Katharine Jefferts Schori: Diversity, Not Jesus, Saves

The Presiding heretic:

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has denounced the Apostle Paul as mean-spirited and bigoted for having released a slave girl from demonic bondage as reported in Acts 16:16-34 .

In her sermon delivered at All Saints Church in Curaçao in the diocese of Venezuela, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori condemned those who did not share her views as enemies of the Holy Spirit.

The presiding bishop opened her remarks with an observation on the Dutch slave past. “The history of this place tells some tragic stories about the inability of some to see the beauty in other skin colors or the treasure of cultures they didn’t value or understand,” she said.

She continued stating: “Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil.  That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war.  Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities.”

Read it all in Anglican Ink.

 

Episcopal Priest Suspended for Plagiarism

This should serve as fair warning to lazy priests.

One of the Ten Commandments is “thou shall not steal,” but an Episcopal priest has been suspended for allegedly lifting more than a dozen Sunday sermons verbatim from a book.

The Rev. John E. McGinn, 65, who has led the 300-plus families at St. John’s Episcopal Church since 1993, was placed on administrative leave amid allegations that he plagiarized sermons dating back to 2006, said the Rev. Mally Lloyd, canon to the ordinary for the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, a position equivalent to the bishop’s chief of staff.

As many as 15 sermons have been identified as direct copies, Lloyd said.

They were allegedly taken from a book called “Dynamic Preaching,” which can be accessed only with an online subscription…

The Cape Cod Times has the rest.

 

Episcopal Leader to Visit ‘Continuing Episcopalians’

‘Continuing Episcopalians’? The ChristianPost:

The head of The Episcopal Church is making an official visit to Episcopalians who belong to a diocese that has opted to break away from the denomination.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the TEC, arrived Friday in South Carolina to visit Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina who want to remain with the denomination. As part of her itinerary, Jefferts Schori will attend the “Continuing Episcopalians” special meeting on the election of a new provisional bishop for their churches, as the legal battle over who can rightfully call themselves the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina continues in court.

The Steering Committee for the Continuing Episcopalians nominated retired East Tennessee bishop Rt. Rev. Charles Glenn vonRosenberg to the post. The vote to confirm him will take place at Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston on Saturday.

Hillery Douglas, chairman of the Steering Committee and senior warden of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Charleston, said in a statement that Jefferts Schori was a welcomed presence. “We welcome the opportunity to have her with us at this important time in the history of our diocese, and it will be a privilege to share with her firsthand the energy and diversity of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina,” said Douglas.

Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, who is part of the diocesan leadership that decided to break away from TEC, told The Christian Post that he has little issue with the process that the Continuing Episcopalians are undertaking. “We have said consistently that The Episcopal Church (TEC) is free to set up a new Diocese here. She has every right to come and be a part of that process,” said Lewis.

“What neither she nor TEC has a right to do is to claim to be us in that process. We remain the same legally incorporated entity that was established in 1785 (four years before TEC was founded). We have disassociated with TEC but we have not ceased to be The Diocese of South Carolina.”

Earlier this month, the leadership of the South Carolina Diocese filed suit against TEC over the rights to the name, seal, and property of the diocese body. On Wednesday, the Diocese successfully got a court order to temporarily halt TEC’s usage of the name and seal. The order will remain in effect for ten days, overlapping with the Saturday vote on vonRosenberg. A hearing will be held on Friday, Feb. 1, to determine if the order should be made into an injunction.

“Our request for a declaratory judgment is now in the hands of the court of the State of South Carolina. We expect a full and fair hearing of the issues that will in time vindicate our right to freedom of association,” said Lewis.

“We chose to join in the founding of TEC. We are also free to choose to leave that association. We believe that to be guaranteed by both South Carolina law and the U.S. Constitution.”

Due to the court order, on their website the “continuing Episcopalians” have changed their name to “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina” and have removed the diocese seal from their web pages.

Neither The Episcopal Church in South Carolina nor the national leadership of the TEC returned comment to The Christian Post by press time.

 

Annual Litigation Summary for the Episcopal Church (USA)

To their shame…

These are lawsuits initiated by ECUSA.

A.S. Haley writes:

It is a fact well known to certain Episcopalians—both those who have left the Episcopal Church (USA) and those who have remained—that ECUSA and its dioceses have followed a pattern of suing any church that chooses to leave for another Anglican jurisdiction. But the full extent of the litigation that has ensued is not well known at all, either in the wider Church, or among the provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Your Curmudgeon proposes to do what he can to rectify this situation, by publishing an annual update on this site of the current status of all past and present cases in which ECUSA or any of its dioceses has been or is involved, from 2000 to date. Feel free to link to this post, to email links to it to other Episcopalians, and to send it to your Bishop—and feel free to post any updates or corrections in the comments.

