hierarchy.
Ross,
I suspect that you could argue all three under Texas law, with the proviso that in sense #2, the Diocese of Fort Worth retained the right to withdraw from the national church and that the national church could then declare a new/different group to be the diocese of Fort Worth.
If I were arguing D.C.’s side, I’d start with the non-profit law that states that the directors of the non-profit corp (in this case +Jack, et al) have not acted in the best interest of the corporation (Chapter 9, Art. 1396-2.28.D) and then go from there.
D.C., if you will read the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, you will find that the necessary sequence is that parishes organize themselves into a diocese which then petitions General Convention for admission to General Convention.
Incidentally, there are no provisions in the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America for the Presiding Bishop, Chancellor and/or Executive Committee (or for that matter General Convention) to declare provisions of a diocese’s Constitution and Canons null and void or to overrule the actions of diocesan conventions.
RevK and Ken Peck, courts try to operate on facts; in that regard, you definitely need to read Mark Harris’ recounting of the origins of the Diocese of Fort Worth. I don’t know whether Mark’s account can be supported with documentary evidence. But if he’s right, it paints a different picture than Ken Peck [#23] seems to have in mind.
Ken Peck, you need to read Article V of TEC’s constitution, excerpted below:
ARTICLE V
Sec. 1. A new Diocese may be formed, with the consent of the General
Convention and under such conditions as the General Convention
shall prescribe by General Canon or Canons, (1) by the division of an
existing Diocese; (2) by the junction of two or more Dioceses or of
parts of two or more Dioceses; or (3) by the erection into a Diocese
of an unorganized area evangelized as provided in Article VI [which concerns missionary dioceses]. The
proceedings shall originate in a Convocation of the Clergy and Laity
of the unorganized area called by the Bishop [of the missionary diocese] for that purpose; or, with
the approval of the Bishop, in the Convention of the Diocese to be
divided; or (when it is proposed to form a new Diocese by the junction
of two or more existing Dioceses or of parts of two or more Dioceses)
by mutual agreement of the Conventions of the Dioceses concerned,
with the approval of the Bishop of each Diocese. In case the
Episcopate of a Diocese be vacant, no proceedings toward its division
shall be taken until the vacancy is filled. After consent of the General
Convention, when a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution
of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the
Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the
Secretary of the General Convention and approved by the Executive
Council of this Church, such new Diocese shall thereupon be in union
with the General Convention.
(Emphasis mine.)
Incidentally, I would think the meaning of “unqualified accession” to the Constitution and Canons includes that the accession is incapable of being withdrawn unilaterally.
And the only way I can see for a diocese to secede is anything but unilateral on its part. The diocese would have to cede jurisdiction of all but a sliver of its territory (say, all but its TEC-loyal parishes) back to TEC under Article VI, section 2. The bishop and standing committee would then resign. The ceded territory would thus become a TEC missionary jurisdiction, and the former bishop and standing committee could do as they pleased in a new organization. But that would require a 2/3 majority of both the House of Bishops and (by orders) of the House of Delegates, as well as 3/4 of the parishes in both the ceded and remaining territories:
Sec. 2. The General Convention may accept a cession of the territorial
jurisdiction of a part of a Diocese when such cession shall have been
proposed by the Bishop and the Convention of such Diocese, and
consent thereto shall have been given by three-fourths of the Parishes in the ceded territory, and also by the same ratio of the Parishes within
the remaining territory.
Any territorial jurisdiction or any part of the same, which may have
been ceded by a Diocese under the foregoing provision, may be
retroceded to the said Diocese by such joint action of all the several
parties as is herein required for its cession, save that in the case of
retrocession of territory the consent of Parishes within the territory
retroceded shall not be necessary; Provided, that such action of the
General Convention, whether of cession or retrocession, shall be by a
vote of two-thirds of all the Bishops present and voting and by a vote
by orders in the House of Deputies in accordance with Article I,
Section 5, except that concurrence by the orders shall require the
affirmative vote in each order by two-thirds of the Dioceses.
