Comments: two bishops deposed

Now, what happens with his Lambeth invitation?

Posted by ruidh at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 7:37pm GMT

[Re Schofield]

Simultaneously: "Lord have mercy" and "Thanks be to God!"

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 7:39pm GMT

As to Mr. Schofield's response: The more he says, the more he sound like some character out of Alice and Wonderland.

Posted by Deacon Charlie Perrin at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 7:59pm GMT

There was no need for a lot of this mess, if LibTEC had learned from the example of the CofE: Acts of Synod for legitimate dissenters, satisfactory protection and flying Bishops etc.

But LibTEC is demonstrating the meaning of Liberal "Tolerance". It includes everyone... if they are liberal .

Posted by david wh at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:00pm GMT

Re David Wh
Bollocks! Schofield was bishop of the DioSJ for years and was never disciplined for being conservative. Nobody has ever forced him, or Duncan or Iker, or anybody else to ordain a woman or openly gay person. Nobody disciplined these guys for anything all these years. Nobody is pushing them out the door. Where did this pathetic martyr complex come from?
Lou

Posted by Lou Poulain at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:16pm GMT

An arrogant and feckless Governor of New York and an arrogant and feckless Bishop of San Joaquin lost their offices today. They each have no one to blame but themselves.

So forget 'em!

It's time to start over. Spring and Easter are both on the way with the promise of new life.

Posted by counterlight at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:24pm GMT

"Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not – or should not be – two separate Churches. It is the leadership of The Episcopal Church that is treating itself as a separate and unique Church. They may do so, but they ought not expect everyone to follow teaching that serves only to undermine the authority of the Bible and ultimately leads to lifestyles that are destructive."

No, again. This is not true, whether said by JDS or Prof. Seitz or Canon Kearon or +Cantuar (all of whom, if I remember correctly, have recently uncautiously referred to an Anglican Church). There _is_ no trans-provincial "Anglican Church," and to say so is a contradiction in terms: Anglicanism is foundationally about independent national churches.(For that matter, as a point of statute law in England, "Ecclesia Anglicana" meant specifically "The Church of England.") TEC and the Southern Cone are, and must be, two separate churches, because either (a) the Church of England was right in claiming to be a separate church in the 16th century or (b) Anglicanism is invalid from the roots: 'absolutely null and utterly void,' as I have quoted here before.

"The fact remains," Schofield observed, "that a canon law specifically designed to protect the people of God from wrong teaching and schismatic movements has been used in a clumsy way."

Also no. The canon was (again, if I remember correctly) designed to deal with bishops who went over to Rome without resigning their ministry.

Posted by 4 May 1535+ at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:25pm GMT

Puh-lease! Read the Anglican Communion Network statement. This is not scorched earth from ECUSA. It's scorching hypocrisy from the ACN.

I nattered on about this on my little blog, but my basic point was this. You can't break the rules, face the appropriate consequences, and then feign surprise or outrage. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy.

It's a sad day for the church. I just hope it's one step in allowing ECUSA to move on.

Pax,
Scott+

Posted by Scott Gunn at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:32pm GMT

David Wh:

It is quite clear that TEC was willing to tolerate Schofield and his brand of Anglicanism within itself, until he took the action to remove himself and his diocese from TEC--an entirely illegal and uncanonical action.

Schofield plays games with semantics--nay, not with semantics, but capitalization--in his response, by consistently referring to "Communion" with a capital "C", as though Canon IV.19.2 referred to the Anglican Communion, which it does not. It refers to the "communion" (lower case) of the Episcopal Church.

And while Schofield may wish (or believe) that TEC and its sister churches (such as Southern Cone) in the Anglican Communion are not separate individual churches, the fact of the matter is that they ARE and always have been--separate and autonomous with individual polities, prayer books, and services. They share a history of developing out of the CofE, but they are not part of that church nor of any other church that developed out of the CofE.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:34pm GMT

"Now, what happens with his Lambeth invitation?"

