© 2004-2010 Stand Firm, LLC.
All rights reserved.
[64 : 1.9724]
Welcome to Stand Firm!
Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info
"This was another in an increasingly long line of favorable decisions regarding parish property issues. The bishop and diocese of Central New York are to be commended for their able, dignified and prompt handling of this case. It is particularly encouraging that the courts appear to have put to rest any argument that the church’s 1979 trust [Dennis] canon is not fully effective and applicable to our parishes."
|
Ms Schori was reflecting on a “momentous year” for Episcopravda. She was asked about some church members that seeking redress in the courts goes against the Gospel.
The whole article is one of a deluded paranoid schizophrenic |
|
But you don’t understand. I heard her at Greenwood answer the question about TEO loosing people. She said it just wasn’t true. They were 2.3 million strong and over 800 parishes and had only lost 80 parishes. The real reason that they were loosing 19,000 members each year was that they were dying off and the younger ones were not reproducing. They needed more infant baptisms. So go and procreate. I guess she has changed her mind about those low class folks that have all those babies and how sterile VGR and his crowd are to reproduce. So there! And get busy. You can see it all right here: http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/program.php?program_id=2009-01-10-a-re |
|
“Shori Law” says that you never admit defeat or wrong. You only admit success and that things are always going your way. This decision about Good Shepherd, sad to say the least was predictable. The property relationship between a parish and the diocese has been well defined long before the Dennis Canon. If thre Diocese is not willing to work something out with the parish the Diocese is entitled to have an empty building. But God makes all things new. Good Shepherd under God’s mercy will be dynamic. Let us pray for their strength to keep this vision before them. |
|
Here’s a big dose of reality for her: Then there’s the global opposition… And if that’s not enough, there’s the growing interior problem. Vive La Resistance! |
|
Schori and those that follow her or are giving her her marching orders (HOB) are a disgrace to the human race! I used to wonder how she slept at night….but I have come to the conclusion that she has no conscience as well as no moral compass! She is perfect for the World and those of the World! |
|
#3, Greg, wow, you nailed it. I totally agree with this assessment provided by Fr. Michael, in #5. Despite all the unpleasantness of losing buildings we paid for and need, it does seem to be a win-win situation: TEC wins the buildings. — That’s all they want. |
|
And yet, as always, those Windsor bishops... they’re still around…somewhere…aren’t they…hello…is this thing on? With apologies to the Veggie Tales folks, “We are the bishops who don’t do anything…” We have Christian shepherds charged with guarding their flocks allowing the wolves who have slipped in to rule the day. They must give account, too. Christe eleison! |
|
Hear all you orthodox laity who are in TEC, and HEAR IT WELL:
Translated this means “when you give any money at all to any TEC parish, you have written your check to me, Katharine Jefferts Schori, and I will use your money in whatever way I want because I am the Dictator-Tyrant-in-Charge of TEC and you have no say in how I spend your money.” Orthodox laity apparently have no say in gifts they have made in the past, but we DO have control over money not yet given. Now, please, please, please, TEC orthodox laity, when you think about where you are going to give your money, think about who you are giving it to, and who the courts are declaring you are REALLY giving it to. Don’t let wishy-washy ostrich laity or well-meaning ostrich clergy make you feel bad, don’t let peer pressure affect you. Explain clearly to your vestry, your rector and your bishop why you CANNOT give to your local parish BECAUSE to do so would be BAD STEWARDSHIP on your part. Then redirect your tithe to something worthy such as Trinity School for Ministry, Nashotah House or the Anglican Relief and Development. |
|
They kept the furniture; you kept the faith. Well, you can make furniture, my brother and I just made a portable baptismal fond, which earned me the privileged to make portable communion railings (very nervous, I’m usually the helper, now stretched to being the master) ... So it can be done and often a joy to see one’s labors used in the service of Jesus. Once you loose the latter, you’ve lost everything! |
|
14- Floridian- |
|
Hitler took homes and threw people away “for the good of future generations” too. Someday, our grandchildren will be studying this period. And thus, we best be discipling them in the Word. They are His gift, not dirt with stuff on it. |
|
#18 JamesW; it is the exact realization of this fact some months ago that finally broke my resistance to leaving TEC. As long as I could at least convince myself that I had some influence over, or was not completely ashamed of, how the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana was spending my contributions (God’s gifts to me, to pass on to others) I could tolerate my situation. AS soon as I realized that if even a single penny of our contributions found their way through the Diocesan Office to 815, and I knew they were spending the money on lawsuits, abortion support, and the ridiculous list of things that were patently sinful, no matter how small the slice was, I could no longer deny my own culpability in the actions of 815. I had become sin, by my own tithe. At that point, my wiggle room drew to an abrupt close. Sad that it took funds dispersal to do that, but there it is. KTF!...mrb |
