Here is an excerpt from one:
One resolution dealt with the dioceses that have changed their constitution and canons and limited their full accession to the national constitution and canons. The council made it clear that Pittsburgh (Bishop Bob Duncan), San Joaquin (Bishop John-David Schofield), Quincy (Bishop Keith Ackerman) and Fort Worth (Bishop Jack Iker), “will live by the rules we have agreed upon at General Convention this will be enforced.” The four dioceses are named in the resolution. The council member from San Joaquin asked that, “you (the Council) treat it as an opportunity not to punish but to enact reconciliation.” I believe this fell on deaf ears.
In discussion, David Booth Beers, the national chancellor stated, “I have written to 2 of the chancellors, if they decline to roll back these canonical and constitutional amendments, the Presiding Bishop will have to consider what action to take. We can sue them. These are recalcitrant dioceses. What did they actually do? Those dioceses have said that they don’t like what we are doing and they won’t go along with it. We will frame our litigation in reference to that.”
The vote was called. There was 1 abstention, and 1 no. The resolution passed by voice vote.
I am flabergast at the TEC. Out of one side of the mouth to the diocese “You agreed to certian things so you must tow the line or face legal consequences”. Out of the other side of the mouth, “Gee I know +KJS agreed in good faith to do certain things the primates asked but, by our God polity, we can’t honor our agreements”.
Talk about not understanding polity! Chancellors and Bishops cannot unilaterally “roll back” constitutional amendments. That is something that the Convention must do and do in accordance with the existing constitution.
Here is what I understand of the process. A diocese can petition the General Convention for membership and be recognized as a diocese. It must first be organized and have a constitution and canons and then it petitions General Convention. This seems to say that the Diocese exists before the General Convention because the Canons (I.10.4) say “…such new Diocese shall be thereupon be admitted into union with the General Convention.” Thus, the diocese predates the General Convention and is not a creature of General Convention.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I posted this only half-serious on another EC thread, but since Beers will base his litigation on ignoring the will of GC, let me repeat with more seriousity:
I wonder what would happen if there were a coordinated effort among reasserters to enforce the canonical prohibition against “open communion� Do the networking, gather the necessary signatures, files presentment charges. If nothing else, it will tie up the Review Committee for a while. It might also serve to illustrate that there is no self-discipline within TEC, and that canons are merely discretionary suggestions without force. (I’m still dumbfounded that the Review Committe could admit that Smith of CT could violate canon but that it’s OK; and that there was no uproar about that decision.)
Beers argument dissolves if (if???) TEC has a proven record of selective enforcement, in my uninformed opinion.
This is simply a Beers and Sauls intimidation tactic. Rattle the Sabre and try to scare “the recalcitrants” into submission –and also position themselves for the foregone conclusion of ungodly lawsuits. Neither I nor the rest of the Pittsburgh Standing Committee are quaking from their threats.
David Wilson
SC Dio Pgh
This is the new “inclusive” gospel of TEC. What would the Apostle Paul have to say about this un-Christian zeal to litigate in secular courts?
That’s all they’ve got? Meet MDG #9.
I am definitely with Connecticutian here!! This open communion nonsense is a living example of the Episcopal Church deciding what canons to enforce and which not to. I recall one bishop being quoted, when asked about what one of his parish priests was being allowed to continue to practice open communion, as saying, “I pick my fights.” Wonderful. Meanwhile, by allowing such things to happen, we’re hypocrites.
{Connecticutian, my understanding is that the canon that the committee found Smith guilty of breaking was not working with the vestry in his appointment of a new priest for that parish, but that the circumstances warranted it because the vestry knew but did not inform Smith that their priest was taking a terminal sabbatical or something like that. I think there was a question of trust or good faith or something here that affected their decision and thus no uproar.}
So basically, Beers is like the night man and TEC is Hotel California:
Chancellors and Bishops cannot unilaterally “roll back†constitutional amendments. That is something that the Convention must do and do in accordance with the existing constitution.
Here is what I understand of the process. A diocese can petition the General Convention for membership and be recognized as a diocese. It must first be organized and have a constitution and canons and then it petitions General Convention. This seems to say that the Diocese exists before the General Convention because the Canons (I.10.4) say “…such new Diocese shall be thereupon be admitted into union with the General Convention.†Thus, the diocese predates the General Convention and is not a creature of General Convention.
1. No convention has the ability to make amendments contrary to the Constitution and Canons. It is similar to a State trying to contradict the US Constitution – can’t be done.
2. The diocese does not predate GC, it organizes and is admitted on the basis of total compliance with GC – otherwise it is just another corporation.
Meanwhile, by allowing such things to happen, we’re hypocrites.
What are you arguing are the options?
I’m arguing, Brian, that we should stay above board. We should not stand on our integrity and fidelity to canons and polity for the governance of our organization if we are not willing to be faithful to following our own stated structures. If you believe in open communion, fine. Make your arguments and see if you can change the canon. But by breaking the canon concerning communion or by allowing that canon to be continually broken while, at the same time, bemoaning that others are breaking canons regarding border crossings or diocese’s changing their constitutions, is nonsense. Furthermore, it supports the notion that the Episcopal Church is picking and choosing the canons that it wants to enforce or follow.
So the option would be to have bishops tell their priests who are practicing open communion to desist or be brought up on charges and to deliver the same message to those bishops who allow it to happen.
“REJECT THE CATHOLIC FAITH OR ELSE!”
What snakes and liars Beers and KJS are!!!