Could be that the ABC is finally faced with an "either/or" decision that he can neither fudge nor duck.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:36pm GMT

I presume that if Rowan Williams in his infinite wisdom can withhold an invitation to the duly elected Bishop of New Hampshire he can allow the duly deposed Bishop of San Joaquin to attend.

Posted by Richard Lyon at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:39pm GMT

PS What's with LibTEC? A new sneer-word for the conservatively politically-correct?

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 8:39pm GMT

Hmm.. as a priest, I am entrusted with the care of my parish by my bishop and the church. As a bishop, one is entrusted with the care of the diocese by the House of bishops (depending on jurisdiction) who approve the election and the national church or province that has created the diocese. The diocese is held in trust for the Church canonically defined as having created that diocese. This is not a matter of "faith" but a matter of breach of trust. I would have the utmost respect for Bp Schofield if he had resigned from his diocese and sought a posting under the Southern Cone, inviting any who wished to go along to do so. But, in this case he has entered into a breach of trust, not in terms of the faith, but in terms of the care of the diocese over which he had authority within TEC.
It's like living in NYC but finding the attidude of the city unpleasant deciding to transfer loyalty to Chicago, including paying taxes to and following the by laws of Chicago, without ever leaving NYC. Attitudes may change or not, but we are all responsible within the canonical structure for doing things the right way. If we abandon the canonical structures of our church where does that leave us. Were I seeking to employ John David Schofield in the future, I would be very cautious lest the rules that I set for his employment might not be to his liking. In other words I would ask if he could be trusted with what I want him to do.

Posted by Rae Fletcher at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 9:20pm GMT

Of course "LibTEC" includes everyone. Newsflash: the majority of TEC believe in the direction it is going. Some don't. They choose to pick up their marbles and play in another sandbox...problem is that the marbles are not theirs!

If this were a rational response, lots of Americans would be leaving the country right now because of what W has done to this country...now, would that be an adult way to respond? No. And it is not in the church either.

Posted by Bruce Barber at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 9:28pm GMT

On Jan 3, 1521 Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X.

Stand firm +JDS!

Posted by Joe at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 9:32pm GMT

It's hard to provide satisfactory protection for legitimate dissenters when they insist that the only thing that would be satisfactory is a third province, something not even the CoE has thought appropriate so far.

Jon

Posted by Jon at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 10:06pm GMT

Sorry, david wh, but "legitimate dissenters" do so within the constitutional processes of the national church in question, whether the Church of England or the Episcopal Church or any other. Bishop Schofield's efforts to deny, ignore, and disparage the constitutional processes of the Episcopal Church don't offer much hope of how he will deal with those of the Southern Cone - oh, wait! The constitutional processes of the Southern Cone would require him to retire. Well, then....

Whatever Bishop Schofield thinks "should not be," the Anglican Communion, from multiple Lambeth Conferences on out, has never understood itself as a contiguous single institution. To abandon the constitutional processes of the Episcopal Church, as for any other national church of the Communion, has consequences. They have applied now to Bishops Schofield and Cox, and should apply in the future as necessary.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 10:16pm GMT

Presumably both of these gentlemen are now disinvited to Lambeth. Cantuar himself established the precedent when he invited the legitimate Bishop of Recife and not the Souther Cone imposter.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 10:20pm GMT

I think there is a spare place for Bishop Schofield in the marketplace area of the Lambeth Conference.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 11:17pm GMT

My prayers ascend for Bishop Schofield and those choosing to leave TEC with him. Bishop Schofield's letter of response to the action of the HOB includes some of the same unrealistic thinking that has characterized those wishing to leave TEC and transfer to another province. So, let's be clear. The Anglican Communion is not a worldwide Church, governed by the ABC, the Primates, and the Lambeth Conference, even though the ABC seems to act like it is. Those wishing to leave TEC, and Bishop John-David, want to recreate reality in a way that suits them. The "Communion of the Church",when they refer to it, is what Fr. Tobias Haller has aptly called, "The Church of All Outdoors." They may wish that it existed, but it does not. TEC is a national Church governed by its General Convention and its Constitution and Canons. Bishop Schofield took vows to be faithful to this Church, TEC, not to some made-up body that he may wish he belonged to. Now he has been deposed by the bishops of this Church because he abandoned the communion of this Church, by arrogating to himself the "right" to repudiate the authority of General Convention and of the Constitution and Canons of TEC, and to attempt to transfer the endowments and property of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, held in trust for the Church, to the Province of the Southern Cone. This is the reality of the situation. It does not help the conservative cause to perorate on the basis of unreality. There is no worldwide Anglican Church, of which TEC is assumed to be a member, subject to the jurisdiction of the ABC and the Primates. Clearly, the conservatives want to create such a Church. TEC will never belong to such an entity. Anyone who thinks otherwise just does not understand most Americans or the history of TEC.

