815 Appeals for Donations to Sue Christians

Just the sheer tawdriness that is occurring . . . mindblowing . . . .

I’m quickly running out of lawyer jokes.

Follow the Money Trail.

The lawyers are the only ones benefiting from this unholy mess.

“Mission Funding Initiative.”  Now that’s even more irony.  Maybe “Taking our parishes and turning them into missions”? 

And I thought that I got every piece of solicitation and beg-a-dollar mail issued by TEC—how come I did not get this mail, too?  What mailing list does this represent?  Did it only go to attorneys, who as much as anyone appreciate the cost of civil litigation?

Another sign of how these folks will stop at nothing.  There is nothing church-like about it anymore.

I have a split personality.  I am an active member in my Episcopal church and at the same time I “cheer” when churches leave TEC.  Do I need psychiatric help?  Really, what chutz pas the National Church has to solicit funds to sue churches!  815 and ancillary funding associations will not see one dime from me.  My stewardship pledge this season stipulates that my pledge is null and void if any perentage of it leaves my diocese.

Unbelievable.

And today’s lectionary reading included 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.

This is a very carefully targeted letter in that it presumes knowledge on the part of the reader.  No time is spent explaining who is being sued, and why.  The reader is assumed to know this.  So from the small subset of people who know what is going on with TEC in the courts, 815 compiled a list of those it thought likely to pony up large amounts of cash.  Because this appeal is by nature limited in scope, it must produce large returns to justify the fund-raising expense.  It would be fascinating to find out how TEC produced this list.  Perhaps they simply cross-referenced attorneys with TEC membership.  But I wonder if they didn’t solicit suggestions from diocese and parishes for likely contributors.

The other thing about this letter that interests me.  People won’t contribute to this fund to support TEC.  They will contribute to fight TECs opponents.  The motivation is similar to buying war bonds to support the war effort.  The subliminal message is “Help us destroy the crazy theocratic fundamentalists before they destroy our church.”  So that reduces even further the scope of people who would contribute.  Again, it makes me very interested in how this list was compiled. 

carl

would be interested to know others who received this mailing. who are they targeting?  and please don’t blame all attorneys…the one who received this letter was totally discusted by it.

Does TEC keep a list of attorneys who are members of TEC? Or do they keep a list of attorneys from all the political groups they’re involved in?

Interesting observations, Carl.

I wonder if Rowan got a copy. It should be distributed to every news organization there is so that this utter darkness can be exposed to the light.
Intercessor

Very tawdry—and yet, at the same time this is strangely reassuring.  This suggests that they know they don’t have the money to continue this litigation.  It suggests that they realize (or at least worry a bit about) the limits to which they can push this without unexpected windfalls from outside the budget.  Plus the timing of the letter—coming as it does around the time of defeats in Texas and South Carolina—might also signal some angst.  It is hard to argue that these cases (which, remember, TEC initiated) make any sense financially whatsoever when they have to go begging money outside the normal business structure and decision-making process like this.  This is not a defense fund, after all—it’s a fund to sue other Christians. 

Also interesting is the silence about the true state of affairs legally, which is certainly a mixed bag (even before the last week or so).  Do they really think lawyers are so stupid they won’t see through this?  This lack of full disclosure won’t exactly create confidence in putative donors, particularly lawyers.

We orthodox are the ones who are the “loyal Episcopalians” - loyal to Jesus, to his unique Gospel, and to his Church.  The revisionists may have taken over the machinery of the organization, but they are only loyal to their perversion of Jesus Christ and his mission.

St. Ives—isn’t that where there was a man with seven wives?

TEC has already spent about $1.7 million on Title IV and Legal Assistance to the dioceses since August of this year. Their budget for the year is $600,000.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2009AugustBudgetarySummary.pdf
This is not the first time they have done this.

The letter is far, far, far, far, far, far, far beneath contempt.  The actions precipitating it, even farther still.

Revisionists struck bottom long ago, with this they prove they’re still bent on digging.

Intercessor, you are correct! This should be sent to every news outlet in the country.  This is really beyond the pale.  The Domestic and Foreign MISSIONARY Society!  The utter gall of these people knows no bounds!

Raising funds under the heading of Mission to sue fellow Christians!  Wow, even I am a bit surprised.

Even the most hunkered down pew sitter should be very disturbed about this.

Some notes on St. Ives from the Catholic Encyclopedia and Wikipedia:

He was soon invited by the Bishop of Tréguier to become his “official”, and accepted the offer (1284). He displayed great zeal and rectitude in the discharge of his duty and did not hesitate to resist the unjust taxation of the king, which he considered an encroachment on the rights of the Church; by his charity he gained the title of advocate and patron of the poor. … He is the patron of lawyers, though not, it is said, their model, for – “Sanctus Ivo erat Brito, Advocatus et non latro, Res miranda populo.” (“Saint Ivo was Breton / A lawyer and not a thief / A marvelous thing to the people.”)

Is he an appropriate patron for this kind of effort?  We can each judge.