Somebody go read Article X of the comstitution which says you can’t unilaterally change the prayer book. But liberals who don’t want to call God or Jesus “he” or “him” break that one every day. I was at a service several years ago at VTS with the seminary students, and I was the only person in the chapel who wasn’t breaking the constitution. To my knowledge none of the participants has been inhibited.
Scratch a liberal and you will always find a Fascist—the national church and its leaders are making clear their demand for our total submission to their authority and that they will tolerate no opposition to or variance from their newly created religion–as they keep saying to us in Colorado, you are personally free to leave, but the parish belongs to us–not to protect the buildings for their intended purpose, but as an asset to be liquidated for TEC’s cultural revolution–something of a political Darwinism from the master oceanographer.
Our property battle at Grace Church is important for everyone. Although there is diversion to other issues and lots of displaced anger inserting itself into our situation (read the Screw Tape letters for an idea of what is going on over here) none-the-less this is a crucial fight we are waging for all churches who are called out by God to resist this attack on orthodoxy.
If we can overturn the Mott case in Colorado and establish a new precedent, the way will be cleared for others to join us under Communion leadership to reestablish a faithful Anglicanism in America.
Anyone wanting to help us fund this defense against the totalitarianism of TEC, please contribute to the Grace Church Legal Defense Fund by sending contributions to 601 North Tejon Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80903.
#2 Philip Snyder (Dallas) and #8 Brian from T19,
With regard to post #2, Philip is correct – at least for the State of Texas, where you must be a fully incorporated non-profit (in this case) before establishing any relationship with other corporations. In addition, under Texas law, that relationship is consider ‘revocable’ unless it is specifically by-lawed as ‘irrevocable’ by the Texas corporation – in this case, the parish or diocese. In other words, unless the ‘Diocese of Whatever’ votes itself to be in an irrevocable trust with the National Church, it can later vote itself out of the relationship, based on its own bylaws/canons. This has only been tested in Texas law a few times by Methodists and Presbyterians, both of whose relational polity with its membership is significantly different then the Episcopal polity. At the parish level, there are several cases pending in Texas and I suspect that the National Church does not want to pursue them until the Virginia cases are solved. Texas law is very ‘friendly’ to those who would wish to leave the Episcopal Church, and I suspect the Mr. Beers would not like a Texas precedent hanging over his head. In Texas, he will need to get a judge who holds that State ‘non-interference’ in matters of church hierarchy trumps Texas law. Just some thoughts.
Scratch a liberal uncover a Fascist! EKUSA in AMERIKA!! uber alles!!!
We can sue them. These are recalcitrant dioceses.
The gloves are off. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Meet the Real TEC.
Beers is like the night man and TEC is Hotel California:
Steven, see also here:
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-hotel-california.html
Heavy breathing through a black mask…(James Earl Jones voice) We will crush the rebel alliance with a final blow.
Ok y’all. The tone of the comments is getting out of hand at times here: “liars,” “snakes,” “fascists,” nazi references. Please cut the dramatic over-the-top rhetoric and focus on substance. Or, if you’re going to emote, please do so without flinging around such generic accusations. As always: we ask that you back up your statements about people with specific statements or actions.
Thanks.
Someone should get David Booth Beers out of his ivory tower…..He and/or his crew are going to march into Quincy, Illinois (just across the river from Keokuk, Iowa) and tell their legal system who owns property….I think not…..
I don’t think I have read of any action by this council that would fall under the category of Biblical or Christian behavior. And this certainly takes the cake for anti-Christian behavior that is in direct conflict with scripture.
TEC could care less about its people; they just want the property. They are turning the institution into a Marxist redoubt and don’t want the consequences as Christians begin voting with their feet.
Connecticutian is correct in post #3, but it should extend to all sorts of canonical violations that are knowingly allowed to occur. This is the game that Sauls and Beers want to play – so play it. Sauls and Beers want to establish that TEC is an absolute heirarchy (really progressive, guys!). So I would suggest two responses by the orthodox:
1. Dredge up all knowing canonical violations and file presentments. This would force TEC to either enforce its canons or not. TEC can’t pick and choose the canons it will enforce and then claim to be heirarchical.
2. Continue pushing for TEC to be officially expelled from the AC and then turn the heirachy argument back on Beers and Sauls if and when Canterbury cuts TEC liberals loose.
Granted these two strategies are somewhat inconsistent, but both will undercut liberal TEC.
This is reminiscent of the relationship between the former USSR and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Beers and his lot are all jack-booted thugs.
Please, let’s lighten up with the comparisons. The elves don’t want to have to stay on top of the computer editing today.
I will also say that ANYONE with a sense of justice who continues pledging to a local parish without an ironclad guarantee that the money will in NO WAY be used to fund liberal dioceses or the national church is AIDING AND ABETTING this immoral, unChristian behavior. Don’t let anyone guilt you into funding this garbage.
Now way back when I learned about the Compound and Cumulative interest/return and their related mathematical formula, but what is the cumulative effect on billable hours for TEC? At some point “we’ll sue the world” is really going to catch up with then (big on in VA, appeals in CA began yesterday, now they want to add TX & IL too … well, Beers Esq. must be happy).
Actually, jamesw, in some parishes in dioceses whose canons allow it, by not paying your diocesan apportionment you would be aiding and abetting by giving the diocese an ironclad reason to reduce your parish status to that of mission, replace your vestry with a bishop’s committee, and replace your rector with a vicar. It would be best then to play by the rules in those dioceses unless and until you have an viable option out.
How about disciplining the Diocesan of the Diocese of Olympia who is allowing his priest, the Rev. Dr. Ann Redding, to continue as an Episcopal priest while she is espousing Islam. Has KJS, Beers, or TEC taken any action there?