Yes, I’ve read the C&C;of the PECUSA. As the portion you quoted states:
[blockquote]The proceedings shall originate in a Convocation of the Clergy and Laity of the unorganized area called … with the approval of the Bishop, in the Convention of the Diocese to be divided[/blockquote]
In other words, the “Convocation of the Clergy and Laity” *precede* any action by the General Convention.
As for the whole notion of “unqualified accession” is a legal sticky wicket. What on earth can it possibly mean? How can anyone rationally give “unqualified accession” to anything which might happen in the future? Does it mean, for example, that if General Convention were to pass a canon requiring dioceses to violate the laws of the states in which they are incorporated, that those dioceses, bishops and clergy required to violate civil law or face disciplinary action from the PECUSA? Or perhaps even more to the point, if the General Convention were to amend the BCP to strike all language referring to the sacrifical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ adopt canons forbidding clergy to teach that Jesus died for us and our salvation, would “unqualified accession” mean that dioceses, parishes, bishops, priests and deacons must mindlessly follow the doctrine of General Convention?
Is there, in the view of The General Convention Church, any restraint on what General Convention may do? And do dioceses, parishes, clergy and laity have absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of General Convention?
Ken Peck, the part about the convocation of clergy and laity applies only in the case of unorganized mission territory, not in the case of a diocese being divided (in which case it’s the dividing diocese’s convention that initiates action).
D.C.
What Mr. Harris says is typical of Clergy-speak in such matters – it is perfectly true and adds nothing to the clarity of the issue. Yes, it was decided that Dio Dallas needed to split into two sections and that was welcomed by the General Convention, but the act of incorporating into the Diocese of Fort Worth was accomplished outside of the Episcopal Church and then and only then did the General Convention receive Dio FW into the association of the other dioceses.
And even if we bought into your argument and the Rev. Mr. Harris’s argument, the owning corporation would not be TEC, but the Diocese of Dallas, from which the parishes were ceded. And since there was no assertion of property rights above the parish level until the Dennis Canon, it would be difficult to assert them after the fact. In fact, none of your arguments were made when parishes sought to leave after the ordination of women. Why is that?
I’m not sure if this is where I should post this, but here are the results of the various votes at Convention today: we basically approved all the constitutional amendments put forward by the Diocese (its Committee on Constitution and Canons), by a majority of about 80% in each case. In more details:
Article 1, Authority of Gen Con, amendment to repeal to qualification to the accession clause, was defeated by 83% of clergy, 80% of lay delegates (71 and 99 votes respectively).
Article 14, Title to Church Property, amendment to say all property is held in trust for TEC, defeated by 88% of clergy, 87% lay (75,107).
Preamble, removal of reference to TEC and geographical boundaries, adopted by 83% clergy, 79% lay (71, 97 votes).
Article 1, Anglican Identity, instead of accession to TEC, approved by 83% clergy, 77% lay (69, 95 votes).
Art. 12, Delegates to Extra-Diocesan Conventions or Synods, approved by 83% clergy, 80% lay (69, 98 votes).
Art. 18, Canons, removing “consistent with Constitution and Canons of TEC”, approved by 83% clergy, 78% lay (69, 96 votes).
We also approved by 88% clergy, 82% lay to amend our Canon 32, Controversy between rector and vestry, to add controversies between a parish and the diocese, to provide an amicable way for a parish to leave the diocese.
We also approved a resolution to express our thanks for the welcome extended by Southern Cone, and asking our Bishop and Standing Committee to create a report on the implications and means of accepting such an invitation. And a resolution thanking the Panel of Reference for its report about the permissive rather than mandatory nature of ordination of women.
what are the original 9 dioceses? and since they pre date GC and ECUSA, what is the rational for ++Kate to assert control over these dioceses? and let’s remember +++ABD’c recent letter to +Howe – the dioceses, in his view, have considerable autonomy.