Posted by revkarenm at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 11:32pm GMT

On Lambeth invitations. I thought that to be invited to Lambeth one had to be a bishop. It looks as though Mr Schofield is now being legally deposed from his orders. Not being a bishop should mean that he is not able to attend Lambeth 2008, whether he was invited in the first place or not.

Posted by Wilf at Wednesday, 12 March 2008 at 11:34pm GMT

David wh,
The former Bishop Schofield spent his entire episcopate trying to find ways to take the diocese of San Joaquin out of TEC. He only got what's coming to him.

Posted by Padre Mickey at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 12:44am GMT

"On Jan 3, 1521 Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X. Stand firm +JDS!"

Ironic, Joe, in that xJDS almost certainly sides more w/ Pope Leo, than w/ Martin Luther.

Martin Luther, unlike xJDS, was willing to both take a "stand" against his ecclesial authorities, AND pay the consequences for that stand. xJDS has been trying to play a game, wherein he could repudiate, *without* paying the consequences.

That game came to an end, TODAY.

As I said above: "Lord have mercy"---upon us all, AND "Thanks be to God!" (most of all, for the besieged Episcopalians of San Joaquin, finally FREE AT LAST! :-D)

Posted by JCF at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 1:20am GMT

"On Jan 3, 1521 Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X.

Stand firm +JDS!"

And Luther accepted that excommunication and founded his own church. He didn't go around claiming the Pope had no authority to do it.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 1:49am GMT

This is all well and good, albeit a tad overdue -- but whe can we please move on to the deposition of +Bob Pittsburgh, +Jack Leo Ft. Worth, et al.?

Retirement eternal grant unto them, O LORD.

Posted by Viriato da Silva at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 2:25am GMT

Schofield's statement "In the end, it appears as though the real motivation behind all of this is the use of raw power and coveting property" seems to be one thing on which many of us can agree.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 5:54am GMT

I find it most curious - and worth pondering - with regard to the pre modern, Modern, late modern, anti Modern cultural Time line(s), that the deposed bishop apparently does not understand the great difference (in pre modern Times) between a Breach of Trust (such as his) and a Breach of Faith (such as he falsesly attributes to TEC).

Someone genuinely pre modern (the real thing) would abhore the disloyalty and exclude him from Society à la 1215 (cf "dying die" in Genesis 1:17).

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 6:52am GMT

make that 2:17...

: = (

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 6:54am GMT

What did Mr Cox do?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 6:58am GMT

Seeking clarification. Bishops Cox and Schofield are being described by some as 'Mr'. Is it the view of The Episcopal Church that deposition constitutes removal of his ordination and consecration? If reconciliation were to come about would there be a need to re-ordain him? My understanding is that TEC is saying that Bishop Schofield is no longer a Bishop of TEC, but is not making a judgement over whether he is a bishop. That would indeed be an extraordinary and sweeping judgement to make by way of this process.

Posted by Andrew Carey at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 9:53am GMT

Andrew

I think that's a good question, and my understanding is the same as yours.