What’s good for the goose. . .
Comment deleted. Addressed toward another commenter.
In the old blog we could filter the words Nazi and Facist and have the comment end up in moderation. Now we need to catch them.
Let me be the first to defend the heroic generals Franco and Pinochet from any association with liberalism.
A more appropriate insult of the Left would be that it is “totalitarian,” as distinguished from the more “authoritarian” fascist. The totalitarian regime must daily be confronted with its own internal and external contradictions, and so must attempt an alternative reality by executive fiat so its premises can make sense, because they don’t otherwise.
jamesw, not to belabor the point, but to encourage people in dioceses where it is mandatory via canon law for funds to be sent to the diocese and/or the National Church, you are encouraging the very behavior that you are criticizing TEC for, namely, disregarding canons you don’t like while regarding the ones you do. For example, how you could support calling for the enforcement of canon law on those who practice open communion while, at the same time, disregard the canons that call for paying diocesan apportionments? If you were a member of our parish, even though we share similar opinions regarding the issues, your pledge wouldn’t be accepted if it came with such strings attached. And then who would be hurt the most? Not the diocese or the National Church with its endowments to fund them. No, it would be your local parish that would suffer in its ministries.
If both sides regard and disregard canons of their choosing, then both sides are without structure, equally guilty of hypocrisy, and have no foundation on which to stand in pursuing order via those structures.
TEC needs to take a lesson from the SCO Intellectual Property lawsuits. They sued their own customers, and for some strange reason, their business and income have dropped significantly.
TEC has already begun suing its “customers”.
TEC’s leadership is comprised of leftwing activists. They tend to be elitist and heavyhanded. They know better then us rubes in flyover country (think re-educatin camps for those who do not initially see the light). They know better about how to spend others money (I think the real fight in Colorado may be that they are offended that the IRS may have been shortchanged by legal means – the old Episcopal church would have thought it brilliant – perhaps standard opps). TEC has decided that full inclusion is a gospel imperative (at least those who still pretend TEC is a Christian religion as opposed to a left wing human secularist political force)- they are on a crusade. They believe that being a hard hitting force will minimialize their losses and they have accepted that losses will occur. It is time for traditionalists to: 1) not expect Christian charity from the foe; and 2) develop a strategy as soon after 9/30 to maximize as large as possible initial departure with a structure in place to welcome those that will arive later. Although an Anglophile, I think TEC has become such a bad thinkg – that a new Church should become the traditionalists crusade with or without Canterbury and with or without property. It is time to trust in faith for a positive outcome because the status quo may actually be evil.
If TEC claims the assets, it must also assume the liabilities. If someone slips and falls in the Church, sue TEC for pain and suffering. Violation of wage and hour laws, or sexual harassment? Sue TEC. Improper behavior of a priest? Sue TEC. Priest gives bad advice to a parishioner in time of trouble, who sues for emotional stress or malpractice. TEC certifies the seminaries who train the clergy. Sue TEC.
All sorts of bad things can happen across 7,500 parishes. They are now the deep pocket for each and every one of them. TEC may not be happy with this deal they have made with the legal devil.
Are you suggesting a new strategy or simply restating the behavior that has been occurring for the past 20+ years?
Smuggs: Read my post more carefully. I was not encouraging parishes to violate the canons by withholding apportionments. I am suggesting that if individual parishioners are not permitted to be assured that their money will not be used to either fund or calculate funding for a local revisionist diocese and the national church, then they should NOT give. And they should write a letter to the rector, vestry, bishop and diocesan standing committee indicating what they would have pledged and why they did not.
There is NO canon – Smuggs pay attention – there is NO canon mandating that I give a single red cent to TEC. I know that many in the TEC heirarchy don’t understand, but TEC laity are free.
Smuggs, this would undoubtedly hurt the local parish, but there could be many work-arounds. Outside mission could be funded seperately. Creative solutions could be found – not the least of which is a third party non-profit corporation to funnel money through. You assume that the local dioceses have lots of money in investments. A handful of TEC dioceses might, but many more are suffering financially.
Conservative money funds most of the TEC. Cut it off and TEC will listen. There are many dioceses teetering on the edge of financial ruin. TEC would need to step in and bolster them up with money.
There is only one thing that folks like Sauls and Beers listen to (besides the GLBT pressure groups) and that is money. TEC is in a very vulnerable position financially right now with many empty churches to prop up, the prospect of long and expensive litigation to pursue, and the continued departure of conservative parishes and parishioners. It is my belief that relatively soon, there will be dioceses that will need to become either mission dioceses or that will need to merge with other dioceses to stay afloat.
Let me put it this way Smuggs – if 10% of your tithe went to funding the slave trade, would you still do it? No, you wouldn’t. Your diocese could very easily pass a conscience provision that would allow you to fund your local parish without your money going to support the diocese or national church. Our diocese is. Parishioners who so choose can direct that the apportionment based on their gifts which would otherwise go to the diocese and national church can be redirected to a series of worthy ministries. It just requires that the bishop and diocese actually RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE LAITY in deed rather then with hot air when they want to reject the Anglican Communion.
Smuggs: Some years back, in Canada, there was a series of lawsuits against churches resulting from native Indian residential schools. Amongst those that got sued was the Anglican Diocese of the Caribou. Everyone knew that the diocese was going to be sued out of existence. The question was could the parish properties be attached to the settlement or were they not owned by the Diocese. So the Anglican Church of Canada filed many motions, etc., arguing that parish property was not owned by the diocese but by the local parishes themselves and so could not be attached.
