Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori testified by way of a televised deposition that lasted some 54 minutes. She was courteous yet clear in her conviction that CANA congregations had no right to leave the Church and take the property. When pressed to offer some negotiated settlement on property she was clear that The Episcopal Church would not negotiate with a church from another country coming into a diocese and competing with that established diocese. Asked to explain, she stated this violated current and ancient practice. Polity in all parts of the Anglican world has been for a bishop in one area to get permission from the bishop in another before going there to perform any type of ministerial function. She saw the establishment of parallel parishes and their vocal criticism of The Episcopal Church as confusing to the public and harmful to the church.
Presiding Bishop Katharine was reminded that she had signed the statement of the Primates at the Dar es Salaam meeting. It required The Episcopal Church to repent and pledge to renounce the practice of consecrating homosexual bishops and blessing same-gender “unions” or marriages. She responded that she signed to indicate that the statement represented what transpired. She indicated that she had no authority to bind the bishops or The Episcopal Church to such a statement.
Finally, when asked how she could support legal action against CANA churches when the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury had urged the church to settle disputes over church property within the church rather than through the courts, she responded, “I have a duty to protect the assets and the integrity of The Episcopal Church.”
Not that I am surprised, but the writer acts as if the brevity of +Lee’s examination was somehow a coup for the prosecution, as if it were brilliant legal thinking on their part. Somehow, I doubt that having a major witness say absolutely nothing that pertains to the case was TEC’s original intent.
If it was their intent, then the CANA case is looking strong.
“[She indicated that she had no authority to bind the bishops or The Episcopal Church to [the primates’ Dar es Salaam] a statement”
But she clearly doesn’t consider HERSELF bound either.
In classic ECUSA fashion, she invokes polity to justify a sort of double-dealing.
“I have a duty to protect the assets and the integrity of The Episcopal Church”
Which begs the question of whose the assets are.
As for KJS protecting ECUSA’s “integrity,” consider the extent to which she and her allies disrespect scripture and disbelieve the creeds. What could be more fundamental to ECUSA’s integrity?
The fact that the essay is on Louie Crew’s site made me wonder who is the author of this essay. Found this on the Episcopal Cafe:
[blockquote]Robert L. McCan holds a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland and an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School. His last position prior to retirement was Associate Professor of Political Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary. He is author of “Justice For Gays and Lesbians: Crisis and Challenge in the Episcopal Church.” Bob recently moved his church membership to The Falls Church Episcopal. [/blockquote]
I don’t know how anyone can look at these videos and not be horrified that a the person giving the deposition claims to be a Christian leader. My wife (who is not the raving orthodox that I am) was aghast at her dissemblings. Yet, the author states, “She was courteous yet clear.” He needs to see [url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4248677500432496129&hl=en ]video # 10 again[/url]:
[blockquote]
Lawyer: Did you agree with that language in the Communique?
KJS: I think it is fair to say that there were people in that body that felt that way.
Lawyer: But did you agree with that language?
KJS: I think it is fair to say that there were people in that body that felt that way.
(Repeat about ten more times.)
Finally the most seething “NO” that I perhaps have ever heard. [/blockquote]
“In the second trial The Episcopal Church brought a counter suit against CANA.” The revisionists again are saying the ADV contingent brought a lawsuit. The lie if repeated enough….? There is one party that is lawsuit happy. We all know who that is.
No postmodern can be held to any meaning of word or deed. Perhaps the court will demonstrate that the law is not their version of “theological” language nor subject to their postmodern sense. We shall see.
But on her own apparent terms, her signatures and actions against anyone have no meaning.
2 indeed, somehow she missed the part in Exodus about false swearings.
I would like to remind the author of this piece that the lawsuits were filed first by the Diocese of Virginia and TEC. The proceedings of the CANA congregations were a report filed with the court of their vote and in conjunction with the standstill agreement between the Diocese and the Congregations. It wasn’t until KJS appeared on the scene that the tone of the DioVA changed and the suits were filed.
I wanna know what the author got this bizarre factoid:
Who woulda thunk that all those other CANA parishes would disaffiliate, putting their property at risk and exposing their individual clergy and vestry to lawsuits, simply so The Falls Church could fund a lousy building project?
7 if its not Bush’s fault, then ecusa has to find another scapegoat. CANA is the closest available. The parishes are guilty of thoughtcrimes anyway.
There are obvious mistakes in this essay, which seem to reflect that the author is not legally-trained and/or may have been confused with some details. For example, he refers to parties bringing a trial (parties bring lawsuits); he refers to 57-9 as being part of the Virginia Religious Freedom Act (it is not); he counts the number of documents on an exhibit list rather than the number actually put in evidence; and the paragraph about what happens next isn’t quite right.
On the whole, however, I think this attempt at a comprehensive account is valuable. I would like to see Baby Blue or another of the CANA folks do something similar (rather than just commenting on posted transcript snippets).
Some parts of this are obviously open to interpretation. Those that don’t like the PB will probably wind up thinking she looked like a liar. Those that do like her will think otherwise.
1, selah, on what basis do you think +Lee’s testimony was unintended? And why would short testimony be bad? If I recall newspaper reports correctly, the lead Diocese lawyer said that a lot of Lee’s testimony had already been entered in written form.
4, robroy, I know we’ll never agree on this point but can’t risk trying again. A congregation files a “petition” in circuit court. The “petition” asserts that the congregation should be declared by the court to be the owners of the property. At a later date, TEC and the Diocese file a “complaint” in circuit court. The “complaint” asserts that TEC and the Diocese should be declared by the court to be the owners of the property. Explain to me the difference again please?
