A Commenter Over At T19 Postulates the Reasons for 815s Behavior in San Joaquin

Prayers for San Joaquin can be found here.  Check Lent & Beyond tomorrow.  New ones will be posted.

It does seem to be a top-down maneuver when a more likely (and probably more canonical) way to go would have been for the local folk to petition 815. Maybe a lot of folk want to stay in TEC but have absolutely no interest in forming standing committees and becoming embroiled in legal matters for the next five-or-so years of their lives…

Its all about the property. The minority, not satisfied with being allowed to keep their own propery, wish to take the property of the entire diocese.  It is as simple as that.

Dick M,

Just one correction Bishop Lee inhibited a clergy person who was remaining in TEC.  He did not depose the party, and the person had the inhibition lifted after conversation with Bishop Lee.  All the other clergy who left the Diocese of Virginia where in fact inhibited and deposed.

JamesW’s comments are always perceptive, and I think he has it dead right here.  Schori is so far outside her canonically permitted responsibilities that, if the GCC were orderly, a presentment would be a foregone conclusion.  It being something of a kangaroo organization instead, and this being America, a recourse to the courtroom seems more likely.  Then, the GCC may well learn what James is telling them: if they want the courts to be their handmaid, “Organizations must follow their own internal rules.”

Or, lie down with dogs and get fleeced.

And if TEC loses in the California Supreme Court, THEN what, AndrewA? 

California is a property rights state, and with the aberration of the Diocese of Los Angeles’ case vs the three parishes who departed with their properties, only to be told by a lower court that they can’t….and who promptly appealed to the California Supreme Court….that has generally been upheld consistently in favor of the property owner; He who has registered the deed in his or her name owns the property!

When the Virginia Anglicans withdrew, one of the earliest acts by Bishop Lee was to depose the clergy; he did it in one fell swoop, and it got messy—I think he deposed some folks that were actually remaining in TEC.  There has been no such action in San Joaquin, b/c there is no TEC bishop.  I assume Bishop Lamb will be “elected,” and early next week he will issue calls for loyalty statements from DSJ clergy, with depositions to follow those who do not respond.
  Then the lawsuits will come. I predict that the suits will be resisted on the threshold basis that Bishop Lamb is not even authorized to file the lawsuit, because Bishop Schofield was never lawfully removed. And there may remain some issue as to the status of the DSJ standing committee.  So even before the merits of litigation are ever reached, the parties may spend a good bit of money and time sorting out the status of the appropriate parties. 
    This may be poor theology and unappealing church politics, but we lawyers will have a ball!

I agree with the idea that the joke is on these folks who are remain Episopal. They are fools, in the Biblical sense of throwing away the good for bad . They will lose everything. Once Schori and crew are done with them and the failed attempt at a Potemkin diocese, they will be quietly discarded. Frankly though, I don’t care , they deserve it. Some old cliched adage about ,“lie down with dogs,you get flees.” Cruel joke,indeed.

And if TEC loses in the California Supreme Court, THEN what, AndrewA?

First of all, the minority I’m refering to it the Remain Episcopal Puppet Regime and the majority I’m refering to is the SC Diocese of San Joaquin.

As for asking questions about what will happen based on different possible results of court rulings, that is a question I should be asking you, as the “Man on the Ground”, so to speak.  Is your diocese prepared to fight TEC all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, because I have no doubt that TEC is?  Are your clergy and laity prepared for the possiblity that they will be loose in court and be booted out en masse?  Do you have plans already in place for what will happen if you loose your current resources?  Are you preparing your laity for the chance that they may have to say goodbye to familiar places and familiar things and spend a period of time meeting in burrowed spaces while rebuilding bank accounts stolen from you by TEC?

I’m NOT saying this out of criticism.  I admire your courage!  But I am saying this our of concern.  Your bishop’s speach to the convention to the effect that nothing will change in daily church life by leaving TEC strikes me as presuming too much.  You may have left Egypt, but you aren’t in the Promised Land yet, and even when you get to the Promised Land there will be still giant to fight.  By all means, go and fight the good fight, but do so with the full realization that you too may be asked to sacrifice everything you have in order to follow Him.

Hope for the best, plan for the worse.  Put your faith not in courts or laws or canons, for all these things of the world can be corrupted. Put your faith in God, and remember that even He promises final rest and victory only in the life to come and not in this life.

I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir, but some things have to be said over and over.

The answer to all of your questions is “Yes, we are!” 

We went over these issues carefully and thoughtfully at deanery convocations BEFORE the convention, and speaking for myself, I believe we were well-informed about the probable consequences of our actions.  I don’t think we’re laboring under any illusions here in our diocese.

+John-David has a habit of “laying things right on the line” with his people.  Too bad the revisionist bishops don’t.

