[Bumped: FINAL DAY To Submit Comments on Title IV] Goosestepping Through The Canons With TEC

Disobey the church, like communing the non-baptized?  Enforcement?
Yeah, like the liberal elites have to obey the canons just like everone else.  No SSBs no SSMs.  Hath hell indeed frozen over from Cocytx to the very gate and extinguished all the fires and biling pitch?

TEC is becoming more like Scientology every day.  Heil Xenu!

It all leaves one to wonder if the remaining congregations will be required to practice a special salute to go along with marching in goosestep.

My guess would be YES! and all the things that these churches of the Liberal Left are already doing. You will obey or suffer the consequences!
I signed up for Jesus….not TEC and the political activists tht have hijacked her!

It all leaves one to wonder if the remaining congregations will be required to practice a special salute to go along with marching in goosestep.

Or burning a pinch of incense on the altar to the PB, Executive Council and General Convention.  Is it one pinch each or one for all??

Mao lives…
Shalom,
Intercessor

but if this canon passes, wouldn’t that prohibit the presiding bishop from litigating?  She is ordained in this church and she is turning to a secular court for interpretation of issues under the canons regarding property ownership.

seminarian - She would not need litigation. The proposed changes make the office of PB judge and jury.

Jackie, RE:
“No member of this Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of this Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.”
Believe it or not, this has already been done in the diocese of Easton unless full consent is given by Diocesan Convention.

No member of this Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of this Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.

I honestly can not figure out what they are about with this one. The vast bulk of the Canons and Constitution would not be interpreted by the courts under any circumstance already. Such matters as would lend themselves to civil action probably can not be waived by such a clause.

It looks suspiciously like a terrorem clause, something to be used to bully unrepresented parties.

I get breezy here

TEC should just toss all the canons and replace them with the following:

Canon I:  Might makes right.
Canon II: The Presiding Bishop and General Convention of this Church have the might.
Canon III:  Anyone unable to accept Canons I or II should join another denomination (but do continue to send in the pledge checks).

From a comment on this story, posted in our “group”

“Task Force indeed! Sounds like Badge 714! “My name is Kate, I carry a badge. My partner and I were working the Orthodox Persecution Squad out of 815.” Dum-dee-dum dum. Hey that’s it! Badge 815!”

Grannie Gloria

L.Ron Hubbard lives…
Shalom,
Intercessor

Is it me or does the spin the ELO article puts on this seem to somewhat soften or minimalize said changes?

#13 Gordy,
We wouldn’t want to draw too much attention to them now would we. People may wake up and finally see the truth for what TEC truly has become!

I haven’t had time to review the links, but have a question.  What ‘teeth’ if any, are added with the Canon revisions?  With regards to parishes, it is my understanding that most dioceses have already modified their rules such that the bishop can declare a parish to be “in distress.” 

With regards to laity, what would 815 do?  Excommunicate?  Seriously.  Assuming they still have the uh, fortitude for such a thing, if I was excommunicated by my them, I’d probably ask to have it put in writing, and hang it in the Place of Honor. 

Or, is this aimed at the few orthodox bishops that remain?

Well said Jamesw and Mousestalker !!
After reading the Proposed revision of the Laity Discipline Canon I.17.8, it appears lawyers at 815 are hard at work.
The talks around coffeepots at Parish level is such a real Christian strategy (along with all the litgation)......“now lets go after the lay folks…...the backbone of the church” what a way to promote Service in Parish activites…Now a little closer to leaving TEC….

I’m wondering if the clause about not going to a secular court would in fact be enforceable in a secular court.  Are there any lawyers here would could advise us?

#9 Mousestalker, it looks very much like a recognition that there is legal vulnerability that counsel is trying to “clean up.”

The few orthodox dioceses left in ECUSA need to prepare to march very soon, or at the very least enable orthodox parishes to leave before litigation from the grand inquisitor makes it impossible.

Wouldn’t this have been wonderful back in the ‘30s and ‘40s before the homosexual agenda triumphed!! Something could have been done about that agenda while the faithful were still in charge.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Thanks, Jackie, for bringing these proposed changes into the light.  Hopefully, clergy and lay leadership on the fence will see the implications, and will respond either by foot or by voice. Either way, a response is in order. 
This out-of-control PB is actually hastening the departures and ignighting fires of reformation - Good for her!  Without God’s Spirit guiding her and her minions, they are fools, and their folly will bring the inevitable to fruition….
Carrie in MD

Brad - Easton, MD has made changes like this? Whatever prompted that to happen?

Peter has put a link to the You Tube of the Monty Python “Spanish Inquisition” video.  Go to Anglican Essentials and click on the blog at the bottom.  So funny, and so current.  Or you can go to the “Age to Come” blog on the Stand Firm site and click on the blog on the right hand side.  Either way it is so…......worth it.

#9 “To address a dispute” covers a lot of territory. It seems to me that this would not permit a congregation, rector or vestry to initiate a lawsuit in the secular courts, but TEC can for “thats what we do” when the previously mentioned steps out of line according to Madame Schori.

#18,

I’m just not convinced it would actually be enforceable as regards to the matters that could currently be tried in a court. I could be wrong, but it seems awfully dodgy.

On a deeper level, I’m not certain I’d want to belong to an organization that would have such a clause. To do so would require a great deal more confidence than I currently have that the organization’s leadership has and will continue to have a commitment to fair play and due process.

I am currently an Episcopalian. I am not a member in any way, shape or fashion of a ‘continuing Anglican’ church. This makes me profoundly uncomfortable.

Working on being my own hate crime

Can anyone refer to a link with an article which covers some of the canons TEC is ignoring?  This is an important issue & it’d be nice to have a good summary.

j.m.c - Here’s two:

communing the non-baptized
ignored the Canons in the VA elections but enforced them in S. C.