Should be “can’t resist trying again.” Oops.
Here are my blog entries for Days One, Two, and Three.
Day One – First Things
Day One – Report
Day Two – Part One Report
Day Two – Part Two Report
Day Three – Report
bb
Frank “The Pluriform” Griswold denied publicly that he had any right to interfere in diocesan matters as PB. That’s one recent PB opinion. Schori’s is just another opinion. Why should one PB’s opinion be dispositive? There have been x number of PB’s and none of them have ever claimed this “power”. Hmm. There are nasty facts about, aren’t there?
#10. I know you know this already. CANA parishes filed petitions with the court as required by statute for a judgement by the court on the status of the property. TEC is suing the CANA parishes for the property. Did CANA sue TEC? I wouldn’t mind if DioVA or TEC wanted to said that they were “compelled” to sue the CANA parishes to protect the interests of the national church and the diocese. The way that Bishop Lee presents the situation is just “spin”, if not worse. I think what the PB should have said at the deposition is “I have a fiduciary responsibility to…” Then it would be more clear.
The purpose of a judicial proceeding is, I assume, to determine facts and apply the law. It could be that determining whether Schori “lied” is not one of the objectives. However, whether or not she lied is not determined by whether or not one likes her.
14, palagious, I appreciate you engaging — apparently others have given up on a reasoned discussion on this point (preferring, I guess, just to accuse TEC and the Diocese of lying and walk away).
The difference you say is that the CANA parishes were “required” to file their petitions “for a judgment by the court on the status of the property.” Isn’t that precisely my point though? The statute doesn’t require them to do anything [b]unless[/b] they want to ask the court to cut off any rights that TEC and the Diocese may have in the property. There is no difference between that and what TEC and the Diocese did in filing a complaint.
I suppose you might also be suggesting that the “status of the property” was somehow unclear because of the “division.” How? The “status” of the CANA parishes’ property at the end of 2006 was exactly the same as it was in 2002 or 1995 or 1978.
15, Katherine, try reading what I wrote instead of attacking something else. I was commenting specific about the comments on the PB’s mannerisms / appearance in the video. This guy thought she looked great. The SFers have a somewhat different opinion. I submit that both impressions are colored by the writers’ pre-existing opinions of her.
Personally, I find the “the PB lied about DeS” attacks to be overdoing it. The question the ABC supposedly asked her was not entirely clear, and it is easy for me to see how she could have thought she was giving the answer she now says she gave. On the other hand, those who accuse her of not being sufficiently proactive about giving a clear answer do, I think, make a good point. I prefer “straight talk” (go McCain).
DavidH- actually, 1978 is a very bad year for you to pick. The Denis Canon was passed in 1979, so either ecusa through that canon diminished parochial title rights in 1979 or it did not. If the former, then we end up with the suits now in process being legitimate on ecusa’s part. If the Denis Canon is null and void, then why is ecusa or its local diocese in court with these parishes?
In your latter paragraph concerning Schori and the communique that she signed but now recants, I think you are semantically parsing her actions. If it wasn’t a lie, then it certainly was a dishonorable failure to represent her province accurately so that the assembly of primates could operate properly. The presumption in such meetings is that the members are honorable participants.
DavidH, it’s too bad you interpreted my comment as an attack. I did read the full piece. In fact, my comment supports you on this point. Whether Schori “lied” should be determined on the basis of fact reasonably applied, and not on whether or not the viewer likes her, her voice, her hair, or anything else. (My connection is too slow for the videos anyhow, so I haven’t seen them.)
As to both Griswold and Schori, they both assented to Primates’ communiques which they knew they could not implement at home and really had no intention of implementing. Saying they only meant that the writing constituted the majority opinion of the meeting, not that they agreed, is not what the majority at the meetings thought they meant, according to later statements. Whether this is “lying” per se is up to the individual to determine, but it is reasonable for conservative Primates to feel that Griswold, and now Schori, are untrustworthy.
Gee, if I were her I wouldn’t let the term “Ancient practice” fall from my lips; it opens up the floor for all *sorts* of ancient practices and beliefs she doesn’t do or believe. She might have to explain why she lets a Muslim priestess receive communion, why she has parishes that have dropped the Creed, why bishops, clergy & laity are permitted to not believe it, or why (I still am a little amazed) she has a Mormon-baptized bishopess in the House of Bishops! Wow, get a pitcher of water, it’s gonna be a long cross examination…
Is it’ all about land and money?? I rest my case.
18, Katherine, sorry I misinterpreted it. At least with your first paragraph, we are in agreement.
20, Harvey, you’re exactly right.
In the absence of anyone responding to what I wrote, I’ll just link to [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/9114/#171562]a post in another thread[/url] on the same topic and call it a night.
16. So, if you believe that the CANA parishes were following the agreed upon protocol with DioVA and filed a petition based on the votes of >90% of the congregation, before Peter Lee reneged on the agreement, then how can you believe that it is the CANA parishes that initiated litigation against DioVa or TEC?
Are the CANA parishes seeking any remedy from DioVA or TEC other than the property already deeded to them? Is there any case before any court entitled CANA parishes vs TEC or DioVA?
Like I said before I understand based on the situation if DioVA or TEC felt compelled to sue the CANA parishes based in their perceived equities or responsibilities but lets be honest about who is suing who…
Wow. Such word games to avoid giving an honest answer to a question. I am more and more grateful to be in the Anglican Church and out of the Episcopal Church. Saddened that it had to come to this, but grateful nonetheless.