|
Mike, yours isn’t the only case. Thousands of us experienced the same things….with our money going to abortion rights groups via our tithes and offerings, and with TEC’s support of immorality. In our own case, my wife and I reached the point where neither of us was willing to tolerate things the way they were going, and we dropped our membership in our former parish and diocese like a hot potato. |
|
My main point in post #18 is that orthodox laity who are still contributing money to a TEC parish have NO BUSINESS posting complaints or whining about what TEC bishops do in these situations UNTIL they cease and desist ANY AND ALL contributions to ANY TEC parish. If you still give any money at all to a TEC parish, you are funding the very activity that you claim to abhor. Don’t get me wrong - I am not saying that you need to leave TEC. Don’t do that. Just don’t give any money to this organization, and be sure to make it very clear WHY. |
|
A friend who is a nominal attendee at my former parish called to tell me that the parish had voted to return to the jurisdiction of TEC, after having voted to leave with the rest of the diocese. This came about after a blizzard of telephone calls to the effect of: “do you know that the parish buildings, endowment, memorials, and furniture belong to the Episcopal church, and if we don’t reverse our decision, we’ll have to start over againg with nothing?” A counter telephone campaign centered on the theme of fidelity to the teaching of Scriptures, especially regarding marriage and sexuality. The “TEC owns everything” campaign carried the day. A total of 118 parishoners voted, down from a membership of 250 families a few years ago. The Father of Lies carried the day. Dare I call him “the Gay deceiver?” |
|
++KJS has done nothing more than what the Constitution & Canons require her to do. The ugly characterizations of her are just that - the only reality they reflect is the state of the souls of those villifying. I agree, the Virginia cases are still in play. However, they are just reaching a jurisdictional level where the issues decided in California and Central NY will be brought to bear in deciding the case. If the church building is empty for a while, that is not the fault of the Episcopal Church. Several years ago there was a congregation there fully loyal to the Episcopal Church. Under Matt’s leadership there was a major shift in the attitude and beliefs of the congregation—the sort of thing that has happened in different places as well. My own belief is that Fr. Matt should have renounced his vows months if not years before as he could no longer affirm loyalty to the Doctrine and Discipline of TEC. He made another choice and I wish the Kennedys well in their continuing religious journey. |
|
TBWSantaFe, I don’t know about you, but MY loyalty as an Anglican layman is to Christ and His Church, as exemplified by the following partial personal statement: “I,.......do promise conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and NOT to any one province of that Church. In other words, to the Church catholic. |
|
Sure, Tom, but as I’ve pointed out before, the opposite happens, too. Many of us have been in Episcopal congregations fully committed to the Christian Faith. Then, under the leadership of the type of clergy so regnant in today’s ECUSA, there’s a major shift in the attitude and beliefs of the congregation, to the type of New Age-ist, Unitarian, pagan-tinged garbage that passes for theology in Episcopalianism. My own belief is that these “Manchurian candidates” should have renounced their vows months if not years before if they could no longer affirm loyalty to the Apostolic Faith and morals. They made other choices, and I wish them well in their continuing religious journey – I just wish they would take their hands off the old Episcopal Church’s throat. |
Thanks for that clarification, Tom. My understanding is that Good Shepherd and the Diocese were in the process of negotiations until something mysterious happened, and suddenly the diocese decided to sue. Similarly, the parishes in Virginia were in negotiations with the diocese when KJS intervened and told the Diocese it had to sue—she testified to this under oath. Previous to KJS’s installation as PB, there had been cases when parishes had negotiated for their property, both in Dallas and Kansas. And former Presiding Bishop Griswold had stated, when asked about the issue, that negotiation was entirely a diocesan affair, to be decided by the local bishop and departing congregations. Are we to understand that Presiding Bishop Griswold and all those bishops who encouraged negotiation simply did not understand the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and that only KJS reads correctly that bishops must sue local parishes that wish to leave, rather than negotiate, and that empty buildings can be sold to any entity—including nightclubs and bars—but not to formerly Episcopal congregations? You could help us tremendously by pointing to which Constitutions and Canons you are referring. Please be very specific, and, if you don’t mind, cite the specific canon. I, for one, wait with baited breath for your reply. |
|
Just when one thinks TBWSantaFe’s rhetoric can’t go any lower, he digs… Your comments, sir, in re: Fr. Matt are as reprehensible as the Presiding Bishop’s. It would seem your view of scripture is mighty low in view of your implicit scorn for the warning (Matthew 5:43-45) below the comment box. It is my hope no one after me comments about any more of your vitriolic discharge. |
|
#34 Tom Woodward
No - Those relating to Title IV have been willfully and outrageously flouted by her in deposing bishops.