The lawsuits initiated by ECUSA and its dioceses to date are first listed below, followed by a list of the six cases begun by a diocese or parish against the Episcopal Church. The listing endeavors to be as complete as I can make it. The first 78 cases, grouped by the State in which they each originated, are the legal actions filed since 2000 (of which I am aware) where the Episcopal Church (USA) and/or one of its dioceses played the role of plaintiff—the party who initiates a case in court by filing a complaint to seize the assets and real property of any church choosing to leave ECUSA.  Please note that wherever possible the actual citation of any published decision in the case has been given. Also, please note the dates for the later cases, which demonstrate the acceleration of litigation by ECUSA and its dioceses in defiant rejection of the Primates’ call for a moratorium on litigation at the Dar es Salaam meeting.

1. Against Christ Anglican Church in Mobile, Alabama (plaintiff was the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast—-the suit settled in 2001 before trial).

2.-4. Against St. John’s Episcopal Church in Fallbrook, California (CA); St. Anne’s, in Oceanside CA; and Holy Trinity, in Ocean Beach, CA (plaintiff in all three cases is the Diocese of San Diego).  Trial court ruled against the two latter parishes following the decision by the California Supreme Court in the St. James Newport Beach case; parishes decided not to appeal.

5.  New case by TEC against St. John’s Episcopal Church in Fallbrook, CA:  Dale W. New, Richard L. Goodlake and the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego v. The Rev. Donald L. Kroeger, et al. (following its decision in the St. James case (No. 6 below), the California Supreme Court ordered republished the decision of the Fourth Appellate District [167 Cal.App.4th 800, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 (2008)], awarding the property to the plaintiff Diocese of San Diego; the defendants did not seek further review)

6-8.  Against St. James Anglican Church, Newport Beach CA and two others;  Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. St. James (Newport Beach) et al. (lead case), Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. All Saints (Long Beach) et al., Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. St. David’s (North Hollywood) et al.;  Episcopal Church Cases, S155094  (Diocese of Los Angeles is plaintiff, joined by ECUSA; following its decision overruling the defendants’ demurrers and reversing the trial court’s grant of a motion to strike [45 Cal.4th 467, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 198 P.3d 66, cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 179 (2009)], the California Supreme Court subsequently reversed a judgment entered against St. James and ordered that the case go forward; litigation is now in the discovery phase). Trial court rulings against the other two parishes are currently on appeal.

9.  Against St. Luke’s of the Mountains Anglican Church, et al, La Crescenta CA; Patricia Huber, The Right Rev. Sergio Carranza, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles, The Right Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles v. The Rev. Dr. Ronald W. Jackson, St. Luke’s of the Mountains Anglican Church, et al. (Fourth Appellate District ruled in favor of Plaintiff Diocese of Los Angeles [175 Cal.App.4th 663, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 346]; parish decided not to appeal further)

10.  Against St. John’s Anglican Church in Petaluma, CA ; Episcopal Diocese of Northern California v. St. John’s Anglican Church, Petaluma (Sonoma County Superior Court; parties agreed to settle following California Supreme Court decision, parish moved to another location and is now a member of ACNA); (Diocese of Northern California was plaintiff)

11.  Against Bishop John David Schofield and the diocesan investment fund in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, CA (ACNA); Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb and The Episcopal Church v. Bishop John-David Schofield and The Episcopal Foundation of San Joaquin (Fresno Superior Court; case involves the Diocese of San Joaquin withdrawing from the Episcopal Church); (the TEC-established and -funded Diocese of San Joaquin is the Plaintiff); case is back in Superior Court after successful appeal by Bishop Schofield to the Fifth Appellate District [190 Cal.App.4th 154, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 160], in discovery phase, with trial in late summer 2013)

12.  Against Trinity Anglican Church in Bristol, Connecticut (CT) (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Connecticut; case settled in 2008; congregation left property to the Diocese)

13.  Against The Rector and former vestry of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, CT; (Plaintiff was the Diocese of Connecticut; parish lost decision in trial court, and Connecticut Supreme Court recently affirmed that decision [302 Conn. 408, 28 A.3d 302]; parish’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in June 2012, along with a Presbyterian case from Georgia [132 Sup.Ct. 2773])

14.  Against Redeemer Anglican Church in Jacksonville, Florida (FL): Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida v. Lebhar, Case No. 16-2006-CA-002361 (Duval Cnty. Fla. Cir Ct.) (plaintiff was the Diocese of Florida; parish left property to go to other premises)

15.  Against Christ Church in Savannah, Georgia, GA; Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, Inc., The Episcopal Church, et al. v. The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah, et al., (Civil Action No. CV07-2039KA, Superior Ct., Chatham County). (Plaintiffs Diocese of Georgia and ECUSA, joined subsequently by shadow congregation formed by the Diocese, won in Court of Appeal and recently in Georgia Supreme Court [290 Ga. 95, 718 S.E.2d 237]; congregation handed over keys to property on 12/12/2011 and later dismissed petition to U.S. Supreme Court)