If Ft Worth were a wholly owned subsidiary of the ECUSA, the ECUSA would have the power to tell its bishops what to do (which the Presiding Bishop has publicly claimed she has not,) and the diocese would lose its voting rights for not paying their full fair share to the National Church (which, to my knowledge has never happened.) The ECUSA’s case is weak at best, relying on the tradition of cooperation of dioceses and the National Church, which THEY (the GC) broke.
And, DC – a supra-national polity has always been acknowledged and agreed upon: “We believe in one, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.” Chaimed by the whole of ECUSA every Sunday. Until they say that the historic Creeds are not part of the faith, the other 68.5 million Anglicans (as well as Rome, the East, and the rest of the reformed Catholic tradition) not only count but are critical.
Oh my. They’re not even rational.
I thought this line was interesting: “In this diocese, with a few exceptions, you won’t be allowed to serve on a vestry or be a delegate to the diocesan convention unless you’ll vote the way he thinks you should.”
Those are parish decisions — not bishop decisions. Sounds as if most of the parishes are voting for people for vestry who represent their values, which happen to be reasserting. Why blame this on Bishop Iker?
One theme of the letters seems to be that Bishop Iker ‘is not inclusive enough.’
Well, in the Church Catholic, ‘inclusiveness,’ does not ‘include’ permissiveness towards those unrepentant congregants who are engaged in active sexual relationships outside of the sacrement of hetero-sexual marriage nor does it include encouraging, abetting or assisting women who wish to kill their unborn children.
‘Inclusiveness’ does include welcoming those who are repentant and welcoming them to the full sacrements of the church. It also means that the church must reach out to those who disordered and confused in their behavor and helping them to change their behavior and seek Salvation through Jesus Christ.
The two main arguments here positively reek of irony.
1) Bishop Iker and the diocese are in open rebellion against the proper authority of The Episcopal Church.
2) Minority voices are silenced.
I think it was Mark Shea who summarized this argument best: How dare you rebel against our rebellion?
William Witt [#4], as usual you’re omitting that “our rebellion” isn’t a rebellion; it’s the prayerful action of a duly-constituted majority, in accordance with previously-agreed governance processes. A deal’s a deal; you folks are reneging on it.
(And no, keeping our beliefs frozen in amber for all time, no matter what evidence to the contrary is revealed, was not part of the deal — or at least not since Copernicus and Kepler.)
#5
Hmmm. Isn’t the Diocese of Fort Worth “a duly-constituted majority, in accordance with previously-agreed governance processes?” Doesn’t it, then, have the same ‘rights’ as the national Episcopal Church to vote its differences from the national church in the same way the national church has voted on its differences from the Anglican Communion? Or does a passport make a difference?
RevK [#6], remember that the Diocese of Fort Worth was a creature of General Convention in the first instance (as were all but the original 9 dioceses). If Fort Worth wants to rescind its accession to TEC’s constitution and canons, it needs to restore everything to the status quo ante — which of course would mean that Fort Worth (and its property and clergy) would return to being part of the Diocese of Dallas, whence it was carved out.
But we don’t need to go there, because Fort Worth’s ‘realignment’ votes are ultra vires, on a par with the managers of GM’s Chevrolet division voting to secede from the company — it’s just talk, with no effect.
[blockquote]William Witt [#4], as usual you’re omitting that “our rebellion†isn’t a rebellion; it’s the prayerful action of a duly-constituted majority, in accordance with previously-agreed governance processes[/blockquote]
No, D.C., it is not a duly-constituted majority. Unless you know some kind of new mathematics in which TEC’s rapidly diminishing 1.5 million membership constitutes a majority over against the Anglican Communion’s 70 million. Not to mention the virtually unanimous position of the entire history of Catholic and Evangelical Christianity.
TEC’s position is a majority only in the sense in that a majority of non-representative diocesan politically-obsessed church rats of a tiny American sect finally managed to push their agenda through a General Convention highly stacked with like-minded liberal Protestant elitists. There has never been an impartial poll of the laity even within TEC.