Fast forward a few years to 2002. Michael Ingham carefully cultivates a diocesan vote to request same sex blessings and he permits them. Parishes threaten to leave. Suddenly, however, the Anglican Church is singing a different tune – the diocese owns all the property, not the individual parishes.
The courts in Canada all pretty much toe the liberal elitist party line and so the Anglican Church can get away with such blatant doubletalk. I sort of doubt that they would in the USA, but TEC might. But this is exactly why TEC has structured itself the way that it has – minimize any potential damages against you, while attempting to maximize you control over the property. The courts should not let them get away with it, which is why I so passionately disagree with Dale Rye’s support of the “heirarchical church” doctrine. I don’t believe that there is any theological or ecclesiological rationale behind it, but rather it is pure legal cunning. And legal cunning should not be sufficient to defeat a name on a title.
I want to be clear that I am not suggesting a deliberate strategy to gin up false claims and then sue TEC. I just want to point out that we live in a very litigious world, and the lawyers are always looking for the deep pockets.
In the past, TEC deliberately kept the association loose to avoid liability. If TEC is now claiming that they have the power to determine the by-laws of a diocese, and that they ultimately own the property, then they are ultimately responsible for anything that happens. TEC is now responsible for the legal liability for things that happen in “their” diocese, or on “their” property, or acts committed by “their” clergy trained by “their” seminaries.
Thanks, jamesw, I think I see your point. I agree that there are no canons that say that laity MUST give anything to TEC. However, in some dioceses, there are canons that say that parishes and missions MUST give an apportionment. And because of that, in those diocese with those canons, parishes, like mine, cannot assure you that nothing of what you give will go to the diocese and thus we would not be able to accept your gift should you choose to give one. A former parish I was in tried to say that funds raised by a fundraiser (not outreach oriented) were not subject to apportionment. We soon found out we were wrong. Any funds given to support a church’s operating expenses (again in some, not all, dioceses), regardless of where they come from, are subject to the apportionment. If a church cannot or will not pay its apportionment, the consequences are the loss of a rector and the loss of a vestry. (Another side consequence of not giving is relinquishing your ability or desire to serve on some church’s vestries.)
I wish I was in such a diocese that had a conscience clause. Texas is one fine example that I am aware of.
That being said, I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your feedback. I disagree with the notion that money talks as loud as you think it does or that TEC is more concerned with propping up churches as opposed to selling them off. But we agree on the major points.
Dear Elves,
I think the terms we are using have a broader context than your own historic interpretations are taking into account. A fascist as used in this thread is one who supports an extreme dictatorial system of government.
This can be said to be true of a church that is all law and no grace, that preaches reconciliation while persecuting people. Certainly this has been the posture of your Executive Council
As for over the top–what about these statements from Executive Council who are being so heavy handed in what is a volunteer society–what is that about?
It was recently reported to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Colorado that their bishop has spent $800,000 so far coming after me and my parish–would you think our statement over the top in a church in which this sort of behavior goes unquestioned, is even supported.
It would seem to me that the language we are using is about equal to the troubles of this day, and not over the top at all.
We fail to recognize the serious with which 815 is pushing their agenda and the lengths they are willing to go to crush their opposition at our own peril.
This is pretty serious stuff coming out of Executive Council and a lot of clergy are going to find their lives ruined and congregations will be destroyed if we don’t all wake up to the reality in which we currently live.
Ducking in combat or being absent without leave while your friends are being shot leads only to your own execution–from one side or the other…and frankly, it is passivity and the censorship of evaluative statements in the past that have paved the way for the slaughters you all and I too find historically repugnant.
BillS, but again, this isn’t new behavior. Bishops are sued when rectors misbehave, even though the bishops don’t hire rectors. Dioceses are sued by parents whose children get hurt on a playground at a dayschool even though no one from the diocese was seen pushing the injured child off the see-saw. So what you are suggesting is a consequence is, in fact, today’s practice since the ploy is to go where the most money can be gotten. Then the insurance kicks in without admitting guilt and the diocesan’s endowment or operating funds remain intact.
We spend a lot of time complaining to each other when we should be directing our comments to the misguided leaders of our church. Their addresses are as follows:
Ms. Bonnie Anderson
President, House of Deputies
23200 W. 13 Mile Road
Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
The Episcopal Church
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Their recent comments indicate to me that they are sadly out of touch with the average Episcopalian.
James W. Selective enforcement of the Canons is just exactly where TEC stands. It picks and chooses which ones it will enforce.
It ignores those who are eligible to receive communion (only the baptised) it ignores the rubrics it does not want to do, and it ignores bishops and priests conduct if it is liberal and inclusive, no matter how pagan or alien it is to the Gospel message, (Bsp Spong). Cathedral Churches, under the thumbs of the bishops, offer open communion on a regular basis, even advertise it in their literature. Somebody is going to have to account for this disconnect. Civil courts will not mess with Canon Law, all they want to deal with is property laws, so WHO is going to enforce Canon Law? Anyone know?
RE: “However, in some dioceses, there are canons that say that parishes and missions MUST give an apportionment. And because of that, in those diocese with those canons, parishes, like mine, cannot assure you that nothing of what you give will go to the diocese and thus we would not be able to accept your gift should you choose to give one. A former parish I was in tried to say that funds raised by a fundraiser (not outreach oriented) were not subject to apportionment. We soon found out we were wrong. Any funds given to support a church’s operating expenses (again in some, not all, dioceses), regardless of where they come from, are subject to the apportionment. If a church cannot or will not pay its apportionment, the consequences are the loss of a rector and the loss of a vestry. (Another side consequence of not giving is relinquishing your ability or desire to serve on some church’s vestries.)”