16.  Against All Saints Church in Attleboro, Massachusetts (MA) (plaintiff was the Diocese of Massachusetts; the case settled in 2007)

17.  Against St. Andrew’s Anglican Church in Morehead City, North Carolina (NC) (plaintiff was the Diocese of East Carolina and those members of the parish who had not voted to join AMiA; following a jury mistrial, plaintiffs obtained summary judgment which was affirmed on appeal in Daniel v. Wray, 580 S.E.2d 711 [N.C. App. 2003])

18.  Against the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, New York (NY); The Diocese of Central New York v. The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Index No. 2008-0980 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Broome Cnty) (Plaintiff was the Diocese of Central New York, joined by TEC; trial court ruled in favor of Diocese, parish chose to move to other premises, and Diocese eventually sold church buildings to Muslim group for a mosque)

19.  Against St. Joseph’s Anglican Church (formerly Trinity Church of East New York) in Brooklyn, NY, which originally separated from ECUSA in 1977, before the adoption of the Dennis Canon (plaintiff was the Diocese of Long Island, in a second action brought in 2005 after it lost its first suit, filed in the early 1980’s—-the case settled early in 2008, and St. Joseph’s kept its property in exchange for a below-market value payment of $275,000)

20.  Against St. James Anglican Church in Elmhurst (Queens), NY (plaintiff was the Diocese of Long Island; summary judgment against the parish in March 2008 was not appealed)

21.  Against All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church in Rochester, NY;  Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, et al. v. Harnish et al., Index No. 2006-2669 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Monroe Cnty.) (plaintiff was the Diocese of Rochester; N.Y. Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Diocese, based on NY statute giving effect to Dennis Canon [11 N.Y.3d 340, 899 N.E.2d 920 [2008])

22.  Against St. Andrew’s in Syracuse, NY; Diocese of Central New York, et al. v. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Index No. 2006-4606 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Onondaga Cnty.) (plaintiff originally was the Diocese of Central New York, and TEC’s Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society later intervened—-Diocese refused to settle the lawsuit by leasing property to parish, so parish walked away in 2007)

23.  Against the Church of St. James the Less, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (PA); In re Church of St. James the Less, 585 Pa. 428; 888 A.2d 795 (2005); (Plaintiff was the Diocese of Pennsylvania, and ultimately prevailed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2005; historic church building remains still empty as of 2013)

24.  Against Church of the Epiphany Herndon, Virginia (VA); The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of the Epiphany, Herndon, CL 2007-1235 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.); (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

25.  Against Truro Church Fairfax VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Truro Church, CL 2007-1236 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.); (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

26.  Against Christ the Redeemer Church, Chantilly VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Christ the Redeemer Church, CL 2007-1237 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.); (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

27.  Against Church of the Apostles, Fairfax VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of the Apostles, CL 2007-1238 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.); (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

28.  Against The Falls Church, Falls Church VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. The Church at The Falls – The Falls Church, CL 2007-5250 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.)(formerly Case No. 07-125, Circuit Court for Arlington County, Va.); (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

29.  Against Potomac Falls Church, Potomac Falls VA;  The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Dioceses of Virginia v. Potomac Falls Church, CL 2007-5362 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.)(formerly Case No. 44149, Circuit Court for Loudoun County, Va.);  (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

30.  Against Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands VA; The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of Our Saviour at Oatlands, CL 2007-5364 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.) (formerly Case No. 44148, Circuit Court for Loudoun County, Va.);  (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; parish settled with Diocese in 2011 by agreeing to a five-year leaseback of the property, and to disaffiliate from ACNA)

31.  Against St. Margaret’s Church, Woodbridge VA;  The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. St. Margaret’s Church, CL 2007-5682 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.) (formerly Case No. CL 73465, Circuit Court for Prince William Cnty., Va.);  (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

32.  Against St. Paul’s Church, Haymarket VA;  The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. St. Paul’s Church, Haymarket, Case No. CL 73466 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.) (formerly CL 2007-5683, Prince William County, Va.);  (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see news for cases 35-45 below)

33.  Against Church of the Word, Gainesville VA:  The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. Church of the Word, CL 2007-5684  (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va. )(formerly Case No.  CL 73464, Circuit Court for Prince William County, Va.);  (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia; parish agreed to settle with the Diocese in early 2011 on terms similar to those with the Church of Our Savior, Oatlands)

34.  Against St. Stephen’s Church, Heathsville VA;  The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia v. St. Stephen’s Church, CL 2007-5902 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va.)(formerly Case No. CL 07-16, Circuit Court for Northumberland County, Va); (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Virginia – see next entry for update)

35-45.  Against Truro Church and all of the Virginia Anglican churches affiliating with CANA above, Plaintiff is the Episcopal Church (USA); The Episcopal Church v. Truro Church, et al., CL 2007-1625 (Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Va; case was tried again in Circuit Court in 2011 following reversal by Virginia Supreme Court in 2010 of trial court’s earlier decision in favor of parishes; trial court ruled this time in favor of Diocese; all defendants have surrendered their property to the Diocese, with Truro leasing theirs back for a limited time; only The Falls Church has appealed to the Va. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal in 2013)

