In testimony before a Virginia court last week, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stated she had directed the Diocese of Virginia to sue the clergy and lay leaders of 11 congregations after they had quit the Episcopal Church for the Churches of Nigerian and Uganda.
In video taped testimony presented to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, Bishop Schori said she ordered Virginia Bishop Peter Lee to break a verbal agreement allowing the 11 parishes to withdraw from the diocese so as to prevent “incursions by foreign bishops.”
Bishop Schori’s testimony during the four hour deposition, recorded on Oct 30 and presented in evidence on Nob 15, did little to engender the sympathy of the court, as observers noted she carefully parsed her words, and at one point was directed by the court to answer a question.
at one point was directed by the court to answer a question
This is puzzling since her testimony was by means of deposition, which is not ordinarily taken in front of a judge. It is routine for lawyers to consult a judge by telephone when disputes arise during a deposition. Perhaps that is what happened here. Does anyone know if the judge was present for the deposition?
Shades of her predecessor:
[b]However, in her deposition, Bishop Schori said the Primates’ communiqué was not binding upon the American Church.[/b]
If one has no intention of abiding by such an instrument (and one could always resign if one’s church refused to abide by it, as John Allin once threatened to do over the conscience clause), then what is the justification for signing. There’s nothing wrong with a noble minority dissent.
[blockquote] US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stated she had directed the Diocese of Virginia to sue the clergy and lay leaders of 11 congregations [/blockquote]
This is truly astounding to me. It is astounding on two counts:
Count One: It is astounding that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church should have the temerity and hubris to presume to [i]direct[/i] a diocese and its bishop to do [i]anything[/i], let alone abandon their engagement with their earnest constituents and sue their volunteer lay ministers.
Count Two: It is [i]doubly[/i] astounding that the diocese and its bishop would abandon their engagement with their constituents and do the opposite of what they had been working toward, on the mere word of the Presiding Bishop—whether the attorneys from 815 were sitting at her elbow or not.
Somebody please remind me as to how TEC is not an hierarchical church.
Wondering (astounded) while on leave from [url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/]the Briar Patch)[/url],
“…as observers noted she carefully parsed her words, and at one point was directed by the court to answer a question…”
Yikes, is anybody surprised by that…reminds me of Hillary!
I would like to see the depositon made public.
Br. Micheal, I think (perhaps some one with better understanding can correct me) that once the deposition is entered into court record it is a matter of public record unless the Judge seals it . Copies can be requested from the clerk of the court.
so much for “Shalom”
My dear brother Chris,
Haven’t you learned anything through engaging in the listening process and living into the truth, “Shalom” means what I (we) say it means…at the time…
+-KJS/DBB
Dave, right. The depo should be public record. It’s just a matter of posting the transcript and/or making the video available for viewing.
Gosh, sign me up for a Schori lackey bishop for a “visitor.”
Shame on +Lee for stabbing his negotiating partners in the back at the first sign og 815 displeasure. Dr. Mabuse had an acerbic comment on him at MCJ that I’d love to repost…but which would likely be squelched by overzealous elvenkind.
It’s remarkable how quickly TEC’s professed impotence on the issue of SSBs and non-celibate homosexual clergy turns into a mailed fist when things aren’t going in the revisionist direction.
[blockquote]In video taped testimony presented to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, Bishop Schori said she ordered Virginia Bishop Peter Lee to break a verbal agreement allowing the 11 parishes to withdraw from the diocese so as to prevent “incursions by foreign bishops.â€[/blockquote]
But…..but…..I thought the Presiding Bishop was only first among equals and had no authority to order a diocese to do anything since only the General Convention has the power to make and enforce the rules……Oh boy, now I’m really confused.
the snarkster
Somebody please remind me as to how TEC is not an hierarchical church.
That’s exactly the point she is trying to make-that TEC is hierarchical and thus entitled to the property. Bery clever actually.