Smuggs, keep in mind that the apportionment is a percentage of the operating fund.
Some parishes have two funds now. One for the operating budget. The other that holds those monies that do not go for the operating budget. The money that goes to the diocese is based on the percentage of that which comes out of the FIRST fund, the operating budget fund.
Another option, of course, is that the parishioner pays the person who mows the church lawn directly [or other vendors of the church] rather than giving that money to the parish. Thus, the money never goes to the operating fund, and thus the money to the diocese is lowered.
What does the other fund go for or towards?
Would it be assumed that the person giving the funds would be all right not getting tax credit? Yes, I know that question sounds jaded but I don’t believe for a second that everyone who gives to charity gives out of love of God and neighbor. 🙂
I agree with what you say and that there are creative ways around all this. It depends, though, how diligent the diocese you’re in is at auditing your records and what kind of position you’re in to argue. As you well know, some dioceses are much heavier handed than others.
Sarah: Actually, the option of directly paying church bills (be it the gardener or the utilities) often does not keep the money out of the operating fund. The parish is obligated to report that as a “gift in kind” and so it would be reported in the income. Much of this depends on the reporting requirements of the diocese.
Smuggs – you can give $1 a year and serve on the vestry.
It is my belief, Smuggs, that if all the orthodox laity refused to give money unless their consciences were respected and let the diocese know that, that in many dioceses a work around would be enacted. The reason is that most dioceses simply can’t afford to prop up a parish in trouble and they would rather have parishioner money propping up the parish then the spiggot completely turned off.
I also realize that it is difficult to take a firm line, but I think its just something that needs to be done. What TEC is doing is downright immoral, unjust and contrary to the spread of the Gospel and it needs to be stopped.
Yes, you can. You would not be allowed to do so in my parish as we’re not about to put a person in charge of managing a multi-thousand dollar budget who only contributes one dollar to that budget, but you can in others!
But, seriously speaking, you’re giving them way too much credit at being logical! We are not dealing with logical entities. I am convinced that they would rather WIN and live in a WIN-LOSE environment, worrying about the consequences later, as opposed to weighing the consequences now and seeking to live in a WIN-WIN environment. Thus the threats of lawsuits which, by definition, are WIN-LOSE.
We fail to recognize the serious with which 815 is pushing their agenda and the lengths they are willing to go to crush their opposition at our own peril.
This is a red herring. If parishes want to leave without stealing then they are free to do so. If they want to preach their version of the Gospel then they are free to do so. If a parish chooses to flee rather than face examination of alleged illegal activities, it is free to do so – just don’t steal the property.
I pose this question: What business does Mr Beers have in making any decisions……aside from the fact that he is the Chancellor of The Episcopal Church? His position should be strictly as a legal advisor, and nothing else!
Careful Brian – charges of theft if untrue are defamatory. Interested in knowing what you think TEC should do with all the empty buildings that you want left behind when the departures stop being a trickle and become a flood after 9/30 – are you more interested in preserving alleged TEC property are or you more motivated in silencing a traditional “version of the Gospel”. The rational for leaving with the property is to continue to worship God with friends and family – TEC is using the hammer of taking the property in an effort to minimilize departures. Why would you be opposed to an amicable separation based upon theological outlook?
…David Booth Beers, the national chancellor stated, “I have written to 2 of the chancellors, if they decline to roll back these canonical and constitutional amendments, the Presiding Bishop will have to consider what action to take. We can sue them. These are recalcitrant dioceses. What did they actually do? Those dioceses have said that they don’t like what we are doing and they won’t go along with it. We will frame our litigation in reference to that.â€
When any group, especially the “Executive Council†of a church of our Lord Jesus Christ, descends into a gaggle of fighting animals, protecting the pride or the litter, the harm to its people and to the Lord is irreparable. No wonder so many people are writing and talking about the no longer need or desirability of Christianity.
The highest officials of the EC no longer represent our Lord, but act like heathens standing with shot guns around 815 like it was something worth fighting for.
I thought the church had sunk as a low as it could under +Griswold, a man of misplaced faith, but please Lord forgive us for his successor, +Katherine Jefforts Schori, a woman whose view of faith is so different from what has been taught by the church for millenniums.
Thanks to a previous post for : “…a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing… Will Shakespeare
They have deceived us too long with their pride for diversity and agenda of inclusiveness which has led to the above sort of action by the Executive Council.
To sum up +KJS and her Mr. Bears:
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive…†Sir Walter Scott
Re: 53 Sorry for “Mr. Bears” which should be Beers. Maybe his actions effected my spelling.
Careful Brian – charges of theft if untrue are defamatory.
Only if they are bunt4rue. However, I never mentioned any specific crimes and I used the word ‘alleged.’
Interested in knowing what you think TEC should do with all the empty buildings that you want left behind when the departures stop being a trickle and become a flood after 9/30 –
Whatever they want.
are you more interested in preserving alleged TEC property are or you more motivated in silencing a traditional “version of the Gospelâ€.
Preserving Tec property
The rational for leaving with the property is to continue to worship God with friends and family
Your rationale for outright theft is really irrelevany when you are trying to make a ‘moral’ point.
TEC is using the hammer of taking the property in an effort to minimilize departures.
I disagree. If those leaving are “true believers” acting on their faith in leaving, then they should not be motivated by mammon to stay in TEC.
Why would you be opposed to an amicable separation based upon theological outlook?
I am 100% in support of an amicable separation and have no problem with a Diocese selling the property at fair market value to the leaving parish.