I dunno…something made me think of this (apologies to the Producers):

<font size=“1” face=“Verdana”>CHORUS:
TEC was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was she?
Where could that chick be?
We looked around and then we found
The one for you and me

LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
And now it’s…
Springtime for Schori and TEC
Pisco-land is happy and <u>gay</u>!
We’re marching to a faster pace
Here comes the new progressive race!
Springtime for Schori and TEC
Newark’s a fine land once more!
Springtime for Schori and TEC
Watch out, Global South
We’re going on tour!
Springtime for Schori and TEC…

CHORUS:
Look, it’s springtime
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
Winter for comcons and feds
CHORUS AND STORMTROOPER:
Springtime for Schori and TEC!
CHORUS:
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
Springtime! Springtime!
STORMTROOPER:
Come on, clergy
Go into your dance!
STORMTROOPER BISHOP “BRUNO”:
I dissembled in New Orleans und that is why they call me Bruno.
STORMTROOPER BISHOP “BENNISON”:
Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join oasis’ party!
BONNIE:
The Fuhrer is coming, the Fuhrer is coming, the Fuhrer is coming!
STORMTROOPER #1:
Heil Schori!
STORMTROOPER #2:
Heil Schori!
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
Heil Schori!
Springtime for Schori and TEC
ALL:
Heil Schori!
KJS:
Heil myself
Heil to me
I’m the one
Who’s out to change our history
Heil myself
Raise your hand
There’s no greater
Prelate in the land!
Everything I do, I do for you!
CHORUS:
Yes, you do!
KJS:
If you’re looking for a war, here’s David Booth Beers!
Heil myself
Raise your beer
CHORUS:
Jawohl!
KJS:
Ev’ry hotsy-totsy bishop stand and cheer
CHORUS:
Hooray!
Ev’ry hotsy-totsy priest…
KJS
Heil myself!
CHORUS:
Ev’ry hotsy-totsy deacon…
KJS:
Heil myself!
CHORUS:
Ev’ry hotsy-totsy PEP…
KJS:
...stand and cheer!
THE HEIL-LOs:
The PB is causing a furor!
She’s got those FEDCONS on the run
You gotta love that wacky hon’!
The PB is causing a furor
They can’t say “no” to her demands
They’re freaking out in foreign lands
She’s got the whole world in her hands
The PB is causing a furor!
KJS:
I was an unfunded academic
No one more obscurer
Got a phone call from 815
Told me I was clergy
GC was blue
What, oh, what to do?
Hitched up my pants
And bishoped over to Nevada
Now TEC’s smiling through!
But it wasn’t always so easy…
It was 2006. Duncan was working the Big Room and I…
I was playing the lounge. And then I got my big break.
Somebody turned Parsley down. And, would you believe it?
They made me presiding. The PeeBee!
It ain’t no myst’ry
If it’s politics or hist’ry
The thing you gotta know is
Ev’rything is show biz
Heil myself
Watch my show
I’m the Vested Ethel Merman
Dontcha know
We hate crossing borders
The new canonical order is here
Make a great big smile
Ev’ryone sieg heil to me
Wonderful me!
And now it’s…
CHORUS:
Springtime for Schori and TEC
Goose-step’s the new step today
KJS:
Springtime!
Goose-steps!
CHORUS MEN:
Lawsuits falling from the skies again
CHORUS:
Pisco-land is on the rise again

KJS & CHORUS:
Springtime for Schori and TEC
Vestries are shaking once more
Springtime for Schori and TEC
KJS:
Means that…
CHORUS:
Soon we’ll be going…
KJS:
We’ve got to be going…
CHORUS:
You know we’ll be going….
KSJ:
You bet we’ll be going…
KJS & CHORUS:
You know we’ll be going to Lambeth!!</font>

You know, it was frightening how few words I had to change.

This may not be the thread to post this link, but I think since it has alot to do with the Church Of England it might get the attention it needs here. It appears that the other side, the ellusive drive by commentor that comes here on rare occasion is headed to CDSP for a meeting with allies from Inclusive Church regarding Lambeth. Now does Rowan know about this?
Here’s the link….. be enlightened!
http://www.inclusivechurch2.net/

Think of the effect this would have on the Diocese of Pa. Bp. Bennison deposes Fr. Moyer without a church trial. Moyer sues in secular courts alleging Bennison did not follow church procedure. Bennison claims Moyer has no right to resort to the civil courts because of this new canon.

The thing is, I guess, that issues such as employment and property ownership are invariably issues the state will become interested in regardless of clauses such as this. We can only pray…

Maybe 815 is taking the Headnod from the ole’ AB+ accross the pond and is instituting Sharia Canon Law?
Shalom,
Intercessor

Just what KJS needed: more arbitrary power, including more power for her kangaroo courts. The Empress Strikes Back!

Call Proposed Canon IV.19.2 “THE EMPRESS’ NEW CLAUSE.”

ECUSA Justice, Heil We Come!

No ExCUSA, No ExCUSA!
Canon loosa, Kangaroosa!
One step, two step, new step, goosestep!

Let’s see, comment period runs until June, Diocese of Pittsburgh Convention cannot be held until October, nah, no coincidence here.

No reason for a hurry up revision of Canon’s when the GC is not until 2009, just a little cleaning up.

Analyze away, folks, but realize that TEC will pass what they want, and regardless of what they pass, Schori and her fellow tyrants will do what they want. Welcome to the Politburo.

It would appear that TEC as well as the ABC see the future of Christianity in joining islam and adopting Sharia Law. Of course with TEC’s interpretation of it being binding. The only problem with TEC and Islam uniting in the persecution and elimination of christianity is that once the infidel orthodox are gone, the only reason to keep the liberals around is for target practise.