Sure, TEC is hierarchical. But the top of the hierarchy is the diocesan bishop.
Show me the canon that gives the PB such power. It does not exist. If it existed PB Griswold could have used it. He didn’t. I’ll take chapter and verse, in English, please, not postModern.
The report, which carries its inherent bias, as all of them do, used the word “ordered.” There is no quote (even if quoted accurately) from the PB saying that she “ordered it” even while there *is* a quote refering to “incursions.” I think you ought to exercise a bit of caution in letting your inherent dislike/distrust of the PB color what actually was or was not said in the deposition.
And, for the record, the top of the heirarchy is not the diocesan bishop (and not even the PB), but General Convention – under whose authority every bishop in the Episcopal Church became a bishop in the first place and to whose authority, by virtue of that ordination/consecration, those bishops are beholden.
[blockquote]And, for the record, the top of the heirarchy is not the diocesan bishop (and not even the PB), but General Convention – under whose authority every bishop in the Episcopal Church became a bishop in the first place and to whose authority, by virtue of that ordination/consecration, those bishops are beholden. [/blockquote]
Oh goody. I simply can’t wait for +++General Convention to come visit my parish!!!!
the snarkster
With every passing day, I feel more and more saddened and alienated by the actions of our PB, HOB, and the whole new religion being foisted upon us lowly members of a TEC Diocese and Parish. Where will it all end? I suppose she will demand that I not leave my TEC Diocese and Parish and if I do, she will sue me for the amount I refuse to give.
“Had the 11 parishes been offered to sale to Methodist or Baptist groups, Bishop Schori said she would not have objected, but “the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction,â€
In other words, she seems to be saying that if a person leaves The Episcopal Church, he must leave the Anglican Communion also, if he intends to live in the United States under her jurisdiction. This would give her unprecedented power, she as head of TEC, would then be able to inhibit or expel any Priest or Bishop, (who looked for alternate oversight) from both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion at the same time.
She seems to hope that TEC will be recognized as an “hierarchal” church in the “Roman” definition of the word even though the Episcopal Church was named the “Protestant Episcopal Church“ when it was first organized and has never claimed that their Presiding Bishop has the power she claims to have.
[blockquote]And, for the record, the top of the heirarchy is not the diocesan bishop (and not even the PB), but General Convention . . .[/blockquote]
So, by example, if a child is molested while in Church, General Convention [i](and I would assume every bishop and delegate that make up the Convention)[/i] should also be named in any resulting civil law filing, along with the diocese and bishop where the offense occurred.
The funny thing is that our Diocese and our Bishop(s) have been sued a number of times over the years. I can’t recall a single instance where the P.B. or General Convention found themselves as co-defendants in court. To the contrary, liability always seems to time and again stop at the diocesan level.
This begs the question, “Does a TEC hierarchy imply assumed authority while shunning any call for accountability?” That’s essentially the argument being put forth by ++KJS and her minions at 815. Sadly enough, their approach in “laying claim to property in which they have no intrinsic investment of money or resources” is more readily associated with the Carpetbaggers which descended upon the South following the Civil War.
Then again, maybe it’s simply time to refer to the 815 litigators (or is is “alligators”) as “the Carpetbaggers.” After all, if the shoe fits, why not wear it?
Deleted
Albeit, if 815/General Convention owns all the property, as they assert, a plaintiff’s lawyer had better name them in any lawsuit, to avoid problems in collecting if he wins a big judgment. Can they rely on 815’s positions taken in other litigation? I am not sure that 815 is even a party in these other cases — they seem to get henchmen to do their dirty work.
deleted
makersmarc, You stopped short. GC is not the top of the hierarchy. That would be Jesus, King of kings, Lord of lords, and the head of His Body, the Church. You might hear about it this Sunday if you listen during the Epistle.
