Comments: Pittsburgh: national church seeks intervention

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

Posted by JPM at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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.