“The few orthodox dioceses left in ECUSA need to prepare to march very soon, or at the very least enable orthodox parishes to leave before litigation from the grand inquisitor makes it impossible.”

Bill, I wonder if all that are going to leave, have left or are in the process.  When I look at the remaining orthodox US Bishops, I see only one or, at the most, two that have given any indication of having the interest to risk their positions by bucking TEC. Those two will likely leave via retirement.

Bill (#32), the comment process runs until June, but the changes have to be voted on at GC ‘09, so they will not go into effect for some time yet.

What a day, what a day,
For an auto-da-fe!
What a sunny summer sky!
There’s a bee in every bonnet
And a thumb in every pie!

—-Leonard Bernstein’s operetta Candide (lyrics by Richard Wilbur)

AnglicanXn,

Thanks for your correction. Although, forgive my distrust, but are you sure that the Executive Council cannot implement the new canons as an emergency measure until the next GC?

Serious question:
Isn’t it true that a “canon” cannot become law unless (and unlike the Denis Canon) it is passed by two sucessive (or not) conventions?

If so, it buys a bit of time, but my bet is “they’ll” enforce it anyway, under the belief that it (the proposed canon) is inevitable.

Sure hope I’m right, (definitely NOT left lol)

Grannie Gloria

Sorry, AnglicanXn, our posts collided in cyberspace.
However, notice, my question remains the same as BillS

Grannie G.

From the legal standpoint, here is the issue with secular interpretation of a church’s canons.

There is a split of authority in different state and/or federal jurisdictions regarding the treatment of property when a parish wants to leave a denomination (particularly when there are divided factions with one faction in the minority wanting to stay and the majority wanting to leave).  In some jurisdictions, the approach is to defer to the highest governing body for the denomination, if there is a question about who is the rightful owner of the parish.  Thus, a court might defer to a diocesan bishop regarding which is the “true” parish that owns the property, without getting into the underlying deeds and documents that would set forth rules and regs about what constitutes the real parish and (by implication) who the real owner of the property is.  Courts that are afraid of getting involved in a 1st Amendment question by deciding questions of doctrine tend to lean to this approach.

The other approach is to read the charter, deed, title, or trust documents (as well as denominational governing documents such as church canons) from a secular perspective, as one would read any contract.  With this approach, a court might look at the deed to a church, which would be held in the name of a trust, then the trust’s charter, and might conclude that the administrators of the trust are the members of the vestry properly elected by 51% of the members in good standing who are eligible to vote.

If the deed for the parish and trust predate the Dennis Canon, there are some compelling reasons to argue that a parish could leave the denomination without forfeiting the building under neutral and secular principles of contract interpretation, provided that the proper form is followed (e.g., vestry proposes and 51% of the members vote in favor).  In other cases, the deed and trust may contain references to the TEC, such that the question of what constitutes a parish is defined in terms of whether it remains within (or leaves) the TEC.

Thus, under neutral principles of contract interpretation some parishes may win and some may lose, though the majority of older and historic parishes presumably predate the Dennis Canon and may have stronger arguments in support of the majority of parishioners’ right to take the parish with them.

In contrast, in the approach that merely defers to the governing hierarchy in a hierarchical denomination, the Court defers to even an illogical and specious approach by the hierarchy to property issues, in order to “avoid” 1st Amendment concerns.  To put it in poker terms, the House always wins.  The only question is:  1) is this a hierarchical organization, and 2) if so, what is the highest ranking adjudicative body with authority to make the final call.  As an interesting aside, there are many arguments in favor of the proposition that the highest ranking authority in the TEC is the diocese and its bishop, as the “national” church historically had no real administrative power over a diocese and its property.  Even under the “hiearchical” principle, the court might defer to a diocese that wants to leave TEC rather than to the national church as a relatively new entity without canonical “authority” over the diocese.

It is in this context that the proposed amendments to the canons make sense.  The TEC is being turned into a top-down hiearchy ruled by the national church and its presiding bishop, rather than a collegial body of bishops, clergy, and laity from each diocese who collaborate on some national projects such as foreign missions or a pension plan.  This is why one sees so many references to TEC as a “hierarchical” denomination in recent missives from official sources.  It is an attempt to clarify and strengthen the argument that there is a national institution with authority over all dioceses—in essence, turning a confederation of dioceses (modelled on early U.S. history) into something structured more like the Vatican or perhaps a sort of elected dictatorship with direct control over all levels within the denomination.

Finally, the clause that all provisions of the canons are not to be interpreted by secular courts appears designed to tip a court toward a hierarchical approach to property disputes rather than a “neutral principles” approach.  If TEC applies its own canonical provisions inconsistently, discriminating against reasserters in a way that appears to directly contradict its canons (and in a way that violates what one would normally consider to be due process), it has the sole right (so the new changes would say) to interpret its rules any way it wants.  So if the changes were adopted, one could see that there might be greater support for a TEC argument that the court is invading the province of religion (and not contract principles) when the court turns its attention to property.  This potentially could dissuade some courts from applying the four corners of a church’s constitutive documents and and from reading those document as if the words say what they mean.

As you might guess from this post, I generally believe that the neutral approach should be applied for denominations and that documents should be read with neutral contract principles.  This might hurt or help a local parish depending on the constitutive documents, but it would be based on something rooted in objective standards that would apply regardles of who is in charge.

I would note as a point of contrast that in the REC (of which I am a member), the parish holds title to its property.  The end result is that parishes are part of the REC based upon principles (common agreement on the 39 Articles as well as deference to the authority of the bishop, etc.) rather than the threat of legal action. 