46-50.  Against St. Luke’s Church in Akron, Ohio (OH) and four other northeast Ohio parishes; The Episcopal Diocese of Ohio, et al.v. Anglican Church of the Transfiguration, et al., Civil Action No CV 08 654973 (Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas); (plaintiff is the Diocese of Ohio; trial court granted summary judgment in its favor, and parishes have left their properties)

51.  Against Church of the Good Shepherd, San Angelo, Texas (TX)  (Plaintiff is the Diocese of NW Texas; parish lost below and in the Court of Appeal, and after arguments in 2012, is awaiting decision by the Texas Supreme Court)

52.  Against St. Edmunds Anglican Church, Elm Grove, Wisconsin (WI) (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Milwaukee) (trial court granted summary judgment against parish in 2011; parish later vacated the property, which remains vacant)

53-54. and ?? Against the 50+ churches of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican- Southern Cone).  Plaintiff is the TEC replacement Diocese of Pittsburgh, arising out of an earlier lawsuit initiated by Calvary Church, Pittsburgh against Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh to prevent them from leaving TEC. The judgment by the trial court required the Anglican Diocese to turn over all of its property to the remnant Episcopal Diocese, was affirmed by the Commonwealth Court in early 2011, and review was later denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Two parishes have since settled with the remnant diocese, which demanded that they disaffiliate from the Anglican Diocese; one moved out of its property rather than agree to such terms.  Negotiations are ongoing to settle the claims of the remnant diocese against the properties of the other parishes.

55.  Against St. Barnabas Anglican Church, Omaha, Nebraska (Plaintiff is the Diocese of Nebraska; trial court denied parish’s motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment to the Diocese; appeal is pending once a final judgment is entered )

56.  Against the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker and the other trustees of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, in the 141st District Court of Tarrant County, TX (Plaintiffs, the remnant diocese and its appointed bishop, were later joined by the Episcopal Church, and the lawsuit was subsequently broadened to include all individual parishes of the remnant diocese as cross-complainants, and all individual parishes of +Iker’s Episcopal Diocese as cross-defendants; the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the remnant diocese and its bishop in early 2011 is on a direct appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which heard arguments in October 2012 and has not yet published its decision)

57.  Against St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church of Ft. Worth, in Hood County District Court, TX (Plaintiff is the remnant diocese of Ft. Worth and Bishop Ohl, its provisional bishop; plaintiff seeks to have the proceeds of a trust fund left to St. Andrew’s, which remains with Bishoip Iker and his Diocese, turned over to the remnant group; the trial court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome in the case described in the previous paragraph)

58.  Against the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker individually, for alleged trademark infringement, in federal district court in Ft. Worth (plaintiffs are the remnant diocese and its bishop; court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the main case [No. 55 above])

59.  Against The Rt. Rev. Jack Iker, individually, and unnamed agents and representatives acting with him as part of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, in federal district court in Ft. Worth (Plaintiffs are TEC funded and supported members of the vestry of All Saints Episcopal Church, Ft. Worth, as reported in a letter of January 21, 2009 published by Stand Firm; the grounds alleged are very similar to those alleged in the suit described in the previous paragraph; suit is on hold pending the outcome of the main case [No. 56 above])

60.  Against St. Andrew’s in the Pines Anglican Church, Fayette County, Georgia, Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2007-V0272C, October 2007 (Plaintiff was the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta; parish left its property behind and formed a CANA congregation)

61-69. Against St. Columba’s Fresno, and its rector and its vestry members, in Fresno County Superior Court (2010); St. Francis Anglican Parish of Turlock, and its rector and its vestry members, in Stanislaus County Superior Court (2010); St. Michael’s Anglican Parish of Ridgecrest, and its rector and its vestry members, in Kern County Superior Court (2010); the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. John’s Parish in Porterville, California, in Tulare County Superior Court (2010); St. James Church, Sonora, and its rector and its vestry members, in Tuolumne County Superior Court (2010); the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Redeemer Parish in Delano, California, in Kern County Superior Court (2010); the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul’s Parish in Visalia, California, in Tulare County Superior Court (2010); St. Paul’s Anglican parish in Bakersfield, California, and its rector and its vestry members, in Kern County Superior Court (2010); the Wardens and Vestry of St. John’s, Stockton, and its rector and its vestry members, in San Joaquin County Superior Court (2010); (plaintiffs are the remnant diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop; suits seek an order turning over control of all parish property to the bishop of the remnant diocese; Superior Court of Fresno County denied a motion to consolidate all nine cases with the one alrerady pending there [No. 11 above]; cases are in various stages of discovery)

70-78. Against the rectors and vestry members of the same nine parishes in Nos. 61-69 above, in the same Superior Courts, respectively (2011) (these are complaints in intervention in the process of being filed by the Episcopal Church)

As a matter of fairness, I also list the number of cases where the Episcopal Church (USA) or one of its dioceses is the defendant and not the plaintiff. There are only six instances, as shown below. But in all but the first, it was the diocese (or ECUSA) which triggered the filing of a lawsuit by moving to take control of the individual church’s assets, and the legal actions that followed were essentially a defensive response against those moves.