Wm Witt [#8], unless and until we agree on some sort of supra-national polity (there’s that word again), the other 68.5 million Anglicans don’t get to vote here, any more than TEC got to vote on the Church of Nigeria’s amendments to its constitution.
Wm Witt [#8], our predecessors agreed on the governance processes for the church. In material respects, those processes aren’t materially different from those of any other organization with millions of members. In my diocese, those processes are likely to result in ‘my side’ coming out on the losing end within a few years. But until the processes are duly changed (or someone decides to renege), a deal’s a deal. It comes across as more than a little petulant to be complaining that “a majority of non-representative diocesan politically-obsessed church rats of a tiny American sect finally managed to push their agenda through a General Convention highly stacked with like-minded liberal Protestant elitists.”
As for “an impartial poll of the laity,” that was never part of the deal; TEC has never been (and couldn’t practicably be) a town-meeting democracy.
[blockquote] the other 68.5 million Anglicans don’t get to vote here[/blockquote]
Thank you, D.C., for illustrating my point so well. The advocates of TEC’s new thing have absolutely no interest in Catholic Christianity in any historic sense. They are a schismatic gnostic sect, and happy about it.
[blockquote] As for “an impartial poll of the laity,†that was never part of the deal; TEC has never been (and couldn’t practicably be) a town-meeting democracy[/blockquote]
And, once again, thanks. This is indeed the polity of an elite, riding on the backs of a preferably ignorant hoi polloi, who had best shut up and keep paying the bills. If they’re not happy, they can leave, and TEC will keep their property, thank you very much. TEC will sue them just so they will remember who is in charge.
That first letter to the editor really ticks me off. I am the newsletter editor for St. Alban’s (Arlington, TX) and I absolutely REFUSE to include political articles. One reason for this is that to be “fair” I’d end up using so much space that there wouldn’t be room in it for information pertinent to the parish itself, the other reason is that there is no need for a [i]parish[/i] newsletter to print it. Also, I know that if something controversial is printed and someone disagrees with it, it’s automatically the editor’s fault in the public eye no matter WHO wrote the article.
The parish newsletter is to keep parishioners updated on goings on in the parish and diocese (if it pertains to the parish). We had a “town hall” meeting for our parish a couple of months ago and the question was raised about why the newsletter didn’t have any information about the current divisions in the church. I stood up and said that if the newsletter became a political battleground, I would quit as editor. I don’t need that kind of stress.
That guy should have known better than to use his position like that. I don’t blame the interim priest for removing him as editor.
Just to explain about printing diocesan information, by that I mean announcing upcoming events (such as convention) and listing our delegates. So far the only articles I’ve printed about Bishop Iker himself were about his recent visit to St. Alban’s for confirmations. As much as I admire him and the work that he is doing, I cannot abuse my position as editor by promoting one side over the other.
Please don’t mind me being a bit random here, I use the excuse that the baby has eaten my brain and have a bit of trouble writing coherent sentences. I was just trying to make a point…
Methinks I should add that I am supported in my refusal to let the newsletter become political by both the clergy, office staff, AND vestry. I had several people come up to me after that meeting and tell me they were glad I wouldn’t get the newsletter involved.
Well, they are broadcasting their convention live over the internet as we speak. I don’t recall the recent meeting of the Executive Council (or even General Convention) ever being broadcast over the internet.
bb
D.C.
I disagree; the Diocese of Fort Worth is not a creation of General Convention or the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Forth Worth – under Texas State non-profit law – was created as a separate non-profit corporation and then accepted into membership of the national church. Under Texas state non-profit and trust law, unless the Diocese of Fort Worth was joined to the General Convention/national church IRREVOCABLY (key word – and that word must be in the charter papers) by vote of the Diocese of Forth Worth (not the national church), then the Diocese can ‘unjoin’ the Episcopal Church in the same way it joined.