From my perspective on how this shakes out, the major points of orthodox theology are more likely to be commonly received when it is common belief that causes the people and institutions to remain in relationship with each other, while uniting people primarily on the basis of nationally held property rights runs the risk of encouraging heterodox views views on the essentials of the faith.  That is because people who really do not share the same fundamental beliefs (on matters for which the early church fathers would without question excommunicate another church) begin to define unity in terms of the institution and not the contents of the institution.  “I may not believe in [insert proposition from the Nicene Creed or some fundamental proposition found in Scripture] and you don’t believe in [insert another proposition], but we are still part of legal institution X and that is what defines us.”

Fortunately, Jesus Christ unites all of us who believe in and follow Him, across denominations and across the ages, so we can take hope in that fundamental truth regardless of our views on property.

—John Clay

Adam 12 is right.  It is difficult to imagine a situation involving property or employment rights where a secular court would refuse to consider otherwise applicable canon law.  What if Granddad left $5 million to Bob, conditioned upon Bob’s membership in good standing in TEC within one yr of Granddad’s death, otherwise the money goes to Bill.  Bill and Bob dispute whether Bob is a member of TEC—the secular court must look to the canons to determine that.
    Of if the Virginia church division statute withstands constitutional challenge, nonetheless the diocese challenges whether the vestry or congregational meeting was lawfully constituted, in a proceeding to retrieve church property.  And how could this ever be enforced?  Would the bishop inhibit Bill, who in this hypothetical was never an Episcopalian, or inhibit the diocese, which was relying on canon law to establish that the division statute was not observed?

The proposed revision that would allow the ecclesiastical authority to remove laity from warden and vestry positions is a HUGE change that would make TEC more truly hierarchical and would significantly strengthen TEC’s legal position in property lawsuits against departing parishes. 

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
Feb. 11,  2008

I hope even the Liberals will baulk at some of these proposals which are draconian, especially the opening of medical records—what about privacy laws. The Moderates I am counting on to do so. Where are the orthodox lawyers when you need them and media experts to embarrasses the minions of 815 1/2 . The 1/2 is for that extra crazy floor which only exists because they say it does.

You folks have it all wrong. This really is TEc’s latest marketing ploy to load up the pews and fill the coffers. Should work brilliantly!

Speaking of flying under the radar (and pardon me if this is off topic) but is anyone keeping tabs on what’s going on in Quito, Ecuador this week?

Look at the new IV.16.A.1 (Abandonment of Communion by a Bishop).

If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority of this Church, or (iv) in any other way;

It would expand the definition of abandonment to mean, basically, whatever the review committee thinks it should mean.  This could eliminate that “pesky” need to wait until a bishop actually does something, besides simply talking about it, in order to discipline.  And notice in what follows: the need for inhibition to be approved by the three senior bishop would also be removed, meaning that the committee + the PB could inhibit a bishop without any real check besides the feasibility of getting a favorable vote in the HoB.

I wonder if this canon was written with a certain Bishop of Pittsburgh in mind?  Or rather, anyone who might follow in his footsteps after (if) the revision is passed.

Here you go.

Jackie, I don’t know how you do it.  But this find is simply amazing.  It’s not just that it’s proposed, it’s that there’s no judgment, no gatekeeper, no one with a conscience who would stop the Title IV Committee and say, “you know, this is a free country we live in.  We’re not above the law.  Not even us, the Episcopalians.  Maybe this isn’t such a good idea to put this one forward, what do you think?”  Only the Episcopalians would dare to think they are above the law.  Guess we’ll see.

bb

Amen to that BB -

I am very thankful I am in the ‘restrictive’ Diocese of Uganda.

BabyBlue-those were exactly my thoughts as I read this proposed canon-TEc considers itself above the law.  Maybe next they will create a canon to “assess” a tithe of all members.  This just gets more and more interesting, and I, too, am glad that my archbishop is Orombi.

I would hope that by the end of June there would only be pagans and infidels left in TEC.  Then they could set out to devour one another.  Or am I just being naively optimistic?

Its possible, PM. Its happened a couple of times (2 Chron. 20; Judges 7). But by the end of June? You ARE being optimistic, aren’t you?

The proposed new canon about not resorting to secular courts is a bit mystifying to me.  Presumably it is an attempt to push the polity approach to church property disputes, but I don’t think it will do anything.  Courts that defer will do so regardless and those that refuse to defer will do that regardless.

Perhaps more importantly, in church property disputes that I’ve read about, the issue isn’t about how to interpret the Dennis Canon—the canon itself is very clear.  The issue is whether to give effect to the Dennis Canon or how much weight it gets.  So the new canon wouldn’t have any effect on a key issue. 

Even if you think the kicker is the “dispute under the canons” part of it, that also assumes that property disputes are disputes under the canons.  Again, the issue is whether the canons are the end of the issue legally.  In states that don’t defer, property disputes aren’t disputes under the canons.

And 29, you need to distinguish between property and employment disputes.  At least with respect to employees who perform ministerial functions (as in the example you gave of a priest), I don’t think there’s a court in the country that would rule against the bishop there, regardless of whether the new canon exists.  There’s a Supreme Court case—Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (not sure I’m spelling that right)—that deals with precisely the example you gave.  Result: the Constitution requires courts to stay out of it.

Does anyone know if there’s an explanation given somewhere of the reasons for the proposed additions/changes?  Haven’t had time to look, and the stated legislative purpose here, so to speak, would be very interesting.

Here is how it will go. A parish wants to leave and keep the property, believing that since all costs have been paid by the parishioners, and the title is in the parish name, the property belongs to the parish.

As soon as the parish tries to defend its legal title, all involved, the vestry, the wardens, and the rector are summarily dismissed for abandonment of communion.

This is just another weapon that TEC wants to enforce its left wing secular political view on orthodox Episcopalians.

