Video: Schori Deposition, Parts 1 - 3

Holy Dissembling & Cloaking, Batman!

Just wondering what the chief sower of confusion is worried about.  I’m concerned about doctrinal, core-belief confusion in the Episcopal Church not about any pastoral actions taken by anglican primates to protect those core Christian beliefs and those who adhere to them.  And ancient tradition?  That seems pretty tied up with core beliefs.

KJS says that it is less inappropriate for a RC bishop to be in the same territory as a TEC bishop than for another Anglican bishop BECAUSE TEC is not in full communion with the RC church.  As the Anglican Communion had been pursuing full communion with the RC church, had they succeeded does that mean that the TEC bishop or the RC bishop would have to leave?  How would they decide which one should leave?

Also, this implies that all Anglican bodies involved are in full communion with each other and it is well known that some other Anglicans are in impaired communion with TEC.

Sigh.

“It violates the integrity of our church [to have foreign bishops setting up shop on our shores].”

I guess she and I define “integrity of our church” very differently.  I’m trying to imagine Jesus defending any kind of territorial boundaries of the Kingdom of God.  It’s ALL his Kingdom and anyone trying to spread it by the Gospel of Jesus is “in communion” with Him.  I know, I know, it’s all much more complicated than that, blah, blah, blah.  But at some point we just have to let it go.  If she stepped in front of a bus tomorrow (God forbid) and had to answer to the Lord for how she spent her Presiding Bishopric, and she answered, “I worked tooth and nail and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to uphold my fiduciary responsibility to protect several million dollars of TECs assets!” I don’t think He’d be very impressed.

We’re a long way from “feed my sheep” as a job description for a shepherd of God’s people.
‘S just me.

This is also another argument against the idea that dioceses are sovereign and exist insofar as they are in communion with Canterbury.  If the PB can institute litigation against a diocese or parish without so much as a memo to General Convention, then the diocese is. NOT. sovereign.

Except the very few dioceses who are not cowed by her threats, blessings on them.

Looking at Part II, I would ask:

What makes a TEC congregation which departs for the Roman Catholic Church, not detrimental to the mission of TEC? 

It seems to me that such a congregation would be voicing significantly more disapproval of TEC polity, than your average TEC congregation departing for (e.g.,) CANA. 

Also, how is the act of negotiation (which in effect, is paying twice for the same property) an encouragement to border-crossings?  I.e., I do not see how the concept of encouragement would apply when a departing congregation pays twice.  That seems positively discouraging.

Perhaps some legal eagle can enlighten me.  The weasels ... ummm ... attorneys for 815 make numerous objections in this deposition.  What purpose do those objections serve?  I thought a deposition was pretty wide open in terms of the questions that can be asked.  Is there actually someone off-screen making a ruling on these objections?

carl

I’m long gone from TEC, but I am enjoying getting a glimpse of the thoughts of KJS. I though it was a good start… up until minute 10 of the second video. I must admit I struggled over the bishop/territory issue for about a year. It kept me sitting on fence but I finally came to believe there is a new paradigm at work in the crossings, and its not to be rivals, but to establish integrity of the gospel.

The objections raised by the attorneys is to preserve their ability before the court to seek to have those portions of the deposition excluded from any testimony before the court - either as an exhibit to a document or as the PB’s “testimony” before the court (in lieu of her actually taking the stand possibly).  Motions would still have to be filed to the court, the parties would then argue before the court, and then the court would rule.  There is no one on the sidelines during the deposition “deciding” things.

Her inability (or unwillingness) to answer a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ is outstanding!

Wow.  This is deeply damaging to the Presiding Bishop.  I had little respect for her before.  But here she comes across as a conniving dissembler, someone who thinks she can make words mean what she wants them to mean, and someone who is pretty pleased with her ability to do so.  At moments flashes of pure evil and nastiness comes through.  She plainly resents anyone challenging her.  How such a person (theology aside) could be a priest, much less a bishop, much less the Presiding Bishop, is astounding. 

I’m amazed.