To address your analogy, it isn’t Chevy and GM; it’s Canada and the United Nations. Canada can leave anytime it wants to.
RevK [#16], to be sure, the Diocese of Fort Worth happens to be a non-profit corporation for purposes of property ownership, and state law can indeed set the rules for such matters. But as to whether the diocese can withdraw from TEC, I seem to recall that the Supreme Court has taken exactly the opposite view from yours: Under the First Amendment, secular governments are constitutionally prohibited from playing any role in churches’ internal affairs. Whether a diocese is or is not part of the national church is quintessentially such an internal affair, and thus Texas non-profit law is irrelevant to that question.
17
I’m interested. What case is it that you are siting?
If you are not siting case law, but asserting the First Amendment right of religion, then you are only partially correct. If you are saying that the national church can declare the Diocese of Fort Worth null and void; or as extant with a remnant of prior Fort Worth members (Fort Worth via Media?); they can certainly do that. They can even declare that they are still in fellowship with Uganda, Nigeria and Fort Worth; but they cannot claim ownership of the property and they cannot interfere with Forth Worth’s right to say that they are not in communion with the national church, just because at one time Fort Worth was a member of their club.
RevK [#18] writes that TEC “cannot claim ownership of the property and they cannot interfere with Forth Worth’s right to say that they are not in communion with the national church, just because at one time Fort Worth was a member of their club.”
That’s not at all clear. It can be argued (and, I suspect will be argued) along the following lines: The Fort Worth non-profit corporation is in essence a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEC, not an independent entity with its own stand-alone existence and purpose. It then follows that state law cannot trump TEC’s right to manage its internal affairs free of governmental interference.
[I don’t have any specific cases to cite, but I definitely remember that the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments from getting involved in churches’ internal affairs — and the composition and membership of a church are most assuredly internal affairs.]
I can think of a counterargument: TEC, through its unincorporated ‘division’ the diocese of Fort Worth (akin to the Chevrolet division of GM), chose to use a state-law vehicle, namely a non-profit corporation, to hold its property. It set up that corporation in a certain way, with certain rules and by-laws. Therefore, TEC must live with the consequences of that corporate set-up.
I can also think of a rebuttal: The individual people in Fort Worth who set up the non-profit corporation, and those who are managing the corporation now, were and are acting as agents of TEC. They thus were and are obligated to act in TEC’s best interests, without regard to their own interests. In taking the actions they have, +Iker et al. are faithless servants, and the court should undo their perfidy in accordance with standard principles of equity.
I don’t know which of these arguments might prevail, in part because I’ve done exactly zero research into the relevant case law.
To D.C.,
[blockquote] The Fort Worth non-profit corporation is in essence a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEC, not an independent entity with its own stand-alone existence and purpose. It then follows that state law cannot trump TEC’s right to manage its internal affairs free of governmental interference.[/blockquote]
But it isn’t. Texas state law (Title 32, Chapter 9, Articles 1396-1.01 to 11.02) specifically require that a non-profit first be established as an independent corporate entity prior to associating with another non-profit and since the Diocese of Fort Worth has neither put itself into an irrevocable trust relationship, nor an irrevocable association (either/both of which must be stated in the charter and by-laws of a Texas non-profit at its chartering), so they can dissolve their association with TEC in the same way that they began it, by a vote.
[blockquote][I don’t have any specific cases to cite, but I definitely remember that the Supreme Court has held that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments from getting involved in churches’ internal affairs — and the composition and membership of a church are most assuredly internal affairs.][/blockquote] That is because there is no Texas case law to cite (to quote), site (to locate) or sight (to see). The Establishment Clause has to do with doctrine and belief – the government can’t tell you what to believe. But the government will regulate your behavior even if it conflicts with your religious beliefs. That is why Satanists can’t have human sacrifices, Rasta’s can’t smoke Ganja, NAMBLA can’t abuse children and the national church can’t enforce the Dennis Canon – any more than I can assert that because you and I have had this chat, I now own your car – no matter how much I might believe that.