1. The earliest instance of a parish starting a lawsuit was in 2000, after a dispute arose between All Saints Parish, Pawley’s Island, South Carolina (SC), the Diocese of South Carolina, and TEC in connection with the formation of the Anglican Mission in America. The suit eventually found its way to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which in September 2009 issued a decision finding that the Dennis Canon did not create any kind of a trust interest in parish property under South Carolina law, and ruling that the property remained with the parish despite its disaffiliation from the Episcopal Church (385 S.C. 428, 685 S.E.2d 163).

2. An action was brought in 2005 in federal district court by six parishes and their rectors (the “Connecticut Six”) against the Diocese of Connecticut, whose bishop had suspended the priests in question and taken over some of the church properties. The court dismissed the lawsuit the next year, and the diocese has since brought the actions listed as Nos. 12 and 13 above.

3. Grace Church & St. Stephens, Colorado Springs, Colorado, sought declaratory judgment against the Bishop and the Diocese of Colorado. However, in that suit, the plaintiff church sought a simple declaration that the diocese had no right, title or interest in its property, in response to an attempt by the diocese to freeze the church’s bank accounts. The response of the diocese was to file a counterclaim against the church, its rector and 17 of its vestry and leading parishioners seeking millions of dollars in damages. The trial court granted judgment for the Diocese following a trial in 2009, and the parish chose not to appeal, but to move from the property to a new location.

4. The Diocese of the Rio Grande and St. Francis on the Hill (El Paso, TX): St. Francis began the suit with a claim for declaratory relief in response to the threat of suit by the diocese to take their property.  Eventually the trial court granted summary judgment to the Diocese, and the parish left its property.

5. The Diocese of Quincy sued the Episcopal Church in 2009 for declaratory relief after the latter had asked the diocese’s bank to freeze its accounts.  The case is still in the trial court, where the Church, joined by the remnant diocese, brought a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied, holding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the Church is “hierarchical” as it claims.  Trial is set for April 2013.

6. The Diocese of South Carolina sued the Episcopal Church in January 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County after the Church began “abandonment of Communion” proceedings against the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, which action triggered the Diocese’s immediate withdrawal.  The suit was filed before TEC could fulfill its announced intention to sue the Bishop and the Diocesan trustees for the Diocese’s property and bank accounts, once it reorganizes a new Episcopal diocese at a special convention called for later in January 2013.

A particular Bible verse comes to mind, having read all of the above:

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers…

1 Cor 6:1-8

Why is the Episcopal Church Near Collapse?

Prominent bishops are pulling out. Convention-goers were told headquarters had spent $18 million suing local congregations. Members are leaving at a record rate. This is no longer George Washington’s church – once the largest denomination in the colonies.

The lengthy article can be read at beliefnet.

And a snippet:

“On July 8, 2012, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori preached her brand of post-Christian religion while masquerading as a Christian bishop,” reported convention attendee Dr. Sarah Frances Ives.

“She mocked most of the crucial doctrines of the Christian faith, including the God of creation, the Incarnation, and the Trinity. She accomplishes this through her demeaning use of rhetoric. She taunts the Lord by the use of the name ‘Big Man’ and then points her finger at everyone listening and tells them that they have ‘missed the boat.’

“Jefferts Schori then proclaims that she has the answer for this. We all need the ‘act of crossing boundaries’ to become God after which our hands become a ‘sacrament of mission.’

“In this sermon, Jefferts Schori continued her mission of destroying the Christian faith through her rhetorical device of dismissive ridicule.

“Jefferts Schori leaves a wide wake of destruction behind with this sermon: the eternal triune God has been torn down, human beings are to boldly claim our place as God…

 

Press Statement: South Carolina Files Suit Against the Episcopal Church

Anglican Ink:

Press Statement from the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina:

One of America’s Oldest Dioceses Files Lawsuit to Prevent The Episcopal Church from Seizing Local Parishes and ‘Hijacking’ their Identities Lawsuit filed to defend more than $500 million in property from ‘blatant land grab’ as TEC seeks control of Diocesan holdings and parishes.

“Like our colonial forefathers, we are pursuing the freedom to practice our faith as we see fit, not as it is  dictated to us by a self-proclaimed religious authority who threatens to take our property unless we relinquish our beliefs.” Bishop Mark Lawrence

St. George, SC, January 4, 2013–The Diocese of South Carolina, the Trustees of the Diocese and congregations representing the vast majority of its baptized members today filed suit in South Carolina Circuit Court against The Episcopal Church to protect the Diocese’s real and personal property and that of its parishes.