In good faith your bishops were invited to Lambeth against all advice and that has only emboldened your Presiding Bishop to tell you all that you are “off the hook”. What has happened since she returned? More SSU’s, more defiance, more litigation, more manipulation. Your church under the Presiding Bishop has become a scandal in the Christian world and an embarrasment to Anglicans. The only thing you understand is firm discipline and it is absolutely necessary now. As for the state of souls, anybodies, that is solely a matter between the individuals and their God. You might try listening to what people all over the world are telling you, but perhaps nothing gets through the arrogance which is wrecking your church and impairing the Anglican witness. |
|
[14] Floridian, Thank you, thank you, thank you for the link to ShelterInTheStorm. This was an answer to prayer. With the visit of VGR to Seattle and our Rector’s encouragement for everyone to get there early to get a seat, she is perhaps not yet “at the end of her rope” in the TEC parish I departed, but she has certainly begun to see at least the outlines of its end. I was despairing finding a list of “safe” parishes without missing one, absent many hours of web searching and research. Again, thank you, God’s blessings and my kind regards, |
|
[25] Mike Bertaut, As Cennydd points out in his comment [27] you are not alone. I know my late September letter of resignation from parish, diocese and TEC was not the most articulate—having come to the realization that the Holy Spirit had sent me the unambiguous direction to leave, I had to write it very quickly before departing the area for a month and more. But the absolutely unambiguous sign for me was the fact that there was absolutely no means available to me to keep TEC from supporting RCRC using part of what I was offering to the Lord from the bounty He bestows on me, short of withdrawing all financial support from the parish community of which I was then a part. My Bishop was no +Lillibridge where matters of individual conscience are concerned. Conscience prevented me from refusing to support my parish, and therefore, the only conscientious choice that remained available to me was to depart fully. It is a little difficult to convey to others the sense of relief, first at departing from the connection to the den of iniquity that is 815 Second Avenue, and second, from the realization that, even in the unlikely event that the Roman Catholic Church should decide to support a cause I deem immoral, none of what I give to the parish will go to that end. All charitable causes are handled, not from pledge, but from separate appeals, participation in which is left to the voluntary actions of the individual parishioner, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Blessings and regards to you my brother in Christ, |
|
Pageantmaster, thank you for your forthright and honest evaluation of The Episcopal Church. You have told the entire Christian world what we all needed to know, but unfortunately TEC has refused to listen. You clearly stated what needed to be said. A once-great and highly respected Church has become an embarrassment not only to Anglicans, but to all of Christianity. |
NO. The shift was in the expressed belief of the leadership of TEC. Fr. Matt’s beliefs have not changed and he has not lead his congregation astray. He has been true to “the faith once delivered” and PB has expressed a theology that is a collection of early church heresays. |
|
[34] TBWSantaFe, I have quite had enough of your supercilious self-righteousness to last the balance of my lifetime! You responded to One Day Closer‘s assessment of your duplicity with what can only be described as a thinly veiled threat on the SFIF thread Dispatches from the HOB/D a few days ago. On that same thread, I found it necessary to post a comment that was intended as a mild rebuke to you, quoting a scurrilous and mistaken attack by you on one David V. Hicks on the Episcopal Majority web site, in a comment posted there by you on 26th August 2006. In that attack, you accuse Mr. Hicks of making a “sleazy” and “baseless” attack on Bishop Robinson. As the information in SF’s Truth Will Out thread a few days ago will attest, Mr. Hicks was relating accurate and truthful information which he had personally witnessed. Your silence in response to this information is damning, particularly as you had asked on that same thread for particulars as to your own mistakes. The much-delayed timing of the public release of the damning information is very fortunate for you, as enough time has passed that most people have likely forgotten your falsehoods and the slanders directed at Mr. Hicks. None of this seems to have had any effect on you, whatever. You have not bothered to respond to that evidence of your seeming inability to hew to truth, nor to admit your own trespasses—trespasses at the expense of your brothers and sisters in Christ that are of the same sort that you are surprisingly quick to remark in others. Now you make the patently false assertion that
I characterize this as a patent falsehood, because much of what she has done is completely beyond any authority granted her office by the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Some of the actions I refer to are mentioned in comments by Dr. William Witt at [38] and by Pageantmaster (who has no dog in this hunt) at [41]. I will not take the time and effort to enumerate them for you, as you have shown an apparently irremediable habit of prefering falsehood to truth and of attempting to use your status as retired clergy to bully those who refuse to accept your falsehoods as truth. There are only a few possible explanations for such a consistent pattern of falsehoods, slanders, accusations and the absence of so much as a retraction when you are confronted by irrefutable evidence of your own lack of truth and charity. Those explanations range from self-deception or delusion to deliberate and impervious ignorance of facts. It is becoming increasingly apparent that, for whatever reason, whether conscious or unconscious, the truth is not in you. This assessment will not stop me from praying for you that the Lord to whom you pretend loyalty will cause the scales to drop from your eyes. May God bless you with self-knowledge, and if you do not have the disposition to receive that, may he have mercy on your immortal soul, Martial Artist (Keith Toepfer) |
|
[39] Athanasius Returns, I hereby apologize, retroactively, for dashing your hopes. I hadn’t read your comment before reading the stinking tripe with which Fr. Woodward began his comment at [34]. I am quite fed up with his trollish behavior with respect to those from whom he expects conduct which he seems unwilling to require, in at least equal measure, from himself. Blessings and regards, |
|
Anyone who states
is either not interested in or not capable of any rational, truthful discussion about the issues. In addition to William Witt’s direct challenge to Tom in post #38 above, I would ask Tom for specific quotations from the canons (1) mandating (at this point even simply permitting her would do) the Presiding Bishop “recognizing” or “derecognizing” existing canonically elected diocesan Standing Committees; (2) permitting the Presiding Bishop to ignore quorum requirements when holding diocesan conventions; and (3) appointing interim bishops without consulting the canonically elected Standing Committee. Until Tom can substantiate his absurd claims with valid evidence (as opposed to hot-air rhetoric) I would advise against anyone seriously interacting with him. |
|
I am reminded, as I read through this thread, how truly blessed I have been to have been directed to this web site (By Dr. Kendal Harmon, and Ms. Jackie Baruchi, way back when) and to have communicated with such a band of brothers. You are all such a blessing to me, you have no idea. God Bless and KTF!...mrb |
|
We have seen what we have seen - persecution, canon abuse, back-tracking on assents given to Primates, utter lawlessness. The world has seen it: the New York Times, Saddleback Church, the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and all the provinces of the Communion. We have seen the continuing persecution of the Orthodox in TEC and those who have left - and it is Ugly. In good faith your bishops were invited to Lambeth against all advice and that has only emboldened your Presiding Bishop to tell you all that you are “off the hook”. What has happened since she returned? More SSU’s, more defiance, more litigation, more manipulation. Your church under the Presiding Bishop has become a scandal in the Christian world and an embarrassment to Anglicans.
