Dear friends in Christ,
I write to you with sadness at the decision of our brothers and sisters to leave The Episcopal Church. I trust you will join me in forgiving their transgressions, putting all recriminations and bitterness aside, and wishing them well as they continue their spiritual journeys in another community of faith.
I write to you as the Chair of the House of Bishops Task Force on Property Disputes in the hope of reassuring you of the justice and rightness of your position. Your faithfulness and steadfastness to your community and your vows inspire all of us. More than inspiring us, your efforts deserve our active support because, in truth, you are acting on behalf of all of us.
It is the job of the Task Force to do all that it can to see that you receive the care and the support that you need and deserve. Indeed, we will be meeting next week to consider a number of matters in our Church and the protection across the Church of our polity, which is intended to protect all of us from abuses of power such as that you are now experiencing. I can assure you that your situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin will be part of our consideration.
For now, know of our awareness of your situation, our deep concern, and our pledge to do all that we can to support your efforts to carry on the mission of our Church in California. The task you have before you, no doubt, will not be easy. You will not walk it alone.
With the assurance of my prayers and the conviction of the coming of the Lord in this holy season, I am
Faithfully yours,
(The Rt. Rev.) Stacy F. Sauls
Bishop of Lexington
In summary: “Gotta get all that property!”
Written like a lawyer, by a lawyer, who does not sound like a bishop.
Hey, wait a minute. Bishop Sauls is violating an ancient, well established and long recognized teaching against boundary crossings!
If the thread could be about the content of the letters of support and not the authors thereof, please.
Now wait a minute! Posters from that diocese over at SF swore that all 8000 people were following JD to the Southern Cone, “breathing fresh air”, “free at last”, and the like! There isn’t supposed to be any faithful remnant left in SJ. They’re all supposed to be united, one group, fully supporting of their diocese and fully involved in all its decisions. So surely this group must be a figment of +Saul’s imagination.
Sorry, KH, we cross posted.
Kendall, this might have to be a thread where you receive comments only by email. Bp. Saul’s letter just doesn’t lend itself to calm analysis and it is a temptation to hostility and sarcasm. I apologize for my #3.
What saddens me is that I actually support Remain Episcopal. And judging from his words at the convention, so does Bishop Schofield. There was an opportunity to have a fracture or split occur from the Episcopal Church by the diocese and from the diocese by these dissenters with a modicum of grace and charity. I fear that, without some very strong Christian leadership, that opportunity has been lost.
Bishop Sauls’ letter is mostly unobjectionable, but some of the comments on the website are pretty nasty. This group has been objecting to Bishop Schofield in fairly harsh terms for some time now. He has indicated that they are free to leave. The Episcopal Church has indicated that a place will be made for them. Why not let the matter rest right there for now?
What this means is that the resources of the NY office will be put to the use of the Episcopal remnant in San Joaquin to sue for ALL of the property, not just the property of the dissenting parishes. The now-Southern Cone diocese has offered to let the dissenters go, only asking them to pay off any debt to the diocese, and NY is saying no.
Smuggs,
Gee, you got it wrong on SF and you have gotten it wrong here. The good Bishop of San Joaquin spoke of those who would not desire to leave in all the comments at the convention. IF you had taken the time to READ and LISTEN you would even know that the good bishop has said that those parishes not wishing to leave TEC could even take their property in leaving the diocese (provided they owed Dio SJ no money).
Compare the open handed and compassionate dealings of +SJ and that of the cabal at 815. Which has behaved in a more Christian manner?
RSB
[blockquote] I trust you will join me in forgiving their transgressions [/blockquote]
Forgive their transgression? What transgressions? These alleged transgressions certainly can have nothing to do with the property because there will be no forgiveness on that matter. Or perhaps this is simply a case of “Let’s forgive but sue anyways.”
carl
RS Bunker, I said that the [b]posters'[/b] comments stated that all 8000 people of SJ are of one mind. I bolded it so perhaps you would catch it this time.
I’m not sure what Stacy Sauls is on about here, considering +Schofield has made it clear that dissenting parishes will be allowed to pay any outstanding debt to the diocese and take their property in peace. Who, exactly, in Remain Episcopal is being wronged here?
We need to remember to make all our posts more comprehensively accurate for reappraisers, I guess.
“abuses of power” – I stopped there since it was patently clear that postmodernity had possessed the language as well as the author. That pot and kettle thing….again. Good Lord, deliver us!