The suit also asks the court to prevent The Episcopal Church from infringing on the protected marks of the Diocese, including its seal and its historical names, and to prevent the church from assuming the Diocese’s identity, which was established long before The Episcopal Church’s creation. We seek to protect more than $500 million in real property, including churches, rectories and other buildings that South Carolinians built, paid for, maintained and expanded – and in some cases died to protect – without any support from The Episcopal Church,” said the Rev. Jim Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary.

“Many of our parishes are among the oldest operating churches in the nation.  They and this Diocese predate the establishment of The Episcopal Church. We want to protect these properties from a blatant land grab.” The Diocese of South Carolina was established in 1785 as an independent, voluntary association that grew from the missionary work of the Church of England. It was one of nine dioceses that voluntarily joined together to form The Episcopal Church in October 1789, which eventually became an American province in the worldwide Anglican Communion, also a voluntary association. When the Diocese disassociated from The Episcopal Church we didn’t become a new entity,” Canon Lewis explained…

Read more.

Also, for those interested:

A Message to Clergy in the Diocese of South Carolina Regarding the Declaratory Judgment

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

By now you are aware that today the Diocese of South Carolina, the Trustees of the Diocese and congregations representing the vast majority of its baptized members filed suit in South Carolina Circuit Court against The Episcopal Church to protect the Diocese’s real and personal property and that of its parishes.

We have developed a number of background resources you may find helpful in explaining this situation to your parish. These items include:

A letter from Bishop Lawrence – in the form of a bulletin insert

Stewardship of the Gospel – Stewardship of the Diocese (a theological reflection)

A Media Release

List of Plaintiffs Participating

Glossary of Terms

Timeline of Events

Letters of Support/Articles of Interest

These may all be found here.

If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me.

In Christ’s service,
–(The Rev. Canon) Jim Lewis is Canon to the Ordinary of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina

Same Sex Blessing Spreads throughout The Episcopal Church

Same Sex Blessing fever spreads throughout The Episcopal Church.

More than two thirds of the domestic dioceses give their blessing to partnered same gender relationships.

Virtue Online:

Since The Episcopal General Convention passed A049 at last July’s General Convention in Indianapolis, the trickle of Episcopal dioceses that have authorized Same Sex Blessings has now become a veritable flood. According to Virtueonline’s exhaustive research, 69 domestic dioceses have decided to fully embrace and allow for the provisional Same Sex Blessing ceremony to be celebrated within their borders.

Virtueonline called each diocese or churches within the diocese to ascertain if SSB was permissible; checking diocesan and congregational websites for their posted information on SSB; and researching the Internet for published stories about Episcopal bishops who have announced their intensions – for or against – concerning a pastoral response for partnered same-gender relationships.

VOL learned those dioceses giving a nod to SSB include: Arizona, Arkansas, Bethlehem, California, Central New York, Central Pennsylvania, Chicago, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, East Tennessee,  Eastern Michigan, Eastern Oregon, Easton, El Camino Real, TEC Fort Worth, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indianapolis, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,  Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,  New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Newark, North Carolina, Northern California, Northern Michigan,  Northwestern Pennsylvania, Ohio, Olympia, Oregon, Pennsylvania, TEC Pittsburgh, TEC Quincy, Rio Grande,  Rochester, San Diego, TEC San Joaquin, Southeast Florida, Southern Ohio, Southern Virginia, Southwestern Virginia, Spokane, Texas, Upper South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC, West Missouri, West Tennessee, Western Michigan, Western New York, Western North Carolina, and Wyoming.

Even though these dioceses permit or will be permitting SSB, there are some tight guidelines. These guidelines vary from diocese to diocese. In some dioceses, the bishop is the final determiner on which couples can participate in the ceremony. Some dioceses allow for SSB in certain churches only. So there is a wide variation in how SSB is being implemented throughout The Episcopal Church.

As Advent approaches, the 19 dioceses which said that SSB is not a part of their liturgical offerings included: Alabama, Alaska, Albany Central Florida, Dallas, East Carolina, Eau Claire, Florida, Fond du Lac, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Northern Indiana, Oklahoma, Springfield, Tennessee, West Texas, Western Kansas, and Western Louisiana.

In July upon the passage of A049, bishops from several dioceses signed the Indianapolis Statement. The representative dioceses are: Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, North Dakota, Northern Indiana and Springfield.

Currently 11 are still actively discerning the implementation of SSBs. They include: Atlanta, Central Gulf Coast, Lexington, Milwaukee, Navajoland, Northwest Texas, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Southwest Florida, West Virginia, and Western Massachusetts.

The dioceses of Lexington, Rhode Island and Atlanta all have new bishops who are all discerning how they will deal with SSB. Word is that a letter has gone out from the new bishop in the Diocese of Atlanta to all his priests informing them of his decision. However, when VOL asked what that decision was, we were told that information would not be released until the priests have been duly informed.