Fiduciary duty at work.

Nice letter, just in time for stewardship season, no less. 

I might be wrong (often have been in TEC matters) but I’d think even Bp. Lee would counsel against this letter being sent.

Head shaking,
-ms

Susan, I’m really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but ACNA is the best denomination of all time….

‘cause it had to be said.

I would really be interested to know how much cashola this raised for TEC?

I would suspect that such a letter would go to past donors to the St. Ives Fund (“Mission Funding” - hah), possibly known members of the episcopal St. Ive’s Guilds - where organized, and possibly established diocesan chancellors.  Note also that new prospects for the mailing list may be suggested by others.

#20-

Thanks for the giggle:)

BigTex AC

St. Ives—isn’t that where there was a man with seven wives?

Yes, but they were loving, committed and non-exploitive as viewed though the lens of the trendy Piskie, thus A-OK.

One suggestion to anyone who receives this - if, and only if, the envelop that comes with it is stamped for return mail, put anything you want in the envelop (nothing that identifies you) and return it.  TEC will have to pay for the postage, but only if the envelop is returned.  If it just thrown away, no postage will be charged to TEC.  So not only will TEC not get the contribution it is soliciting, it will cost TEC for soliciting in the first place.  But note:  this only works if the return envelop is already stamped for return postage.  (By the way, this can also be done with any other mass solicitation mailing to discourage that sort of thing.  Also, if you want to change the address on the return envelop and use it for something else, TEC will get to pay for that, as well.)

You can right click on the letter to copy the image and paste it into a Word doc to print or forward to people you want to alert.

As #2 said, “follow the $”. Let’s see:
  1. Auditors require change in budget designation from mission caption to legal assitance to dioceses (LATD”);
  2. ‘07-‘09 Triennium budget for Title IV and LATD $300K;
  3. $1.5 million short term reserves of ‘07-‘09 budget exhausted on Title IV and LATD and estimate for total expenditure set at $4.7 million with no explaination of where the other $2.9 million will come from;
  4.HOB refers litigation expense disclosure resolution to CCAB and HOD rejects so resolution “killed” (as called for by Tom Fitzhugh, HOD atty delegate from the Diocese of Texas…..go figure?)
  5. The St. Ive’s fund established in ‘08, an apparent off the books account, comes into the light. Shades of Wall St. Some transparency and disclosure would be welcome. They are correct on one point, the ongoing expense will be significant!

Sanctus Ivo erat Brito, Advocatus et non latro, Res miranda

And the Beloved came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and sue whoever will not listen to you, teaching them whatever pleases the world, the flesh and the devil; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

TEC Revised Version Matthew 28:18-20.

Billy suggests:

One suggestion to anyone who receives this - if, and only if, the envelop that comes with it is stamped for return mail, put anything you want in the envelop (nothing that identifies you) and return it.  TEC will have to pay for the postage, but only if the envelop is returned.

Might I suggest lead slugs as appropriate stuffing. If you make the return envelop heavy enough it will increase the postage due.

Here is what they are posting on their “Episcopal Church Welcomes You” website:

The St. Ives Fund

The St. Ives Fund, named in honor of the patron saint of lawyers, was established to support the Church’s unity, to preserve the Church’s heritage, to provide financial support for the legal costs associated with property litigations, and to decrease demands on the Church’s budgets for mission and ministry. In addition, the Fund serves as a vehicle for the support of the Church, generally, by lawyers, judges, law professors and others who may wish to participate.

In the past few years, the Church has been forced to pursue litigations to defend and protect Church property against those who wish to secure the property on behalf of a foreign province. In each case, the Church takes this action in order to ensure that the heritage of the Church will be preserved for the Church’s service to God’s mission, both now and for generations to come. The cost of such litigation can be significant, and the St. Ives Fund is an effort to alleviate the pressure that these legal actions has placed on the Church’s financial resources.

maybe we should email The Rev Mc Cone with suitable and of course appropriate comments?

I never read too much into the salutation people use to sign off in letters like this, but I couldn’t help but notice the Rev’d McCone signed her letter, “In faith”.  What on God’s green earth does that mean?  Faith in what?  Striking that she avoids using the name of Jesus or even the more politically-correct Christ.  Maybe even for her the notion of asking donations for the sole purpose of suing Christians is too much to do in the name of the Lord.  Just a thought.

Fr. Darin+
St. David’s Anglican (ACNA)
Durant, Iowa
http://www.stdavidsdurant.info

The beloved said,

But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, sue him for everything he has; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, counter sue him for everything he has; and if any one forces you to go one mile, sue him for everything he has.

TEC Revised Version Matthew 5:39-41.

When one of you has a grievance against a brother, dare go to law and sue him in the secular courts for everything he has.

TEC Revised Version 1 Corinthians 6:1

Capt. Deacon Warren, I think it would be more worthwhile to make this letter widely known than to harrass the author of it - who, after all, only represents the mindset of the TEC leadership in general.  People, lots of people, need to see this letter.