I being right along with Cennydd who is a parishioner in th Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin also says firmly YES! we are prepared and willing to go the long haul if that is what actually happens. But, who is to say? I know this, I like our postion a whole lot better than 815’s positon. And everytime KJS and her kangaroo court in the HoB’s violates yet another canon…. well we just get better and better odds. The difference between us an them is the fact that we have placed everythng in the hands of Jesus! All our trust is in Him. Not in KJS, her HoB’s, or an inept chancellor by the ame of David Booth Beers! Our trust and faith in God is far larger and bigger and we will be just fine no matter what because that is where our hearts are. They are with God and His son Jesus Christ the true physically risen Lord.

No MDG’s for the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin!

Just a couple of other things…..
First of all I always love jamesw post. Like TJMcMahon, I find him to be spot on and always a gift to read. Thank you JamesW!
Secondly, for AndrewA, just where do you worship? Are you in TEc? And as for, “But I am saying this our of concern.  Your bishop’s speach to the convention to the effect that nothing will change in daily church life by leaving TEC strikes me as presuming too much.”
Nothing has changed! We still go to church, worship, and continue in ministries. We are pressing forward but we don’t really look over our shoulders any more. We don’t really have to be that concerned over the anomosity we used to get from the Remain Episcopal people. Yes! They are doing what they are doing but, that, I think will have a far greater price at the end than our decision to move TEMPORARILY to the So. Cone for shelter! We take seriously not being yoked to apostacy!

You may have left Egypt, but you aren’t in the Promised Land yet, and even when you get to the Promised Land there will be still giant to fight.

Well said, Andrew.
Most of us are somewhere along the road on that same trek.
Still in the wilderness, The Desert Hare.

“The minority, not satisfied with being allowed to keep their own propery, wish to take the property of the entire diocese.  It is as simple as that”—-#3

I’d blame 815, not the minority. 815 is not riding to their rescue; it is orchestrating them. Because of its concern about power, property, and legal precedent, 815 wants to crush the new Anglican diocese and claw back its property.

If you doubt it, remember how in Virginia Bp. Lee was willing to let orthodox parishes leave, whereas the Terminatrix threatened to sue him unless he joined her in suing them.

That doesn’t mean the leaders of the San Joaquin minority are innocent. But they are probably more pawns than instigators.

ODC, I’ve worshiped in a variety of churches in the Northern Virginia area, and have regularly visted and listened to brodcasted services of churches elsewhere but for reasons of privacy and not wanting to get to off track I’d rather not go into details.

Everyone keeps saying that the move to So Cone is temporary.  Has the next step been decided on?

Not that I know of, AndrewA!  But of course, I could be wrong.  But then again, I’m not the one who does the planning, am I?  For the answer to that, I’ll let God decide.

Everyone keeps saying that the move to So Cone is temporary. Has the next step been decided on?

What next step? We just moved! How fast do you think we need to step? Let us breathe for awhile!

No need to postulate. It’s really quite simple: they do not want that bible stuff in TEC, and will crush any one who smells orthodox. And they’ll do it in any way possible.

I think Jamesw has nailed it.  He has cut through all the obfuscations of TEC’s leaders and gone right to the heart of the issue.

It reminds me of the familiar words of the Magnificat that so many of us say or chant every night in the Daily Office, “he has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the humble and meek.”  The Diocese of San Joaquin may be small, and TEC may seem powerful with all its wealth and worldly connections, but this seems like a classic case of God choosing the weak to shame the strong.  The overweening pride of the PB and her cronies is setting up the regime at 815 for a very big fall…

David Handy+

Like many of you, I find JamesW’s analysis to be spot-on in the specific issues it addresses.  However, I think his posting overlooks a couple of key point. 

It is critical to consider how in any court proceeding, 815 is likely to argue that 1) the attempted departure of the original diocese was an action that the canons of TEC/usa simply never contemplated, and were not designed to deal with.  Therefore (goes the spin; arguendo), 2) their “unusual” way of handling the matter should not have to have followed to the letter any of the canons’ generally applicable procedural guidelines.  The ArchPresider & Co. will assert that their efforts to install a new bishop in the diocese were taken, in part, because it was unclear whether the original diocesan leadership had in fact actually led any of the parishes to a new home under the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone and that 815 was simply providing a prudent emergency pastoral response. 

These lines of argument having at least a scintilla of merit (and I mean that only in the legal sense), our side should consider that there is an opportunity to use their position to keep the focus on these ambiguities in order to prevent it from becoming simply a property dispute.  Why do that? Because we don’t know how the CA Supreme Court will rule on the Southern Calfornia parish property case(s), and because there is a good chance that California law may favor diocesan canons over national ones when the status of the national religious body may be in question. 

So, the traditionalist leadership has to 1) prevent any of the representative bodies or “instruments” of the larger Communion officially sign-on to their scheme and give them the right to claim that they were somehow vailidated by those above the national church in the pseudo-hierarchy of official Anglicanism.  2) As part of both the affirmative legal defense and the efforts to ensure that there is no such endorsement from above, the leadership of the original diocese (and any of us on the traditionalist side who can help) have to keep on demonstrating (in a very public way and through proper channels) that in this process the original Diocese of San Joaquin operated very openly and thoughtfully, and without acting precipitously, dealt with the needs of the faithful and the rights of dissenters in the most canonical way possible.  And that it did so because it was following the lead of the Primates and the ABC (in those rare instances where he has led) in procuring alternate Primatial Oversight for the faithful.