|
|
Dr. Witt, 38, “Similarly, the parishes in Virginia were in negotiations with the diocese when KJS intervened and told the Diocese it had to sue—she testified to this under oath.” This isn’t correct. But to get back to the topic at hand: What e-mail? From and to whom? Any context? Evaluating what was said: ““This was another in an increasingly long line of favorable decisions regarding parish property issues.” True. “The bishop and diocese of Central New York are to be commended for their able, dignified and prompt handling of this case.” Debatable, certainly. “It is particularly encouraging that the courts appear to have put to rest any argument that the church’s 1979 trust [Dennis] canon is not fully effective and applicable to our parishes.” A bit exaggerated. New York courts perhaps. The rest, we’ll see. |
|
[56] One Day Closer, Be careful what you offer. The most expensive single malt scotch whisky<sup>*</sup> I have ever tasted had a total availability of 11 (750ml) bottles, ten of them sold one each at ten different auctions, and the last one through a privately brokered purchase. The lowest auctioned price was about (US$)43,600. The arranged sale was for an undisclosed sum “in excess of £30,000” which, at the time, was somewhere in the vicinity of (US$) $50,000. Assuming a moderately generous dram would be about 50ml, that results in fifteen (15) drinks from one bottle. The amount that I consumed in tasting was about 2 drops (as if from an eyedropper) which is about 0.1ml, so that taste alone would have been worth about $6.00. A single 50ml drink would have cost the bar owner about (US$2900.00). No telling what the markup would be, but it would have to be in the several hundred per cent range. All things considered, I am most gratified that I have your appreciation and your prayers instead. God’s blessings and my prayers and warm regards, <sup>*</sup>–Just a minor point actually, but Scotch, Canadian and Japanese products are spelled (spelt) whisky. The only other major producers of the product are the US and Ireland, whose products are spelled whiskey. As I warned in my earlier post, I am known as something of an enthusiast, so I enjoy sharing my knowledge with others. |
|
[58] Cennydd, Glenlivet is a perfectly delightful example of a good Scotch whisky, the 18 year old is particularly elegant and smooth. Given your ancestry, you might be interested in trying Penderyn, a relative newcomer to the market from Wales. It is apparently now being imported into the US, as witness this listing from a Wally’s in Los Angeles. Of course, it is a bit on the expensive side, at least for that one of us who is only a retired Navy Lieutenant Commander. I don’t know if BevMo carries it, but it might be worth checking online. Blessings and regards, P.S., If you bump into a Father Thomas Upton, I believe he attends St. John’s Anglican Church in Porterville, tell him you know me (albeit virtually). He was a member of our wedding party when Faith and I married—he escorted her mother who had been widowed almost twenty years earlier, and his wife, Diana, was Faith’s matron of honor. |
Help me out, here, DavidH. Is it not correct that the parishes in Virginia were in negotiations, that KJS intervened, or that she testified under oath that she had intervened? |
|
[60] William Witt, The report of her testimony that she intervened in a manner which conforms to the terminology you used was published in the Washington Times at about the time of her testimony in the DioVA/ADV hearings. Unfortunately, that article is no longer available on their server, and I have not located it from any sort of cache elsewhere on the web, but that problem has been nicely solved by one Louie Crew who has this on her testimony in the November 2007 trial before Judge Bellows:
So, in short, the answer is a clear and resounding “YES, she did so testify.”
