It is a fact well known to certain Episcopalians””both those who have left the Episcopal Church (USA) and those who have remained””that ECUSA and its dioceses have followed a pattern of suing any church that chooses to leave for another Anglican jurisdiction. But the full extent of the litigation that has ensued is not well known at all, either in the wider Church, or among the provinces of the Anglican Communion.
(Otherwise — one would think — it would never have been deemed to be conduct to be rewarded by this honorary degree, rather than this one.)
Your Curmudgeon proposes to do what he can to rectify this situation, by publishing an annual update on this site of the current status of all past and present cases in which ECUSA or any of its dioceses has been or is involved, from 2000 to date. Feel free to link to this post, to email links to it to other Episcopalians, and to send it to your Bishop — and feel free to post any updates or corrections in the comments. In another update to be posted as General Convention approaches, I will publish a revised total for all of the money spent by ECUSA and its Dioceses to date on prosecuting all of these lawsuits (and, in the case of the second group below, defending them).
The lawsuits initiated by ECUSA and its dioceses to date are first listed below. They far outnumber, as you can see, the second list of the eight cases begun by a diocese or parish against the Episcopal Church (or a diocese). The listing endeavors to be as complete as I can make it. The first 83 cases, generally grouped by the State in which they each originated, are the legal actions filed since 2000….
Take the time to read it all (my emphasis).
TEC accounting of where the funds for this have come from?
I posted something like this to Mr. Haley’s blog. Thought I’d include it here:
I also write to remind your readers that in 2001, Christ Church, Accokeek was sued by its Bishop (Jane Dixon) over their choice of Rector (The Rev. Father Sam Edwards). She won in the court of law, but from my perspective, she lost in dramatic fashion within the life of the parish.
While this case does fit your time frame (since 2000), it does not fit your criterion of leaving TEC for other Anglican jurisdictions.
I simply include it here as yet another example of the profound, systemic sickness of TEC expressed in their “win at all costs” approach.
The Rev. Father Brian Vander Wel
43rd Rector of Christ Church, Accokeek, MD
Has TEC really spent only $40 million on these suits?
I believe the figure is closer to $60M. As the money appears in no annual budget, it would be good to know where it comes from.
A scandal in TEC is the awol status of Bishops. Why are they not howling in protest for unaccounted funds?
TEC has become a Presbyterian polity with a Papal Bishop.
The Kirk at least rotates the Moderator and limits the office to a single term.
Thanks Dr Seitz, that makes sense.
As I read through all the suits, including reviews and appeals, I just saw no way that any Australian firm could do all of that for only $40M, and we generally have lower charge out rates than firms in the USA!
Dr. Seitz,
Whether it is $60 million as you suspect, or “only” something over $40 million (as I recall, Mr. Haley had a thorough analysis some while back to demonstrate $40 million, and more time and billable hours have passed in the meanwhile), the question of “who is paying the bills” is quite pertinent to the discussion. The total funds that have been approved by GC are only a small fraction of the total. Certainly some comes from the dioceses for the suits against parishes. And it is obvious that large amounts of the “mission” funding to the rump dioceses goes directly into their law suits against the legitimate (but no longer TEC) dioceses of Quincy, Fort Worth, San Joaquin and South Carolina.
What I can’t figure out is how whoever is providing the funding is doing so without filing paperwork with the government.
How the PB is allowed to operate a secret budget of millions of dollars and no one in either TEC or the government seems at all interested is, in itself, very interesting.
Or are Mr. Beers, Ms. Kostel, Mr. Tisdale and their firms, working pro bono?
Have the legal costs associated with the non-TEC side been made any more public? Some of the work – Allan’s involvement in Quincy, for example – has been pro bono and some of the lawyers have been working on a contingency basis as the cases grind through the courts. In the end, however, there will be a legal bill for [i]both[/i] sides and perhaps some thought should be given – if we hold to the principle of transparency – to publishing what was spent, for what purpose and by whom, by those whom one trusts as well as by those whom one opposes.
“Have the legal costs associated with the non-TEC side been made any more public?”
Why should they be?