Brian: All of this talk of theft and who the property belongs to depends on state law and the outcome of litigation. There are moral claims by both the diocese and parish when it comes to property ownership. To have one side simply yell “theft” is quite inaccurate and unhelpful. Sort of makes you sound like you are “quick to judge. Quick to anger. Slow to understand…”
Hot air does not equate with the law.
Brian-
In your comments, you accused departing parishes of stealing – stealing is an allegation of crime. Ownership claims based on Canon trust – when TEC’s name is not on the deed, and others entities and persons are, is a civil property dispute (in most if not all instances the money was provided by the congregations and not TEC) – and your position has failed in California – and may very well go against TEC in Virginia as clearly there is an ongoing division going on in TEC and Virginia’s state law appears to allow churches to choose which side they want to got with. These cases will be decided on a state by state basis. If the departing parishes were commiting the crime of theft – then I can assure you that at least one DA would have filed criminal charges by now.
If we were discussing a country club or political party – which one could argue TEC has become (I think the later – its country club days are in its past) – then a moral argument about what to do with the property would be entirely irrevlant. However, since this is a discussion about a Church (and for arguments sake lets say that TEC is still a Christian church) – basic concepts of morality I would argue become germane.
I think your comment regarding threats of litigation as a hammer lack merit – TEC is using the property as blackmail – I think your position is that TEC’s blackmail should not be effective. In a perfect world you would be right – but humans are not perfect.
Your response “Whatever they want” means you have either not considered the question or the answer would be unfavorable – If I were you I think I would have said to use the proceeds from the sale of the vacant churches to further the “gospel of full inclusion” – I think it would have been a more honest answer.
Keeping the property has nothing to do about power for the conservatives – they are quitting the field – your side won – it is about post separation viability. If a bunch of leftists were to willingly leave an orgainzation I cared about (say Massachusetts from the US) I would likely send a bon voyage gift – not an invoice.
jamesw
Law and morality are entirely different issues. I am speaking of theft in the ethical sense and the reasserters have no legitimate ethical argument for taking property that does not belong to them. They knew about the Denis Canon and had the chance to leave before that went into effect. They have known about accession clauses and are changing them. They have the ability to lobby for issues and send delegates to General Convention to represent their views. Yet they still choose to act unethically. The reason that the reappraiser need to proceed in a legal manner is because the other side will not behave ethically. Decisions will be made in State courts, but the ethical issues have already been decided.
“Decisions will be made in State courts, but the ethical issues have already been decided.”
Who says? Beers, +KJS, or whover. The decisions should be made in a Christian way, not a secular “ethical way.”
Sorry to disagree strongly with you.
Brian,
I read your #57 response and would ask two questions.
1. By what legal right can TEC or even a diocese claim to own parish property that they neither paid for nor have supported financially? (Contrary to your claim, nobody was allowed to leave and take their property with them after the first reading of the Denis. They could leave, but had to leave the property.)
2. There is at least one diocese in TEC who deeded parish properties back to the individual parishes post-Denis because they did not what the legal liability to insure them. In your opinion, does the diocese or TEC still ‘own the property?’
Please pardon my typo. In #59, the ‘what’ in the second to the last line should be ‘want.’
Brian: RevK has already replied to your ridiculous assertion that parishes were given a chance to leave after the Denis Canon was purportedly passed. Ethically, TEC has no right to claim ownership of property for which it is not named on the deed, for which it did not pay for, and for which it does not keep up. All TEC did was attempt to pass a canon grabbing someone else’s property.
By your logic Brian, I can walk into your house, hold a gun to your head while declaring that I own all your property and then later say “well Brian could have left with all his property if he didn’t agree.”
Now here’s a question to you Brian. Suppose Rowan Williams rescinds Lambeth invitations to most TEC bishops. If the conservative TEC remnant then holds a General Convention, and if the courts recognize this General Convention as the legitimate TEC GC, would you believe that the former TEC liberals are guilty of theft and ethical violations for taking legal action to maintain their occupancy of parish and diocesan property?
Brian,
The Dennis Canon never passed into canon law and so has never gone into effect except in the hearts of those who want to claim assets for which they never paid or assumed responsibility.
I would love for you to have responsibility for this old building here in Colorado Springs–it has turned me gray trying to fund its upkeep and to keep it from being condemned as building codes change–with never any help from the various bishops of Colorado–the current one of which wants, we understand, to sell it to a hotel developer.
1. By what legal right can TEC or even a diocese claim to own parish property that they neither paid for nor have supported financially? (Contrary to your claim, nobody was allowed to leave and take their property with them after the first reading of the Denis. They could leave, but had to leave the property.)
A Trust. However, that being said, my point is about the ethics and not the law. If, as +Iker mentions in another post, TEC is foreclosed from action re: Fort Worth’s Constitution because it was done 20 years ago, then the same argument applies to the Denis Canon.
2. There is at least one diocese in TEC who deeded parish properties back to the individual parishes post-Denis because they did not what the legal liability to insure them. In your opinion, does the diocese or TEC still ‘own the property?’
It depends. If you look at it from a legal standpoint, you would need to know if the Diocese had the authority under Denis to deed back the property. Ethically it would depend on what the parties motivation was. If the Diocese did not want the land, then they should not vlaim it now. Even if they decided not to have the liability, they should not be allowed to reap that benefit.
RE: “I am speaking of theft in the ethical sense and the reasserters have no legitimate ethical argument for taking property that does not belong to them.”
Exactly so. They should only take the property which does belong to them. And that determination of precisely which property does “belong to them” legally will be decided by the secular courts, thanks be to God, and not people like you or PB Schori.
RE: “They knew about the Denis Canon and had the chance to leave before that went into effect.”