I think that the evidence is there that the Standing Committee, the Diocesan Convention, and Bishop Schofield made every effort to follow the rules, be even-handed, open-up the process and prevent the break from being a messy one.  After it was clear that the will of the diocese was to maintain its traditional faith against a very different religious teaching coming from the TEC/usa elite, one could say that the original diocesan leadership was, in essence, forced to put the diocesan canons above the national ones. But the story of the traditionalist side may have to be validated from far beyond the diocese.

There’s nothing “attempted” about our departure.  We are GONE.  Ex TEC.  Outta here!

young joe - I actually think that what KJS has done in San Joaquin and with Schofield has seriously undermined 815’s legal claims even if the Cal. Supremes adopt the heirarchical church legal theory.  If the Cal. Sup. Ct. adopts the neutral principles theory, then Schofield would likely win straight out.  If they adopt the heirarchical church theory, then the question becomes “according to TEC’s rules, who is the valid TEC episcopal authority in the Diocese of San Joaquin”?

Schofield would be able to make a number of arguments.  First, he could argue that there is nothing in TEC’s canons that prevent a diocese from leaving, that the vote was according to the rules, and therefore TEC has no standing.  Second, and in the alternative, he could argue that even if a diocese is not permitted to leave, Lamb has no standing to sue because he is not the valid TEC bishop of San Joaquin.  I think you are right, young joe, that TEC might try to argue - at least in one of its alternative theories - that even if KJS did violate the canons, she did so out of necessity.  But that argument would serve to also undermine TEC’s overall legal position in a perhaps fatal manner, so its use would be very dangerous for TEC to make.

I think the two facts that will most undermine 815 and KJS are these: 1) that the deposition rules were so openly violated and in such a sloppy way (TEC can’t argue necessity here, because KJS could have very easily arranged for a valid deposition); and 2) the purported non-recognition of the TEC DSJ’s Standing Committee.  Again, KJS did not even try to work with the remaining members of the Standing Committee despite (according to Dan Martins) the SC members indicating to her that they planned to continue as a TEC standing committee in a TEC diocese (again TEC has no claim to necessity because KJS didn’t even try to work with the existing SC).  This action is just so breathtakingly arrogant or breathtakingly stupid on their part (or perhaps a combination of both).  Sort of like Napoleon’s march on Russia.

Why did KJS take such a serious risk in this situation?  I think that arrogance surely plays a part, but I think there is more.  I think she realized that when 6 of the 8 members of the Standing Committee let her know that they had not left TEC, she realized that it was a very real possibility that the TEC remant would remain as a reasserter-majority diocese and that the majority would remain friendly with JDS.  KJS did not want that.  She wanted a friendly bishop in place and she had a small group of enthusiastic dupes to do her bidding.  And so the Diocese of Remain Episcopal was born.

I’d agree there’s a good bit of insight in jamesw’s posts.  My question for him or others is this:  why do you believe a DSJ lawsuit would involve any significant question of standing? 

I can’t think of a single church property case that’s ever been decided based on standing, and the basis of a claim seems quite clear here:  you have two groups, each of whom claims to be the Diocese of San Joaquin and the owner of the real and personal property.  There is an actual controversy.  Ergo, a declaratory judgment action is appropriate. 

I doubt also that any lawsuit would be strictly +Lamb v. +Schofield, and deciding the property ownership issue would not require a court to resolve who the true Bishop of San Joaquin is.

Reading the PB’s quotes on the report of the service in SJ last night James W is absolutely spot on.  It has been done solely to create the diocese of Remain Episcopal for the purpose of continuing the Terror down there “take care” in the parlance of the PB.

Shalom.

The report is on ENS.

Her non-dealing with the canonical failure to depose +Schofield is also interesting - through bared teeth.

Link to the ENS story: http://ecusa.anglican.org/79901_96086_ENG_HTM.htm

young joe from old oc wrote:

So, the traditionalist leadership has to 1) prevent any of the representative bodies or “instruments” of the larger Communion officially sign-on to their scheme and give them the right to claim that they were somehow vailidated by those above the national church in the pseudo-hierarchy of official Anglicanism.  2) As part of both the affirmative legal defense and the efforts to ensure that there is no such endorsement from above…(snip)
But the story of the traditionalist side may have to be validated from far beyond the diocese.

I’m confused. Whose scheme is it the wider Communion must be prevented from signing onto? The first time I read this comment I thought you were saying that DSJ/Bp Schofield’s actions must not be validated by the Communion at large, lest that somehow affect litigation in progress unfavorably to the reasserting side of the suit. On second reading I noticed the last sentence in the blockquote, which sounds instead like it is the Diocese of Remain Episcopal who must not be validated.

I ask because I have an idea for flag-planting/lay response to the recent actions of the HOB, but I would not want to act on it if validation of DSJ & +J-DS by the rest of the Communion would be a hindrance to reappraisers in California.