10. How many parishes and missions will be in the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh?
We don’t know, and won’t for sometime. We currently believe there will be over 20 “non-realigning” parishes. So far, 19 parishes have allowed that their names be posted on this website as “non-realigning.” We will have a better idea of the number of parishes when we gather for our Special Convention. The actions taken at the Convention on October 4 will not provide conclusive indications, since Deputies vote on their own behalf and may not reflect the position of their Vestry or congregation. We hope that over the next several months many currently undecided parishes will determine that they wish to remain in the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Any parish that initially chooses “realignment” will be welcomed back with joy and love at any time in the future.
[b] 21. I live in a colony on the planet Mars. We have a mission church associated with the Diocese of Pittsburgh. I just became aware of this realignment development and am concerned with our future. What should our mission church do? [/b]
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. They must of hid this church mission in the budget. In consultation with our legal team, it is our position and the position of the Episcopal Church that the property and assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh as they existed prior to “realignment” remain the property and assets of the reorganized Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Regardless of any international treaties to claim otherwise, we are claiming all territory and property on the planet Mars according to our canons. We also have decided to impose a 22% assessment on all Martian programs in JPL and NASA. It is very important that the realignment cancer does not spread to other extraterrestrial heavenly bodies.
We don’t know what the new situation will be long-term. I raised the question of the future relationship between the two dioceses (neither of which are yet prepared to acknowledge the other) at yesterday’s Across the Aisle meeting and got the sense that people are cautiously moving toward a sense of realism. I was struck by one comment to the effect that there was no reason why the churches could not be shared, which I take as a positive sign.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2008/10/across-aisle-meets-at-trinity-cathedral.html]Across the Aisle report[/url]
Incidentally, this is provided for information purposes. Please do not use its contents to vent.
IMO it is revealing that addressing payment of the diocesan assessment is so high on the list!
#2: The web page clearly stated its position on property in this “information†piece. Many in Pittsburgh are praying that the split can be done with Christian charity. I’m not venting, but rather mocking it as totally outside of the way Christians should settle their disputes. You can’t have it both ways.
Until December 13, the Standing Committee is provisional until the other spots can be filled (please note I’m not a spokesman for Across the Aisle, merely an observer). We have to keep on message at both conventions that litigation is unChristian and concessions have to made by both sides (yes fellow conservatives, I said BOTH).
We could start with mutual recognition (regardless of what the lawyers might counsel). 815 says realignment can’t happen; it’s happened, deal with it! The Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) says Jim Simons can’t constitute himself a Standing Committee; it’s happened and there are no other claimants, deal with it!
I nominate Jeremy Bonner to arbitrate this dispute! This division doesn’t have to get any uglier.
Arbitrators must not have a stake in the outcome (by definition of the term). This is nothing personal, but to align with TEC and not to align with TEC’s vindictiveness is really trying to wear two different hats. As I said above: [i] having it both ways.[/i] What you may have meant is [i] mediator. [/i] My prayers are still for a fair and just settlement.
I’m hoping that there be a way for each side to agree to disagree over which side is the legitimate successor of the diocese of Pittsburgh; that rather each side can agree to accept whichever definition a parish may wish to use. Thus the SC diocese can accept that a parish can refuse to realign without requiring it to formally petition to leave the diocese of Pittsburgh, and the ECUSA diocese can accept that a parish is realigning without deposing the clergy for not proclaiming loyalty to KJS/ECUSA, and without suing for the property.
In other words, while it seems impossible to accept [i]de jure[/i] that both successors are legitimate (it would be incoherent to do so), I hope both sides can accept this situation [i]de facto[/i].
Good thought John. It leaves up in the air the diocesan endowments and institutions like Calvary Camp, but perhaps a formula for that could be found also.
Jeremy #9, one hopes that a way can be found to divide up shared monetary assets proportionally without litigation. Unfortunately, it is very tempting for either side to claim the whole amount. Resisting litigation here should be a major focus of prayer.
I hope that Calvary camp could be shared using an understanding similar to that achieved for the Cathedral.
No argument with you there. Let us pray for godly pragmatism.