LOL. So? The Denis Canon is not in keeping with the laws of our country. And that will also be decided in a secular court, thanks be to God. A church can’t just make a pronouncement about “all your property are belong to us” without expecting it to be legally adjudicated, which it thankfully will.
RE: “The reason that the reappraiser need to proceed in a legal manner is because the other side will not behave ethically.”
No, the reason why the reappraiser needs “to proceed in a legal manner” is because the reappraiser needs the secular courts to adjudicate who owns what property.
And the courts will do so.
Someone more familiar with the rules of General Convention will have more recent and better information, particularly about recent changes, but at one time and perhaps still General Convention operated on a split budget system. There was an Assessment budget from which the Presiding Bishop and the constitutional officers of General Convention were paid, agencies of General Convention were funded, and a few other things. When I worked for the General Board of Examining Chaplains 1990-2002 I think the Board was funded from the Assessment budget. Dioceses were required to pay their Assessments.
The larger part of the General Convention budget was funded from an Apportionment budget, and dioceses paid as much of the Apportionment as they could or would.
Some dioceses had a similar system and parishes that did not pay their Assessment could be denied representation in diocesan convention. I don’t know whether dioceses that do not pay Assessments are denied representation in General Convention and invite comment from those who do know.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC.
Brian #63,
Your first answer – please re-read post #14 – making yourself the beneficiary of a trust will not hold up in court. That is what TEC did with the Denis Canon. Even if some court were to rule that the Denis is ‘law,’ the diocese or parish could then simple revoke the trust. I have trusts for my children – and I can revoke them at anytime this side of heaven. I suppose that is why none of the recent lawsuits from dioceses or the national church mention the Denis.
Your second answer – I am unclear as to what you are saying.
In Texas, it will be an interesting fight in the courts. The trust and real estate law is clearly on the side of the parish whose name is on the deed and whose money paid for the property. However, Texas courts are very hesitant to ‘mess with church matters’ – they won’t even mess with the Rotary or the Elks Club. Diocesan canons also vary in the state. Some are very sophisticated, some less so. But Texas law will tend to look first to the diocesan canons in place at the time that the parish became part of the diocese, not at the actions of the national church in the early 80’s. In other words, what were the rules under which a parish joined the diocese and then what matter or amount of input did the parish or diocese have in the changes to those by-laws or canons. I cannot speak for any other state, but here in God’s Country, we don’t cotton to what a bunch of New York Yankees say they want to do with our state. (The sound you hear is raising dander.)
Oh well that clears it up a lot – Brian is speeking of “ethical theft” (whatever that means). Brian – TEC may have a legal leg to stand on under some states’ laws- but it has no solid ethical position. It conjured up a 1979 canon change to cow parishes angered by changes in the Prayer Book and Womans ordination into staying – you consider that an ethical justification greater than the ethical claim the parishes have – because they and their forebears paid for the buildings (I can assure you that the traditonalists’ dead would not vote for the “new thing” – its the dead in reapraiser churches say in Bruton parish that may not be too happy in the churchyard cemetary). That the Parishes are ethically bound to hand over the property is beyond laughable. The only ethics undstood by TEC is how to count votes at General Convention – that is “might makes right”! If TEC decides to become a gay sex club instead of a gay rights activist group/ UN sponsored NGO – do you believe that the parishes would still be ethically bound to hand over their churches. TEC has changed – it has changed the deal/ broken with the faith – TEC’s actions regarding property issues reek of unclean hands. Your side won – accept the 75% of (a diminishing pie) that you have won – TEC should take the Christian high road and allow the 25% that will never abide to go in piece to do the Lord’s bidding.
chips
It conjured up a 1979 canon change to cow parishes angered by changes in the Prayer Book and Womans ordination into staying – you consider that an ethical justification greater than the ethical claim the parishes have – because they and their forebears paid for the buildings (I can assure you that the traditonalists’ dead would not vote for the “new thing†– its the dead in reapraiser churches say in Bruton parish that may not be too happy in the churchyard cemetary)
Again, you are the ones that chose to follow the money and not your concept of God. The reasserters claim to want the reappraisers to act in a “Christian manner.” In reality, both sides care about the money. It is all about the money. The difference is that the reappraisers have never made a secret of it-we are the ones taking the “high road.”
If TEC decides to become a gay sex club instead of a gay rights activist group/ UN sponsored NGO – do you believe that the parishes would still be ethically bound to hand over their churches. TEC has changed – it has changed the deal/ broken with the faith – TEC’s actions regarding property issues reek of unclean hands. Your side won – accept the 75% of (a diminishing pie) that you have won – TEC should take the Christian high road and allow the 25% that will never abide to go in piece to do the Lord’s bidding.
If they followed the Constitution and Canons, then yes, they are entitled to the property. Vote with your feet-not lawyers. Again I say it is all about the money. Apparently the “Lord’s bidding” involves cash and real estate.
Brian from T19 wrote:
“They knew about the Denis Canon and had the chance to leave before that went into effect.”
……………………………………………………………………………
Dude,
Gets your facts straight the full article can be found at website http://mcj.bloghorn.com/1725
Any changes to the church’s canon law had to be approved at two successive general conventions. The first approval previously had passed in 1976 so the second reading of the proposed property canon change had to pass if the liberals/modernists were to stop the traditionalists from leaving with their monies, buildings and considerable trust funds. IT NEVER HAPPENED.
“According to the two canon lawyers appointed by the church to compile and annotate all canonical changes effected by the General Convention, Messrs. White and Dyckman, “there is no record of it (the proposed change) having passed both houses”
Barry
What an astounding conspiracy you have uncovered. Apparently no one has ever noticed this before! Did you hear the one about US Income Tax not being legal?