[blockquote]”…and the protection across the Church of our polity, which is intended to protect all of us from [b]abuses of power[/b] such as that you are now experiencing.”[/blockquote]
To gain access to the assets, liabilities, and governance of the diocese of SJ, TEC will have to win a lawsuit against the corporation that is the practical embodiment of the diocese. TEC may sue the corporation, probably via some remaining church or group of episcopalians. Sauls suggests here that there was an abuse of process, such that the vote should be ruled inneffective or void.
The accession clause is a requirement for admission of a diocese into GC. To repeat an earlier question – does anyone know of anything in the current GC canons that requires a diocese to maintain, or that prevents a diocese from removing, the accession clause from their diocesan canons?
If there is nothing requiring this, then – as may be unfolding here – TEC will scrutinize events to see if there was any other defect of process providing a cause of action.
[i] Comment off topic. [/i]
What was that about not interfering in someone else’s diocese?
Dork.
This is a portion of a posting of mine but is appropriate here:
[blockquote]So “divorce†is required. One side says, “I want the houses, cars, and the incredibly huge bank account.†What in the world for? The endowment of the Episcopal Church is mind boggling, and its membership is plummeting, yet it wants empty buildings as well and cast its “ex†into the streets for spite?? How about all the cries of precious justice???[/blockquote]
It really is not possible to comment on this without streching the bonds of blog. But I can say this chutzpah has a new face.
I don’t think +Sauls’ letter ought to promote much ire…he’s just fulfilling his role as chair of the HoB property whatever committee, and offering solace to people who most likely feel that the rug has been pulled from under their feet. I think we ought to remember that they probably feel much like we feel when the powers that be take away what is sacred to us, and we have absolutely no control over it…and there is no doubt that many of them have contributed plenty to their local churches in time, talent and treasure. They have reason to feel upset, just as Sauls has reason to try and comfort them. And it has nothing to do with borders, since San Joaquin no longer exists, except in the minds of 815.
Having said that, I do wish that +Sauls had left out that bit about forgiving their transgressions. A whole lot of people have transgressed in order to get to where we are on these issues…and any kind of grace for conservatives has been hard to find, lately. I keep hearing that bishops and people who want to leave are breaking up the communion at the risk of eternal damnation…I’m not sure where that’s coming from, but +Sauls apparently believes it.
Our church, which we all seem to love with equal fervor whether we are liberal or conservative, is about to go through the wringer…a little charity would go a long way in the coming days…and a lot less sarcasm toward each other would be a welcome relief for those of us who come here seeking an alternative news source.
#20: Quite right and well said. Bp. Sauls is following what is probably the company line on this: “the diocese has stolen your church, violating you, abusing members who do not agree, etc.” Victimization is the default position for bishops in this church when theology cannot support their positions. Having said all that, it is a time to soften our words (something about how much easier to eat soft warm words rather than hard, cold comments?!) and pray for wisdom, mercy, discernment and attributing actions to as much good as reasonably possible.
I’m no canon lawyer but it seems to me that if a bishop blows off his (or her) ordination vows and abandons the discipline of the Episcopal Church then the Episcopal Church needs to step up and protect the resources that will enable it to do the work it has been given to do — not allow them to be hijacked by former Episcopalians like +Schofield, etc. So it seems to me that +Sauls is right on target and I say good for him and good for the Episcopal Church.
Folks, ain’t 5 congregations that are staying, but just 4, one voted to live, but didn’t choose yet if go to South Cone or to Another province, but they are out of TEC. I know because I have a friend in Fresno from UK. Sorry elves cos it wasn’t about the article.
Whether you think the intent of the letter is to help Remain Episcopal keep their property (not necessary as cited above) or help Remain Episcopal keep ALL property (more likely the intent), I think the letter is expected. As I posted elsewhere, these people are in for a wake-up call. I am aware of three or four moderate parishes in the diocese. No one is completely on the 815 side of the agenda. The people in the pews will be shocked if GC2009 changes their BCPs. They are thinking they can keep the brand and that “all is well”. They don’t have a clue.
Sorry to feed the Troll, but Fred, I think +Schofield’s response to the letter from +PB answered the abandonment question. You may not agree with his answer, but it has held up in ecclesiastic court once. They will still charge him again, but he has already changed his flag. Its now directly Anglican.
