Anglican Curmudgeon:  What They Saw Is Exactly What They Got

Excellent post.

No comment. I don’t dare.

$6.5-million of lawsuits to persecute Christians into forced inclusiveness should get the Presiding Litigator some honorary memberships in bar associations.  She will not get much for the altars and chalices she sells from her empty TEO churches to the already overstocked warehouses of the RC liquidators, one of whom advertises on his website “enough stained glass windows to build your own cathedral.”  The elitist ultra-leftists who have hijacked what used to be a Christian church, have chosen to persecute other Christians with the $6.5-million rather than help the needy or even pursue their precious MDGs.  [comment edited—off topic]

Follow the money trail. The only winners are the lawyers.

#3, I don’t agree with many of the policies of the current president of the USA. However, I’m a US citizen, and I pay taxes. I have no plans to leave the USA, and no plans to leave TEC.

The crisis in Anglicanism has come to the point that we should all be very careful in our criticism of those who have left, as well as those who are staying. Both groups live in glass houses.

The implication in all this is that, had TEC elected a different Presiding Bishop, the case would be decidedly different.  I am not sure that that is true.  There is no question that under +Jefferts-Schori, TEC has taken legal action and that action has been costly.  However, had TEC not pursued such action, what amount of losses would it have sustained?  For example, Grace St. Stephens in Colorado Springs, St. James et alia in California.  I am only directing my comments to monetary losses as the Curmudgeon has directed his comments to quantifying the financial arena. With few exceptions (the Va cases because of its peculiar statute which may or may not be constitutional being the prime), TEC has won in the U.S. Courts.  Since +Jefferts-Schori clearly believes she carries the burden of stewardship for property she believes, as others in TEC clearly do, the actions make perfect sense.  Many on this list have condemned the legal actions and in opposition to the Gospel ideal of Christians not suing each other.  By contrast, Matt Kennedy, list contributor has advocated for legal action and Sarah Hey appears (and if I am wrong on this she will correct me) to see the courts as a neutral playing field and recourse to them not an issue of Gospel imperative.  In the U.S., I believe, although “justice” may not always be achieved, they are our best venue for sorting out the disputes among Christian brethren, ironic, but true.  In the case of many countries, this is not true, and it was perfectly understandable to me that the Primates at Dar-es-Salaam would take the position they did.  But it is heartening to me that Matt Kennedy, clearly not a TEC advocate would take the position he did:  i.e. Sue!  And it is equally heartening to me that Sarah Hey has also if not advocating legal action like Kennedy, not condemnatory of the U.S. courts as the place to work out these issues.  I am going on memory now, but I think I rec all that it was Henry 2 (who admittedly had other issues) offered the King’s court as a areal opportunity for those injured by the clergy vs the clergy courts which were, let’s say, not always unbiased toward the members of that group.

Thanks, Ralph. You hit the nail squarely.

[5] EmilyH

In the U.S., I believe, although “justice” may not always be achieved, they are our best venue for sorting out the disputes among Christian brethren, ironic, but true.

What is ironic is the use of the phrase “sorting out the disputes” to describe what has been going on.  The German Army settled Germany’s dispute with Poland quite nicely, as well.  Don’t kid yourself, EmilyH.  Money talks in court.  It took no foresight to recognize the TEC would win most of its cases.  This isn’t dispute resolution.  This is raw power taking what it wants.  At least have the consistency to admit it.

carl

For Carl…apparently Grace St. Stephens has settled with the Diocese of Colorado and given up its rights to appeal, in exchange, the Diocese has agreed not to file for damages and both litigants will pay their own attorney’s fees.  http://www.gazette.com/articles/church-55636-diocese-members.html.  Given that, if Grace pursued an appeal, they, I suggest, would likely lose, it would seem that the “settlement” is advantageous to Grace as it avoids damages and diocesan legal costs for round 1. and for a potential round 2.

Carl,  If you insist on Nazi analogies TEC would be the German Government before Hitler, and the Episcopalians in a break away Diocese who did not want to leave the Episcopal Church for ACNA would be the Jews.  I leave it to you to place everyone else.

It also means that the remainder of the Grace & St Stephen’s parish is stuck with paying off that $2,500,000 mortgage, and it remains to be seen how they can afford to do that without outside financial help.  I’m glad I’m not on that vestry.