Barry
You may want to stop getting your conspiracy theories from VirtueOnline. Here is a decent review:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2004/story_austin_mayjun04.msp
and the Acts of Convention
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts_new/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=1979-D024
and the relevant Canon
Canon V.1.6
All Canons enacted during the General Convention of 1943,
and thereafter, and all amendments and repeals of Canons then or
thereafter made, unless otherwise expressly ordered, shall take effect on the first day of January following the adjournment of the General Convention at which they were enacted or made.
RE: “Vote with your feet-not lawyers.”
Brian urges us all to leave our property behind. ; > )
We’re voting in both ways, thanks.
RE: “Again I say it is all about the money. Apparently the “Lord’s bidding†involves cash and real estate.”
Well, if you say so . . . who am I to say what it’s about for progressives. ; > )
. . . but actually, I suspect that for both sides it’s about membership in the Anglican Communion. The property is secondary.
At least for me it is . . . but again, why not go for both? Both sides seem to be, and there’s nothing to be ashamed about for that.
It’ll be interesting to see what the courts decide over the coming decade.
Brian, when did you get notice of your ability or your paish’s ability or your diocese’s ability to not participate in the promotion of abortion by the Executive Council? http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm
20 year old consitutional changes undoubtedly will fight more effectively than in utero humans, eh?
And presentments for “open communion”, too, while you’re at it, EKUSA/TEC. Gotta keep that playing field level, you know.
Dr Stroud
Not sure what you are asking. I was made aware like everyone else about TECs membership. I am a pro-life advocate and am opposed to abortion.
Brian,
The charge that it is “all about the money” can be levelled at TEC as well. TEC’s bishops and national staff are looking at serious reductions in their incomes without properties to liquidate, hence the fight for properties and not for people.
I actually don’t think that either side’s primary concern with the property is for economic gain. I think each side has a specific reason for fighting hard for the property of departing parishes though.
For the departing parish, let’s not forget that this is “their” building – they paid for it, they pay for its upkeep with their money and their labor. Why should they give it up to the diocese that has done nothing for them? Why should they give it up because a bunch of wackadoos took over the political process of their church? Let’s not forget that in most parishes there is a very healthy suspicion regarding the diocese, who are often seen in a similar view to the IRS or traffic cops.
For TEC, I think the big issue is maintaining the fiction that the “parish” did not leave, just some unhappy parishioners. All TEC rhetoric goes to supporting this. The TEC ideologues are looking for Christian blessing on homosexual behavior. Taking over a denomination only to have it split isn’t what they want. They want to be able to say “well, a few troublemakers left, but very few parishes.”
Go look over at Jan Nunley’s Episcope – the one thing that gets Jan’s knickers in a twist is when a claim is made about the number of parishes that have left TEC. For the TEC, if the property stays within TEC, then in their judgment the parish stayed. Doesn’t matter is 99% of the people and the clergy left, the key is the property. In the mind of TEC the parish = its property.
I don’t think that grasping the property is really economically in TEC’s interest. Remember that TEC’s interest is in maintaining the fiction that only a few troublemakers have left. That means that the diocese has to prop up the parish financially for a few years till people forget about it. Only then can they quietly dissolve it and sell it.
In any case, the future of Anglicanism in North America will not be won or lost in the property disputes. The future will be won or lost in the church planting realm. And if you go over to read Episcope, you will see that Jan is very anxious to point out the large number of church plants that the GS related bodies have started (to prove that they aren’t ex-TEC parishes). I was somewhat stunned that she didn’t seem to have any awareness that it is exactly that figure – the large number of church plants – that is the greatest testimony to the success of the GS related bodies in America.
Brian,
I tend to think of TEC as a franchisor – lets say I am a franchisee and invested a million dollars in a MacDonalds hamburger in a small to midsize midwestern town restaurant and then next year MacDonalds goes vegan – I know that the vegan line will not sell in my town – under your analysis I am just out of luck – I think under the agreement and in equity I would have some rights – the Deal has changed.
Your analysis would make more sense if the departing congregations were leaving because they wanted the property and intended to either sell the property or run a for profit businsess out of it. They are leaving because they cannot abide by TEC’s theology (outside of leftwing enclaves its a bad product) – they only want the physical buildings because they consitute the church that they and their families and friends have been worshiping in. I think you believe that because you have the votes to change theology that you can force your fellow christians to either accept radical change or hit the street – thats not a very christian thing to do. TEC is doing the strongarm thing in the full glare of the media – unless TEC does intend to just be a church for leftists (and I think the answer is that is does so intend) it is not a very healthy long term stragegy.
The charge that it is “all about the money†can be levelled at TEC as well.
That’s what I said. My point is that we make no secret about it being about the property and preserving property rights.
TEC’s bishops and national staff are looking at serious reductions in their incomes without properties to liquidate, hence the fight for properties and not for people.
That is simply not true.
under your analysis I am just out of luck – I think under the agreement and in equity I would have some rights
No, because you were provided voice in the process. You had the ability to vote and were represented.
#79 Brian,
I can think of many times in history when minorities were systematically robbed of their property and options, all under the guise of a ‘legal’ vote or ‘proper’ legislative action. Democracy is a wonderful thing when the votes always go your way. Would you stand by doing nothing if your local government ‘voted’ to take your house by immanent domain in order to give it to a developer whose agenda was more in line with the local government’s?
A Council member from San Juoquin is asking for an opportunity for reconciliation!? Boy, I’d like to hear that from +Schofield! All the noise he has made sounds more like realignment.