Bishop Duncan’s Attorney Protests Lack of Response from The Episcopal Church

Read it all.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Presiding Bishop, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Pittsburgh, TEC Polity & Canons

26 comments on “Bishop Duncan’s Attorney Protests Lack of Response from The Episcopal Church

  1. Harry Edmon says:

    From SFIF: there is an update to this story on the Pittsburgh web site:
    that states:

    Update: Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop Henry Scriven and Melanie Contz began again receiving emails from the House of Bishops at approximately 1 pm on Monday, March 31. Bishop Duncan’s March 14 response to the Presiding Bishop has also been added to the College for Bishops website.

  2. Jeff Thimsen says:

    Hello, is anyone out there?

  3. mhmac13 says:

    Hmm it appears that some one up at 815 finally read the lawyers letter. A shot across the bow, perhaps? this should be a most interesting one to watch!

  4. TLDillon says:

    They pulled a Canon Kearon faux pas! How rich!

  5. Nikolaus says:

    Took them off the HoB e-mail list? Really? How childish!!

  6. D. C. Toedt says:

    Link is busted.

  7. Phil says:

    Look for a letter from David Beers hastily explaining 815 has had some completely unforeseen “technical glitches” on its “email system.”

  8. Harry Edmon says:

    The link in my comment also has been changed to the following:

  9. St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse says:

    It would be interesting if there ends up being a separate listserve for HOB that are hardcore supporters of 815’s current direction, and then the standard HOB listserve. Better to compartmentalize certain discussions, so they don’t appear in conservative blogs.

  10. janetroya says:

    “Took them off the HoB e-mail list? Really? How childish!!”

    There could be lots of reason that thier e-mail was “removed” from the list.

    1. Since it is a distribution list, a spam filter could catch it and not allow it through to the receipient.

    2. the receipient could have changed e-mail addresses.

    3. The distribution list may be managed outside of the PB office by volunteers.

    4. The e-mail receipents host could have bounced the message and the senders program could remove them automatically.

    and there could be lots lots more.

    But then again- a simple phone call or e-mail could clear this up, but it sure is useful to stir up a mess.

    My favorite is how the lawyer tries to draw parallels to an e-mail distribution list to membership in the house of bishops, which of course are completely unrelated.

  11. TLDillon says:

    #11 janetroya,
    No doubt your list is a good one for reasons why ……etc…
    But it sure is funny how they had been receiving e-mails just fine up until [i]recently[/i]????

  12. Didymus says:

    re: 11 “My favorite is how the lawyer tries to draw parallels to an e-mail distribution list to membership in the house of bishops, which of course are completely unrelated.”

    In a lot of corporate offices suspension of entitled services, such as an e-mail list or parking spot, is a way of the management of letting you know “You’re gone, just as soon as we finish up all these formalities. Spare us both the time, money, and effort; just resign.”

    But of course, this isn’t a corporate office, it’s a church. I’m sure it was merely some clerical error…

  13. janetroya says:

    We don’t know that. The letter states that three people “were removed” without any refrence to a time certain. The next sentence then talks about what they missed. Then something about being members of the house and thier removal (from the e-mail list) was somehow related to being removed from the House of Bishops.

    I’m on all kinds of e-mail lists. And they stop arriveing in my inbox for all kinds of reasons.

    This is a strange public affair. We don’t know if they were removed intentionaly or not, and obviously the error has already been corrected. BUt is is better that we assume (at least for some) that the evil minions at 815 are doing this?

  14. libraryjim says:

    [i]But of course, this isn’t a corporate office, it’s a [b]church[/b]. I’m sure it was merely some [b]clerical[/b] error…[/i]

    Ouch! Groan! Double ouch! and LOL


    Jim Elliott <><

  15. Phil says:

    #14 – Just working here from the strike suits aimed at volunteer vestry members in Virginia, the seeming Mafia-like pressure on that same diocese to mortgage its future to further 815’s own scorched-earth policy, the bald canonical abuses in Quorumgate and the penchant for targeting elderly, retired bishops with very sick close relatives, we may be past the “assumption” stage on the evil minion thing.

  16. willr says:

    When this is coupled with the outrage in San Joaquin and its web-site, there is no possibility that there was an accident or clerical error. Not only do they misrepresent the canons, but they also seem to be employing hackers to do dirty work.

  17. Cennydd says:

    I don’t think it was an accident or clerical error. On the contrary, I think it was deliberate……not necessarily with malicious intent……but deliberate nevertheless.

  18. Dan Crawford says:

    Actually, all of this happened because the Moon was in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligned with Mars – as good an excuse as any put forth by the apologists for the institution formerly known as ECUSA.

  19. DavidH says:

    Phil, 16, if Virginia involved “strike suits” against volunteer vestry members, why is it that all of the individuals were dismissed by agreement of all parties?

  20. seminarian says:


    Not all of the individuals were dismissed and the only reason there was an agreement between the parties is that the judge was going to rule that the individuals were not allowed to be in the law suit. There are individuals who still remain as party to these suits filed by TEC/DioVA. The trustes of the property are still listed as being sued. Also the vestry members and clergy who were dismessed were dismessed “without prejudice” which means that down the road, if TEC/DioVA feel it is necessary they can pull the individuals back in and sue them.

  21. seminarian says:


    Let me clarify the first sentence, it appeared to the parties that the judge was going to rule to dismiss all parties, because it was an agreement he did not need to rule. We don’t know what his ruling would have been, but from the tone of the court room at the hearing it appeared he was going to dismiss everyone. The parties made an agreement and the judge accepted the agreement.

  22. Phil says:

    DavidH, what seminarian said, plus two words: public relations.

  23. Tired of Hypocrisy says:

    If church leaders are willing to do these things knowing that they are likely to be found out and reported on the ‘net, imagine what they would be doing (and have done in the past) before this stuff got exposed to the light of day. Let’s not forget that if it weren’t for this and other blogs, this stuff would be going on under cover. There would be very little recourse for those who are victims of canonical abuses. Perhaps there’s still very little recourse, but at least this stuff is making it out into the light of day, and for that I’m thankful, and hopeful that a spiritual as well as ecclesiastical cleansing may take place.

  24. Now Orthodox says:

    When you dance with the Devil, he is the one who calls the tune. I’m so sorry for those of you who remain in TEC. I presume that your parishes are still following the “faith as handed down by the Apsotles”. My was not and is not. Hence the move to OCA.
    Peace be with you!

  25. libraryjim says:

    I know the Elves don’t like one-liners, but:


    Jim Elliott <><