There They Go Again… Sad, Sad News from the DSC

Hasn’t it already been determined in South Carolina that any lawsuits aimed at trying to grab property from disaffiliating parishes are doomed to fail?

The answer to #1 is “Yes”.

The Stalinistic propensities and tactics of liberalism are now fully bloomed in the EcUSA.  Note that the complainants are not identified.  Note that there is no opportunity for defense even in the face of the findings of the prior evaluation.

All who will not bow the knee to Katie et alia are to be cast into the furnace; which warning should be well heeded by those in the liberal and apostate “hierarchy”.  One never knows whose next, boys and girls and LGBTXYZ’s - it could be you.

It’s all about intimidation…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wntX-a3jSY

“The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”.

Prayers ascending for all in DSC. May God bless you and keep you standing firm in Faith and confident of His wisdom, power and might.

David: like you, I’m hoping that last year’s quit-claim deeds will prove to be a poison-pill that prevents TEC from spending too much money pursuing DSC.  In general they fund their scorched-earth legal strategies by selling the vacant churches.  I trust they will rapidly recognize that there is no up-side to legal action against DSC.

Could this also trigger a quick-claim deed for all what-used-to-be-DSC properties? I so, would not TEC need to sue hundreds of churches?

I was wondering why they would do this until I remembered that the Diocese probably owns property.  The quit-claim deeds and the state court rulings should preclude TEC’s getting hold of the parishes, but perhaps diocesan property is at risk.

Meanwhile the libs are parading around Diana Butler Bass and such people, talking about how all THE YOUNG PEOPLE are tired of the legalism and politics of churches, seeking to be “spiritual” or whatever instead - and how TEC is perfect to meet their need. 

They are just unable to look in a mirror and see themselves as they are.

What you folks don’t understand is that the star chamber trial has already convened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw

Concerning being thrown into a furnace: perhaps if this happens, there will be a meeting with the Son of God.

This should certainly spur our collective Stewardship efforts. My warmest sarcastic thanks to Kate.

Paging Bp Josef K… The Trial is about to begin.

I tend to think that South Carolina might not throw in with any other Anglican group at all, at least at first, Curmudgeon.  If South Carolina joins ACNA immediately, might it not open itself up to the TEO charge that it intended to do so all along?  And from the looks of things, I frankly don’t think that South Carolina needs ACNA right now.

Charleston has a North American Anglican history that goes back farther than just about anyone else, it’s been running its own affairs for several years now, it’s thriving by all accounts and ACNA, as promising as it’s sometimes shown itself to be, hasn’t yet found its sea legs.  I think ACNA needs South Carolina far more than South Carolina needs them.

Isn’t TEC primarily going after +Mark Lawrence initially? Funny how Spong and Pike got the immunity necklace.

#1- what has been determined in South Carolina is that a parish can leave the diocese and keep its property unless there is a deed in the name of the diocese, or a written trust document.  There is no decision on what, exactly, happens if a diocese leaves TEC.  Nor what happens and who controls diocesan assets if the national church replaces the bishop and standing committee, which appears to be in process.  One assumes that TEC has a legal strategy they THINK will work.
Of course, another aspect of this is that KJS and co. want to make sure that other troublesome bishops and dioceses, especially those whose state courts have already conceded that TEC canons and KJS opinions supersede state and common law, understand what will happen to them if they refuse to bow down to the PB’s religion.  Expect words but no action from the CP bishops and complete silence from Canterbury.

Found this Curmudgeon post on the fact that the Dennis Canon is a dead letter in the Low Country:

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/dennis-canon-loses-in-south-carolina.html

Christopher #13, I don’t think either ACNA or DSC needs the other at all.  I do know that North American Anglicanism doesn’t need yet another province.

ENS has a take up.

You know, I keep thinking about the All Saints Pawleys Island lawsuit. As divisive as that was with Bishop Salmon and All Saints, it was out of that lawsuit, I believe, that the SC Supreme Court ruled that the *parish* owned the property, not the diocese. And it was Bishop Lawrence who engineered the stand-down agreement on that in order to bring a peaceful resolution. It’s like the circle coming back in on itself (or something cosmic like that)

Christopher Johnson (#13), the Diocese of South Carolina will need some kind of Anglican roof over its head. Given the degree of forethought and planning that has obviously gone into its defensive strategy, I cannot help but think that they have mapped out a strategy there, as well.