If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority of this Church, or (iv) in any other way;

Normally I’m not prone to hyperbole and tend to look to the moderate the extremes but I can’t wiggle my way past “in any other way” in the above change.  Any reason at all?  There is no restriction?  If I claim conscience, is that not acceptable?  Will the Committee be able to claim lack of support for the TEC’s pro-abortion position “a way” in which you’ve abandoned the communion of the broader church.  The only thing missing in the Canon changes is a clause to “Declare a State of Emergency and Suspend the Canons” altogether.  I don’t expect much from “Windsor Bishops” any more but you would think for once they would “screw they’re courage to the sticking place” and say unequivocally say “NO”.

No wonder the ABC thinks that sharia’s not so bad.

The more I think about it, the more I think that +Howe’s strategy was well thought out and had as its aim, a way to help departing parishes to negotiate departures from ECUSA safely under the mantle of their bishop.  What surprises me is that the Dark Side at 815 didn’t try to finesse that strategy as they have successfully done with +Lee.

#31 - don’t you mean Empress’ New Claws?

Sooooo….its take off now or you’re stuck forever!

United States Sailing Association has the same rule. If you lose a protest you cannot go to civil court. It arose out of the ‘84 Olympics where those that lost Protests in the Olympic Trials tried to regain the Olympic berth for the Finals through District Court. There was a million dollar profit that came out of the LA Olympics to the sport of Sailing, and it was all spent on lawyers litigating a protest between Russ Sylvestri(sic) and Mark Renyolds. One used his throw out race to enter the course after the start of the final race and handicapp the other sailor who sued on the grounds of unsportsman like conduct. It hasn’t happened since.

It should not go unmentioned that the proposed Title IV revision would introduce a definition of Sexual Misconduct that includes an express exception for behavior with a same-sex partner (treating it on a parity with relations between spouses).  In the Diocese of Texas there is a canon on moral discipline (canon 43) that defines Holy Matrimony as between a man and a woman, obligates clergy to model in their lives the received teaching of the Church that all its members are to abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony, and says in effect that the moral qualifications of a person under the canons of the Episcopal Church are going to be construed in the diocese to include conformity to this obligation.  It seems likely that if this proposal were adopted, it would be argued that the Diocese of Texas could not enforce its canon on moral discipline. 

This proposal is another signal to the Anglican Communion that TEC says no to the teaching of 1998 Lambeth I.10 and is going to do what it wants.

I cannot find any definition of “same-sex partner” and wonder if this can be read to give a free pass to all same-sex sexual conduct however long-term or transient.

I am also concerned about the provision that forbids excluding hearsay evidence and wonder if it is consistent with the provisions of the US Constitution.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

This may sound like an odd comparison to make, but you might want to check out some of the Amway/Quixtar websites.  This clause might not hold up in court.

I don’t want to get into the weeds too deeply, but Amway/Quixtar (the company has used both names at different times) has a very controversial multi-level marketing system that has generated a lot of legal problems.  The company’s critics argue that Amway/Quixtar has degenerated into a glorified pyramid scheme.  Whether it has or not I don’t know but the point is there is a lot of controversy and legal problems.

Anyway Amway/Quixtar tried to impose an arbitration system (one that they controlled) on their entire distributor network in order to head off lawsuits.  Agreeing to arbitration of all disputes was made part of the renewal agreement that all distributors had to sign annually.  Courts have frequently struck down the arbitration clause and allowed lawsuits to proceed anyway.

The situations aren’t exactly the same but I suspect a lot of the same principles will apply.  Among them are the principle that courts will take a long, hard look at any document that supposedly takes away a party’s right to sue without exceptions and without a fair alternative way to resolve disputes in front of a genuinely neutral decisionmaker.

Of course, this will make litigation itself messier, which may not be so good for TEC but is a great deal for TEC’s lawyers, which may have been the point all along.

Wolverine

we are talking at least 6 years before these changes are enactd arent we? i mean first Gc2009 has to approve the changes then doesnt it have to pass a secopnd reading in 2012? or am i wrong? either way its not going to change whats happening in Pittsburg or the other Orthadox dioceses in TEC at least not for the next few years

[10] jamesw,

Actually, there is a simpler version, which works just as well as your 3 canon form. Namely:

Canon I: The PB is always correct.
Canon II: If the PB is believed to be incorrect, refer to Canon I.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Also, what stops TEC from applying the “proposed” canon immediately? 1) Who will have the votes to oppose them *IF* it ever comes up in Convention? And 2), Do they even care whether they adhere to common standards of procedure? They are on a roll, and doing a new thing under orders of the (holy?) spirit, and they’re being inclusive. What more could anyone ask?

Look to self-protection if you haven’t left TEC already.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Also, what stops TEC from applying the “proposed” canon immediately?

Why even bother with canons at all? Canon-Smanon…who the heck gives a rip…over the cliff they march!!!
Shalom,
Intercessor

Well, one good thing, from TEC’s point of view anyway: Most Episcopalians won’t even realize it’s happened. Long as the candles are lit every Sunday, they’re fine. At least, that’s how they are at the Episcopal Church I used to attend. They are barely aware that there’s a controversy in Aanglicanism - and “What’s the big deal?”

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

...and orthodox priests become <a >Canon-Fodder</a>.

This kind of tactic and the rampant property grabbing (not to mention the propaganda that will be shoveled out in children’s camps) makes me apprehensive and very sad for those ‘Cons’ (is it Fed or Com-con?) who staunchly stay in TEC.    :8-(

I agree with #62…I think they will have to propose some type of binding arbitration…not just prohibit folks from the courts.  That just won’t fly…even on Shori’s broom (oh, did I say that out loud?). 

The truth of the matter is this…you can sue anyone anytime for anything.  It may get tossed, but it may not…depends on the judge.  More of an art than a science.

I think the TEC is dispicable…shame on them!