But, theology aside, the GC is NOT the head of the church even in legal terms, and the GC certainly does not make bishops or unmake them. In fact, GC can’t make deacons or priests either. You might want to read up on that Ordinal thingie in your Book of Common Prayer (1162 to 1928) or check out Ordination services for the clerical orders in you 1979 one. Just a thought…
#21 So, the GC is more powerful than the ABC?
Well, for heaven’s sake, of course, and the ABC would be the first to agree! No bishop within the Anglican tradition is elected/appointed outside of the due processes in their own Province. And while, because of Communion, they may freely serve elsewhere in the Communion with the given arch/bishop’s permission (except for a handful of renegades), there is no other authority to which they are beholden (God is a given here) because no other (legitimate) authority exists. No one is a “bishop of the Anglican Communion” because the Communion doesn’t exist as such an ecclesial entity. The ABC has no canonical or legal authority over the affairs of the Episcopal Church or of Nigeria or Canada or Sydney or even of England (except in his own diocese.) There is virtually no formal structure to the AC and what structures do exist are for, by their own self-definition, prayer, consultation, fellowship, etc. and, again, have no binding authority on *anyone* in it, quite intentionally. But you know all this and for the life of me I can’t figure out how otherwise intelligent people allow themselves to have such tunnel-vision and to act as if wishful thinking were a reality.
Gimme a break dwstroudmd. Of course, Jesus is head of the church. That’s a given, as I said in what I just posted. Spare me your condescension. You only make yourself look bad.
I think the problem is that many of us still fall into old patterns of thinking the TEC is a Church. Sadly, it is only a corporation with ecclesiastical pretensions.
Debateable, Connecticutian, but I don’t want to debate that point with you! Even if it were true, that doesn’t explain how so many of you (otherwise intelligent) guys (and gals) act as if the Communion were some kind of overlord. Geez, the Communion wouldn’t exist if not for the EC (historically speaking) and didn’t even exist as a concept until well more than a century (and arguably longer) *after* the birth of the EC. I know y’all wish it were otherwise, but the Communion simply is not what you are acclaiming it to be and living in that fantasy world as if it were reality is wreaking far more havoc on us than anything the EC is accused of doing.
deleted
Hey Susan – Did you ever see the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie? When Elizabeth tried to invoke “the Code,” Barbosa denied her partly because you had to be a pirate for the Code to apply and she wasn’t. I trust you see the connection. Some of these poor folks don’t even consider the Most Rev. Dr. Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, to be Christian, therefore extending Christian principles doesn’t apply to her. I recall something about turning the other cheek and loving enemies and being a witness…
I find it interesting that those who idealize the Primates of the Global South, who allow no dissent, suddenly suffer a case of the vapors when the Presiding Bishop acts in an authoritative manner.
Makersmark, Regarding your post 28: “I know y’all wish it were otherwise, but the Communion simply is not what you are acclaiming it to be and living in that fantasy world as if it were reality is wreaking far more havoc on us than anything the EC is accused of doing.”
Why do you claim that your reality (or is it fantasy) is superior to Connecticutian’s reality?
What is your perception of the Anglican Communion and just how did the EC establish it?
#32 Betty
I’ve already answered your first question and the first part of the your second question pretty extensively (for a blog), and it’s not just a matter of perception. For a clue to the answer to the second part of your second question, you might go back and see that I never claimed that the EC *established* the AC (much like the PB never “ordered” the lawsuit against CANA, as was misstated in the headline of this post), but simply (and accurately) stated that, from a historical perspective, the AC wouldn’t exist if not for the EC; i.e. if not for us reconciling with (the Church of) England after the Revolutionary War, there would not be two bodies (the minimum for a relationship) desiring to be in communion with one another. Out of the relationship between the EC and the Church of England grew what is now known as the Anglican Communion.
