We reiterate that the Executive Council has no wish or intention to “level charges” or to “threaten litigation.” But we and the Presiding Officers have a responsibility to protect the assets of The Episcopal Church and to preserve its structure.
That structure, as set forth in the Constitution and Canons, confers on the General Convention the sole authority to make changes in the identity and responsibilities of Dioceses. Unilateral actions by Diocesan leadership that are contrary to the Constitution and Canons should not be tolerated by any active or retired Bishop. We hope and pray that such unilateral actions, and the litigation that these actions trigger, can come to a peaceful end.
This letter is very polite and addresses the issues in a way I suppose Kendall would approve, but it also does pretty much set out the case of “national trumps local.” That being said, what we have in my view is a historical outline of GC taking control of property through resolutions without the assent of the affected parties. Moreover, if a heirarchical argument is used, how is TEC any different in the Anglican Communion than shifting to oversight by the Southern Cone? Both are under the ABC and presumably he would have to object for the heirarchical principle to be invoked. That is, of course, assuming this is a heirarchical church. Actions of both sides have called that into question in various ways.
I wondering how many trial lawyers that are finishing up with the RC Church parish pedaphile scandals are paying attention to the “held in trust for the National Church”? Brand new deep pockets to go after.
With full credit to mousestalker at SF on another thread, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A is very apropos of slick TEC lawyers who refuse to answer clear direct questions.
In a particularly dishonest characterization, the lawyers claim that they have not spent any money from the pension fund, although Stacy “stripper” Sauls authorized $25,000 from the fund. Like statements from Bill Clinton, any statement from TEC must be carefully parsed to get the true meaning.
These paragons of virtue may not have “spent” any money from the Church Pension Fund on lawsuits, but the money has been authorized. Any beneficiary of the Church Pension Fund better hold on to their wallets.
I wrote and told both of them point-blank that my wife and figure that at least 44 years’ worth of our money went to TEC, and I expect them to stop jerking us around and stop lying to us. Otherwise, we’ll simply pick up the phone and call our lawyers……who incidentally are faithful Anglicans and know what’s been going on. Not that the phone call would do much good, but at least it would make us feel better!
Another website, another place to make undocumented pension fund allegations. I’ll ask again: Where’s the proof? Who’s the source? (2 undocumented AAC press releases don’t cut it.) At least there’s a new theory here (parsing “spent” vs. “authorized”) but that doesn’t address the basic problems. With other money TEC has, they would have to be phenomenally stupid to go raiding highly regulated pension funds. Regardless of what you think of their theology, I don’t believe TEC people are that stupid.
Actually, no, they don’t.
DavidH,
The Episcopal News Service originally reported that $25,000 had been authorized from the Church Pension Plan. If you want “proof”, ask them where they got their information.
Or do you believe that the ENS cannot be trusted?
It’s always alarming to be caught with your hand in the TEC “jar”. If I have read the T19 blogs correctly there is now ~100 parishes thinking of leaving or have already left the TEC. I don’t think the PB is stupid enough to continue being sue-happy. I also read that 9 (or more) parishes have won the first round. I’m sure these numbers have moved upward by now. Any comments out there now?
Someone on Stand Firm posted a TEC source reflecting $25K from the “Church Pension Group” (not sure what that is—does that entity only hold pension funds?) contributed to the HoB task force, not to litigation funds itself.
I just practice a general “question the source” approach, and this is a case where accusations have been thrown around with little support.
In this case, it seems to me you got a flat answer of no pension funds from Hicks and Vanderstar. As I’ve posted before, I tend to doubt they’re lying, for practical reasons.