(63) Lord’s servant - canons are adopted by one General Convention and normally take effect January 1 following their adoption. Amendments to the Constitution (which include revisions of the Book of Common Prayer) require action at two successive General Conventions.

It wouldn’t be a goose step that would be required. More like a sache’. I now ask those who want to stay and fight from within how you propose to do that once these canonical changes are in place? Withholding an 815 asessment will get your priest fired and get your vestry members relieved of their positions.
I hope this along with some news that will be coming out of Quincy in the very near future will wake these people up!

Crusader44

All your base are belong to us.

You have no chance to survive.  Make your time.

What an effort to increase the dictatorial powers of bishops!  Since this proposed canon would deny a person’s civil rights, I believe it would be declared unconstitutional in a heartbeat.  Even the secular courts would see this canon as outrageous.

[73] Crusader44,

You asked (emphasis added)

…those who want to stay and fight from within how (they) propose to do that once these canonical changes are in place?

Even though your subordinate clause (i.e., the bolded text in your quote) effectively excludes myself and my wife (we don’t want to stay and fight, but have felt called to our present parish, and, in obedience, will stay until the Holy Spirit clearly leads us elsewhere), you will have to inquire of the Spirit what God’s intent and purposes are for us while we remain within TEC. That is what we are having to do on a very regular basis.

Respectfully, I think your question is at least very slightly “loaded,” in assuming that it is the individuals remaining within TEC that are making the choice, whereas our personal experience makes it clear to us that we are to stay and do God’s will as it is revealed to us until such time as we are called elsewhere by the Spirit. This sense we have was very strongly renewed Sunday a week ago when we carpooled from Seattle to Richmond, BC, Canada, for a 2+ hour eucharist at the Anglican Awakening first steps conference. For all of those who are experiencing the same call, your question is truly inapplicable, and suggestive of your positing a falsely dichotomous premise. It is perhaps unfortunate I that do not have, and am therefore unable to provide you with, a clear sense of what proportion of orthodox Episcopalians share a similar calling. Your prayers for the effectiveness of God’s mission through us would be appreciated.

Blessings and kind regards,
Martial Artist

I need some help in composing a letter, I see a lot of comments about the underlying motives for the proposed changes in the canons, and that helps stir me to write. I appreciate #40 John Clay’s lengthy comment. Now should I write at all? If I do, any suggestions? Or should I shrug and let it go?

Martial Artist,
I should have qualified my question to those within my own parish. I do not pretend to know what others have to sacrifice and suffer outside of my diocese. My heart goes out to those in your situation. I apologize for not narrowing the scope of my question to those within my parish.

Crusader44

[78] Crusader44,

Thank you for the kind words and thoughts. However, I wouldn’t describe what we are undergoing as “suffering,” but rather attempting to hear and follow God’s direction so that we may do our part in the “battle” (if I may be permitted the martial metaphor) that is going on within TEC. Our parish is blessed with a priest who is devoted to Jesus—he knows, to the depths of his soul, that he would be lost without Jesus. He is, in his own words, “liturgically conservative and culturally liberal,” the latter in the modern sense. This leaves him with the problem, which we do not share, of reconciling the presenting issues with scripture. He has been a priest for over 35 years, and lost many good Anglo-Catholic friends in the early years of his ministry, because they left the Episcopal Church. He will doubtless retire within the next three years or so.

We (my wife and I) are liturgically conservative (I being somewhat moreso than she) and culturally liberal, the latter in the original and Anglican (as opposed to Gallic) usage (e.g., the Old Whigs, Edmund Burke, F. S. Hayek, etc.)—many of our political views might be characterized by others as libertarian (lower case l). And our faith is also founded on the authority of Scripture read prayerfully, and supported by reason and the traditions of the church. Thus, we disagree with our Rector when he asserts that Jesus didn’t say anything about the current presenting issue. But my reply would be that, even if Jesus himself did not explicitly address homosexuality, scripture does address all forms of sexual immorality in both 1 Corinthians 6:9</u> and <u>Galatians 5:21</u>, and does so unambiguously.

Canon 815 with a bullet:
We are who you are not. Shalom.
Intercessor

TEC continually bleats about “justice”.  What is the purpose of a secular court if not to seek justice?  The actions of TEC are specifically aimed at removing the primary mechanism available to all Americans to seek justice when wronged.

Justice for the goose and justice for the gander are not necessarily congruent when it comes to TEc.

Some justice is just more equal than others.

The “doctrine, discipline and worship” of a hierarchical church can be extended only to its ordained members.  For TEC to try to adopt a canon that would purport to cut off the laity’s right of access to the secular courts, in disputes over TEC’s very ability to apply its canons to the laity, is the height of constitutional absurdity.  And I’ve told them so in my comment on that proposed Canon.  (Not that they’ll listen, but it won’t matter, because the courts will give it short shrift anyway.)

But those of you who are ordained had better watch out.

Thanks Chancellor #83 for providing some help in making my letter.

Aha!  Dilbertnomore says that “Justice for the goose and justice for the gander are not necessarily congruent when it comes to TEc.”  Perhaps you have really hit on it-they are not mathematically congruent (same shape and size), but perhaps are mathematically SIMILAR (same shape, not the same size).  Like two equilateral triangles, one with an area of 3, the other with an area of 30. 

