Comments: Pittsburgh lawsuit settled

Well, I can't imagine how this could have turned out better for the loyal Episcopalians in Pittsburgh - esp. considering this Diocese is the home of the infamous Geoff Chapman, author of the schismatic "Chapman memo." (see Simon's excellent report on this in the archives)

I am *so* blogging this tomorrow... :)

Posted by Simeon at Sunday, 16 October 2005 at 10:58pm BST

Hmmm: I'm not so sure, Simeon.

Some important safeguards have been recognized for Calvary (et al), true.

However, the decision still anticipates "even if a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America" (or, according to the Calvary website's characterization "Otherwise put, this means that in the event that some congregations leave ECUSA").

Call me an "Anglican ultramontanist" (if you will *g*), but I simply DO NOT ACCEPT THIS. *People* can leave their parishes, but *parishes* CANNOT leave the ***Episcopal*** Church!

[This is not to say that I don't realize that, if a majority of the people leave, some parishes may have to be closed . . . but I have *faith* that this is only temporary. :-D]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Monday, 17 October 2005 at 5:18am BST

I suspect that JCF has spotted the problem lurking here. Bp Duncan has been *reasonable* in coming to a *mutual agreement* to enable his dissenting parishes to leave if they want.. Something no nice liberal ECUSA bishop would ever countenance, it seems!!

Here's another revision for the Much Revised American Episcopal Version: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a conservative church to leave the kingdom of ECUSA"!

Posted by Dave at Monday, 17 October 2005 at 11:34pm BST

Dave: Get real! "Reasonable" and "mutual" are definitely not adjectives one could ever ascribe to "Slash and Burn" Bob Duncan. His game plan from Day One has been to implode ECUSA and ransack the store. Passing a diocesan council resolution saying that if you don't like what GC does you can locally nullify it hardly sounds reasonable to me. The Chapman Memo (which came out of Diocese of Pittsburgh by one of Bob's people) is certainly not mutual.

What surprises me is why a presentment hasn't been made against Duncan, Iker, and Co. for abandoning the communion.

By the way, parishes have no standing outside an Episcopal Diocese; and a Diocese has no standing outside ECUSA. Parishes don't "leave." People leave. The property stays with ECUSA.

Posted by Peter at Tuesday, 18 October 2005 at 3:07am BST

"Bp Duncan has been *reasonable* in coming to a *mutual agreement* to enable his dissenting parishes to leave if they want.."

But +Duncan's dissenters have NEVER been interested in leaving, and he knows it.

It would seem that +Duncan's strategy is changing (I'm not sure exactly which way, at this point). Hopefully, he's seen the writing on the wall of the Dennis Canon, and is planning on keeping-on, keeping-on in ECUSA (and continuing to annoy the living daylights out of the majority ;-/).

I'm afraid, however, that he will leave the *ECUSA Diocese of Pittsburgh* (to form some as-yet-to-be-determined jurisdiction within the likely soon-to-come Alexandrian Communion), and attempt to take most of the Pittsburgh parishes with him (and then it's back to court).

I know that (legal proceedings) doesn't seem very "nice" Dave (though I still would *prefer* nonviolent direct action).

But I *do* believe that the Church is a *divine* institution: I can't stand by the sidelines, as God's House is carted off . . .

[Practically speaking, as I said above, if the recalcitrant minority---within ECUSA as a whole---leaves, then some parishes will have to be closed. In that context, it may well be that the schismatics can cut deals for the church property that was made necessary ECUSA dioceses sell, due to their departure.]

Ack: this is all just Too Depressing . . . :-(

Lord have mercy!

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Tuesday, 18 October 2005 at 6:17am BST

Peter is right, Dave. "Parishes don't "leave." People leave." And just as it would be wrong for my parish to leave the Diocese of Dallas and try to take our property with us (as much as I'd dearly love to see that sometimes...), it'd be equally wrong for +Duncan & his AAC cronies to try and leave with things which *don't belong* to them. That pesky 8th Commandment gets in the way, don't ya know...

Posted by David Huff at Tuesday, 18 October 2005 at 3:21pm BST

JCF wrote " if the recalcitrant minority---within ECUSA as a whole---leaves, then some parishes will have to be closed"

Dear JCF, That is exactly the attitude that Bp Duncan exposed as intransigent and spiteful! Liberal ECUSA would rather see orphaned churches and empty buildings.... "There is no-one so blind...."