And as you say, CJ, that degree of forethought and advanced planning might well convict him as it did +Duncan, but the point is that +Lawrence no longer cares. ECUSA has tossed him out, so to speak, and so he will shake the dust from his sandals and leave them to their own devices.

Were the DSC to affiliate with ACNA, it would overnight be that group’s largest diocese. And since ACNA just formed a Diocese of the Carolinas with the former rector of the DSC’s largest parish as its bishop, I do not see right away how a diocese with some 29,000 members could be accommodated into that scheme.

So CJ and James Manley may well be correct. This process will take some time, but you can be sure that Bishop Lawrence has covered his bases.

I don’t know, Mudge.  South Carolina Anglicanism got going in the 1600’s and survived the Revolutionary War and the Civil War so I can’t see where going it alone for a while, even a few years, would affect it adversely.  South Carolina’s history makes it the closest thing to a “Diocese of Canterbury” that this country has and really doesn’t need to join ACNA.  But if it were to join, ACNA would automatically receive a gravitas which it doesn’t currently have.

Which is probaby a distinction without a difference.  But given the current legal situation there, South Carolina would seem to be in a far stronger position than any other Episcopal diocese has been before in this situation and thus doesn’t need to do anything right away.

It should be an interesting few years.

Prayer.

I think Mr. Haley is probably on the money. No doubt, there are plans that will be revealed given the right timing. Have patience folks!

Mr. Haley, Do you think the newly created Diocese of the Carolinas could be split to accomodate the Diocese of South Carolina as an entity?  Can anyone familiar with ACNA governing documents add any info or clarity??? TIA!

“We feel a deep sense of sadness but a renewed sense of God’s providence that the Episcopal Church has chosen to act against this Diocese and its Bishop during a good faith attempt peacefully to resolve our differences,”

I believe this form of attack during negotiations is known in revisionist circles as the “Virginia strategy,” although I believe it originates in the late 1970s “negotiations” with some Anglo Catholic parishes leaving for the Continuum.

Prayer

I suspect that the HOB won’t be of one mind on how to respond to this despotic attack. Thus, I wonder what effect it will have on HOB collegiality, as well as on the remaining conservative bishops and their conservative dioceses. If one of their own is deposed without true cause, I think their only moral option would be to move to ACNA. I’m reminded of the following statement:

http://generalconvention.cfdiocese.org/blog/house-bishops-unanimous-expression-collegiality

Mr. Haley, from what I read, the distinction introduced:

“In the event any provision of the Constitution of the General Convention of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is inconsistent
with, or contradictory to, the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant
Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, the Constitution and Canons of this
Diocese shall prevail.”

seems purely defensive. They are afraid TEC will try to bully them into violating their conscience. And TEC has made the first move by taking issue with this statement, even though the statement is a *conciliatory* attempt to say, “please don’t impose any new innovative nonsense on us that will violate our conscience and we can all just get along”.

Is there any chance secular courts will take it seriously that this purely defensive posture is really an “abandonment”? As if “abandoning” an abusive situation means unilateral abandonment.

Or will the secular courts in SC examine the issue on this level (of TEC canons)? (I remember past revisionist commenters used to say that courts could not argue things on this level, as that would violate church/state separation).

Also, the distinction drawn by the quote (what if TEC/DioSC canons contradict?) is in any case a valid one. The original wording *was* equivocal.

It must be formalized what would happen in such a case.

SJSP, you are correct—the state courts will not go into questions about the restriction / deposition of Bishop Lawrence. Instead, they will look at the governing documents which you cite. And when they do, they will not find anything in ECUSA’s governing documents which purports to restrict, or require the Church’s approval of, any amendments which South Carolina can make to its constitution.

In the earlier case of All Saints Waccamaw (see my post linked in #21 above), the SC Supreme Court found that because there was no legal restriction on the parish’s power to amend its governing documents, it could do so legally under SC law so as to disaffiliate. And I have no doubt but that the SC courts will follow that same reasoning here—if it comes to a battle between ECUSA and the DSC over the latter’s (First Amendment) right to withdraw and keep ownership of its property.