Actually, TEc is not the least bit concerned with justice, but thinks that it is above the law.  In fact, my former parish had its deed rewritten by its attorney/bishop several years ago so that it reads that “...all property, real and personal, tangible and intangible, of the Parish, ...and including any and all property now hereafter owned by the Parish (the “Property”), is held IN TRUST by the Parish to be used for the glory of God according to the Constitution and Canons, and the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of The Episcopal Church and of the Diocese of ..., and for the purposes and programs of said Church and Diocese.”  It goes on to say that “In the event the Parish shall for any reason cease to affiliate with the Diocese of ...and The Episcopal Church, the property shall be the property of the Diocese of ... In such event, if the Parish shall fail to so convey the Property, the Diocese shall be entitled to have the Property conveyed to it by deed of the Commissioner of the Circuit Court of the County in which the property is located, or other court having jurisdiction.”  Written like a true attorney…um, Episcopal bishop.  Of course, they didn’t take into account the possibility that the diocese might cease to exist…

Actually, NLaE, my thesis is that TEc approaches justice just as it approaches theology. TEc asks a single, simple question to deal with all issues pertaining either to justice or theology - “How does TEc feel about (whatever has to do with either justice or theology) today?” And, Presto!. With this very simple and efficient ‘thought’ process you instantly have TEc´s current concept of justice or theology for direct application to the issue at hand. This is so much more convenient than actually having to think through the implications of your decision or conforming to a set standard like, say, Holy Scripture. It´s very much like living your life guided by control feelings that scream for attention from the nether region between one´s belly button and one´s knees. It is a natural for TEC because TEc embraces it naturally. And as a bonus, God created it so it has to be good no matter how it is used.

#85 NLaE: Would such a deed “re-write” hold up in court if it were challenged by the congregation if it wanted to leave ECUSA and take the building with them? Was this done unilaterally by the Bishop, or with the foreknowledge and consent of the board/laity?

Bob K.:  This was done following the firing of the vestry, the appointment of a bishop’s committee, the reduction of the parish to “mission” status and the “requirement” by the diocese that the new bishop’s committee sign off on the deed and some other paperwork six months later in order to “become a parish” again.  (The timing of all of this was very critical because of annual state forms that had to be filed.)  The state had previously upheld (through the state’s Supreme Court) an Episcopal parish leaving the Episcopal church and taking its property after the 1979 rewrite of the BoCP.  The deed seems to me to try to put an end to any discussion of going to the secular courts.  I’m not sure what the “parish” gained-it still looks like a mission to me.  The deed as written seems to me to have a couple of legal loopholes that would certainly make it interesting in the courts, but the people who remain are totally dedicated to the building.  And the church “...is a community of faith centered on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth…endeavoring to reflect His love.”  No doubt written by the good attorney/bishop as well.  Clearly, the Divinity of Jesus Christ is not nearly as important to them as the building.  Unfortunately, there are many people still there that I am very fond of, that I don’t think realize exactly what went on and why.  About that foreknowledge and consent of the board/laity-the bishop had refused to meet with the vestry for over 14 months prior to this happening, although he always seemed to have time to meet with the people that subsequently became the bishop’s committee.  And what happened to the vestry?  The vestry and 75% of the congregation left and formed a new Anglican parish, called a priest to be rector, bought land and is preparing to build.  But, more important than property, the congregation of the new church hears the Word of God and orthodox doctrine every week!

NLaE : Thanks for taking the time and writing such a detailed answer. I wonder just how folks like the aforementioned Bishop can go through the machinations such as he did, and then chirp something as specious as “the church ...is a community of faith centered on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth…endeavoring to reflect His love.”
Who knew that Christ loved buildings and things so much? In any case, I’m very heartened to hear about how faithfully the former vestry and congregation have responded, and my prayers go out for their continued faithful, godly witness and a substantial harvest.

Bob K.:  Thank you so much for your encouraging words.  As one of the other vestry members said when he found out that the vestry was being “relieved of its responsibilities:”  “Somehow, I just don’t feel the love…”  We have been fortunate to have another parish in the same diocese hand over the keys to the building that they had spent many years paying for to the bishop and walk away one year after our departure and form an Anglican parish.  The priests of both new parishes and their deacons are under a diocese in Uganda and we are blessed to have hosted the Diocesan Bishop twice and Archbishop Orombi once.  It has been phenomenal to hear the testimony of these Godly men from Africa-they know and understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ!  Incidentally, most likely one of the reasons the canons with respect to disciplining the laity are being written as they are is that there were no canons-either locally or nationally- that actually allowed the “firing” of the vestry in the aforementioned case.

“No member of this Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of this Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.”

Come on - this would be struck down by the courts that it prohibits using…..I may be all wet, but for any organization (and this is an organization or entity) to put such a clause in their by-laws, rules of order, or ten commandments - they are asking for a test case…..
And any, and I mean any, person, laity or clergy, who would be sucked into voting for this needs their heads examined.

#89
Thank you for your story. I have been following many that have left TEC. Each church has a story. It gives new meaning to ‘The Episcopal Church welcomes ...’ not mention inclusion, doesn’t it. I believe there are more churches that will leave in the next year. After reading about the proposed changes, more will leave sooner rather than later. It is just a matter of time.

#90 Dee,
This is already in effect in the Diocese of Easton and recorded among the Sessions Laws of the State of Maryland. I kid you not.
Brad

seminarian, post 6,
The words are “No member of this Church” that only means that individual church members cannot sue. It does not say that The Episcopal Church itself would be prevented from suing in either church or secular courts.
This is consistent with their edict that “a member can leave but a congregation cannot leave”, they consistently seem to try to isolate individuals from the group.