Anybody got a URL for a picture of 30 pieces of silver?  It might be fun to send them a brief note, along with a picture, this is an appropriate contribution.

Well - it looks like the unspeakable Mrs Schori has spent all the dead peoples’ money on the poison dwarf and his partners.

St. Ives wasn’t the name of the man with seven wives. That is where the fellow was going. “As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives.” or in the case of TEC, “As I was going to St. Ives, I met a transgendered person with seven spouses” ?

This letter is old news by now….I saw it several months ago.  It just shows that TEC is running out of money, and they’re getting desperate by appealing to rich lawyers in an attempt to shore up their cash reserves so that they can fund their immoral lawsuits against faithful Anglican Christians, while at the same time attempting to maintain their facade as “Christians.”  They’re failing miserably on both counts, in my opinion.

#39 It is dated 9/18 this year and I agree they deserve to lose every single court case they have started.  It is like they are making happen exactly that which they most fear.  Good thing too.

There was a previous letter saying the same thing, and that’s the one I referred to.

I hope the day comes when the Episcopal Church comes to see what a mess Schori and Beers have made of the Church and and our good name in the Communion and sues the pants off Schori and Beers and his partners personally.  I wonder if it would happen.  I don’t know why some of the deposed bishops haven’t done so already such has been their abuse of process and the libel they have been subject to.  Things may have to get much worse first.

What’s next?  A St. Arnold’s Fund to buy beer?  A St. Valentine’s Fund to buy porn?

#40, my memory of the previous letter is that it was directed only attorneys in the NYC area, not to attorneys all over TEC.  But my memory may be faulty.

Forget the unsavory nature of this fundraising request, what does it say about someone who gets such a request and then rights a check?  We all have limited dollars available for tithing, charity, etc.  What kind of person would pick this?

excuse me, “writes” a check

So, what is this?  A plea for lawyers to write checks so that TEC can pay lawyers to litigate?

That is so quaint!  Lawyers helping lawyers.  Because, after all, who can appreciate the need to pay lawyers to litigate if not other lawyers?

“You lawyers, yeah, you there, go ahead and exchange money amoungst yourselves to litigate while we spend the donations on propping up the failing remnants.”

What a strategy!  What a joke!

“The St. Ives Fund, named in honor of the patron saint of lawyers, was established to support the Church’s unity, ******to preserve the Church’s heritage*****”...”

In reality, TEO has done everything in its power to do just the opposite. Aggresively jamming “the new thang” down everyones gullet is the polar opposite of “preserving the Church’s heritage” - unless, of course, the “church’s heritage” is to be thought of soley in terms of material posessions.
Of course, once the spiritual is jettisonned, all that’s left is the physical.

BTW - Ken Peck - loved your inspirational quotes from the TECRV. Went well with my morning coffee.

Utterly fascinating.  The problem with fund raising is that you quickly find out how much actual support you have.  Many fund raising appeals start with “Angel” donors: people who can contribute large amounts of money and make it a success out of the start gate. If 815 is successful in this appeal, expect it to be rolled out to the masses.  If they are unsuccessful, expect a bit of quiet hand wringing. 

If this is unsuccessful I would expect the HOB will be very interested in discussing the scorch and burn strategy that is burning up diocesan trust funds.

Do you think you could get hold of the mailing list and send each of these attorneys a copy of the Diocese of Washington newsletter that Sarah put up on the other thread.  So all the attorneys will know about the “legacy” they are paying to defend and pass along to future generations.

It’s trivial yet worth noting that Mother McCone is the person who +Drew Smith installed after hijacking St. John’s in Bristol CT, and later re-assigned after the congregation at Christ Church in Watertown CT perambulated to a new Anglican startup.  Building a rep as the “go-to gal” for parochial conquest, I guess.

Weren’t they recently demanding details of the big donors to each parish and diocese?  Is this who they are targeting, starting with the lawyers.  What have they done with all the other funds?

Gobble gobble gobble goes Mr Beers.

#35 -
There are LOTS of images of 30 pieces of silver - just google the phrase on Google images. Just be sure to verify that the image is not subject to copyright before using.

Re: my #50, 
It was Greg who put up the Dio. of Washington newsletter.
Error on my part.

#47, Paul B., please understand the role of lawyers - it is NOT to be a judge, jury, nor be a party to litigation.  Lawyers are hired to make arguments on behalf of clients, pursuant to the law, on issues of fact or law.  Being venomous against lawyers in general is misplaced in this arena.  Like most all other people who go to school and develop skills well beyond the high school level, lawyers work for pay, just like doctors, engineers, priests - anyone in the professions.  If TEC and the dioceses don’t hire and pay lawyers, they won’t be putting forth these arguments for TEC and the dioceses.  The lawyers are only doing a job, just like your priest is only doing a job when he/she conducts a service or delivers a sermon - or when your doctor gives you a physical.  If you want to rail, please rail at the origins of these problems - the hierchy of the church.

Yep, Beers is a greedy, grasping, cold-blooded reptile.  It’s lawyers like him who give the other two per cent a bad name.