Rather than repeat myself, I will refer to [url=http://covenant-communion.com/?p=307/]my comment on Covenant:[/url]
At the moment, the Anglican Communion has an official position that there can’t be but one recognized jurisdiction in any given location. Consequently, for TEC to treat any other US Anglican jurisdiction as if it were legitimate would be to deny TEC’s own legitimacy. The whole thing may be moot, as there seems to be hardly anybody out there who gives a hoot for legitimacy or Anglicanism (except as they may personally choose to define it). From my perspective, however, it isn’t up to one individual province (or a set of individual provinces) to throw another out of the communion, any more than it is up to one individual vigilante to hang someone without due process.
I won’t be surprised when I read, “I don’t think I will be going to church on Sunday, since there doesn’t seem to be anybody who is Anglican but me.” That seems to be the prevailing attitude, both among the reappraisers and the reasserters.
What Schori is trying to do here is a common undertaking for those who need to show their power. How does one show that one is powerful? A common way t oo to show that you can make people do what you want them to do over their most strenuous objections. So homosexuals show their power with the “We’re queer and we’re here” sort of thing, for they are demonstrating that the rest of society must accept them whether it wishes to or not. Schori’s case is no different, and we should not be surprised.
Indeed, it has become ordinary for the liberal, tolerant in all matters, to show himself to be utterly intolerant when he is disagreed with. For the garden variety liberal, such an apparent contradiction does not exist; his argument is simply that when one is right and others wrong, it is essential that the Right assert itself.
Schori is therefore unable to see herself as others see her. Such moral and intellectual blindness is, au fond, the reason that TE C will die, because, at last, it is unaware of itself. Blindness is simply not a survival characteristic. The very reverse in fact.And this blindness has become theological blindness. The seeing eye dog that they once had no longer is there to lead them. Larry
did little to engender the sympathy of the court, as observers noted she carefully parsed her words, and at one point was directed by the court to answer a question.
Ooh. How does the writer know that the sympathy of the court was not engendered?
Who are these mysterious ‘observers?’
deleted
27. Conneticution wrote: I think the problem is that many of us still fall into old patterns of thinking the TEC is a Church. Sadly, it is only a corporation with ecclesiastical pretensions.
28 Makersmark wrote: Debateable, Connecticutian, but I don’t want to debate that point with you!
32 Makersmark wrote: Betty I’ve already answered your first question and the first part of the your second question pretty extensively
Well, after this attempted exchange of information I have to agree with Conneticution, TEC is more important to me as a Church than as a corporation, I also think the whole Anglican Communion is important to the Episcopal Church.
I hope and pray that God will guide us and that the Common Cause Partners and the Primates of the Anglican Communion can help us preserve the Christian faith as proclaimed in Scripture, also (even if some people consider it a fantasy) I pray that the Presiding Bishop will surprise us all, by converting to Christianity and dropping her lawsuits.
The logical inconsistency here is, of course, that both Schori and Griswold insisted that they could only carry proposals to the American bishops, but had no authority to enforce the Primates’ recommendations. But here we see that Schori does have the authority to enforce policy in the dioceses and is doing it successfully. The difference is that she doesn’t want to implement the Communion recommendations, but she does want to retain property (or, practically speaking, to get the sales proceeds). So much for the “polity” excuse.
In last Sunday’s gospel our Lord Jesus told us that false prephets would come speaking ‘in my name’ and we were to dismiss them.
Alas – Schori and so many of her counterparts- remind me of the King in lord of the Rings- with scales over their eyes and under a deep spell which leaves them operating yet incapable of fighting against what is truly dark and sinister.
From everything this woman has ever said or written it is abundantly clear she is no orthodox follower of Jesus. Her actions and words lead away from scripture and tradition and into the embrace of the post modern worldliness that erodes the church around us. She does not stand for one truth as handed down by the apostles. She and her counterparts are, to me, a parody. Mocking the authority and position handed to Peter for the safeguarding of the Holy Church on earth.
