Sunday, 15 February 2009

Pittsburgh: national church seeks intervention

Updated again Tuesday evening

Although there is no report of this as yet on Episcopal Life Online, nor at the The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) - which despite former claims to the contrary now appears to have slightly changed its name - there is now confirmation from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of a report from Lionel Deimel that Episcopal Church Asks to Join Calvary Lawsuit.

The actual court filing can be seen here as a PDF.

Deimel wrote:

An objection that the defendants have raised more than once in the lawsuit filed by Calvary Church against now-deposed bishop Robert Duncan and other (now former) leaders of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is that Calvary had no right to sue without The Episcopal Church’s being a party to the suit. Well, Archbishop-in-Waiting Duncan seems about to get his wish. Papers were filed today in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas on behalf of Bishop John C. Buchanan, Retired Bishop of West Missouri and parliamentarian of the House of Bishops. In a “petition to intervene,” Buchanan, representing The Episcopal Church, asks the court to become a plaintiff in the case…

The diocese wrote:

Today, Friday, February 13, 2009, attorneys representing The Episcopal Church filed a Petition to Intervene in the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s Request to Special Master now pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

The following statement was issued by the Standing Committee, the current leaders of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh:

“We approve of and welcome The Episcopal Church joining our legal effort to regain control of diocesan assets that are still held by former diocesan leaders. Our request before the court is based on an agreement those former leaders made in court, namely, that diocesan property would unconditionally remain with a diocese that is defined as being part of The Episcopal Church of the United States. We believe the participation of The Episcopal Church in the case will help clarify beyond question who is and who is not rightfully the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh identified in that court agreement.”

Update

Lionel Deimel has published a second article, Further Analysis. In this he notes that the PDF document linked above contains two items. The second document, titled complaint-in-intervention, is analysed in detail by him. He summarises the concluding paragraph as follows:

In particular, The Episcopal Church asks that the court:

a. Declare that the people recognized by The Episcopal Church are the proper authorities to control the assets of the diocese.

b. Declare that property held by and for the Diocese of Pittsburgh may only be used for the mission of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, subject to the rules of each.

c. Order the defendants to relinquish all diocesan assets to the proper authorities of the diocese.

d. Require defendants to submit an accounting of all assets held on October 4, 2008,

e. Provide such further relief as may be proper.

Tuesday evening update

ENS now has a report, PITTSBURGH: Episcopal Church petitions to join property case, wants Duncan to vacate offices.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 15 February 2009 at 5:42pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

It's time to start naming Venables and his province in these lawsuits.

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 15 February 2009 at 8:28pm GMT

Yes and the Episcopal Church should receive full legal costs and charge retrospective rent for the illegal occupations.

The ACA report does not state how much the schismatics have wasted on legal fees and where their financing has come from.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Monday, 16 February 2009 at 6:48am GMT

The Anglican Communion Network may have been doing business under the auspices and tax identity (501c3 status) of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. From its website, it is clear that many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars are involved. In the US, not-for-profits must file informational tax returns with the exception of churches. For example, the American Anglican Council files a return but the diocese of say, Atlanta would not have to. +Duncan appears to have been in control of the Network assets, and possibly under the auspices of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, in which case, who owns these assets? Are they part of the assets in question? If not, why not? It would seem that if funds were received by Pittsburgh using its tax exempt status, the funds would belong to whatever the legitimate diocese is determined to be. If, the Network was an independent organization , then it should have filed informational returns. I have been unable to find any accounting. The Anglican Relief Fund apparently is now its own independent 501c3 from Pittsburgh.

Posted by: EmilyH on Monday, 16 February 2009 at 12:28pm GMT

EmilyH. I read your informative, straightforward observations at this and other sites, and always with pleasure. You are a treasure. Thank you.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 16 February 2009 at 2:31pm GMT

"The Episcopal Church Sues You".. out of a sense of justice of course: Justice for the current Pittsburgh Episcopalians, who mostly want out of TEC? Or Justice for the previous generations of Episcopalians, who would never have agreed to the heretical and unrighteous things that TEC now promotes? Or *just* legalistic bullying?

Posted by: davidwh on Monday, 16 February 2009 at 9:35pm GMT

davidwh:

"Or Justice for the previous generations of Episcopalians, who would never have agreed to the heretical and unrighteous things that TEC now promotes?"

Speak to and for the dead often, do you?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 12:21am GMT

"Or Justice for the previous generations of Episcopalians, who would never have agreed to the heretical and unrighteous things that TEC now promotes"

Hmmm. Do ya suspect that -even in Pittsburgh - some of those Episcopalians gone to glory were upset when when slavery ended, segregation by race ended? When women could be elected to the vestry, when women could be seated as GenCon deputies? When women could be ordained to all orders? How far back would it suit you to wind the clock back?

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 1:37pm GMT

"the heretical and unrighteous things that TEC now promotes"

You mean as opposed to the heretical and unrighteous things that the Network and all their cronies now promote? Not talking about the gay thing here, davidwh. Is it just that perhaps you don't think hatred, lies, reviling, slander, and bearing false witness are unrighteous?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 3:19pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.