According to the official line promulgated by ECUSA, “people may leave, but dioceses may not.” ECUSA claims to be made up of 110 dioceses (actually, now 109 following the merger of Quincy into the Diocese of Chicago), but four of them are not true dioceses — they are the rump groups set up by 815 to act as plaintiffs (or, in some cases, when they cannot organize fast enough, as defendants and counterclaimants) in the lawsuits brought to recover the bank accounts and real properties that belonged to the dioceses and their member parishes that voted to withdraw. Those rump groups, although each newly organized, have never formally been admitted as proper “dioceses” into union with General Convention, as required by ECUSA’s own Constitution.
And one sees right away why: if ECUSA were to go through the formalities necessary to admit them as new dioceses, it would give away its argument that “dioceses cannot leave.” Instead it has the rump groups pretend to be the ongoing original dioceses, and then has General Convention recognize them as such and seat their deputies.
Thus far, only two trial courts — one in Pittsburgh, and the other in Fresno, California — have been taken in by this ruse. Judges in Texas and in Illinois, meanwhile, have not. (A ruling is expected any day now from the Illinois Court of Appeals which will affirm a lower court’s judgment that the [now Anglican] Diocese of Quincy properly amended its own governing documents so as to remove itself from ECUSA.)
And now ECUSA may have shot itself in the foot in South Carolina, as well. Let’s have the Press Office of the Episcopal Diocese tell us what happened on Day 7 of the trial, with ECUSA and ECSC putting on their portion of the case…
All of this is very encouraging…one prays it will end well for +Mark’s Diocese.
One also prays he and his SC will find a home where they are comfortable.
Somewhat off topic, but please bear with me.
1. For whatever reason, I cannot log on to Haley’s AC blog…wish I could but I cannot.
2. Hence my asking this question here: In the comments appertaining to Haley’s commenting on this past week’s trial, the issue of SC, and other, Episcopalian clergy fearing for their pensions, and hence being careful as to how they showed where they stand in all of this mess, was raised near the end of those, at this point, 12 comments.
I have certainly heard this before. But, I have also heard that the Church Pension Fund is not administered in any way by 815, and that the Trustees of the CPF do NOT have the power to change or affect any earned/funded pension rights that may exist.
Who can explain this, not by guesswork, but out of knowledge?
Thank you.
Luke
Have you tried “Googleing” (is that a word?) Anglican Curmudgeon? That is Haley’s web site.
I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to #2. Fully vested members may not be worried, but others may have more concerns.
Luke, thee is this to cause one to feel fear.
http://www.virtueonline.org/charleston-sc-episcopal-church-holds-hostage-403b-plan-contributions-80
3. WestJ – I’m on Ang Cur daily. I go there all the time. I apologize. My difficulty is in posting in his comments, not logging on.
Thanks, MF.
I’m not sure that DV has the final answer. I used to read his stuff all the time [Edited by Elf]
Luke, what, to me, the article was getting at was that some people were being stonewalled. It had liberal vindictiveness all over it. They know they can’t block it forever. It just tastes a lot like, if not exactly, what the IRS did to Conservatives under Lerner.
Luke, plus that particular piece was a Diocese of South Carolina news release.
Here, Luke. From the Diocese of South Carolina site.
http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:tec-hold-hostage-pensions-of-more-than-80-disassociated-staff-members&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=75
Thanks to each of you.