Alas she is more freind to that which attacks Christ than supports him. She would not even pass a basic test of faith in my church thus leaving her ineligable for confirmation. Universalism and multi faith approach ot the Gospel is not mere heresy it is blasphemy!
All she has done is undermine my beleif in the Anglican Church and make me thank God sincerely for Rome and Orthodoxy….I hope and pray the good hip Anglicanism can survive but I fear it is listing so badly that it is due to collapse.
And she and her cronies are wholly responsible for its collapse. It is time for all true beleivers to turn over the tables in the temple and drive out miltant liberalism (as opposed to a true faith based liberal approach) with a whip.
Be gone
Makersmarc writes, [i]”the top of the heirarchy is not the diocesan bishop (and not even the PB), but General Convention.”[/i]
I forget the GC resolution that states that an individual diocese can dispose of property by selling it to a nightclub owner or to an outgoing parish that is heading for LCMS or Southern Baptists but not to parish going to the GS. KJS just pulled that out of her…mitre.
He then writes, [i]”Of course, Jesus is head of the church. That’s a given, as I said in what I just posted. Spare me your condescension. You only make yourself look bad.”[/i] I reread your posts and see nothing implying this. Perhaps you assume that the GC is vehicle that acknowledges and acts accordingly to the premise that Jesus is the head of the TEc. That is a huge (and specious) assumption which is certainly not plain from you postings which read more like minutes of the board of a secular corporation. Numerous basic tenets of Christianity have come before the GC as resolutions and have failed. I would seriously question whether a resolution asserting Jesus’ headship over the church would pass the (un)holy GC. Too small a box, don’t you know.
Holy cow! This is as delicious as a Thankgiving meal. I wish I had time to deal with every comment but it would take the next three hours to show the inconsistencies, illogic, and more (I’m trying to be nice) in the past few quotes. Unfortunately, I’ve got to leave in a couple of minutes for about a three hour drive to have Thanksgiving with my family and bring my girls home. I do appreciate the fact that you folks are passionate enough to “engage” (pathetic? Thanks for the chuckle). Suffice it to say that I don’t need to say anything more because (like the soldiers who mock Jesus in tomorrow’s Gospel) you’ve already made my points for me, by your own comments! Delicious! Happy Thanksgiving all!
RE: “No one is a “bishop of the Anglican Communion†because the Communion doesn’t exist as such an ecclesial entity.”
Right — that’s why Bishop Robinson’s bleating about not being invited to Lambeth is so very surprising! ; > )
As to Makersmarc’s last comment — we are all struck dumb by his Extraordinary Logic and Final Brilliant Repartee.
The thought that somebody as Impressive and indeed, a person we might all wish to model after as Makersmarc, does not approve of our comments and believes us to be quite sunk beneath reproach has tortured us all over this Thanksgiving Season.
I, for one, have been Utterly Shattered by his Reproofs and Remonstrances. If we could but all rise to his level, I am sure that we would try.
And even though it is Completely Hopeless, let us all gird up our loins and try our best to Earn Our Way back into his Respect.
For Respect from such a man . . . a man so eloquent, so shatteringly consistent, so eerily cool, calm, collected, and controlled, so Coldly Rational, so Objective and Crisp and Defined as this last comment evidences . . . that would make our lives Truly Worth Living in this Advent Season, I think.
Let us all Strive for the High Mark as Makersmarc has Set. Even though it is impossible, my friends, for such as us . . . let us set our faces, and strive.
Though we will never Match the High Standard, surely our characters will be Formed in at least His Direction.
the AC wouldn’t exist if not for the EC; i.e. if not for us reconciling with (the Church of) England after the Revolutionary War, there would not be two bodies (the minimum for a relationship) desiring to be in communion with one another.
The logic of this statement escapes me. There would be no AC with TEC in it, for sure. But would the Church of England have been so crushed without us that the communion would not have developed in all the other nations where it is present today? I hardly think so.