One diocese, South Carolina, is reconstituting.  Technically, the TEC Diocese of South Carolina does not exist and the rump diocese has yet to be formed. It would be fair, based on the actions of Bishop Mark Lawrence at the 77th General Convention, to say that he would be in the solidly no camp. The Episcopal Church’s liturgical rite for blessing same-sex relationships was authorized at the last General Convention for use in the Episcopal Church beginning the first Sunday in Advent, December 2.

The rite and a short theological summary, both excerpted from the report of the Church’s Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) titled “I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing”. It must be approved by each diocesan bishop before it is used in individual dioceses. It has been authorized by General Convention for provisional use until 2015 upon which the General Convention will decide if SSB is to remain a permanent part of the liturgical practice of The Episcopal Church or not.

 

Bishopess Katharine Jefferts Schori Finds Theological Opponents Guilty of Misconduct

Conger:

A 3-member Reference Panel led by U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has found that a prima facie case of misconduct can be made against nine serving and retired bishops of the Episcopal Church for voicing public disagreement with her view of church polity.

Bishops Peter Beckwith, Maurice Benitez, John W. Howe, Paul Lambert, William Love, Bruce MacPherson, Daniel Martins, Edward L. Salmon, Jr, and James Stanton were told on 19 Oct 2012 a reference panel consisting of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, her aide Bishop Clayton Matthews, and the retired Bishop of Upper South Carolina and chair of the church’s disciplinary board Dorsey Henderson had found there was merit in the charges brought against them for having dissented from her view of the nature of the church’s hierarchy by testifying in court or having submitted an amicus brief to a court.

The Reference Panel recommended the accused bishops pursue “conciliation” with their accusers. Conciliation is not defined, however, in the canons.

In his email to the accused informing them of the panel’s decision, Bishop Matthews said that “after obtaining the agreement of the complainants, we will include in the process some representatives from the House of Bishops, in the spirit of our closed sessions, appointed by The Presiding Bishop.  After some research for potential persons to serve as a Conciliator, I will meet on October 29th with the person, who we hope will serve as the Conciliator. I hope following this meeting, a schedule for proceeding will be forth coming.”

Under the Title IV disciplinary canons adopted in 2009, an intake officer must first determine if the offense described in the complaint warrants action. As intake officer for the House of Bishops, Bishop Matthews held that held that having endorsed an amicus brief with the Texas Supreme court that defends one view of Episcopal Church history and canon law, or in the case of Bishops Beckwith, MacPherson and Salmon, for having testified to their views of church polity in a case involving the secession of the Diocese of Quincy, the nine bisohps violated the canons.

Bishop Matthews then referred his findings to the panel, of which he is one of three members, and which was led by the presiding bishop whose views on church polity were the subject of the dispute, for determination of guilt.

Canon lawyer Allan Haley said the system adopted by the Episcopal Church to try political dissent was absurd. “No man shall be judge of his own cause is a maxim of law from the time of Solomon,” he said. In this case the presiding bishop and her staff are the investigators, prosecutor, judge and jury.

This “reeks of the kangaroo courts of rough justice of the mining claim” of the old West, he said.

One of the nine accused told CEN he has yet to be told what it was about his actions that violated the canons.  Is it the “issue” or “expressing the issue in court” he said.

If it is the issue, the bishop noted the position set forth in their brief was identical to that put forward in 2009 in the Bishops Statement on Polity.  If it was stating this belief in court, “what is illegitimate about that,” he asked.

Canon law experts note the prosecution of the nine bishops was politically motivated, as the actions for which they are accused are not considered “triable” when done by bishops who endorsed the party line.

Canon IV.19.of Title IV states: “No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.”

If the nine are being charged with violating this canon, the question need be asked why the Bishops of Texas, Southwest Texas, Northwest Texas and the Rio Grande have not been brought up on charges also, one bishop told CEN.

In the case of Masterson, et al. v. Diocese of Northwest Texas, No. 11-0332, the Rt Rev. Andrew Doyle, the Rt. Rev. Garry Lillebridge, the Rt. Rev. Michael Vono and the Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Jr., filed an amicus brief with the Texas Supreme Court that endorsed the three-tier hierarchy concept favored by attorneys for the presiding bishop’s office.

One commentator asked “why it is OK for some bishops or dioceses and TEC itself to seek to have the courts interpret the C&Cs, but when others specifically advise the courts that they cannot get embroiled in these issues, it is a canonical offense.”

 

Episcopalians on Both Sides of the Schism Feeling the Pain

The Post and Courier reports:

Leaders on both sides of the Episcopal split in Charleston agreed on one thing Sunday morning.

It’s a painful time for everybody.

“There is a lot of hurt everywhere,” the Rev. Michael Wright, rector of Grace Episcopal Church, told about 150 people packed into Hanahan Hall for a special forum on the recent events involving the national Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina.