Billy #52 - my attempt at, whatever it was, was directed at the idea of soliciting funds from people who were in the same profession as those going to be paid with the donated funds.  I find that incredibly funny.  I wasn’t trying to make lawyer jokes, per se.

If one were to give to this specific fund - even a small amount - would they then be able to request (and TEC be required to provide) a detailed accounting to show that it was spent according to their wishes?

Paul PA #58…..

Anyone can request information detailed or not, but the real question is will one truly receive it?
Asking on one hand is different from receiving in the other.

I thought you’d all be interested in this response to Ms. McCone’s letter from a well known New York law firm:

Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, LLC
Attorneys at Law
Suite 20100. Tower II, World Trade Center
New York, New York 22330
December 9, 2008
Dear Rev. McCone,
This is to inform you that we are in receipt of your correspondence of 2 December, 2008 concerning potential donations to your legal fund.  The principals have met to discuss this matter and I am pleased to inform you that they have agreed to donate $500 to this worthy cause.
Of course, we intend to deduct this expense as a charitable donation.  Certain administrative expenses were, of course deducted from this donation.  See the itemized invoice which follows.
Administrative expenses:              $  50.00
Attorney Review of document:            $300.00
Review and adjudication by Principals:      $600.00
Mailing and handling:                $  10.00
Donation to the St Ives Fund:          -$500.00
Balance Due:                      $460.00
Please remit upon receipt.
If we can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Eubin Hadd Esq.
Attorney at Law

#60: Wonderful!

ok…so I’m a Mississippi lawyer who gets this letter.  I’ve got a mortgage, wife, kid at Ole Miss, etc.  I get this letter asking me to support what is being exposed as a shaky at best legal strategy, asking me to blindly give money so some new York firm can direct this shaky at best legal strategy to the tune of $400.00(or more) per hour….so some OTHER lawyer can hit a lick to the tune of $400.00(or more) per hour…all while HE has a mortgage, a wife and a daughter at Ole Miss.  What’s in it for him?

Unless this lawyer is a “true believer” he is gonna giggle, mumble something under his breath that McCone can do to herself, and put this in file 13.

BigTex AC

I’d love to know just how transparent this fund will be, given the hints of impropriety that get dropped about the other TEC funds from time to time.

What evangelical mission might be accomplished with $3,000,000?

I think that the proper response to this should be that the lawyer write in as pretty a handwriting as he/she can muster “Matthew 18:15.” Then add your lead slug (I like that idea) and return the envelope.

Linda B…..that is bloody brilliant!

A mission??? Things just get weirder.

I spoke to a conservative TEC member last week, who is a member of a moderate institutional church in a institutional southern Diocese. He continues to give to his parish even though his parish continues to give to the Diocese, and even though the Diocese helps fund this litigation and other activities of the General Convention.  He has written “not to go to the national church” on his pledge statement, but he knows the parish commitment to the Diocese is made in advance of the stewardship campaign, and for a variety of reasons such as statement, standing alone, does not impact the Diocisian funding and thus funding to the national church. 

But he continues to give.

If everyone like him to stop giving, today, until they recieved firm evidence that their church’s Diocisian giving would be reduced, dollar by dollar, by the amount of his “earmarked” pledge, there would be a huge impact. Until then, TEC is going to continue to use money from orthodox Christians to sue other orthodox Christians in discretionary litigation.

#68, that is a big “problem.”  One wants to support one’s local church.  The thought of a priest in your church that you love and who has cared for you and your family not being paid because everyone stops giving, is a tough one.  On the other hand, maybe it is up to that priest to find a way to keep money from going to the national church.  I have decreased my pledge and will continue to do so as long as my diocese continues to fund bishops and programs that are supportive of the PB’s theology and VGR’s way of life.  But I find other ways to give to my local church, like beneficent fund, flowers, wine and bread, stain glass windows, capital campaign, specific outreach programs - I try to contribute to anything worthwhile that stays in my local parish, that is not put on the budget side (since that determines diocesan contribution).  Also, I try to give to national organizations within TEC that are known to be on the reasserting side like Trinity and Nashotah House, DOK, Brotherhood of St Andrew, monasteries and convents.  If everyone in conservative parishes in revisionist dioceses (or institutional dioceses) just made a concerted effort to ensure the money they give stays at their local parishes, the effect on liberal dioceses and TEC would be rather dramatic, I suspect.  (If I was in D. of SC, I would give all I could so the diocese would prosper - and perhaps that is what reasserters from around the country in revisionists dioceses should do - send money to D. of SC and the few other reasserting dioceses who don’t give money to national church.  Perhaps SF could way in on this and let us know what dioceses no longer give to national church - I don’t believe Dallas does; any others?  Is there a rule that tithing has to be in one place?

So a bus full of TEC lawyers goes over a cliff with one empty seat…and the crowd says???

The crowd says, “Let us pray.” 

Again, don’t blame the lawyers - blame those who hire them.