Actually EmilyH it is altogether something that you obviously cannot conceive that what is important to 815 is the money and the property. KJS is using the verbiage that “it is her fiduciary responsibility”, IMHO that is a cover and a farce. Th parishioners in Colorado as well as in other places in the US who up and leave their buildings or negotiate with TEc after TEc throws their litigation weight around on them do so in order to get on with doing what God has commanded all Christians to do and that is go out and proclaim the Good News! TEc is not interested in doing that…they are only interested in spreading their social activist agendas and gaining all the money and property they can. They are destroying what was once a great Church and making it into a social club for those who do not ascribe to the Inspired Word written and the Word given to the Saints. That too is something they are looking to destroy and change with their revisions. There are no winner EmilyH, only losses….TEc will lose people in the pews and the churches will be sold off and those who have left or negotiated out of their church home have lost all that they have put into that church in means of finances, and maintenance, up keep. The memories will be the only things that TEc cannot take from them. It has also been shown that hose who leave and begin a fresh somewhere else get blessed with growth and a sense of peace that comes from knowing that they are not being tied up to a divisive and vindictive fight over things of this world but are being tied up to and bound to those things of heaven and of their Father in heaven…...a far more profitable road to walk and field to till!

The implication in all this is that, had TEC elected a different Presiding Bishop, the case would be decidedly different.

RE: “In the U.S., I believe, although “justice” may not always be achieved, they are our best venue for sorting out the disputes among Christian brethren, ironic, but true.”

Oh no—I support legal action and am happy to have all of these cases in our just courts precisely because we’re not dealing with Christian believers.  The secular courts are the very best place for these matters.

RE: “And it is equally heartening to me that Sarah Hey has also if not advocating legal action like Kennedy, not condemnatory of the U.S. courts as the place to work out these issues.”

Absolutely not at all condemnatory.  Again, were these issues to come up amongst people who believe the Gospel, I’d think differently.  But the secular courts are just the right place for these issues of TEC and other property.  Certainly those who don’t believe the Gospel could not be trusted to deal fairly with those who do within TECusa—that much has been clearly and thoroughly demonstrated.  Thank God we live in a country that values the rule of law, even if our denomination’s leaders do not value its own laws.

RE: “The implication in all this is that, had TEC elected a different Presiding Bishop, the case would be decidedly different.”

Yes, I do believe the case would be decidedly different.  I think a PB might have been elected more along the lines of Frank Griswold—one who would pay more attention to the public relations image of his own office and that of TEC in the news.

For myself, I was ecstatic when Schori was elected, as we avoided someone along the lines of Griswold, and as Schori has lived up to my initial impressions of being a radical foaming at the mouth and angry leftist who has just barely tamped some of that down due to the pleas of some other leftists who aren’t so angry and radical.  Her style and attitude came out in early interviews, as the Curmudgeon so nicely reminded—and indeed this is an interview that I do recall and liked.

No, Schori has behaved exactly in the straightforwardly bludgeoning style that I had hoped for.

And as a result the damage that she has done to the TECusa/815 image has been immense all over the world.

I trust for a continuation of that bludgeoning style.  And am happy to note, as well, that there are numerous leftists on, say, Executive Council and in the HOB, and elsewhere who see the truth of what I have said, and don’t like it one bit.

heh…nice
“But it is heartening to me that Matt Kennedy, clearly not a TEC advocate would take the position he did:  i.e. Sue!”

Not quite. I am all for Defending yourself if sued by heretics. I have never advocated “suing”

Hi EmilyH—you’ll need to point to a link or something where Matt has advocated that the conservatives sue.

Otherwise . . . we’ll assume this is the usual habit that you’ve demonstrated so often in the past several years.

Please go ahead and post that link, please. 

Thanks.

And furthermore, of course, I’ve also been clear that I believe that parishes which hold the deed to their property morally own their property and ought to legally. 

But again—I’m glad we live in a country that, when a denomination goes off the rails as TEC has and proven it’s own corruption and disrespect for its own laws, we have a just and fair secular court system.

Still waiting for evidence of your assertion concerning Matt’s beliefs.

I thought that sounded familiar. So EmilyH, since I corrected your false assertion that I approve of filing lawsuits here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22908/#367521

Why would you come on another thread and repeat the same falsehood?

Here’s another example of the same practice by EmilyH at SF.

Over here she says this:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19154/#318796
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19154/#318864

It is pointed out rather thoroughly that her statements are simply false:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19154/#318902
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19154/#319532

She then admitted that she was wrong:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19154/#319608

Despite the thorough tutorial she gets, she continues to state the same falsehood, over and over on threads.