In recent years, the diocese, led by Bishop Mark J. Lawrence, had distanced itself from the national church, citing the church’s liberal leanings. Diocese officials said that the national church’s “indiscriminate inclusivity” has compromised the integrity of the institution, particularly after the national body ordained an openly gay bishop and blessed same-sex marriages.

After a series of back-and-forth actions that began in 2006, the national church on Thursday sanctioned Lawrence and restricted him from exercising his ministry. On Friday, the diocese officially announced its split from the national church.

Grace, a Gothic Revival cathedral on Wentworth Street that dates to 1848, will be staying with the national Episcopal Church.

“It’s heartbreaking,” Chuck Bender, a member of Grace, said before the forum started. “Some of these people have been in these churches all their lives, and now they may have to decide if they’re going to have to go somewhere else.”

St. Michael’s, which occupies a tourist landmark at Meeting and Broad streets as Charleston’s oldest church building, is siding with Lawrence and the diocese. The Rev. Al Zadig, the church’s rector, addressed the split during the 10:30 a.m. worship service.

“I cannot underestimate how painful this is to so many of us cradle Episcopalians,” Zadig said, reading from a letter that was available in the vestibule for members and visitors. “I know several clergy who have been in tears over this.”

The fact that the break has been coming for a long time doesn’t make it any less painful, he said.

“For many years there has been a split coming in the Episcopal Church over the core issue of the authority of Scripture,” Zadig read. “Do we have the freedom to rewrite the Bible to fit social trends, or do we rewrite our hearts according to the changeless word of God in Scripture? … The National Episcopal Church is changing Scripture according to social norms and in doing so has changed the core of the Christian faith.”

Wright said the Episcopal Church has always welcomed diverse opinions, and the issue was disregarding church law.

The diocese and most of its churches quit after a disciplinary board from the national church ruled Thursday that Lawrence had abandoned the Episcopal Church. A major issue was Lawrence allowing churches to declare that their properties were no longer held in trust for the national church.

“The break is clear,” Wright said during the forum at Grace. “What that means is still being worked out.”

What’s not clear is who now constitutes the Diocese of South Carolina.

“We are the Diocese of South Carolina,” said Wright, of Grace Episcopal Church. “Nothing is changing here. … We carry on as the Episcopal Church.”

Zadig, of St. Michael’s, said those who left are still the Diocese of South Carolina.

“How will it change our life?” he said. “Not at all.”

It’s not clear what body the parishes that left the national church will join. A special convention is scheduled for Nov. 17 “to iron out the necessary changes to our Canons and Constitution, and begin to discern the best way forward into a new Anglican future,” according to a notice on the diocesan website.

It’s also not clear who will lead the churches that remained with the national body. Leaders will start working out those details this week, Wright said.

The diocese announced its break from the Episcopal Church on Friday in a half-page advertisement in The Post and Courier.

Wright said “the remaining diocese” will make a similar public statement as soon as a new leadership structure is in place.

We reported on the above yesterday on the blog.

 

Bishop ‘Abandons’ Church Over Gay Blessing Stance

Bishop Mark Lawrence banned as disciplinary board finds he has abandoned church because he has defied the national Episcopal Church and made state diocese his church’s authority.

Via Goose Creek Patch:

An independent news blog for S.C. Episcopalians has reported that S.C. Bishop Mark Lawrence has been temporarily banned from acting as a bishop and priest since a disciplinary board found he has “abandoned” the Episcopal Church Monday.

Subsequently, the bishop revealed that he had plans to break with the national church.

The crux of the issue is over the national church’s more lenient stance on same-sex blessings, and the ordination of gay and female clergy. In reaction to this week’s news, a special convention of members of Lawrence’s Diocese of South Carolina has been called Nov. 17 at St. Phillip’s Church in Charleston. The convention will focus on whether or not the Palmetto diocese will remain with the bishop or within the fold of the national church.

Lawrence is the state’s 14th bishop and presides over the three diocese in the state and the state’s 30,000 parishioners.

While Lawrence has refused to follow the national church’s same-sex blessings, and ordinations of female and gay clergy, the church’s disciplinary board cited three reasons that show Lawrence has abandoned the church:

1. His support of amendments to the S.C. church’s constitution that undermines the authority of the national church at 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina on Oct. 10, 2010.
2. He oversaw the change in language for the Episcopalian nonprofit, which made the nonprofit no longer under the direction of the national church in 2011.
3. In November 2011, Lawrence directed his Chancellor Wade H. Logan III to issue quitclaim deeds to every parish of the Diocese of South Carolina disclaiming any interest in the real estate held by or for the benefit of each parish.

The full report by the board can be viewed here.

The S.C. Episcopalians blog reported:

Lawrence has repeatedly insisted the Diocese of South Carolina is “sovereign” and the Church has no authority over him as it does other bishops. In essence, Lawrence maintains that he is not accountable to anyone…

More here.