“perhaps some thought should be given – if we hold to the principle of transparency – to publishing what was spent”
Who says that anyone holds to an alleged “principle of transparency”? Nobody disputes that the various dioceses, parishes and even individuals sued by TEC have been put to ruinous expense. And as far as I am aware, each of those entities have followed their own rules for financial accountability with their members.
The issue is that TEC has been quite opaque in regard to the expense and prospects of the law suits. Its a point made by TEC’s own members, the liberals as well as the orthodox like Dr Seitz.
This is in circumstances where the members and even constituent dioceses of TEC are not being asked whether they agree to spend money on lawsuits, nor being told how much is being spent, nor where that money is coming from.
Well there we disagree, MichaelA. If we don’t hold to the principle of transparency in our own dealings then we [i]should[/i].
In moments of crisis people tend to defer to that authority in whom they’ve already put their trust, which is perfectly natural but can easily lead to the sort of situation into which AMIA got itself a little while ago. Knowing how money has actually been spent on the lawsuits is important for us all because while each diocesan and parochial entity may be acting as an autonomous unit (sometimes a little too autonomously for my taste), they are professing the same principle on behalf of a global Anglican idea.
#7 ACI did the amicus work in TX, and associated work for gathering signatories; we worked with counsel in Illinois and SC, providing depositions and personal expert testimony at trial; the hours spent on establishing the historical polity of the church vis-Ã -vis ‘expert testimony from TEC’ (Dr Mullen billed TEC over 1M). All of this was pro bono. We were reimbursed only for flights into Illinois and hotel/food costs.
TEC has sought to contrive standing in these jurisdictions, through the invention of ‘provisional bishops’ and ‘provisional dioceses.’ So the legal costs are in the name of TEC and not of individuals.
The point being raised was very simple. Where is the money coming from? It has not been budgeted at anywhere close to the figures required. Have DFMS trust funds been accessed in the name of ‘mission’ (‘lawsuit missionary work’)? People tithe and dioceses pay ‘assessments’. They deserve an accounting.
This is basic due diligence.
“If we don’t hold to the principle of transparency in our own dealings then we should.”
Kindly refrain from making things up. There is no such thing as “the principle of transparency”. And, if you want to go and ask each of the entities how much they spent on law suits, go right ahead. None of them keep things secret so far as I am aware, so your sense of outrage is entirely misplaced.
Now, back to the point: TEC has initiated most of these law suits (and even the few not initiated by TEC were defensive in nature). It has not been telling its members how much it is spending on this, nor has it been asking them what it should be doing. And people both inside and outside of TEC are entitled to ask why, without having others try to deflect attention from the issue with red herrings.
“(sometimes a little too autonomously for my taste)”
What is the relevance of your taste?
“they are professing the same principle on behalf of a global Anglican idea.”
That churches should stay faithful to the faith once delivered and their own formularies? Yes they are. As are the many other Christians around the world who support them. None of which has anything to do with why these various entities are obliged to publish something for your convenience.
MichaelA,
There are a fair number of opinions shared at T19 that are the writer’s alone – I see no reason for getting excited about it.
It’s not precisely outrage, more a feeling that equity demands a common accounting. I spent enough time in my former Diocese in the years running up to realignment feeling frustrated that so much information was not being widely shared with the faithful because of the possible legal ramifications. That certainly doesn’t mean the litigating Dioceses are bound to disclose anything to me personally and I wasn’t suggesting they should. Rather, transparency (a public accounting) on all sides would be a generally good thing, especially in view of the stakes involved.
In the interests of practicing what I preach (and since I was [i]not[/i] a pro bono witness), I believe I cost the Dioceses of Quincy and South Carolina something in the order of $45,000 for roughly 600 hours work in total over a four-year period (although I was never really sure, after all that effort, how much practical use I was to the team in South Carolina). Better value than Dr. Mullin, but the real debt of gratitude is to people like Allan and Dr. Seitz who gave of their time pro bono.
Longest hours in this work from ACI are Mark McCall. Both Radner and Turner appeared on the stand in Quincy. Brenner and Runyan have done excellent work and we have been glad to assist. Chupp should be ruling shortly in TX.
