BREAKING: Accusers outed in Ft. Worth complaint

Paging Mr. Haley, Paging Mr. Haley!

Is it my imagination, or is one of the TEC-FT Worth attorneys also the Chancellor of the TEC diocese (and therefore a member of the executive council)?  And if that is correct, does that mean that the attorney for TEC (who is also the chancellor), who is suing ACNA-Ft Worth, is trying to get their witnesses fired from their jobs for filing an amicus brief???

Or is this something I saw on a really bad episode of LA Law 25 years ago?

I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but I gotta think this is not the sort of thing you want to be doing if you want to keep your license to practice law.

tjmacmahon, the Chancellor for ECUSA’s DFW is Kathleen Wells.  She advises, but is not a member of, both the Standing Committee and the Executive Council.

Nevertheless, this news is very troubling, as it shows an attempt by one party to an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Texas trying to punish those who were exercising their first amendment rights to file an amicus brief with that Court.  It will be for that Court to decide what to do about the matter, after all the conduct of the parties involved has been laid before it.

What is even more troubling is the apparent refusal by Bishop Matthews to recuse himself from the disciplinary process, after he participated (along with the Presiding Bishop, and all the other bishop members of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops) in the 2 1/2 hours of “private conversations” with the accused bishops at the recent HoB meeting. Anyone who participated in those discussions is subject to the following Canon (IV.19.14):

Sec. 14. Impartiality of officials and bodies described in this Title shall be addressed as follows:

(a) Any Bishop Diocesan exercising authority under this Title shall disqualify herself or himself in any proceeding in which the Bishop’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned….

(b) Any member of any Panel provided for in this Title shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the member’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned….

You can no longer be impartial if you have shared two and a half hours discussing the charges, and the reasons for their conduct offered by the accused bishops, in “private conversations” with them.  Bishop Matthews, Bishop Jefferts Schori, and all the other Bishops on the DBB should immediately withdraw from any further participation in these matters.

It’s interesting to note that the Potemkin “diocese” of Fort Worth thinks it has a standing committee. I’m not clear on whether the diocese even exists, except in the minds of a few. Has it been canonically recognized?

Ralph,
While there is no constitutional basis for the TEC “Potemkin” diocese, for practical purposes, it obviously exists, since its bishop and delegation were officially seated at GC. As a member of TEC, you have the option to institute charges against the various bodies there if you want.  But since not one single bishop or delegate at GC challenged their constitutionality or right to be seated, I would suggest it would be a Quixotic project.

Didn’t someone at GC, upon passing of the SSB, pray thankfully that their ‘desires could be released’?  I am misquoting but it was some such heresy as this, that our desires are what God ought to bless, not that we should be obedient.  It is always our arrogance and pride which takes over our souls.  We would place our desired ahead of God’s requirements.  Good grief!

Hmm, if the names are not given, how can they be “outed”? Granted you should be able to find the names of people a diocesan standing committee but saying that one deputy of the Diocese of New Jersey who happens to be a lawyer? That is not revealing much at all. sigh….

End justifies the means with these guys.  They aren’t concerned with following the rules - only about the final outcome.  Don’t expect any of them to “recuse” themselves from anything.