If you would rather, a TEC opponent seeks donations for legal expenses too:
“We have a current request to each family in the parish for an additional $1,500 in 2009, above their current pledge, to pay our remaining expenses from the property suit and its final settlement. This would also provide a defense for our rector from the charges brought against him by the Diocese of Colorado which could result in significant prison time if he is not adequately defended.”

Ah gee wiz Billy #71, I was just fun’in. 

Actually, I have family and friends that are lawyers, and they all ROCK.

I am sorry Billy but…..the lawyers don’t get to escape scott free! They to have free will to make a choice in saying, “yes, I will do that for you” or “no, I am sorry no amount of money is worth my eternal soul, this just isn’t right!” At some point they too must make moral and ethical decisions. They are not above nor exempt from that.

So, a bus full of TEC lawyers AND the leadership of TEC that hired them goes over a cliff with one empty seat…and the crowd says??

#74, you are correct, if a lawyer makes an argument that he knows is not sustainable by morality or is frivolous and he knows it, such as putting his client on the witness stand in a criminal case, when his client has admitted his guilt to the lawyer, then he/she is wrong and should be held accountable.  But making legal arguments for TEC about whether a trust was imposed on property is not a moral argument, but a legal one.  There is case law on both sides of this issue.  The legal arguments are not about theology.  In fact, as you saw from the SC S. Ct. decision, theology can never be an issue in our civil system.  What you are asking is for the TEC lawyers to be the judge and jury on these issues and decide the way you think is correct.  That is not their job, nor would anyone who needs a lawyer want it to be.  There job is only to make arguments - reasonable and non-frivolous arguments.  That each side has done, in my opinion - and that is obvious as the courts have gone both ways on the issues.  The lawyers for TEC are no more “immoral” or “unethical” than the lawyers for the Dioceses or parishes that have attempted to leave TEC with their properties.

 
As a lawyer, I can make reasonable arguments on each side of the Denis Canon - Pro:  all churches elected reps to diocesan conventions, who elected reps to GC, who agreed to Denis Canon, and local dioceses and churches did nothing to disagree with trust Denis Canon imposed on all churches within TEC, so it stands.  Also, TEC is hierchial church, run by certain national hierchy, so civil courts have no jurisdiction in its internal governance.  (And there are many case citations to support all of the propositions I just put forth.)  On the other hand, the SC S. Ct gave the arguments for the opposite - Con: TEC didn’t own the local church property at time of Denis Canon’s passage, so by strict letter of the law, no trust was created on local church property.  Also, as curmugeon said, Statute of Frauds requires all transfers of real property to be in writing.  While Denis Canon was in writing, it was not in writing as to each individual church property, nor was any such writing filed with the local superior (circuit) court where the local property is located, as required to perfect and give notice of any transfer.  So no trust was created.  As a lawyer, I can make those arguments and I have not read any of the briefs in any of these cases, and I am not doing anything immoral or unethical.  So I disagree.  I think the lawyers in these cases do get off scott free - they have not done anything wrong.

Ok, #75, now I’m laughing.  Time for me to lighten up.
And the crowd says, “that’s a good start.”  OK.

What’s sad about this at another level is that somewhere, a tree had to give up it’s life so that this piece of crapola could be printed and mailed out.

I’m an attorney who is heartbroken about the evil that has infected TEC but I’m still hanging in there in a conservative parish, hoping & praying for a miracle.  I didn’t get the letter so I guess I’m not on TEC’s list of lawyers.  I’ve written certain letters, so perhaps I’m on quite a different list.  I have offered to defend my parish against TEC for free should that day come. I hope it does and SOON or I’m going to have jump out of this burning, sinking, smelly ship. Personally, I don’t believe I can remain in any organization that maintains good relations (including “second tier”) with such an evil empire as 815 has become, so the chances that this is going to work out seem remote.  However, I’ve learned that God has His ways!

The bottom line is: David Booth Beers $$$$$$$

On the part of lawyers, I believe there is the small matter of “scruples,” or the lack thereof.  I know of at least one lawyer who wouldn’t touch lawsuits like the ones brought by TEC “for all the tea in China.”

#67 and #68:
It is correct that the parish is expected to give a percentage of the parish income to the diocese, and the diocese does support 815. How much of the expcted income is actually sent to the diocese is a matter of parish priest skill… give them maybe 80% of what they expect and complain about theeconomy and ASA figures, legacies, etc.
Meanwhile, people in the pews can stop the cash flow to 815 cold by simply making a note in the memo of the checks “for use in parish maintenance only” or “for the ______ mission fund only”.

I refuse to provide any support of any kind to my 815 enemy.

With apologies to those who don’t fit the shoe:

Bishops ain’t easy to hear and they’re harder to bear.
‘druth’r ask us to break the Sixth than Heav’n steer
don clerical blang and new sparkly pout shoes
‘n each trienn’l ‘ns new lawsuits.
If you don’t understand ‘em, an’ they don’t ‘tire young,
They’ll prob’ly just take roots.

Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be bishops.
Don’t let ‘em read Tarot or wear ‘m pink stuff
Let ‘em be wikkans and suffis and such.
Mamas don’t let your babies grow up to be bishops.
‘Cos they’r always a-stewin’ and always lawsuin’
Even ‘gainst people they love.

I do remember that in the Falklands War, New Zealand lent us service of a frigate which released one of our ships from its duties and allowed it to be sent south.  Seems to me that allocating funds to ‘the parish’ releases unrestricted funds to be sent to the 815 litigation machine.  It may not be that easy.

Without the funds of good people, the appalling litigation strategy and persecution could not be proceeding.

Cut the supply of sustenance, and like cutting the roots of ivy, the destructive force of the creeper further up the tree WILL stop.

d’oh,

Stanza 1 should be:

Bishops ain’t easy to hear and they’re harder to bear.
‘druth’r ask us ‘tbreak the seventh than Heav’n steer
don clerical blang and new sparkly pout shoes
‘n each trienn’l ‘ns new lawsuits.
If you don’t understand ‘em, an’ they don’t ‘tire young,
They’ll prob’ly just take roots.

#81, wish it were as simple to stop cash flow as you say.  But writing that on your check is only good if your parish agrees that it will cull out your money and not send any of it to the diocese.  And most won’t anymore - and when they said they did in 2004, many actually didn’t.

As far as skimming before the diocese gets its money, that is less easy now also.  Many dioceses, like my own, since the great withholdings of 2004, have passed canons that require each parish to pay its percentage share (10% in our case) or go before a board to explain why you can’t.  If the board does not buy your excuses, you lose your vote at diocesan council the first year.  The second year, bishop may declare the parish to be a mission, remove the clergy and the vestry, and install his own people and get his money.  That canon has been passed in several dioceses, which before 2003 had a purely voluntary system of percentage payment to the diocese, that was seldom abused.  That’s why it is important to keep money off the budget in the local parishes.  Otherwise, you have no cards to play.

Meanwhile, people in the pews can stop the cash flow to 815 cold by simply making a note in the memo of the checks “for use in parish maintenance only” or “for the ______ mission fund only”.

Runes, the problem with that is that money is fungible. That is, once the check is deposited in the parish’s bank account there is no way to tell which dollar went to “parish maintenance” and which went to the diocese and ultimately to 815.

If your weekly check is $70 and your neighbor’s check is $70 and diocese takes 15% of parish income, once the $140 is deposited in the bank the $21 check can be written to the diocese. In “theory” your $70 went to “parish maintenance”—but only $41 of your neighbor’s $70 went to “parish maintenance”. There’s no way to tell which dollar is which once it is in the bank.

As some have noted, directing a gift for local use is of marginal effectiveness if a substantial portion of the revenue of the parish is not directed - the undirected funds are fungible and may be allocated to the diocese & then to 815.

If a parish is unwilling or unable to withhold funds, one strategy to consider is the creation of a separate corporation, such as a non-profit foundation.  Depending on the level of participating givers, portions of the church staff or operations may be taken off the books of the parish - not only does this take the funds out of the reach of the Dennis Canon, it also reduces the benchmark used for calculating diocesan share.  This should certainly be considered by any parish if a purchase of real estate is contemplated.

Consult your attorney.

It is my opinion that by now the majority (with an easy to write a short list of exceptions) of TEC bishops are looking at the dismal and ever worsening state of their church and recognize that the never ending litigation policy of Schori and 815 is a disastrous one that is responsible for most, and certainly of the speed, of the deterioration of TEC.  I am quite sure that most of these bishops are sick at heart that they ever elected someone like Schori to be their PB.

Replies to above re designating “use of funds” in tithing: I’m sure each parish is different in some ways, but this is working in ours.The priest is taking a risk but “that’s his mission”. The more people in the pews who do this the better it works. The people like it because they have no way to fight 815 on their own, but this is one thing they can and will do. Our parish maintenance has been a monthly task well before 1721 so we have a vested interest in maintaining a bit of American history which is also our religious center - 815 hasn’t given us a dime and we don’t want a dime from them. But, as you point out, at some level the diocese starts to make life difficult for our rector. God bless guys with guts!
I can’t begin to tell you how happy we are that the SC Surpreme Court found in favor of a parish over a diocese and TEC.

Ref Undergroundpewster [6]  Note that the lectionary for Thursday Sept. 24 skips I Cor 6:9-11.

It is the rank self deception that I find so appalling.  The honest truth is that those historic “generations” of faithful Episcopalians would be deeply distressed and horrified at the direction of TEC today.  The distant rumble one hears when visiting cemeteries is not nearby traffic - it is the generations of faithful Episcopalians turning in their graves.

When I was in TEC, we had plenty of parishioners that sought to restrict the use of their giving, and as a parish we tried to honor it. The problem was that the diocese wants a number up front, not only in terms of a percentage but an absolute number. When our Vestry reduced its giving substantially, the Priests we were invited to have several “discussions” with our Bishop.  In the end, giving was reduced some, but not nearly enough. 

