Chancellor [Daivd] Beers goes on to recount all the many ways in which the actions of the churches, their rectors and their vestries have violated “numerous rules of the Church and state law,” and notes that the Dar-es-Salaam communique called for assurances that no property would be alienated (conveyed away to others) without appropriate consent. He then observes: “The Church is unaware of any movement in this regard on the part of the congregations involved in the pending litigation.”
“Movement?” All he has to do is propose a stipulation that there will be no conveyances; the parties can sign it, the court approves it, and there is the requisite “assurance.” No, this is not the real reason why TEC will not agree to a standstill. The letter goes on to reveal the true reasons:
In these circumstances, it would be premature, to say the least, for the Church at this time to withdraw from or agree to suspend the litigation, thereby ceasing its efforts to protect its interests and that of its past, current, and future members in seeing that parish property be used for the Church’s ministry and mission. Any proposal for such a step should be considered by the Church in connection with all the other recommendations of the Primates’ communique that are under consideration by the leaders and other interested persons within the Church, and in the context of developments that may protect the Church’s interests in other ways. As noted, this involves a process that will be undertaken over time, in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Church.
Thus, the suspension of this litigation at this time would not be appropriate.
Translation: “A standstill with you will never happen, because there are just too many bishops and ‘other interested persons within the Church’ [??!] who want this fight to go forward. There is just too much at stake in terms of power, and any one bishop or church chancellor, or even a few of them together, who called for such a step would immediately be branded as cowards in the eyes of their colleagues. See you back in court.” (And this interpretation of Mr. Beers’s letter was borne out just weeks later, by the pugnacious statements in response to the communique issued from Camp Allen by the House of Bishops.)
Well, here we are now, one year and six months later, and what has this stubborn strategy obtained for TEC and the Diocese of Virginia? The score, by my tally, is currently five to nothing in favor of the withdrawing CANA churches….
This news must be all TOO real for the revisionists like Mark Harris and Susan Russell. Ordinarily they would loose their giant minds onto this type of subject and tell how the orthodox are causing needless pain and problems. Not a peep. In fact, Ms. Russell has lapsed into blogs on sunrises and Sasquatch. Mark Harris is still trying to get his thoughts around the Anglican Communion.
Well… these victories will be hard to swallow won’t they?
The innovators have the biblical responsibility to pastor and protect those with whom they disagree; Buy them out. Get on with it.
May Mr. Beers appeal be thrown out as frivolous and make the TEc pay the Virginia churchs legal expenses. It would teach him a valuable lesson.
The link appears to be broken.
Elves,
I’m clicking on the “read it all” link and receiving an error message that Firefox doesn’t know how to open httpffp. Would you please be so kind as to check the url address you typed? Thanks.
I’m [i]really[/i] interested in reading what the Chief Inquisitor has written, because his boss is coming to visit my town on the 12th, and we’re one of those reasserting congregations they are suing.
SOPHY0075,
Try this:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/victory-in-virginia.html
for the read all.
APB
Thank you.
I think I have found the recurrent dream that Beers and Schori keep having and what they envision as the end game for the Virginia congregations. Here it is over on YouTube.
As of 9 PM EST the ENS has still not posted the defeat on the official Church website. Better believe that somebody is looking for some kind of spin, but it’s not too handy at this hour.
Still searching…..
…wait til Spring 2009. There won’t be enough lies invented in Manhattan to cover up the disgrace that the impetuous revisionists have foisted on our beloved Church. Missing a few churches? “Eh. Just a ‘few’ who don’t want to be with us.” Missing a small diocese? ” Well…uh”. Missing four dioceses and passing the Virginia debacle on to the General Church? ” Sweat and blood will pour out as the handy lies escape those who will face the facts.
It continues to amaze me that denominations cling so fiercely to these “trust clauses” whereby they claim “ownership” over property that they never paid for or contributed to the maintenance and upkeep (ever). You just pass a “rule” at a Convention and the taking of someone else’s property is supposed to have legal force. It would be like the Boy Scouts of America and the Council passing a rule that entitles them to my car if my son decides not to be a Scout anymore…