Seems to me the difference between ECUSA’s (I, along with the Curmudgeon, prefer this acronym) spending and that of those defending themselves and the Holy Gospel as delivered to us by the saints, is that the funds ECUSA has spent have seldom, if ever, come to it for the purposes for which they have been used. In simpler terms, these funds have, almost [i]in toto[/i], been misspent, even misappropriated.
Such misuse of funds does demand explanations, but these will never be forthcoming under any circumstances.
I have to think that most who follow this sordid story will accept that those defending themselves from ECUSA have been spending funds provided to them specifically for the purpose for which they have been used.
I, for one, believe this implicitly.
#15 If they are using DFMS trust funds given by donors for ‘missionary work’ (and I am not saying that they are; that is what is not clear) and are claiming litigation costs as ‘mission’, we have a major problem. Does NY State approve? Would this look good for PR purposes (cf. Diocese of MD mess)?
But the point at issue is: Just *where* is the money coming from? Not, would people approve of spending it.
I don’t know who you mean by “we.”
Any ECUSAn has major problems reaching far past misappropriated funds.
CSeitz (#16), the documentation about how ECUSA is drawing on non-restricted trust funds to make grants and loans to its shell “dioceses” is in this post from 2009, and I am pretty sure nothing has changed in the interim. The rump groups can use the money to meet clergy salaries, etc., while freeing up other funds for attorneys, or they spend them directly on attorneys. Other unrestricted trust funds are used to cover the annual overruns in the “litigation expenses” budget.
The scandal of ECUSA’s using its funds for litigation in this way is twofold: there is no public accounting to the New York Attorney General of how much is being lent in toto, or how the rump groups are ever going to repay the loans; and there is no showing of how ECUSA / DFMS, as non-profit religious entities, could get away with paying such huge sums to the PB’s Chancellor’s law firm without any kind of meaningful oversight, to say nothing of a full accounting and disclosure of the conflicts of interest involved to the organization itself.
This scandal is already twenty times worse than the Ellen Cook scandal, and increases each passing year.
#18. I do recall this posting. It is now 6 years old. My question above is a contemporary one. 6 years is a long time.
Until the bishops grow a spine and demand an accounting, nothing will be done.
I’d be guessing of course, but I assume that six years ago TEC litigation folk might well have said to one another, and those funding them, ‘look this will be over in a couple of years.’
That has been far from true. The losses in TX, Illinois, and SC demonstrate an increasingly savvy and up-to-speed set of judges.
What may have looked like a quick in-and-out strategy under the fledgling Schori regime, now looks increasingly costly and questionable, even amongst progressive camp-followers.
Perhaps a well-drafted resolution to GC 2015 is in order.
21. #20 – I am no longer an ECUSAn, haven’t been for over nine years.
I fail to grasp how or why anyone, whether ECUSAn or not, can conceive that there is ever going to be a change in the current ECUSA polity, practices, or direction.
In particular response to your suggesting a “well-drafted resolution” to their convention, do you really and truly think anyone at the convention will make any effort to pursue such a resolution?
I have never been a GC delegate, but I have been a delegate to a Diocesan convention where the leadership packed the Committee on Resolutions to make sure that what came to the floor was “suitable.” Those who stood in the way of authority found themselves in a blood bath.
Why would anyone believe it would be any different at the GC?
#22 — you seem to be confused. ‘we have a major problem’ is simply another way to say ‘a problem exists’ — PR, legal, NY state trust law, etc.
As for resolutions. One might be struck at the liberal TEC response to SC; I have been. Lots of people say, ‘this costs too much money; let’s stop.’
Six years of pouring money down a drain also offends progressives. You can do this for a season, but not forever. The losses of recent history have been very important game-changers. The juggernaut of ‘we are hierarchical’ has been exposed as wish, not fact.
But why get worked up? You have left. Godspeed.
#22—you seem to be confused. ‘we have a major problem’ is simply another way to say ‘a problem exists’—PR, legal, NY state trust law, etc.
I am neither worked up, nor confused.