If you are giving to your parish, the only way to determine whether your “earmarking” is having the desired effect is to compare your parish giving with prior years on a percentage and absolute dollar basis.

I agree with the suggestion about off budget giving, such as donations to a Priest’s discretiontary accounts, or to a parachurch organization like this one. 

As a practical matter, any Priest whose church cuts off Diocisian funding better have a Plan B that doesnt involve the Episcopal Church.

I believe that postal regulations now limit what one can put in a #10 postage-paid envelope to make it weigh more than the ounce or two that a letter might weigh.  (Long ago, when I worked for a large public university, one of its alumni was not enthusiastic about contributing to the annual fund but delighted in taping the postage-paid envelope on a box filled with bricks.  As you might guess, he didn’t bother to fill in his return address.)

As to the cost of the letter, it was probably not much, at most $2-3/letter if sent to a small list and less per unit to a large one.

A list of lawyers who identify themselves as Episcopalians would not be difficult to rent from a list broker and probably not cost more than $50-75/five-thousand names.  Clearly, if parishes and dioceses are sharing the names of the “generous” lawyers then the results are likely to be better even if the number it is mailed to is smaller.

Here is the math:

$3 letter X 5,000 names costs $15,000.  A one-percent response yields 50 gifts.  A $300 average gift will cover the costs, anything over that will be used for legal expenses.  It’s not the best way to raise significant money but it will raise some.

#48 wrote: BTW - Ken Peck - loved your inspirational quotes from the TECRV. Went well with my morning coffee.

all over your screen, right?

#90.  Runes,
Your idea will have to get over 90% parish participation, otherwise 90% of you will fund all the work of the parish and all the money from the other 10% will go to the diocese.  I expect most parishes get 10% in “loose offerings” and those undesignated funds can provide all that is needed to send up the chain.

You could really make a difference if you would continue to to pray in and for your parish, but send all your tithes to Anglican Frontier Missions.  They are spreading the gospel where it has never been before.  This would send the message to the lost in two ways.

Nothing new here, but it is nice to see them having to work for it a little.  Perhaps when the dominoes that started in Texas and SC start falling, people will see the writing on the wall and cut their losses (i.e., it is futile to give to this cause).

I wonder if there is even a tiny chance that TEC will decide to settle eventually; to put away the sword and try to be persuasive instead.

#4 My heart is with yours on this.
What can I do to let TEC know how I feel about this?!
I am generally a reappraiser but more and more I am not at home in TEC and am exploring options where one can be a liberal and still Christian.

archangelica, you are all right! You can try to write a letter to the Episcopal News Service. I have been banned, but if you start out, “I am a liberal Christian for full inclusion. That being said, I have grave concerns about the costs of litigation, not only financially but in terms of the terrible ill will it generates….” They might publish it.

It is really a terrible situation. I would really like to buy you or Mad Potter a cup of coffee and just enjoy each others conversations. The lawsuits bring such bitterness.

Shori’s also suing the estate of Retired Supreme Harry Blackmun for malpractice. Kid you not.

The Anglican Curmudgeon has the story.

#100, that story is parody, read the comments section.

“A contribution card and an envelope is enclosed…”?
Bad theology, bad ecclesiology, and now bad grammar. Where will it end?

#31 -
“The church has been forced” - by whom?  by conscience?  They haven’t any, much.  By the statements of the (deceased) donors about use of their donated properties?

I don’t get it.  I’ve been around ‘church splits’ literally all my life.  Even the nastiest (one resorted to something very like murder - not Episcopal or related to) don’t spend what should be the children’s bread on ‘litigation.’ 

I’ve recently been struck by the similarity between:
Litigator - - - Alligator.

Watch them gators.

INCREDIBLE !!.  My parents are rolling over in their graves.  Perhaps TEC is beginning to see that these lawsuits are going to cost TEC BIG DOLLARS !!  Amazing that they pose this in a way that sounds like a historical conservation society. Of course all contributions are tax- deductible ; 0

AMEN to #12. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  I would say that many in this diocese (SC) feel exactly the same way as you do. We ARE Episcopalians too !! As our bishop said We ARE TEC!!! We are probably one of a few dioceses that can say that but there are some spiritually healthy dioceses just not enough to go around.

As far as Dioceses go, more should consider doing what the Diocese of SC has done, Simply pass a resolution at a diocesan convention that no more funds go to the national church, 815.  Simple enough. Even if the few conservative dioceses left would do this, it would be less money going to 815. SC has not contributed to 815 in several years. What other dioceses have done this ??

As for parishioners sending funds, perhaps a tithe can be in the form of giving directly to particular funds not just a general contribution. My parish has several funds, choir fund, Organ fund, Heritage fund,etc that support various ministries of the parish.  Let the progressives support the general funds that will go to 815. Send money where it will fund groups with similar ideals/goals.  I like the idea of supporting Nashotah House, Trinity School for Ministry, DOK (yea, I am a DOK!) Brotherhood of Saint Andrew,etc. ALL GREAT ideas ! [BTW DOK IS NOT part of the Episcopal Church like some others are. PB tried to get her dirty little hands on us and she was told to “buzz off”.]