<hr length=“65”> |
|
#60 and #61 It seems to me that we have had a number of instances where a leader will eliminate oponents, subvert laws, push aside or manipulate the democratic process, subvert judicial process and ignore international opinion. No I am not just talking about Robert Mugabe. It seems to me that tyrants like the Presiding Bishop should never be allowed to get away with their bad behaviour. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance against tyrrany. Action must be taken to bring her reign of terror to an end. |
|
If Ms. Schori was as hellbent on defending the canons as she claims, she ought to deny communion to those who reject the Real Presence in the Eucharist ... it’s a national canonical requirement for receiving communion. I suppose she could start with all those bishops and priests who don’t believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob yet persist in honoring Baal and Molloch. |
|
Dr. Witt, 60, asked “Help me out, here, DavidH. Is it not correct that the parishes in Virginia were in negotiations, that KJS intervened, or that she testified under oath that she had intervened?” The original statement, in post 38, was “Similarly, the parishes in Virginia were in negotiations with the diocese when KJS intervened and told the Diocese it had to sue—she testified to this under oath.” Re the first part, according to BabyBlue, negotiations never got started. Re the second part, it is correct, of course, that TEC has intervened in the litigation. It is also correct that TEC made its views on settlement known before the litigation. But it is incorrect to say that the PB “told the Diocese it had to sue.” The PB’s testimony is a matter of public record. Unfortunately, the account that MA quotes in 61 proves little more than that eyewitnesses on both sides can be extremely unreliable. And PM, in 62, doesn’t summarize it accurately or make entirely accurate accusations. (Leaving aside the hyperbolic comparison of the PB to Mugabe, which of course is only slightly better than calling your opponent a Nazi.) If you look in her testimony, you find the following:
and later
In other words, the PB told the Diocese a part of her policy regarding negotiations, which she has said in a number of other places publicly. She did not “tell the Diocese to sue.” Presumably, both sides believed it was necessary that TEC be a part of any negotiated agreement. As to the “what if"s—for example, “what if” the PB had not talked to Bishop Lee—we don’t and probably will never know. |
|
DavidH (67), Thank you. You confirmed my understandings exactly. Q.E.D |
|
Cen. . . you may make whatever private or public vows you wish, but in order to be ordained in the Episcopal Church one’s vows have to do with the Doctrine and Discipline of the Episcopal Church—check out any major denomination. Are you saying your vows are to the Quakers, both Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and all the rest? You have denigrated my own abilities, so I will ask you to use your own computer to access the C&C;of the Episcopal Church. You will find the relevant canons there. You can also check the C&C;of any Episcopal Diocese—there in plain language in the Constitution is the “Accession Clause” which asserts and acknowledges that all property in the diocese, both real and personal, is held in trust for the Episcopal Church (The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church). Bishop Lee had good reason for calling off the negotiations. As for good will, I draw your attention to the meetings ++KJS called with Duncan, Iker and their supporters met with others to find some way for us all to co-exist or to deal with one another with respect and kindness. When Duncan, et. al. discovered that the meetings were genuine and that people were really interested in negotiations and accommodating, he and the others refused to show up at the second meeting. Athanasius—I characterized some of Matthew’s actions. I did not attack his character as you and others have done with me and most who do not agree with you. That is an important distinction. If you go back over my postings here you will find compliments and support for Matthew on several occasions. I disagree with him on basic issues, but have never called him names—certainly not the “apostate” and “heretic” that is hurled by others at those in SF’s disfavor. When Sarah Hey calls me a “fraud,” she considers that fair comment: when I characterize her comment as a smear I become, on SF, the lowest of non-Christian vermin. I guess you pays your money and you makes your choice.
Wm. Witt—Had Frank Griswold hewed to his duty to protect the rightful assets of TEC all this would have been settled long ago. His decisions were a mistake. Martial Artist (46)—after very serious unsupported charges by One Day Closer, I asked him to supply any possible substance to his broad and unspecified charges of betrayal of my congregation. That, my friend, is not threatening anyone. I have asked him(?) to document his charges here on SF, on my blog or by separate email. If you have any influence on him, provide him what he already must know: I am very surprised that the owners of this site have allowed his broad brush smear, claiming secret knowledge but not documenting or even characterizing it to remain on SF. My comments about Mr. Hicks had to do with the veracity of his attacks on Bishop Robinson. That is a matter of perspective and information. Hardly scurrilous. He needed to be called to account for the false charges against Bishop Robinson. Read the account just published by SF—there is nothing there to contradict what I noted, nothing new that would substantiate what Mr. Hicks alleged. Your comment that I “pretend loyalty” to Jesus Christ reveals much about you, nothing about me. I have been a faithful, loyal priest for 45 years—and have been praised by Presiding Bishops, leaders in the Network and in the right wing of the church and on and on. I would prefer that you reserve your sarcastic and ill-informed prayers for others—or for yourself. In your later post, you object to my observation about the comments on this site regarding the PB. Go through any string with open eyes and you will find the ugliest comments in Christendom. Don’t take my word, just make a list. jamesw—These matters have been documented over and over again. If you want the specifics, try Mark Harris’ blog. I will be happy to engage with you or others, but not in this super-toxic place. OneDayCloser—The President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of El Camino Real while you say you were in the diocese is ready and willing to respond to any and all charges you have trumped up. I listed the ways you can respond with documentation. I am waiting. |
