Bishop Martins on “Toward Resolution on the Title IV Matter”
We’ll know soon enough if the eight bishops and two clergy caved on the assertions in the amicus curiae brief, removed their names from it, or in some other way repudiated or lessened what was said in the amicus curiae brief—or even promised “nevah evah evah to put our names to anything again having to do with our polity”—under the clownishly corrupt “conciliation process” that TECusa apparatchiks constructed. In other words, did TECusa leaders get what they wanted with their intimidation and bullying?
We all signed an expansive confidentiality agreement, so there is not very much I can say, except this: We did reach an in-principle agreement that we expect will become an Accord, and that will resolve all the complaints that have been made against us.
According to the canons, an Accord is not officially reached until the Presiding Bishop approves it. In the event that happens, the document will be made public by her office. All of us who participated in this process are grateful beyond words for the prayers of a great many people. In time, there may be more that I can say about the agreement and my assessment of it. For now, I’m constrained by the confidentiality agreement.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- San Joaquin Appeal Rebuffed by California Supreme Court
- ECUSA Loses (Again) in Quincy; San Joaquin Seeks Review [UPDATED]
- You Mean the Dept. of Justice Has to Act Justly??
- What’s Wrong with the Law, and in Particular with Harvard Law School
- A Well-Aimed Blast at the Communion-Wreckers
- The Case of the Felonious Priest
- +Bruno’s Conflict of Interest Is Now Public
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.