As for instance, in this example right here from last month:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22782/#366173

And of course, she is corrected yet again:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22782/#366189

And again:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22782/#366352

And she again acknowledges it:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22782/#366376

This behavior - repeatedly stating as truthful something that is patently false, being corrected, and then going ahead and repeatedly stating the falsehood again in thread after thread after thread is a continuing pattern.

We know it.  We all see it.

The question is . . . why does EmilyH continue to do it?

Sarah…..So far the silence from EmilyH on her behavior is deafening. Please turn down the sound.

The PB made her cononical visit to the Diocese of W. Texas at the end of April. 2 “conversations” with the PB were conducted at different locations attended by diocesan and parish leadership. At one, she was reminded that in her deposition testimony in the Va. litigation she acknowledged that she is the person who makes the decisions for TEC to engage in property litigation and her office pays the legal bills. She was then asked if authorizing the expenditure of $4.7 million during the current Triennium when only $300,000.00 was budgeted
(1)was an appropriate exercise of her fiduciary responsibility, (2) if it evidenced good stewardship to the wider church and (3) if it was in accord with the call of her Easter message for each of us to “reorient ourselves to God’s eternal light of truth, peace and love.”
Her response was prefaced by the statement that she believed the figures quoted were wrong and that the expenses were only approximately $150,000/yr. She only missed it by 1 zero! This was not an oversite or mistake on her part. It was clearly a knowing misrepresentation for the sole purpose of deflecting the question
and morally and intellectually dishonest. One example at one place and time but clearly calls into question issues concerning her character. The rest of her answer was scripted as to how they don’t go looking for litigation, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. She gets high marks for her ability to spin and work a crowd if nothing else. Those behind the scenes who are pressing the current “scorched earth” agenda of TEC are probably the same persons who brilliantly manuvered the PB’s unlikely election. They certainly got what they bargained for in the short term.

#17, Shame on you for demanding logic, honesty and consistency from a progressive poster! Surely her commitment to caring and nurturing and advocacy for the perceived less fortunate trumps any petty considerations such as an adherence to the facts?

Passion and skill at maneuvering are what are important, after all.

Mousestalker, I’m actually okay with not having logic and consistency from progressive activist Episcopalians.  That’s largely intrinsic to their foundational worldview and goes with the territory.

I don’t like deliberate dishonesty and the repeated statements of falsehoods on threads after something has been thoroughly revealed to be otherwise.

#19 Doubting Thomas:  “Those behind the scenes?”  EXACTLY the same thing I’ve been saying ever since Schori was elected PB!  I believe you’ll find….with a little digging….that +Bruno and his buddies were the ones pushing for her election, and the results of that disaster are with us today!

[21] Sarah Hey,

You wrote

I don’t like deliberate dishonesty and the repeated statements of falsehoods….

Perhaps you should cut EmilyH some slack on this. Perhaps she is simply a voluntary understudy for Jefferts Schori, and entertains aspirations to follow in the PB’s footsteps at some future date. It is not inconceivable that such would explain the noted behavior—practice does tend to make perfect, you know. {winkie¹}

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
________________________
¹—In lieu of the referenced smiley, which remains inoperable.

Constantly restating falsehoods… h-m-m-m.  This should not be surprising coming from leftist TEO types.  Their fundamental, core situation is a falsehood: trying to pretend inclusiveness while actually being intolerant elitists.  Since we see plenty of conduct displaying elitism from them, it must be that inclusiveness is the lie.  Hence the lawsuits to force out the non-elite, proving the lie of the inclusiveness sham.  Open doors, open minds, openly intolerant of non-ultra-left views.

The PB has already earned her place in the history books, along with Bloody Mary and several past Bishops of Rome (the teen “popes” John XII and Benedict IX come to mind as examples).

Completing the rip in the fabric of the Anglican Communion, causing more tears (rips) and tears (weeping), and stomping on the pieces is quite a legacy.

In any case, it’s good to see that AC is documenting her crimes clearly, so that when it comes time to write the history books, there won’t be any way to spin it otherwise.

More importantly, her Father-Who-Is-In-Secret is also taking copious notes (a concept that she might not believe in). I’ll go ahead pray that she will not someday be judged and treated as she has judged and treated others, but I know full well that God’s answer to such a prayer might be somewhat different.

Ralph, you assign too much importance to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

True that.

Emily, there is a vast gulf of difference between suing and getting sued.  My father, an attorney, taught me at an early age that you can sue anybody for anything at anytime.  It takes no talent to sue someone.  The court decides whether you have a legitimate claim or not.  He, being susupicious of frivolous lawsuits, held in disdain those lawyers that made a living suing people for matters that should have been worked out outside of the courtroom.