Wow! What a letter!
[blockquote]
I trust you will join me in forgiving their transgressions
[/blockquote]
Yet, isn’t there some book somewhere that TEC takes seriously, if not literally, where some hippie from the 1st century AD said something like:
[blockquote]
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)
[/blockquote]
I don’t suppose that Stacey Sauls bothered to read that nor what Dan Martins [a href=”http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2007/12/letter-i-wish-presiding-bishop-would.html”]wrote[/a]. Sauls is completely closed to accepting any responsibility at all for what happened.
[blockquote]
we will be meeting next week to consider a number of matters in our Church and the protection across the Church of our polity, which is intended to protect all of us from abuses of power such as that you are now experiencing.
[/blockquote]
Perhaps Mr. Sauls could begin by accepting the plain reading of TEC’s constitution instead of making up “polity” as he goes along. If he did so, he might realize that the abuses of power do not stem from the Bishop of San Joaquin, who has graciously told his clergy and parishes that they have freedom of conscience to either realign or not (after the Diocese quite legitimately withdrew from union with the General Convention of TEC), but rather from Sauls, 815, Beers and co. who would use litigation, a scorched earth policy, and personal threats against individual laity who do not dance to their tune.
[blockquote]
The task you have before you, no doubt, will not be easy. You will not walk it alone.
[/blockquote]
It won’t be easy because there are so few of them there, and one of the largest of the TEC parishes is neck deep in debt after building a new plant yet still unable to grow, despite being in a rapidly expanding area.
For folks out there like Smuggs, please note carefully what I am about to say, so that you can’t say you were not warned. TEC is about to engage on a monumental blunder in going after the Diocese of San Joaquin. It will not end well for TEC.
All I have to say to Bishop Sauls is remember what Jesus said about motes and beams. Look to your own transgressions and your own violations of your baptismal and ordination vows first.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Fred:
“Episcopal Church needs to step up and protect the resources that will enable it to do the work it has been given to do—not allow them to be hijacked by former Episcopalians like +Schofield, etc. ”
Precisely how is the Episcopal Church going to continue its work in SJ if it has only 4 parishes and 43 empty parishes through which to continue its work? Does ECUSA plan to transplant parishes from other dioceses of ECUSA to populate 43 parishes or will SJ suddenly have 43 new night clubs?
Back on track:
“I trust you will join me in forgiving their transgressions, putting all recriminations and bitterness aside, and wishing them well as they continue their spiritual journeys in another community of faith.”
Wait a minute! The diocese has transgressed in order to continue their spiritual journey in another community of faith. Who is he saying that SJ has sinned against (God, ECUSA or the 4 remaining parishes?)? Those remaining are hardly being abused other than perhaps feeling lonely. In fact it has been made clear to them that they are welcome to keep their property. Certainly they have hardly been abused in a struggle for power. That appears to be the prerogative of KJS and Beers.
From one of the press releases:
“
OOPS!
From one of the press releases:
“The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin existed long before Bishop Schofield was elected and will continue to exist after he leaves. While he is a bishop, he is not the church, he is not the diocese, nor, by leaving, can he define whether or not the Episcopal Church will continue in this diocese.”
The spin continues to be that +Schofield alone is responsible for persuading the members of his diocese to leave, whereas in fact, 8000 Christians decided to leave.
While I’m not surprised by this letter, I do have a questions regarding one of the phrases that +Sauls used. In his first paragraph, he uses the following phrase: “they continue their spiritual journeys in another community of faith.†I wonder how he is looking at community, what the boundaries are and who is included or excluded.
From my traditional point of view, it is my understanding that the Anglican Communion is a single community. From his inclusion of this phrase, it would seem that +Sauls defines this much more narrowly. If he does not view Southern Cone as a part of the “communityâ€, who does he include? Then what does this say in regards to TEC’s view on moving forward in communion with other members of the Anglican Communion as a whole?
The remainder of the letter is neither surprising nor unexpected. As I said over the weekend on Stand Firm, I expect the management of TEC, to try to establish local fronts, for legal action. This letter and the others like it are stepping-stones; we should expect to see as a part of this process. Oh well the most polite comment that I can make here, is that they telegraphed this and are obviously intent on making a sorrowful process, yet more ugly.
If the large TEC parish neck-deep in debt doesn’t owe that money to the diocese, then they’re no worse off. The diocese is only asking that debts owed to it be paid or arrangements made for payment.
