[Bishop John] Buchanan told Episcopal News Service after the resolution passed during private conversation that he “told the house I am grateful for the support and help the resolution provides, but it’s not what I asked for. I asked for clarification around the hierarchical character of our church.”
Well, he certainly stated that frankly so there is no doubt whatsoever. The HOB said nothing about the hierarchy matter. He asked for clarification and he didn’t get it. Can’t make it any clearer than that!
[blockquote] “I am grateful for the support and help the resolution provides, but it’s not what I asked for. I asked for clarification around the hierarchical character of our church.” [/blockquote]
Well, just maybe, +Buchanan, it is dawning on your colleagues that the same tactics that KJ Schori and her Chancellor have used on the orthodox can just as easily be used against liberals in TEC if they don’t toe the Schori line.
Suddenly the “hierarchical church” argument doesn’t seem so attractive to those who might be on the receiving end of it in the not-too-distant future.
[blockquote] “In their letter Buchanan and Ohl detailed four ways in which they say nine bishops made false claims about the nature of Episcopal Church governance in two court filings concerning property litigation in Fort Worth and Quincy. They say those claims “aid and comfort breakaway factions†who want to cripple the church by taking title and control of the church’s real and personal property.” [/blockquote]
Okay, so it sounds like +Buchanan and +Ohl are thoroughly familiar with the (so far non-public) detail of the complaints against the nine bishops. Unless they have been specially briefed (and what reason would there be for doing so?) it would follow that they knew the details of the complaint before they were filed, and perhaps even originated them.
And the complaints were made in order to take action against those who were prepared to be witnesses or file Amicus briefs in the litigation against +Buchanan’s and +Ohl’s dioceses.
At what point do the complaints then become an attempt by a litigant to dissuade another person from giving evidence in the litigant’s own litigation?
#1,Quite true! He did not get a clarification of the hierarchal nature of the church. Perhaps the rest of the bishops have enough sense to realize what it is he asked for and realized that they could not give the clarification he desired. Can we hope? Oh well, c’est la vie, Bishop Buchanan. Sometimes we don’t get what we ask.
#3, +Iker’s attorneys have already filed for an expedited hearing with the Texas Supreme Court based on these Title IV complaints against the bishops. Leave the lawyering to the lawyers.
#4 Not only did they ‘realize’ it, they instantiated it. They spent several hours in closed session and emerged unable to speak to the issue — itself a very strong statement. None of this will likely be lost on attorneys in Qunicy and FW.
The Ohl-Buchanan letter put the HOB into a no-win situation.
It contained enough blatant factual inaccuracies to make the authors look like incompetent fools.
Others have opined that the HOB actually don’t have the authority and power to provide “clarification around the hierarchical character of our church,” and that TEC has no mechanism in place for answering such questions.
I guess that what’s needed to answer the question is a constitutional amendment.
I guess that the resolution is the product of TEC lawyers trying to minimize the damage caused by the Ohl-Buchanan letter. My opinion (I’m not a lawyer), is no statement at all would have been better than what came out.
Not being a lawyer, I don’t know if what was said in closed session is discoverable. One must assume that the discussions were recorded (perhaps surreptitiously) and have been transcribed. They would certainly be relevant to the upcoming court cases.
#7, at his blog, +Dan Martins (one of the amicus signers) himself takes credit for the resolution. Moreover, it is recycled from one in 2009 (as another Bishop made clear). The resolution is a kind of Hallmark Card wishing the provisional Bishops well. It is hard to see–independent of spin–how it serves any pertinent legal purpose for TEC lawyers. There was no provisional Bishop (or dioceses) at the time FW voted to disassociate. Saying there is one now is an irrelevancy. Also, we have the very blunt statement, in the record, from +Buchanon explicitly pronouncing that the Bishops did not address his question regarding hierarchy.
[blockquote] “Leave the lawyering to the lawyers.” [/blockquote]
Firstly, I am one.
Secondly, this is not lawyering. I asked a question, which could have been asked by anyone.
#7 and #8, good points.
Please accept our warmest personnal regards.