From the deposition: 84.13 Q. You instructed the Episcopal Church to intervene: did you not? 86.7. Q. So it is your view that you are the authority to initiate litigation, without the formal approval of the General Convention? |
|
TBW, assuming that you’re familiar with the meaning of what I said about the vows I prefer to take, I don’t think I need to explain what I meant. My sole allegiance is to Christ and His Church….never TEC, and if I had gone on to ordination, that would not have changed. Thankfully, I left the School for Deacons at CDSP and never looked back. I was conservative, and they weren’t. |
|
I am very surprised that the owners of this site have allowed his broad brush smear, claiming secret knowledge but not documenting or even characterizing it to remain on SF. Good grief, Tom - we let you get on here any time you want and claim to be an orthodox Christian, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. What’s the problem? |
|
#67 David H A. On the Negotiations undertaken by dio Virginia
It took some persistent cross examination to get the truth from the Presiding Bishop that she had prevented the diocese from negotiating for sale to the 11 congregations in Virginia:
Read together with her evidence that she had a different policy from Bishop Griswold it is clear that the change of policy and decision to cease negotiating with the Virginia congregations was hers. B. On the Litigation
So the decision to litigate was hers and hers alone. No one has yet answered the question I posed in Comment #1 above as to whether it is admitted that the Presiding Bishop threatened Bishop Lee if he did not cease negotiating with the congregations. Perhaps it is worth looking at another area of the Presiding Bishops’ Testimony: C. Representations to Primates at Dar-es-Salaam:
Well we have the evidence of several sources including I seem to remember Archbishop, Drexel Gomez in a Florida meeting, that the PB agreed the terms of the Dar Communique unequivocally; not that she would ‘take it back’. I expect she can explain whether she has been truthful herself to the Primates when she is in Egypt [Jan 31 to Feb 6] before she rushes back to set up a faux diocese of Fort Worth on February 7 in further breach of her powers and TEC’s canons. By the way, Alexandria is a long way from Texas. How with transit times is she going to make it, or won’t she bother with the last part of the Primates Meeting in her haste to continue her canon abuse? [As for your other point I referred to the behaviour of tyrants. Looking at the characteristics they also seem to fit the conduct of the Presiding Bishop.] |
|
JOV, 68, wrote: “You me and everyone else knows the message KJS sent to DOV you can parse the words all you want.” You, me, and everyone else does know the message. You and others choose to believe that it actually meant something else. Dr. Witt, re post 70, it’s largely pointless to discuss this. But to say that there was a “Protocol for Departing Congregations” is to say next to nothing. It wasn’t a deal. It wasn’t a promise of anything. Neither side did what they would have had to do to try to make it a deal. End of story. In 73, your post is on a completely different fact. Had you said that she instructed TEC to sue, I would have agreed entirely. TEC and the Diocese are not the same thing. |
|
PM, 77, parts A and B: Show me the instruction to the Diocese to sue. Show me where the PB says that she’s making the decisions for the Diocese. Then Dr. Witt’s and your statements are accurate. Until then, what we know is that TEC didn’t want to negotiate a property deal with the CANA folks. Period. You and others can quote the dep and “read between the lines” if you want. C: Different people have different accounts and thoughts regarding DeS. It’s been well-discussed in the past. I have nothing to add. |
|
#79 DavidH “Show me the instruction to the Diocese to sue. Show me where the PB says that she’s making the decisions for the Diocese. Then Dr. Witt’s and your statements are accurate”
“You and others can quote the dep and “read between the lines” if you want.” No need to - it is all there in black and white - in the words of the Presiding Bishops’ testimony. The facts speak for themselves, Res Ipsa Loquitur as they say. DeS - the PB will have the opportunity to explain herself to the Primates. Whether to believe the Presiding Bishop or AB Drexel Gomez and others? - what an invidious position to be in. |
|
DavidH - So we are to believe that in light of the following facts: And you want us, DavidH to believe that 3d had nothing to do with 3a, 3b or 3c??!?!?!?? Are you deliberately trying to insult our intelligence??? |
|
I do agree with Pageantmaster and jamesw that the “facts speak for themselves.” Nonetheless, I find it curious that DavidH is so anxious to deny either that there was a negotiation in place—the Protocol was not “really” a negotiation, and that KJS ordered the Diocese to sue (although he has to admit that KJS ordered TEC to sue—he can’t deny that because it she so clearly admits it). It is almost as if DavidH is embarrassed by the Diocese’s action—as if there were something slightly disreputable about it. |
|
William Witt: It’s not just DavidH who seems to be anxious to keep KJS’s role in the Virginia fiasco hidden. In her deposition, KJS did everything she possibly could do to obfuscate and avoid directly answering the questions relating to her role in Peter Lee’s decision to abruptly terminate the Protocol. |
|
Has “Progressive” denial really reached the point where they are actually ashamed of (and hence consign to the Memory Hole) the outstandingly successful Great Terror of Early 2007? Not only was +Lee cowed into abandoning a long-term commitment, but +Jelinek dissed his longtime friend ++Nzimbi of Kenya and +Alexander of Atlanta wrote an utterly unmotivated threatening letter to his most prestigious parish. The entire HoB fell more or less immediately in line, with a very few obvious exceptions. A Great Victory for 815. Our “Progressive” friends should be proud. Perhaps, though, what with pushing Climate Catastrophe long after all serious scientists have jumped off the bandwagon, and caterwauling for more regulation of financial markets when it is obvious to the most casual observer that it was political bludgeoning of the markets that produced the meltdown in the first place, they have become so accustomed to denying actual facts that it’s become a reflex… |
|