Remember the “one aim: to celebrate and maintain the traditional inclusivity and diversity of the Anglican Communion.” Of course, the traditional</b> inclusivity was a closed communion, a requirement of confirmation to be a vestry member or receive Communion. Of course, with the Anglican Communion collapsing into provinces, it will be the TEC Communion.Much of our reaction to the intended canonical changes come out of our Congregationalist sentiment.  We are used to the idea of laity sharing the governance of the church.  Impatient with ELCA Lutherans, some of whom came to the Concordat a few years ago with trepidation, we had no qualms pushing our ecclesiology even at the expense of suspending the preface to our own ordinal to do so.  The “Episcopal” part of Episcopal Church has of course to do with bishops.  And laughably, I remember people saying that apostolic succession would be enhanced by combining the outward sign of laying on of hands maintained by the PECUSA and the belief in Scripture maintained by the ELCA.  Episcopalian bishops have been busy for so long telling us that they had no authority (or responsibility) that when they do act like bishops, the withering blast of hatred from congregations that don’t want to be closed or merged or told what to do surprises both bishops and our kids when we begin to call for burning at stake.  Isn’t it a law that what happens at consecration is the extraction of the spine?  So it’s hard not to see the passive aggressive current action as anything other than the cowardly snarling of a cur.  We used to have confidence that things would continue as they always had ... after the blustering bishop returns to whence he came.The goodness and help in bishops is entirely a matter of them being faithful to the apostolic tradition and thus rooting us within that tradition.  If they relinquish that authority and vision to be superintendants and then apply discipline in a haphazard way on issues that have to do with social engineering, we might as well not bother to distinguish The Episcopal Church from the Democratic Party.Small wonder that liberal blogs are no longer bothering.  TEC is lost.  All that remains is the extraction of a numerically small group of conservatives who are making lots of noise.  Can anyone imagine what it would take for a re-emergence of The Episcopal Church? We like to think that “most” Episcopalians think like we do.  They don’t.  There is a very great deal of support for homosexuality and parties among rank and file members.  It is very similar to the effects of socialism.  It will take generations to make of these slackers good citizens for the Kingdom of Heaven because they have embraced a culture of disablement.  The ideologies of the New Thing are moral poison ... the Body is not discerned and thus many people are sick and some have died.  It isn’t that we didn’t object to disablement ... but we didn’t discern the source of the ideology early enough and we didn’t resist rigorously enough.  Even now, we mistakenly think we can “work within the system”.  The system that was the Episcopal Church has been overthrown.  It’s not a new poison.  It was in the world poisoning us against God from the time of the Garden.  Neither our lukewarm ecclesiology of bishops nor our diverse practice of Congregationalism has defended us.  We were divided and conquered.  The fallback certainly has been to declare that “MY” parish is still Christian.  Problem is, your parish belongs to TEC which is a national organization that is flexing new muscles.

Please note that I am not attempting to identify Schori as the anti-Christ, consciously in league with the Devil. The “liberal” members of TEC should not be demonized but we should understand that the moral disablement happens because we are the mostly unwitting dupes of the anti-Christ.  The simplest explanation for why people are working for such disablement is that they do not know the Lord.  I’d rather attribute wicked actions to self-justification, stupidity and cupidity until proven otherwise.  I judge no one retrobate of my own authority lest I bind them to the self-condemnation they have wrought.  We can’t use the tools of darkness to serve the Light.

No member of this Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of this Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.”

So, KJS is doing it before she makes it a “Law” in her new C’s & C’s that she and her company will be peddling next year at GC?

ODC:

So, KJS is doing it before she makes it a “Law” in her new C’s & C’s that she and her company will be peddling next year at GC?

What would be the penalty for doing so? Salvation?
Intercessor

If you are in TEC you obey Constitution and Canons of that Church. If you leave you’re out and don’t have to obey them. (The proposed changes won’t chance a thing.)
It would be a fun defense at a property lawsuit: “you can’t resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising in the church”.

Even without these canons, signing on to GAFCON/Jerusalem will be taken as renunciation of vows by Schori.  That comes immediately.

Perhaps this is their attempt to prevent the faithful from insuring they are acting with proper fiduciary responsibility in regards to the more than half Billion $‘s they have hijacked that was given by orthodox Episcopalians.  Just a thought.

I’ve done my part—just an FYI, you’ll get a notice that says your comment has been sent to the moderator. When I got this, I wrote back very politely stating I wanted to know if/when my comments were accepted. Eventually I got such a notice, but it really makes me wonder if I hadn’t made my request, if I would have been told…
  One more thing: to those casting aspersions about even trying, the passing of these canons is not a foregone conclusion, unless you have a crystal ball I don’t know about. Put another way, I have to wonder if there aren’t some reappraisers who are also afraid of the canon regarding “no cause” for removal of lay leaders. It could be used any number of ways.

I just got in a couple of licks too (just before 9 PM PDT/midnight EDT). I also (h.t. to DavidSH) asked to be notified if my comments are accepted.

Did anyone else notice that the definition of Sexual Misconduct includes adultery by the clergy onlyif the other party is a minor or mentally incompetent person, in a pastoral relationship with the clergy person, or there is sexual harassment involved? Neither do the “expectations” for clergy (Canon 4) specifically include faithfulness if married and celibacy if not.
ISTM if a member of the clergy has an extramarital affair with an uncoerced, mentally competent person of full age from outside the parish, there’s nothing one could charge them with except maybe “conduct unbecoming”, but the definition of that offense:

any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church.

is so vague it could include or exclude almost anything.

Is beating your wife or children conduct unbecoming? (I would hope so!) Verbal bullying in the home or workplace? Abusing drugs or alcohol? (Yes, IMO) Having a short fuse, holding grudges, boasting, swearing? (Well, this is certainly not how the Bible says a priest should behave.)

What about pointing out non-biblical views in the PB’s public statements? Does that “bring material discredit on the Church”?

How about maintaining that ordination of a woman is impossible and therefore the PB and other women clergy are in fact laity?
Does that “discredit the Holy Orders conferred by the Church”?

Or suppose someone were to point out that the Canons were not followed in the attempt to depose Bps Schofield and Cox, nor in the appointment of Bp Lamb in San Joaquin? Does that “prejudice the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church”?

Your guess is as good as mine.