October 1, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

January 4, 2013


DioSC Sues Episcopal Church to Prevent Its Seizing Local Parishes and “Hijacking” their Identities

Read it all here.

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.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

13 comments

At this point, this is a civil matter, not a religious one. So, the lawsuit is entirely appropriate and necessary, since TEC has apparently ignored DioSC’s cease-and-desist requests. Good move, DioSC!

[1] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2013 at 01:34 PM · [top]

TEC is committing fraud in the state of South Carolina by falsely claiming it is the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, in violation of South Carolina law that governs the matter.  A suit to enjoin such dishonest behavior is completely warranted.  A suit by the State’s attorney general, as parens patriae having supervision over South Carolina charities, to enjoin the deceptive and unfair business practices being engaged in by TEC would also be warranted.

[2] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 1-4-2013 at 03:08 PM · [top]

I wonder if 815 has a similar suit in the works awaiting the faux convention’s Bishop’s approval.

[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 1-4-2013 at 03:52 PM · [top]

I’m praying for a successful outcome for +Lawrence and the legitimate Diocese of South Carolina.

[4] Posted by the virginian on 1-4-2013 at 04:46 PM · [top]

The story on the diocesan website was labeled out of St. George SC.  Was the suit filed in Charleston, or in some other county?  Also, if the Diocese sued the Episcopal Church, and I suspect it treated it as a non-South Carolina party—will TEC try to remove the case to federal district court, under diversity jurisdiction?  Are there “local” defendants?

[5] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 1-4-2013 at 05:52 PM · [top]

From the article:

The Diocese of South Carolina is made up of 71 parishes with approximately 30,000 members. Of those, 22,244 members have decided to remain with the Diocese and 1900 are undecided. Fifty Three Hundred say they want to be with The Episcopal Church with nearly half of those from one church in Charleston.

That pretty well tells the tale, except to say that the 22,244 members still believe the faith that would be recognizable to those who established the Church in South Carolina 300 years ago—and to Christians elsewhere throughout the ages.  Not as much can be said for the 5,300 who are aligning with TEC.

Whatever the courts may eventually say, there is something inherently morally wrong with a church that changes its faith, order, and morals and then tries to confiscate the places of worship of faithful Christians who cannot go along with those changes.

What in the world would the 5,300 do if they seized the property of the other 22,244 members?  They can’t possibly use it.  So this would essentially be theft in order to create a lot of beautiful but empty museums in South Carolina, and to line the coffers of 815 with the proceeds from buildings that would have to be sold for a fraction of their true value.  And, of course, the buildings could not be sold to the faithful Anglicans who currently inhabit them.  Schori’s policy (again, by what authority?) would never allow that.

Bottom line:  It should be apparent to anyone that this whole litigation agenda is nothing more than Katharine Jefferts Schori’s personal war on conservative Christians whom she despises.  I still think back to Bp. Peter Lee’s willingness to settle with departing congregations in Virginia, in 2006, until Schori (before she was even enthroned as PB) ordered (by what authority?) him not to.  This was the beginning of the war of litigation.

It is shame that a few revisionists in South Carolina will go along with her.  But it is an even bigger shame that the Episcopal House of Bishops allows Schori to keep waging this war at such a terrible cost, both in dollars and in the harm done to faithful souls.  The history books will not remember this episode kindly—and neither will the final Judge before whom we all must appear.

[6] Posted by radrector on 1-4-2013 at 06:16 PM · [top]

#6, by now, the source of the PB’s so-called ‘authority’ would be well-known to any mystic worth his/her (exorcised) salt; and it should be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with what Holy Scripture says about such things.

Things look bad right now, and they will get even worse. But in the end (after having done who-knows-how-much damage), she will lose, and lose big. They always do.

And, new green blades will spring forth from the scorched earth.

[7] Posted by Ralph on 1-4-2013 at 07:20 PM · [top]

I seriously doubt the number of 5300 will remain that large for very long. Perhaps a sizable number from Grace Church in Charleston want to remain in TEC but outside of the Charleston area, there are not many parishes that will remain loyal to TEC.  Sure, some individuals will leave but I suspect when they realize these “worship groups” (as they are now called) can not hope to provide the sort of opportunities that their parishes provided, they will come back.

Anyway, I hope that this maneuver by the Diocese will pre-empt any lawsuits by TEC. I just don’t see the need for all these lawsuits especially when the only precedent in the state is not favorable to TEC but to the Diocese.

[8] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-4-2013 at 11:06 PM · [top]

#5, Yes, Mr. Haley mentions the the Presiding Bishop and Mr. Thomas Tisdale as defendants. Tisdale is a local SC attorney, member of Grace Church in Charleston, and a former diocesan chancellor.

[9] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-4-2013 at 11:22 PM · [top]

Given the previous cease-and-desist letter from the DioSC office, TEC must have been expecting that DioSC would institute legal action. One would expect that TEC has made preparations to file a counter-suit.

The TEC lawyers will clean up in legal fees.

#9 mentions that Mr. Tisdale is a former DioSC chancellor. Regardless of his personal feelings about whether TEC or DioSC is ‘right’, ethically, should he be involved in the attempted TEC takeover? I’ve read that lawyers have ethical standards.

[10] Posted by Ralph on 1-5-2013 at 06:19 AM · [top]

Way to go, DioSC!

[11] Posted by aggie on 1-5-2013 at 09:18 AM · [top]

I’ve always enjoyed that spirited song “The Devil Went Down to Georgia”. Perhaps a new version could be written on behalf of the Palmetto State.

[12] Posted by Fradgan on 1-6-2013 at 04:43 AM · [top]

#10. Ralph, Good point about Mr. Tisdale. Alas, ethical standards have rarely hampered TEC from pursuing its goal. SO, I doubt this little problem would be seen as problematic.

Fradgan, Hmm. excellent idea. I too like that song. A new version yes indeed.

[13] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-7-2013 at 10:58 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.