He also, in the early 1970’s, bemoaned the number of lawyers our society was producing.  He very much felt our country should be turning out more engineers, scientists, etc….  He accurately predicted the rise in civil litigation, as he put it, cause with that many lawyers, there was not enough legitimate legal business to go around, so we would see a dramatic rise in tort claims to feed the families of lawyers without enough legitimate business.

Turns out he was right.  He, like me, had a flair for the obvious.

MATT KENNEDY: “...why does EmilyH continue to do it?”  Why does water flow downhill?  Because it HAS to.  Same here.  The alternative is admitting that there are Scriptural proscriptions against Christians using civil courts to settle their disputes before “going to thy brother who has offended thee.”  And can you conceive of a revisionist admitting to the existence of Scriptural proscriptions?

+KJS and her cabal have been extremely successful at their primary objective of destroying the remaining links to historic Christianity in TEC.  Deposition of clergy, emptying of church buildings, and support of evil are just collateral damage in their conquest.

Think of it this way.  If your goal was to legitimize homosexual behavior in the church, what better choice than TEC?
1.  Large endowments
2.  Loose canons
3.  Valuable property
4.  Non-confrontational membership

For the past 40 years homosexual advocates have been taking over the seminaries and other leadership positions.  What we are seeing has been planned and we are seeing the fruit of their labors.

Of course, the truth is the battle is in the spiritual realm; but you get what I mean…

TEC has invested over $6.5 million in lawsuits to recover property.  If they believe their own rhetoric (that people will come flocking to them).  This money could have been spent to get new members, whose contributions over the long term would have more than made up for the temporary lose of a building.  Either she knows that they cannot get the people or she has neglected her fiduciary duties by wasting money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

[comment deleted—off topic; we try to discuss commenting policy as little as possible within threads since it takes the post further off-topic]

Emily,

Matt has been more than patient with your continued misrepresentation of him. I think the time has come where you do one of three things:
<ol><li>Show us directly where Matt says congregations <u>should sue</u></li>
<li>Retract your allegation and apologise</li>
<li>Get banned</li></ol>
Actually, it will be me that does the last one. You can’t say that you’ve not been given more than enough grace on this one.

Your call now. I reckon 2 hours from the time of posting this comment should be enough.

Mr. Ould.  I can not find the word “sue” as yet.  If he did not use that precise word, I apologize.  He did however strongly advocate particip0ation in litigation.  He used the word defend.  Again, it takes two to participate in litigation in the U.S., I assume that is also the case in Sydney, but then again , Sydney is unique in so many ways… I stand by my comments that Kennedy did strongly recommend, participation in the litigation process if a congregation thought it could win.  I believe that Matt’s position is untenable.

here it is very clearly for you:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/23085/#370359
and here
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22908/#367521
and here
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19154/#370502

you accuse Matt very clearly of pursuing litigious action and advocating such a pursuit. That’s very different from defending oneself.

Your premise would, as a parallel, be equivalent to you answering my question and my responding that you were still opposing me simply because you responded.

So, last chance. It’s your call. You have the links. Will you apologise unreservedly to Matt?

Mad Potter
You forgot to mention that the previous PB left it up to the diocese to determine how to handle property disputes while the current PB has a no negotiation, no compromise policy.  Just ask Bishop Lee or watch her testimony yourself.
You also forgot the part about paying for the property, paying the bills, having the title in your name, etc.  The parishes claim to the property is a lot more than holding the keys.  All the PB has is a canon recently passed, under unusual circumstances that claims to establish a trust by the very group (the politcally active) that would benefit from that trust.

Emily
There is another choice TEC has instead of letting the property remain with the parish or taking it from them.  They could negotiate.  As shown in the case of Good Shepherd and Virgina, TEC would not negotiate, they refused to talk.  That is why litagation was necessary, because TEC took an all or nothing approach.

Mad Potter
My point is that when there is a split, the diocese and parish should sit down and work it out.  The diocese should recognize that the congregation does have a moral right to the property and the congregation should recognize that since they were part of a larger church, that the diocese has a right to the property.  They should sit down and consider how long the church has been in existance, how many of the congregation want to leave, how much the diocese contributed to the parish and when, the condition of the building, etc. and come to a agreement about how to split the property.  The PB has takin the position that it is all TEC’s all the time.  The congregation must give up everything or get sued.  That it is better to kick the congregation out of their place they are worshiping and sell it as a night club than to negotiate.

Mad Potter can’t engage honestly, money and profit, and the power he believes they provide are his higher power, his god.