81, jamesw: 1 is wrong. The Special Committee was not charged with coming up with a process for parishes to leave. They were supposed to find a way that the Diocese and disgruntled parishes could go on in union. 2 assumes that Bp Lee directed the Special Committee. I can’t say that’s wrong, but I’ve seen nothing to say that it’s right either. 2 also has the same flaws as the other posts here about the “Protocol.” See post 78. 3 completely blurs the timeline for all of the events in your post, when the timeline is actually quite important. 3d ignores a number of prior events, including that the Protocol went over like a lead balloon with the Standing Committee and Executive Board and Bp Lee’s Dec 1 letter to the CANA clergy and vestries. What we have here is that you and others on SF shade the Virginia facts in a way that fits your viewpoints. Apparently because I like banging my head into a wall, I tend to speak up when people do that. |
|
DavidH, whatever the Special Committee was charged with, what it developed was a protocol for parishes to leave the diocese. The parishes believed the protocol would be honored, probably because they received assurances to that effect. This constituted what we would call a “gentleman’s agreement.” Peter Lee reneged on that agreement, which tends to show that he was either a) dishonorable or b) not competent enough as an executive to have control of his board as he conducted an important and sensitive negotiation, or both. That conclusion has nothing to do with the legally binding nature of the agreement, though it does speak to the integrity of your friends in the diocese. Don’t blame people here if your friends don’t come off looking so well on that score. |
|
#88, I would suggest (d) that Lee was threatened by Schori with a lawsuit for failing his fiduciary responsibility if he let them go and in response he caved. Peter Lee is not likely to be a martyr. This is what the fruit of liberal religion comes to ... good intentions that fail because there is no backbone. |
|
“#88, I would suggest (d) that Lee was threatened by Schori with a lawsuit for failing his fiduciary responsibility if he let them go and in response he caved. Peter Lee is not likely to be a martyr.” I have personally known Peter Lee. Lee is a basically decent man. He is also a very politically astute man whose main modus operandi from the time he was at St. John’s Lafayette Square until now was to smooth out or otherwise make “problems” disappear or at resolved that satisfies most people with a minimum of resentment. But even decent men cave under veiled threats and/or direct orders from “superiors.” It would have been better for him to resign rather than comply with Schori’s demands, which is more or less what Jeffrey Steenson did. Lee is no hero, but he is a considerably better man than the vast majority of the Episcopal House of Bishops, most of whom are incompetants, sickos, timeservers, and/or basely evil men - the true state of the Episcopal Church. |
|
DavidH: The Special Committee was tasked with coming up with a way in which parishes could disaffiliate with TEC and yet maintain as much unity with the diocese as possible. That is what the Protocol was all about. Before Lee reneged on it, the view of all parties involved was that if TEC outgrew its current heresy, reunion down the road would be possible. The intention was a nice, gentle, friendly “Virginia style” disaffiliation. I used to be in the Diocese of Virginia, DavidH, and I followed the Special Committee and Protocol closely, and Peter Lee and others in the diocese were very invested in it. The Protocol had not yet been finally agreed to, but if you know anything about the old Diocese of Virginia, you know that things DO NOT get to where the Protocol got to without the FULL SUPPORT of the bishop and other powers-that-be in the diocese. I did not set a “timeline”, I simply pointed out to you a number of events that were closely related in time. You cannot argue that (1) Lee was very favorable to the Protocol; 2) KJS became PB; 3) KJS spoke with Lee about the Protocol and though she refuses to tell us exactly what she said, we do know that it was negative (we know from other firsthand sources that in similar situations she threatened TEC bishops with fiduciary duty lawsuits if they didn’t sue departing congregations); and 4) Shortly after this meeting Peter Lee and the rest of the powers-that-be immediately scuttled and reneged on their support for the Protocol, which they had hitherto been fully supportive of. No amount of spin doctoring on your part, DavidH, can defeat the substantial amount of circumstantial evidence that points only one way in this situation. The real question is why the truth of this bothers you so much. |
|
In a comedy, it would be funny if the secretary takes over the office. The incompetence of the “boss” would be comical and perhaps annoying. In this case not only does the secretary take over but she redefines the business according to the kinds of motivations that drive comedic role reversal. To switch metaphors, I’m sympathetic of the competent nurse who keeps the overworked and incompetent doctors from doing in their patients but I don’t want that nurse to do surgery on my eye, my brain, or my heart. I do not seek the care of a given doctor who is demonstrates allegiance to an agenda other than and contrary to my interest as patient. In discernment, no patient is going to say, “Well, I understand that letting me die is for the good of the A.M.A. and that’s OK by me.” Still, catching the doctor’s incompetence does not make the competent nurse a competent surgeon. Moreover, the medical community does the nurse no favors when setting her or him in a position beyond his competence, regardless of motive. The Episcopal Church failed to “vet” Schori. She’s claimed to be president of a seminary when referring to running a parish Sunday School. Obviously, the woman is either a liar or deluded in this regard; neither demonstrate a strong suite. |
|