Posted by Dave at Tuesday, 18 October 2005 at 6:18pm BST

"What surprises me is why a presentment hasn't been made against Duncan, Iker, and Co. for abandoning the communion."--Peter

Indeed! What are people waiting for, GC 2006?

Posted by Kurt at Tuesday, 18 October 2005 at 7:08pm BST

Dave, you have to understand where I'm coming from:

+Duncan&Co = homophobia

homophobia = *evil*

Seen in that light (though I have infinite patience to work through these issues with all Episcopalians ***within the democratic polity of ECUSA***), then why *wouldn't* I prefer to see schismatic congregations closed, than carry on the work of the Father of Lies? Seen from my POV (God help me, I *hope* it's the Gospel), it's only logical.

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Tuesday, 18 October 2005 at 11:58pm BST

Dear JCF I don't think Bp Duncan is a *homophobe*, any more than homosexuals are just *perverts*.

Accusations of *evil* are easy to throw around! But hardly "full of grace and truth"...

What he has agreed to is gracious!

Posted by Dave at Wednesday, 19 October 2005 at 10:12pm BST

Dave wrote:

"Dear JCF I don't think Bp Duncan is a *homophobe*,...What he has agreed to is gracious!"

Dave, Duncan has got you snowballed. Maybe Duncan doesn't hate gays, maybe he does. But, to call his actions "gracious" requires either being drunk or high. Duncan is a snake. Have you forgotten the Chapman Memo? Nothing terribly "gracious" about that. Everything Duncan is doing is "under the table" so he can implode ECUSA and have Akinola name him Pope of the Neo-Puritans in North America. If Duncan were gracious, he'd resign...now.

I read somewhere else that Via Media is preparing a strategy to take down Duncan, Iker, and Co. after GC 2006 in case of a "worse case scenario" by the ACC and Network. I hope Duncan is #1 on the presentment list.

Posted by Peter at Thursday, 20 October 2005 at 2:24am BST

Dear Dave: you're welcome to your opinion.

But as far as *this homo* is concerned, *I* (not the 'phobes) am going to DEFINE "homophobia"!

If I "throw around accusations of evil", I hope I do so *only* following the example (and infused with the Spirit) of Christ (and if I don't---Lord have mercy!)

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Thursday, 20 October 2005 at 5:27am BST

"I read somewhere else that Via Media is preparing a strategy to take down Duncan, Iker, and Co. after GC 2006 in case of a "worse case scenario" by the ACC and Network. I hope Duncan is #1 on the presentment list."--Peter

Amen!!!

Posted by Kurt at Thursday, 20 October 2005 at 6:03pm BST

I really find it hard to understand the venom directed against the Bishop of Pittsburgh. (Almost as hard as I find it to understand the way "Septic Tanks" pronounce his diocese!)

From what I can gather, he's the kind of bloke that Forward in Faith UK would regard as unsound on ordaining the ladies, but otherwise OK, like +John Ebor:, +Pete Willesden, +Thomas Dunelm: or +Michael Roffen: - certainly not an ultra-conservative.

Posted by Alan Harrison at Thursday, 20 October 2005 at 8:56pm BST

Alan Harrison wrote: "I really find it hard to understand the venom directed against the Bishop of Pittsburgh.... From what I can gather, he's the kind of bloke that Forward in Faith UK would regard as unsound on ordaining the ladies, but otherwise OK, like +John Ebor:, +Pete Willesden, +Thomas Dunelm: or +Michael Roffen: - certainly not an ultra-conservative."

Dear Alan, it's all part of the *warm-up* to the attempted "outlawing" of the NACDAP and AAC by ECUSA's liberals and a legal grap for the dioceses and parishes. Just Ad-hominem attacks to undermine the authority of the leaders, especially the Bishop who is leading the NACDAP.

Nasty, but completely predictable. It's the same reason that extremist liberals try to redefine "homophobe" -- if you are homophobic you aren't worth listening to (eg hate-filled, fearful, irrational etc) !! Just a bad as if extremist conservatives started to redefine the word "pervert" to imply things about TA contributors who are gay (eg compulsive, abusive, public toilets etc).

As for the Chapman memo, the "Via Extrema" strategy just leaked sounds like the liberal equivalent!!

Posted by Dave at Friday, 21 October 2005 at 7:51pm BST
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.