I might add that we have declined to publish a fair number of comments in the past that referred to bishops in this way. Perhaps we should continue to do so. Certainly I deprecate such usage. Please would commenters refrain from it.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 10:23am GMT

On the issue of Lambeth. Precedent is here mentionec on +Cavalcanti Recife. Simon, can you check on the status of an invitation for +Bakare Harare and the status of invitation for +Elston Jakasi Manicaland. I believe an important precedent, Central Africa, is in play. +Jakasi and +Kunonga both attempted to leave Central Africa for Kenya and take their dioceses with them. Central Africa deposed them stating they could leave, as individuals, but not the dioceses ...essentially the same case argued by TEC. +Jakasi has apparently recanted, +Kunonga, who didn't receive a Lambeth invitation, has not, but he was replaced temporarily by +Bakare. An invitation to +Bakare and, how he has been treated, might signal how +Cantuar has viewed the situation and will view San Joaquin.

Posted by EPfizH at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 12:01pm GMT

Pat, Lou (no need to be obscene!)

+John-David took action after TEC definitively rejected appeals to return to the Christian fold by repenting of the consecration of Gen Robinson, falling out of communion with many orthodox provinces. Like many Anglican Bishops he doesn't believe in the fudge cooked up by TEC and Lambeth palace. And as you know, his diocese is not the only one moving out of TEC (have you forgotten already!)

TEC is not a safe place for orthodox Christian beievers, clergy or Bishops.

Posted by david wh at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 1:45pm GMT

Bruce Barber wrote "the majority of TEC believe in the direction it is going."

How can TEC be right if just a "majority" believe? Freudian slip? All TEC believe in THE Way - Jesus Christ - and be following Him!

Posted by david wh at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 1:53pm GMT

Andrew, Simon--re: "Mr. Schofield"

I think this usage is, now, within TEC at least, actually correct--or, perhaps, Dr. Schofield, since he has a D.D.. Like the many laicized RC clergy one knows, he retains his orders, and if he were somehow to be reinstated, he would not be reordained. Nonetheless, one does not call these laicized priests "Father" or "The Reverend....": losing the style and title of the ordained ministry goes along with one's deposition from the exercise of that ministry. Certainly, if I were to be defrocked tomorrow, I would still be a priest, but no one would expect to address me as one.

Posted by 4May1535+ at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 2:06pm GMT

Andrew:

You certainly know better.

Deposition removes from the deposed the responsibilities, the faculties, and the perquisites of the office.

Therefore, John-David Schofield no longer has the canonical right to use the titles, wear the distinctive clothing, or undertake any of the functions of a bishop in/of the Episcopal Church.

Ontologically, he remains a bishop, but without faculties in the Episcopal Church. Should he repent and be reconciled, the deposition would be lifted and all those faculties and perquisites would be returned to him.

No Episcopalian is required to recognize his episcopal role in the Southern Cone, but it would seem a normal courtesy to refer to him as a bishop, albeit a foreign one, not in communion with TEC (since the Southern Cone has declared itself out-of-communion with TEC).

Posted by John-Julian,OJN at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 3:29pm GMT

Andrew, Simon: the action of the House of Bishops is a statement of Schofield's and Cox's capacity to function within the Episcopal Church. It is not a reflection any indelible mark in ordination, nor on the possibility of their recognition by another Christian body. Thus, we say a person is "deposed" - removed from position, and from the responsibilities and perquisites thereof - and not somehow "de-ordained." That said, an Episcopalian might address him as "Bishop" in the same way - no more and no less - that they would a Bishop in a pentecostal body: acknowledging out of courtesy the position held in another body, without any acknowledgement of authority beyond that body.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 3:51pm GMT

Is anyone running a book on whether Rowan will rescind his invite to Lambeth?

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 4:02pm GMT

It's like the My county in the state of Pennsylvania saying it doesn't want to be a part of Pennsylvania and joining Maryland or West virginia. If we were allowed to do that people might be changing and switching all over the place. Might make the map makers happy but what a mess. Also, counties are creations of the state much like diocese' are creations of the national church. How do you just pick and chose who you like this week??

Posted by BobinSwPA at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 5:18pm GMT

Mr Carey wrote: "Seeking clarification. Bishops Cox and Schofield are being described by some as 'Mr'. Is it the view of The Episcopal Church..."

Church of Sweden here, Sir.