[blockquote]I don’t know which of these arguments might prevail, in part because I’ve done exactly zero research into the relevant case law.[/blockquote] I suspect none of them would prevail in Texas for a variety of reasons. First, I think that they are generally poor arguments in view of Texas law. Texas is still a very independent state and has little time for a New York Corporation attempting to overturn Texas Law. Secondly, in Texas real estate law and particularly with regard to non-profits, the folks with the deed win the argument 9 out of 10 times. Third, the ‘right’ that the national church is asserting is a boot-strapping on the Dennis Canon. So far the Dennis hasn’t prevailed at the diocese-parish level, much less the national church-diocese level. Several of the early cases of parishes leaving the Episcopal Church have occurred in Texas – notably Christ Church, Plano. Why hasn’t the national church pursued these prior to the Virginia churches? I suspect that David Booth Beers knows that he’ll get his head handed to him in Texas and doesn’t want that president. I believe that in Texas, the only way he would win would be to get a judge who didn’t want to interfere in ‘internal church stuff’ and would rule in favor of hierarchy.
I still think that the distinction I suggested here is useful.
Ross,
I suspect that you could argue all three under Texas law, with the proviso that in sense #2, the Diocese of Fort Worth retained the right to withdraw from the national church and that the national church could then declare a new/different group to be the diocese of Fort Worth.
If I were arguing D.C.’s side, I’d start with the non-profit law that states that the directors of the non-profit corp (in this case +Jack, et al) have not acted in the best interest of the corporation (Chapter 9, Art. 1396-2.28.D) and then go from there.
D.C., if you will read the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, you will find that the necessary sequence is that parishes organize themselves into a diocese which then petitions General Convention for admission to General Convention.
Incidentally, there are no provisions in the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America for the Presiding Bishop, Chancellor and/or Executive Committee (or for that matter General Convention) to declare provisions of a diocese’s Constitution and Canons null and void or to overrule the actions of diocesan conventions.
RevK and Ken Peck, courts try to operate on facts; in that regard, you definitely need to read Mark Harris’ recounting of the origins of the Diocese of Fort Worth. I don’t know whether Mark’s account can be supported with documentary evidence. But if he’s right, it paints a different picture than Ken Peck [#23] seems to have in mind.
Ken Peck, you need to read Article V of TEC’s constitution, excerpted below:
(Emphasis mine.)
Incidentally, I would think the meaning of “unqualified accession” to the Constitution and Canons includes that the accession is incapable of being withdrawn unilaterally.
And the only way I can see for a diocese to secede is anything but unilateral on its part. The diocese would have to cede jurisdiction of all but a sliver of its territory (say, all but its TEC-loyal parishes) back to TEC under Article VI, section 2. The bishop and standing committee would then resign. The ceded territory would thus become a TEC missionary jurisdiction, and the former bishop and standing committee could do as they pleased in a new organization. But that would require a 2/3 majority of both the House of Bishops and (by orders) of the House of Delegates, as well as 3/4 of the parishes in both the ceded and remaining territories:
Sorry – here’s a link to the Constitution: http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2006/Constitution.pdf.
Yes, I’ve read the C&C;of the PECUSA. As the portion you quoted states:
[blockquote]The proceedings shall originate in a Convocation of the Clergy and Laity of the unorganized area called … with the approval of the Bishop, in the Convention of the Diocese to be divided[/blockquote]
In other words, the “Convocation of the Clergy and Laity” *precede* any action by the General Convention.
As for the whole notion of “unqualified accession” is a legal sticky wicket. What on earth can it possibly mean? How can anyone rationally give “unqualified accession” to anything which might happen in the future? Does it mean, for example, that if General Convention were to pass a canon requiring dioceses to violate the laws of the states in which they are incorporated, that those dioceses, bishops and clergy required to violate civil law or face disciplinary action from the PECUSA? Or perhaps even more to the point, if the General Convention were to amend the BCP to strike all language referring to the sacrifical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ adopt canons forbidding clergy to teach that Jesus died for us and our salvation, would “unqualified accession” mean that dioceses, parishes, bishops, priests and deacons must mindlessly follow the doctrine of General Convention?