Parishes are in a different…  trickier .... situation. Here, parishes send in their tithe to the Diocese but this diocese does not send a penny to 815.  So far,this has worked… (fingers crossed and praying hard). In a diocese that does, that does ...hmm. that is problem. One wants to support the parish and its staff but not support 815.  Perhaps there are enough progressives in the parish to send in a tithe to support 815 ?? Orthodox can support other organizations or ministries directly.

For those who want to send money our way,  I suggest supporting our newspaper, the Jubilate Deo and Camp St. Christopher.  We are in need of funds to renovate this conference center (which BTW will be open to all soon as it had been solely for the use of the diocese)  [Another BTW, the Diocese of SC used to own the ENTIRE island now known as Seabrook Island. The diocese owns one small part, that is St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center]

.  here is the link to the diocese of SC website: http://dioceseofsc.org/
On the homepage, you will find links to various items about the diocese.  One being the current issue of the Jubilate Deo with a clickable link to the PDF.

To support and possibly receive your own subscription to the Diocesan newspaper, send those contributions/subscription requests to:
LaQuetta Jones
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I don’t know if anyone outside this diocese actually subscribes but it can’t hurt to ask. This wonderful newspaper is sent free to every household in the diocese. Although our tithes to the diocese via our parishes not doubt support the Jubilate Deo. At least I hope they do !!

http://www.stchristopher.org/ This is the link to St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center website where you can find out more about this wonderful place.
To fund renovations to St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center:
Please send contributions to:
St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center
Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina
P.O. Box 20127, Charleston, SC 29413-0127
Attention: Ann Hester Willis, Development Director

There are plenty of other ways that orthodox Anglicans can choose to give their money to God’s work outside the human-made boundaries of the USA.  The ‘extra-provincial’ Igreja Lusitana (the Portuguese branch of the Anglican Church) is an excellent example—very small, and VERY poor.

Every priest who hasn’t already retired from his civilian job is bi-vocational… even the bishop, Dom Fernando Soares, was a full-time banker (now a retired banker) while serving as bishop of the national Church.  In the northern part of the country, in the Porto/Gaia area, there are five parishes, but before I came as a (very part-time) volunteer, only enough clergy to ensure that four of the five could have the Eucharist—I’m now the ‘spare’. The churches in the Lisbon region aren’t much better off; again, bi-vocational clergy, often as rectors of two parishes while working full time ‘on the side’.  The Igreja Lusitana was originally founded by 19th Century British evangelical Anglicans as schools and then churches for the Portuguese working poor, and was once funded in part by money from Britain and Ireland, then from European Protestant sources that dried up when even poorer countries such as Romainia entered the European Union. (There are also numerous English chaplaincies, mostly in Lisbon and the south, for Brits that work in or visit Portugal, but they aren’t connected to the Portuguese Church—those ‘overlapping dioceses’ we hear are impossible in the US).

Given the way that Portugal has been hit by the international financial crisis, I’ve heard members of the Diocesan Council-equivalent worry that in ten years the Church will have to declare itself bankrupt and close.

If anyone is willing, assistance can be sent to the Obrigado, Senhor! (Thank you, Lord!) fund, at the Centro Diocesano da Igreja Lusitana (Comunhão Anglicana), Rua de Afonso Albuquerque, No. 86,
Apt. 392, 4431-905 VILA NOVA de GAIA, Portugal.  I can assure you that it will be used appropriately (and that the Portuguese Church isn’t suing anybody!)

Thanks for letting us know. Yes, there are plenty faithful organizations around the world that deserve financial support.  Thank the LORD! The faithful will survive and thrive.

Actually, what prompted to me post about the Diocese of SC is this…
#69 by Billy “....perhaps that is what reasserters from around the country in revisionists dioceses should do - send money to D. of SC and the few other reasserting dioceses who don’t give money to national church. ”    So thought I would give actual info to those who might want to give to the diocese.

As any one can tell by my “name” on this blog, I live in SC specifically the Diocese of SC. So sometimes I give info about this diocese from a parishioner’s view point.

Anyway,  yes the faithful should support other faithful. ALL of us need support.Sorry if you felt excluded.. did not mean to limit financial support to those in the USA.

Although coming late to this thread, I want to be sure Stand Firm readers remember the past doings of the Rev. Susan McCone.

After the Burgling Bishop of Connecticut seized St. John’s, Bristol, who did he install as military governor—er, priest in charge? Mother McCone.

Stand Firm and T19 amply covered her deeds of love, mercy, and pastoral concern.

This is the person who purported to remove William Witt from the vestry for his “many offenses.” Offenses like speaking truth to heretical power.

I would be curious to know the thinking of the IRS on any church exempt organization soliciting litigation funds, particularly when they call it mission work?  Any IRS employees out there?