Traditionally we stress the "outer calling" of the Congregation of the Holy (= the Church) and the "inner calling" of the Holy Ghost.

But we don't do "indelible" much.

We never had either the Mandatory Celibacy or the “Canonical” Testament of the Gregorian Reformers. And our Chapters have remained “irregular” in Rome’s mind, and our Parishes still own the buildings (incl. church) and the properties.

We didn’t do “Gregorian” much.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 5:54pm GMT

If ABC sticks by the rules he set Schofield would not be invited to Lambeth. He fits the category of border-crossing bishops from AMiA, CANA, et al. +Carey did not invite AMiA, and +Williams has said he'd follow the same policy.

BTW, anyone give credence to the CEN story that the recently named Windsor Continuation Group (WCG) will look at the invitations question?

Posted by John B. Chilton at Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 7:04pm GMT

It will look funny when +Rowan invites a pretend TEC bishop of San Joaquin who just has a few churches in his care and probably won't even be consecrated in time for Lambeth, and disinvites +John-David who is the duly elected and consecrated Bishhop for the vast majority!

Just disinvite all TEC Bishops Rowan! If not for the gay blessings thing and the not refraining thing, then for refusing to make adequate arrangements for dissenters and for continuing to press legal actions. What else will stop the mess spreading beyond North America?..

Posted by david wh at Friday, 14 March 2008 at 12:58am GMT

"+John-David took action after TEC definitively rejected appeals to return to the Christian fold by repenting of the consecration of Gen Robinson, falling out of communion with many orthodox provinces. Like many Anglican Bishops he doesn't believe in the fudge cooked up by TEC and Lambeth palace. And as you know, his diocese is not the only one moving out of TEC (have you forgotten already!)"

Right--so he had every right to leave TEC. No one's stopping him. What he doesn't have a right to do is a)take his diocese and its property with him; and b)still claim to be a bishop in the The Episcopal Church.

"TEC is not a safe place for orthodox Christian believers, clergy or Bishops."

Oddly enough, it seemed to be safe enough place for Bishop Schofield from 1989 to 2008, a span of nearly two decades. I don't recall anyone threatening him (physically or religiously) in that time, until he made the uncanonical move to take his diocese to another province.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Friday, 14 March 2008 at 1:40am GMT

david wh said: "TEC is not a safe place for orthodox Christian beievers, clergy or Bishops."

What is there to fear? Besides possibly gay cooties? I don't see or hear anything that might harm anyone in our parish. Sermons are usually preached on the lessons for the day. Is it different in an "orthodox" parish?

Or is it possible that an "orthodox" person might hear something which causes her to think about what she believes and possibly grow? And possibly leave the control of the "orthodox" preacher?

Posted by PseudoPiskie at Friday, 14 March 2008 at 3:06am GMT

Could bad language be censored from Thinking Anglicans... I object to B.....ks etc

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Friday, 14 March 2008 at 6:17am GMT

Robert - But if Simon censored the b.....ks what would we have left to talk about (cheeky grin) ?

Posted by Stephen Roberts at Friday, 14 March 2008 at 1:25pm GMT

"...xJDS almost certainly sides more w/ Pope Leo, than w/ Martin Luther."

I have to think that you actually believe this, why else would you write it? And yet, putting our theological differences aside, you have to see how patently absurd your claim is. ML based his theological divergence with the praxis of the Church leaders on the claims of sacred Scripture, whilst Pope Leo defended his (re)actions against ML on the basis of canon law. Now, tell me, where's the incongruence with our contemporary situation? ...no, that's not irony, my friend, it's analogy - and just as I inferred.

Now, let me say, I would be more sympathetic to TEC if they had the courage to say, "It seems that this diocese (SJ) has a different piety than that of our national church, so we'll just throw them a party and wish them well as they go to the SC."

Posted by Joe at Friday, 14 March 2008 at 11:52pm GMT

"And Luther accepted that excommunication and founded his own church. He didn't go around claiming the Pope had no authority to do it."