But, neither do I have a problem, insofar as any ECUSA actions are concerned. Only those left in ECUSA have a problem, and they are burdened with many, because they have chosen to ignore the Gospel.
RE: “I don’t know who you mean by “we.†”
Well of course you know who. And the rest of us do too, reading the thread.
RE: “I fail to grasp how or why anyone, whether ECUSAn or not, can conceive that there is ever going to be a change in the current ECUSA polity, practices, or direction.”
No — you just fail to grasp why people like CSeitz are in TEC. ; > ) A GC resolution is an excellent way of further publicizing the issue within TEC, and the “we” referred to by CSeitz was — obviously — we TECans having a problem, which you already knew anyway. You just wanted to troll about folks still being in TEC, as usual.
RE: “Only those left in ECUSA have a problem . . . ”
. . . Well . . . and the guys still bitter after having left TEC all those years ago — and, I might add, [i]still commenting on a thread titled “Annual Litigation Survey for the Episcopal Church (USA) 2015.”[/i]
Sarah – don’t give up your day job for mind-reading.
Don’t think it’s all that hard! Have a blessed Lent in any event.
RE: “Don’t think it’s all that hard!”
; > )
Hi Luke, I do not think you are bitter, and I think you have every right to comment on this thread.
Where I don’t agree with you is where you write: “Only those left in ECUSA have a problem, and they are burdened with many, because they have chosen to ignore the Gospel.” Now, in the case of most of the leadership of TEC this is accurate, but there are many others in TEC who remain faithful within an apostate church and it is wrong to suggest that those who are faithful are ignoring the gospel simply because they remain in a church with heretical leadership. I expand on this more fully on this thread: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/59087/
Hi, MichaelA –
Thanks, again.
Many of the points under discussion are obviously seen from different viewpoints, held by persons with varying degrees of awareness and/or knowledge. People’s views are colored by so many things.
I am the first to acknowledge that there are many from the former DioLex (KY), including me, who, despite all biblical instructions to the contrary, still hold bitterness about the way we were treated under Stacy Sauls…to see him then move on to a high-paid job in NYC adds more gall to the sour wine.
We well understand that few other diocesans are the equivalent of Sauls, of course, but the facts are plain – they have accepted Schori’s statement that Jesus is only one way to Glory. If they disagree with her, why have they stayed in her church, accepting without demur, her actions, practices, and beliefs?
My basic point is that it is very hard for me to understand how so many obviously intelligent people in ECUSA – knowing full well that they do not, for whatever reason – cannot grasp a) what has happened; b) what is happening; and c) how short the odds are that such things will, under the current HOB, continue to happen. It is just beyond me. And, as stated elsewhere, these include very, very close personal life-long friends, of over 8 decades of friendship.
This has nothing to do with the Seitz-raised issues of WO, or the filioque clause, such that ACNA faces. It has to do with recognizing how the devil has been, and still is, at work so very successfully.
In our tiny ACNA parish, we don’t worry about such things as the filioque clause, or WO, because they are not relevant to our efforts to look after our own – the parents with incarcerated druggie sons, the illnesses, the penury – not poverty – the penury, some of us face.
Those of us who were/are able to attend such ACNA meetings as last June’s where the God-blessed ++Foley Beach was chosen and took office, or last summer’s Int’l Diocese gathering under +Bill Atwood, simply glory in God’s work made manifest by so many clergy and lay persons.
We get down in the trenches. We look after our own, because Jesus taught us to do so. We look at the Church in black and white. We know folks don’t accept everyone’s viewpoints, but, most of the time, in our daily efforts to be guided by the Holy Spirit, those viewpoints are too esoteric to be worried over.
And, as Jesus also taught us, where we are not welcomed, we shake the dust off our sandals, and move on. There is work to be done. It doesn’t happen until one’s attention has been grabbed.
Will those still in ECUSA ever have their attention grabbed? I hope God’s parade of glory does not pass them by.