The reason I assume this means 815 will sue for all the property is because the diocese has offered to let dissenters go without penalty. No lawsuits would be needed. This is even more generous than TEC dioceses which were negotiating buy-outs of church property before 815 put a stop to the practice.
In his first paragraph, he uses the following phrase: “they continue their spiritual journeys in another community of faith.†I wonder how he is looking at community, what the boundaries are and who is included or excluded.
Good question, Stu. I had hoped things would not come to this and I am not celebrating a “new reformation” – the road ahead looks even more difficult for all of us. But … this bishop has acted with more pastoral care and compassion than TEC has yet shown. I don’t see how a fairer offering could be made to the dissenting parishes. If TEC had been half this caring and compassionate …. we would not have reached this point. The dissenting parishes need not suffer unduly – in a reasonable church, they could be welcomed into the nearest diocese. I would find +Sauls concern for them touching if *any* concern at all were shown by the present governance of TEC for reasserters who are suffering in reappraising parishes.
TEC cannot let the property go without a fight. This is about precedent. 815 doesn’t give a rip about these four churches. It cares about the legal implication of a diocese walking out the door with the property. No, this is going to be ugly. When an oganization feels that its survival is at stake, it will eschew no tactic in its effort to win.
carl
This stuff about “pay money owed to the diocese” is absurd. The money (if any) is owed to the Episcopal diocese. Why would any loyal Episcopalians give one red cent to folks who are now part of the Southern Cone–those folk, and their Bishop, are no longer part of the Episcopal Church.
You can’t have it both ways. Play money owed to the diocese? Sure, and as soon as a new Episcopal bishop is appointed in the vacant see, that new Bishop can make whatever arrangements are necessary to collect whatever monies are owed the diocese.
When did the Southern Cone (or the Episcopal Church) cease to be part of the Anglican Communion? In that respect, you can’t turn this into an “us”/”them” thing. Through and through, this is a “we.”
#33
I’m inclined to agree. We’re in new territory now and it would be better just to write off any debts “owed” to the former Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Departing dioceses may remain dioceses in the ecclesial sense, but most non-Anglican observers won’t get the nuances of this. Much better to be magnanimous and say “Not only can you remain with the Episcopal Church, but any debts are considered cancelled.†The same principle should apply to diocesan endowments – distribution in proportion to the size of both groups.
As regards amounts owed I expect that in most instances the entity carrying the note is not the diocese but rather a foundation or a separate corporation that has a distinct board of director. There are specific fiduciary responsibilities likely to govern their ability to forgive debt.
This is a situation that needs to work both ways – let reasserter parishes “buy out” of reappraiser dioceses and vice-versa. That would be the fair, civilized and, dare I say, Christian way to handle mortgages and similar loans.
#33 Dan Ennis, I think that perhaps the diocese is the cosigner or guarantees the loans. In a divorce the credit card companies come after both parties with out concern for the divorce decree because they are not party to the decree and both parties are responsible for the debt. The lending institutions will come after the deep pockets, probably the diocese that holds the deed or signed the note, +Schofield’s group could end up owing money on somthing that they do not own. Maybe TEC would agree to assume responsiblity for the loans in case the parish defaults. It really isn’t a theological question for the lending institutions, they just want a responsible party. Why would +Schofield’s crowd assume responsiblity for a debt of a parish that is not affiliated with them? Schofield’s group just wants off the hook I would imagine. TEC isn’t subsidizing Kingdom Halls are they?
[blockquote]Why would any loyal Episcopalians give one red cent to folks who are now part of the Southern Cone–those folk, and their Bishop, are no longer part of the Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]Well, you guys owe a little shy of five hundred years of back Peter’s Pence, then.
“rightness”? There must not a bishop’s literacy test to qualify.
No matter the actual mechanics, John David offers a way for a witness of peace even in schism. Actually, so did Peter Lee, before he was thwarted by 815. Sauls, like Schorei, Beers, etc., witness only hatefulness and greed.
I really, really love these threads where phrases like “abuse of power”, “the work of the Episcopal Church”, and “hijacked” come flowing from the revisionists. But then, I’m sort of a connoisseur of denial and projection.
There goes Stacy Fred again, raging reconciliation. God love him.
# 39: ‘”rightnessâ€? There must not a bishop’s literacy test to qualify.’
You qualify!