monologistos: No, I think the reason why DavidH and other liberals are so bothered by what happened in Virginia is because they desperately want to deny that KJS has any other choice other then to carry on her “scorched earth” policy. They desperately want to deny that Peter Lee’s Protocol was a “more excellent way” and that it was perfectly within TEC’s polity to have implemented the Protocol. And so they have to deny that it was KJS who caused Peter Lee to do his sudden about-face. They have to pretend that Peter Lee wasn’t fully supportive of the Protocol, they have to pretend that the rest of the diocesan powers-that-be weren’t fully supportive of the Protocol, they have to pretend that the Protocol somehow got to where it was as a result of some mysterious rogue committee in the Diocese. Because if people believe that Peter Lee’s original approach with the Protocol was fully within TEC’s polity and is a much preferable and Christian way to resolve property disputes, then the obvious question is “why did KJS so strongly oppose the application of Christian charity to dispute resolution?” and “why does KJS continue to so strongly oppose the application of Christian charity to ongoing dispute resolution?” Note, that ALL of the Southern Cone bishops have adopted processes similar to what Peter Lee’s Protocol set out for parishes in their diocese that might wish to remain affiliated with TEC. KJS and TEC have it within their power to make the breakup within TEC be a mutually agreeable process on friendly terms which might hold out hope of future reconciliation. That is the model that Peter Lee initially wanted to follow. But that is the model that KJS sought to crush. Her preferred strategy has been one of legal intimidation in hopes of crushing her opponents. |
|
I don’t think we are in disagreement, jamesw. Denial of the truth for the sake of furtherment of an agenda they wish to deny is wicked. Essentially, it is a means justify the ends approach based on the assumption that the so-called justice issues are more important than the existence of the Church itself. The more hardened their hearts become, the quicker they are to admit they would rather see churches fail and end than to continue without blessing the various agendas of TEC. Why else dismiss the very Gospel to do so? It isn’t simply that Schori wants TEC to succeed ... she wants to see conservative churches fail and end. We shouldn’t assume that because she is a silly creature with her oven mitt, that she is not capable, as any of us, in serving the true enemy of mankind even as she betrays most fundamentally those she seeks to liberate from the oppression of morality. On the other side of things, conservatives often enough brought something of this on themselves by failing to treat persons with personality disorders different from their own as if they were less than children of God. I’ve known more than one conservative who beat his wife (and kids) but I can hardly ask if we are still beating our wives, now can I? Spiritual sickness is not limited to godless liberals. We good Christians have too often been the immediate source of the disease ... in denying the illness in ourselves that at least in part gave rise to the disorder in our children. |
|
jamesw, 95 & 98, my problem is not “truth”; as I said, it is you shading the facts and calling it truth. And the more you write, the more you demonstrate how off base you are: “DavidH and other liberals” Ha. I am pro-life, generally pro-right to bear arms, pro-small and efficient government, anti-homosexual marriage, and a regular (if not always satisfied) Republican voter. “they desperately want to deny that KJS has any other choice other then to carry on her ‘scorched earth’ policy” I don’t deny that. She has choices. “They desperately want to deny that Peter Lee’s Protocol was a ‘more excellent way’” It’s unclear, but in some cases, I think it might have led to a better result. “and that it was perfectly within TEC’s polity to have implemented the Protocol” Yes, it is within TEC’s polity to negotiate deals with congregations who want to leave, so long as the deals are acceptable to both sides. But deals aren’t going to be reached in every case, and in Virginia, the CANA folks had decided that they could drive the bus wherever they wanted, regardless of what was acceptable to the Diocese and TEC. “And so they have to deny that it was KJS who caused Peter Lee to do his sudden about-face.” I deny this because we don’t know it is the case. “They have to pretend that Peter Lee wasn’t fully supportive of the Protocol” Beats me. I think he supported the general idea and would have supported some deals and opposed others. “they have to pretend that the rest of the diocesan powers-that-be weren’t fully supportive of the Protocol” There’s no pretend here. It went over like a lead balloon with the Standing Committee and Executive Board. “they have to pretend that the Protocol somehow got to where it was as a result of some mysterious rogue committee in the Diocese” I don’t know how much contact the Special Committee had with the Bishop. Barring some tell-all by the Bishop or his chancellor, we may never know. But I think it’s clear that the CANA reps went into the Committee with clear goals, the Diocese’s reps were considerably more uncertain, the end product was a clear win for the CANA folks, and the end product was unacceptable to at least a large part of the Diocese. |
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
102 Comments •
No - you messed up big time in Virginia. This along with a number of other decisions is capable of appeal, something you have pointed out in the Virginia litigation.
No - there is nothing dignified about the actions of the Bishop of Central New York, any more than there is about the actions of the Bishop of Virginia. Is it true that you threatened Bishop Lee in order to get him to back-track on his negotiations there? It can be seen for what it is - the continued persecution of orthodox believers in the United States by the “Gay Church” which you are turning TEC into: ignoring the clear terms of canons, deposing Godly bishops, putting in puppet pro SSU/SSB bishops and rump conventions where you have no power under your constitution to do so.
No - this is by no means clear - you have failed to demonstrate that the Dennis Cannon was passed and is part of the Canons of TEC, not that this seems to unduly bother you as you do not observe them anyway.
These among other reasons are why it is now necessary for the Communion to discipline you personally, along with your complicity with the breach of the moratoria which you took part in in the LA Convention and your breach of your word given to the Primates at Dar when you assented to their and your joint communique. I sincerely hope that the Primates remove you and your church from the councils of the Communion as decided in the Windsor Report and the subsequent meetings. You also need to give a prompt and truthful reply to the questions which were posed to your bishops at Dar and which they claimed to have answered at New Orleans. Even this reply you have shown does not bind you by your actions at the Convention of the diocese of Los Angeles. The Bishop of Colorado has done the same this week.
Frankly I had high hopes for you when you were elected that you would heal TEC and restore relations of TEC with the 22 provinces who are in impaired communion with you. You have disappointed hugely and in my view it is now necessary for Communion discipline to be restored.