#16 Makersmarc,
Your argument seems to be that +KJS did not directly ‘order’ +Lee to sue the various parishes. But according to several articles I googled out, she did tell +Lee that she wouldn’t allow his negotiated settlements. If he doesn’t negotiate, then his only two options are to give up claim to the property (not likely) or to sue for them. She she then goes on to tell +Lee that she would not allow Anglican ‘incursions,’ one is led to believe that she is, by default, telling him to sue. It was certainly the way +Lee understood it – according to other testimony.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071116/NATION/111160097
[blockquote]I wish I had time to deal with every comment but it would take the next three hours to show the inconsistencies, illogic, and more (I’m trying to be nice) in the past few quotes. [/blockquote]
Typical revisionista. Call him out on his hypocrisy and out comes the ad hominem and projection. And if you need a reminder:
[b]projection[/b] – a. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: [i]”Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projectionof clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” Alex Shoumatoff.[/i]
b. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against [b]anxiety or guilt.[/b]
Paul in his rebuke of the Corinthians states, “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.” and “I say this to shame you.” I am not sure that resorting to shame is effective. I am so grateful that I can go to bed at night without the guilt of association with some who has done so much evil as Katherine Jefferts Schori, and even defending her evil act of bringing such ignominy to the institution that once was the Episcopal Church.
#34 What about in Farmington NM?
Navaho Lands: diocesan offices and San Juan Mission
Rio Grande: St John’s Episcopal Church
And I thought you were from NM originally; if so, you should know this stuff that physically contradicts your point.
Tom, perhaps you could fill this in for those of us who are not from NM: What is the relevance of these facts to #34’s musings and to the point at hand? I’m in the dark.
#48 in re:
“the Anglican Communion has an official position that there can’t be but one recognized jurisdiction in any given location”
Apparently in Farmington NM, that position doesn’t hold. Which is striking in the ecusa context, where canon and polity trump common sense.
Rev K, I agree that PB Schori and Bishop Lee both understood it the same way. Only Makersmark seems to lack understanding.
#50 Betty,
That ‘understanding’ seems to be what is coming out in the various reports of courtroom testimony. +KJS is acting like a tribal warlord, handing out threats and gratis as the situation and her whim demand.
The sad thing is that +KJS was/is in a terrible bind. The position that she and her two predecessors have taken theologically have led her to either act draconianly (is that a proper adverb?), attempting to keep as much of the historical and fiscal assets intact as she can – or – preside over the split of an historic denomination. Rowen is in a similar boat, not wanting to be the cleric who gave back the last piece of the British Empire to the various colonies.
Re ##47-49: If you read my full comment over on the Covenant site, you will see that I recognize that there actually are a number of examples of Anglican jurisdictions—to say nothing of Roman and Orthodox—that overlap with the consent of both parties (I have cousins in Farmington, as it happens). However, the Windsor Report and a number of other official documents at the Communion level strongly deprecate the practice as a violation of the ancient principle that there is but one bishop in any location.
In any case, these counterexamples all exist with the consent of both parties involved. Otherwise, they would be by definition schisms. It seems unlikely that Southern Cone, Rwanda, Nigeria, etc. would accept the legitimacy of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada to the extent necessary to enter into mutual consent agreements for sharing jurisdiction over North America. In the absence of such an agreement, for TEC to recognize (for example) Rwandan jurisdiction over downtown El Paso as the recognized Anglican province there would be to admit that the Diocese of the Rio Grande does not have legitimate jurisdiction in that place.
#1, the answer to your question is no. This article, as a number of others on the Va court proceedings, has notable inaccuracies.
What’s with the selective deletions of posts? There are some that remain that have zero worthwhile content.
David H., The only way it can be known if, as you say, “This article, as a number of others on the Va court proceedings, has notable inaccuracies.” is if the Presiding Bishop’s deposition is made public.
Is her deposition going to be made public?
Is the PB’s deposition going to be made public or are we going to have to rely on in order to know her testimony?