Pat, your friends cringed when they read your response. Fact is, ML publicly burned Exsurge Domine - the bull demanding he recant - along with books of (gasp!) canon law, shouting (undoubtedly with a beer in hand!) "Because you [Pope Leo X] have confounded the truth of God, today the Lord confounds you. Into the fire with you!" If you call that accepting without rejecting...well, whatever...

What's more, ML never claimed to be establishing "his own church". Re-formation is not novel establishment. And yet, if you need an ally in this position, I'm sure you could find one in the current pontiff. But, then, he would also say the same thing about those who look toward the See of Canterbury for their authority.

Posted by Joe at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 12:50am GMT

Pat, ECUSA wasn't very hospitable but, after CG 2003, TEC has become an unsafe place for non-liberals. TEC has no room for non-liberals to be included with integrity.

Posted by david wh at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 12:57am GMT

Joe:

Luther didn't attempt to take over the RC church, he just left--declaring it sinful, etc., yes, but without attempting to abscond with its property.

David:

Exactly what has TEC ever done to make itself inhospitable to conservatives who didn't insist on making everybody else follow THEM?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 11:14am GMT

"...yes, but without attempting to abscond with its property." On the contrary, Pat O'Neill, Luther did "abscond with the property".

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 1:07pm GMT

“… Luther did "abscond with the property".

I don’t know about that. But the 1555 Treaty of Augsburg did leave abandoned, or devastated, institutions to their former owners, or the Princes. Luther, however, was dead by then.

In Sweden, already in 1527 the Riksdag decided that the testament holdings did not belong to the Church a an abstract Institute, but to the Legal heirs of the Testator, the “Canonical” Testament of Rome (the financing of the Gregorian World Revolution) never having been accepted in Swedish Law (still isn’t).

Difference being that Rome’s “Canonical” testament is in itself a “Deed” (in the Platonist World of Ideas) b i n d i n g the legal heirs, whereas, in Law, a testament is merely the Will of the Testator (“last Will and Testament”) subject to the a p p r o v a l (or not) of the Legal heirs.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 6:59pm GMT

David said: "TEC has become an unsafe place for non-liberals. TEC has no room for non-liberals to be included with integrity."

Repeating incantations does not change the facts to match.

We here this charge repeatedly. I have never seen a shred of evidence to support it.

It is a "vain repetition."

Posted by Malcolm+ at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 8:14pm GMT

"...without attempting to abscond with its property."

Pat, you're wrong on this head, too. Lapinbizarre is correct in noting that Luther did (with the help of the nobles) claim church property that was formerly under control of the pope. But here's the thing: And why not?

TEC's claim to church buildings looks to the entire world - rightly or wrongly - like one of two things: either a sad, desperate attempt to hold on to people they've already lost or are about to lose by the use of blackmail ("we'll sick our lawyers on you!") or just plain old-fashioned avarice ("we don't care about people, just give us our inheritance!").

I know we all choose sides, but is this really what you want? I mean suppose you're right: the conservatives are trying to steal church buildings. Why not just let them have them? Does fighting in court do anything to help TEC's cause or to advance its mission? Why not just take the millions TEC is currently spending on lawyers and build new buildings (ones without roof leaks and sinking floors and crumbling concrete!)? It would be like taking Jesus' advice in the Sermon on the Mount when he says to 'turn the other cheek' and to 'give to anyone who asks' and to 'go the extra mile'. For the sake of the world someone here needs to take the high road.

Posted by Joe at Saturday, 15 March 2008 at 11:14pm GMT

Joe wrote: "Why not just let them have them? Does fighting in court do anything to help TEC's cause or to advance its mission?"

You first, Joe ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 7:43am GMT

Joe:

Because when you are part of an organization--whether it's a church, or a club, or a school, or whatever--you agree to abide by its rules. One of the rules of the Episcopal Church is that parish property is held in trust for the diocese, and that diocesan property is held in trust for the national church.

When you leave an organization, you don't get to say "Oh, but those rules don't apply to us," and take the property with you...especially property you didn't really pay for in the first place.

You want to start a NEW organization--or join a different, existing one? Fine, build your own buildings.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Sunday, 16 March 2008 at 1:52pm 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.