Is there, in the view of The General Convention Church, any restraint on what General Convention may do? And do dioceses, parishes, clergy and laity have absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of General Convention?
Ken Peck, the part about the convocation of clergy and laity applies only in the case of unorganized mission territory, not in the case of a diocese being divided (in which case it’s the dividing diocese’s convention that initiates action).
D.C.
What Mr. Harris says is typical of Clergy-speak in such matters – it is perfectly true and adds nothing to the clarity of the issue. Yes, it was decided that Dio Dallas needed to split into two sections and that was welcomed by the General Convention, but the act of incorporating into the Diocese of Fort Worth was accomplished outside of the Episcopal Church and then and only then did the General Convention receive Dio FW into the association of the other dioceses.
And even if we bought into your argument and the Rev. Mr. Harris’s argument, the owning corporation would not be TEC, but the Diocese of Dallas, from which the parishes were ceded. And since there was no assertion of property rights above the parish level until the Dennis Canon, it would be difficult to assert them after the fact. In fact, none of your arguments were made when parishes sought to leave after the ordination of women. Why is that?
I’m not sure if this is where I should post this, but here are the results of the various votes at Convention today: we basically approved all the constitutional amendments put forward by the Diocese (its Committee on Constitution and Canons), by a majority of about 80% in each case. In more details:
Article 1, Authority of Gen Con, amendment to repeal to qualification to the accession clause, was defeated by 83% of clergy, 80% of lay delegates (71 and 99 votes respectively).
Article 14, Title to Church Property, amendment to say all property is held in trust for TEC, defeated by 88% of clergy, 87% lay (75,107).
Preamble, removal of reference to TEC and geographical boundaries, adopted by 83% clergy, 79% lay (71, 97 votes).
Article 1, Anglican Identity, instead of accession to TEC, approved by 83% clergy, 77% lay (69, 95 votes).
Art. 12, Delegates to Extra-Diocesan Conventions or Synods, approved by 83% clergy, 80% lay (69, 98 votes).
Art. 18, Canons, removing “consistent with Constitution and Canons of TEC”, approved by 83% clergy, 78% lay (69, 96 votes).
We also approved by 88% clergy, 82% lay to amend our Canon 32, Controversy between rector and vestry, to add controversies between a parish and the diocese, to provide an amicable way for a parish to leave the diocese.
We also approved a resolution to express our thanks for the welcome extended by Southern Cone, and asking our Bishop and Standing Committee to create a report on the implications and means of accepting such an invitation. And a resolution thanking the Panel of Reference for its report about the permissive rather than mandatory nature of ordination of women.
what are the original 9 dioceses? and since they pre date GC and ECUSA, what is the rational for ++Kate to assert control over these dioceses? and let’s remember +++ABD’c recent letter to +Howe – the dioceses, in his view, have considerable autonomy.
Chris [#30], see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Original_Dioceses_of_ECUSA, which I found in researching this posting.
If Ft Worth were a wholly owned subsidiary of the ECUSA, the ECUSA would have the power to tell its bishops what to do (which the Presiding Bishop has publicly claimed she has not,) and the diocese would lose its voting rights for not paying their full fair share to the National Church (which, to my knowledge has never happened.) The ECUSA’s case is weak at best, relying on the tradition of cooperation of dioceses and the National Church, which THEY (the GC) broke.
And, DC – a supra-national polity has always been acknowledged and agreed upon: “We believe in one, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.” Chaimed by the whole of ECUSA every Sunday. Until they say that the historic Creeds are not part of the faith, the other 68.5 million Anglicans (as well as Rome, the East, and the rest of the reformed Catholic tradition) not only count but are critical.
No. 32 – What is the “Rest of the Reformed Catholic Tradition?”