RE: “In our tiny ACNA parish, we don’t worry about such things as the filioque clause, or WO, because they are not relevant to our efforts to look after our own – the parents with incarcerated druggie sons, the illnesses, the penury – not poverty – the penury, some of us face. . . . We get down in the trenches. We look after our own, because Jesus taught us to do so. We look at the Church in black and white. We know folks don’t accept everyone’s viewpoints, but, most of the time, in our daily efforts to be guided by the Holy Spirit, those viewpoints are too esoteric to be worried over.”
It is striking how very very similar those propositions and decisions are to those in TEC who have chosen Not To Care. The wording is almost identical.
I apologize for not grasping the meaning of “those in ECUSA who have chosen Not To Care.”
Since I lack the awareness of them, I’m afraid I don’t get your point.
“My basic point is that it is very hard for me to understand how so many obviously intelligent people [remain] in ECUSA – knowing full well that they do not, for whatever reason – cannot grasp a) what has happened; b) what is happening; and c) how short the odds are that such things will, under the current HOB, continue to happen.”
Sure.
There are also people who remain in ECUSA, despite grasping full well what is happening, and despite having little hope of any real change to the leadership in the foreseeable future; yet they remain there because they are called by God to witness to the truth.
The Lord calls his faithful people to serve him in different ways. He has called many out to ACNA and the Holy Spirit is working mightily through them. Others are called to witness in different churches, even ECUSA and some other churches where the leadership has gone right off the rails.
That is essentially what the Global South Primates were saying in their communique a few years ago where they recognised the faithful brethren within ECUSA, and they wrote the communique in full knowledge of the apostasy of TEC and with no particular hope that it would change in the immediate future.
“because they are called by God to witness to the truth”
And that includes the decision to donate time, talent, and hard work in the cause of those attacked by a false presentation of what PECUSA actually is and has been historically.
And in this cause, we count colleagues in the Global South with whom we work.
May this Lent purify and strengthen our faith in Christ Jesus.
Luke at #30. I appreciate your candor and honesty in this post. It is obvious you have very specific people in mind when you talk about those who remain in TEC who appear to you to be clueless about the state of the Church. Those, as you say, who “cannot grasp a) what has happened; b) what is happening; and c) how short the odds are that such things will [change].”
I would simply suggest that you might want to be careful about equating everyone who remains in TEC with these people you have in mind.
I might also suggest that as powerfully as you have seen God moving in your life, in the life of your ACNA congregation and in the ACNA in general, the Good News will hit you at an even greater depth if you take the deep offenses you received from Bishop Sauls to the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ and forgive him. I might also suggest you forgive the leadership in TEC for elevating him for his deplorable actions. Take ever bit of your anger and pain and disappoint there and pray that God would have mercy on their souls.
In this way you are living the life of the crucified Messiah who prayed for those who killed him — as they were killing him! — “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”
Your gospel mission will only be amplified if you are willing to do this.
Very sage and sound advice/suggestions, Brian, and I much appreciate it. Would that ’twere as easy to do as to think about!
A lot of prayer time goes in that direction.
Interestingly enough, I am as offended by what takes place in the HOB, with the leadership of the HOD, and at 815, even exclusive of Sauls’ actions there, as I am/was by anything that occurred in his DioLex.
If I have learned anything in 15 years of ordained ministry, it’s this one simple fact: forgiveness is costly. And even though its costliness surprises me every time, I should not be! I only have to look at the passion of Jesus and his cross to know what God requires for forgiveness to happen.
[blockquote] Interestingly enough, I am as offended by what takes place in the HOB, with the leadership of the HOD, and at 815, even exclusive of Sauls’ actions there, as I am/was by anything that occurred in his DioLex.[/blockquote]
I am also heartsick: TEC is in embarrassing and deplorable shape by many, many measures. Without a miracle turn around, it clearly is heading over the cliff of oblivion. Who will save us from this body of death?
But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ because there is, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!
May God richly blessing to you, today.
Thank you.
The local Presbyterian session (Presbyterian USA – another denomination that has derailed itself.) has just released its pastor, for several reasons – one was her thinking on abortion, proudly declaimed by her car’s license plate: “Thinking Christians accept abortion.”
She now moves on to be Chaplain at our Hospice of Hope…I don’t think I’d want her helping me towards my Judgement.