EmilyH asks:

There is no question that under +Jefferts-Schori, TEC has taken legal action and that action has been costly.  However, had TEC not pursued such action, what amount of losses would it have sustained?

Answer: None. There was nothing invested in those churches by TEC; there would be no loss.

mari
I think Mad Potter knows that what I proposed is fair, reasonable, Christian and workable.  However due to his allegence to TEC he is unwilling to acknowledge it so he takes the conversation to the absurd.

Mad Potter
The individuals write their checks to the parish, not the diocese, not TEC.  The property is typically held in the name of the parish, not the individuals, not the diocese.  To answer your question, no the parish should not, because the property was bought by the parish.  If the parish and diocese was to cease to exist, then I do think the property should be sold and the proceeds distributed to the member is the most equitable way.  When that happens, the members can sit down and work it out.

Ken Peck, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

You forgot to mention that the previous PB left it up to the diocese to determine how to handle property disputes while the current PB has a no negotiation, no compromise policy.  Just ask Bishop Lee or watch her testimony yourself.
You also forgot the part about paying for the property, paying the bills, having the title in your name, etc.  The parishes claim to the property is a lot more than holding the keys.  All the PB has is a canon recently passed, under unusual circumstances that claims to establish a trust by the very group (the politcally active) that would benefit from that trust.
And the paperwork/record for that canon actually being passed seems to be misplaced.  “It’s around here somewhere, I remember seeing it when I got a cup of coffee….where did it go…..maybe my 2-y/o took it for drawing paper, but I know it was here….....”

re: 47 - sorry, forgot to mention I was responding to Just One Voice, # 41.  And shd have hit a space betw the quote and my response. 

Mea culpa…. or in the circumstances, mea cuppa? 

44 - Ken, wdn’t TEC have lost all the assessments from those parishes that left?  It seems that the level of resistance from TEC to a parish’s departure is proportional to the level of assessment, isn’t it?  or is that just my cynical view? 

I did notice that there was no protest about the VA congregations who met in school auditoriums or gyms, becs they didn’t represent any property.  Can’t sell the school gym, so we have no actual interest in the congregation - that was how it came across to me from the articles in the papers.  Just a friendly “fare thee well,” compared to the “don’t even think about leaving” expressed to places like Truro or Falls Ch (et al). 

Truro and Falls Ch may have been around since before the US was independent (bef TEC existed), but TEC still claims to own all their assets, whether property or Sunday School classroom chalk.

maineiac queried:

44 - Ken, wdn’t TEC have lost all the assessments from those parishes that left?

No. Parishes don’t write checks to 815 to pay assessments to TEC. Dioceses do.

I recall from earlier discussions of parishes withholding some/all of their diocesan assessments so that money would not flow to 815, the response was always the amount was a tiny fraction of the whole. And the reality was that the 815 assessment on the diocese was not reduced because a parish left, so this particular “hit” was on the diocese rather than 815.

As for your other point, it doesn’t make sense (as a good lawyer will tell you) to sue someone who doesn’t have any assets. It wouldn’t pay the attorney fees to sue a congregation meeting in a storefront whose assets probably are a chalice and paten, a homemade altar and rail and a few thousand in a checking account. But when there’s real estate and endowments involved it’s another story.

And if TEC wins the lawsuit, the assets go to the diocese, I think, rather than to 815. Which is why the discretion should be that of the diocese, not 815. Here several parishes left before the 815 crackdown. Deals were struck between the departing parishes and the diocese concerning property which were beneficial to both the diocese and the parish. The diocese received some compensation (amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in a couple of cases I know of) and was not stuck with the costs of mortgages and maintenance. The parishes kept the property and the costs of mortgages and maintenance. Virginia was headed that way before 815 got involved.

FYI - picked up from a delegate to AAC Jamaica from another province.  They had heard there a rumor that the lawsuits will cost ECUSA about $128 million.  I checked with a friend (journalist) and he could not substantiate the rumor but suggested that the final cost would be in excess of the above amount.  The figures mentioned above seem far less than what was in the rumor.

For what it’s worth - Ian M+

Y’know, that figure of $128,000,000 interests me:  How much is The Episcopal Church worth in terms of real estate and in stocks, bonds, endowments, etc?  How much has the Executive Committee allocated for attorneys’ fees?  How far is that $128,000,000 (look at all of those zeroes!) going to go before they have to dip into their holdings?  At the rate they’re spending that money on attorneys, I figure they’ll be flat broke in ten years, especially when they’re losing people left and right!