I’m seeing something very different here. I’m seeing some very specific questions being asked that have specific legal meanings in light of statutes in Virginia, and the Presiding Bishop answering in ways that make clear what the position of TEC in ways that keep in mind BOTH the interests of TEC and the specific technical meaning of the language being presented to her in light of Virginia’s statues.

I’m not seeing weaseling at all. I’m seeing technical precision and skill. I don’t see her not answering questions, but being clear about the form the answers need to take in ways that support the interest she has argued TEC has in this case. Whether one agrees with her position, or that of TEC more broadly, I can’t but admire, frankly, the degree to which she is responding with consistency and care for the interest she is presenting. I would think that’s the sort of thing ANY party in a legal case should hope for.

The law does not and in this country cannot care about orthodoxy—as much as any of us may wish it might in some cases. It cares about contracts, fiscal and legal interests, and corporate claims as they can be understood within the environment of existing legislation and precedent. I would hope that all parties to this case may have been as skillful in presenting their arguments on those terms—and not be called out as weaseling or worse—so that a prudent legal determination may be made.

[#11] The Reverend’s Spouse,

I quite tend to agree with you, with the possible exception of her response to the question of what she said to her fellow primates at Dar es Salaam concerning the Communiqué. It was my understanding that every primate was asked the same question, and the answers were either “Yes” or “No”, not “I agreed to take it back to the House of Bishops.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist:

I don’t have sources to cite for this, but my recollection is there were two different things going on at Dar.
One is the question to the Primates about whether they agreed this was the statement that would go forth from them. That was not a question about whether they agreed with the content at every point—something it is eminently clear they could not even have begun to do—nor was it a vote on the content, but only whether they agreed this would be the statement, the way they would summarize their conversations at Dar and suggest further action.

The other is what the Presiding Bishop of TEC agreed to do with the Communiqué within TEC. She agreed she would share it with the House of Bishops.

When the wording of the question is “what did you agree to do at Dar?” or something to that effect, the correct answer would appear to be the one she actually gave—that she agreed to share the Communiqué with the House of Bishops for their reflection and recommendations for further action. And that is what she did.

Likewise, when the wording is (as in Video #10) something more like “Did you agree with that language when you approved the Communiqué?” the notion of agreement at stake isn’t to specific language—but to the Communiqué as a reasonable representation of the conversations and recommendations at Dar. And that’s how she kept trying to answer. What she thought in “approving” the Communiqué (and the attorney was probably correct to object to the form and language of the question here, as there was not actually an
“approval” of the Communiqué as there was an agreement that it was the statement that would go forward) was NOT that she agreed with all of the particulars, but that, indeed, it was a fair representation of what was discussed, even if it did not represent what everyone or even a majority may have believed or preferred.

The Presiding Bishop was in a challenging position here. She was required to state and defend the interests of TEC in this case while also educating attorneys who clearly did not understand the polity issues involved in TEC or the Anglican Communion. When he finally asked the question in a form that she could answer without having to refer to what happened in the agreement to let the Dar Communiqué be released—“I am asking you does it accurately reflect your opinion”—she answered that question immediately. And she said, “No.”

Note there was no objection by the attorney to the form of that question.

The Presiding Bishop was not dodging. She was answering the questions put to her in the form and legal contexts in which they were put. And my read of the body language is that I saw no sign of dishonesty in the interchange—frustration, yes; dishonesty, no.

I honestly find this rather astounding.  How can she possibly refer to ancient teachings of the church as a defense for her refusal to negotiate with the CANA congregations.  Doesn’t she want to remain open to the “new thing?”    Also, doesn’t that completely ignore the history of the Anglican church— pre-reformation, etc.

She has no idea just how self-contradictory her own testimony is.  Her position, as she has expressed it, is untenable.  It would be interesting to see several Primates take the stand and testify that she said yes at Dar Es Salaam.  Then her credibility as a witness would be out the window, as far as the judge is concerned.  I mean, when a whole room full of witnesses say one thing and she says something else, it just couldn’t be good for her.

Hey kids!  What’s really fun is to run all three clips at once!
    Try it!   
    (The Surround O’ Shori montage also makes a lot more sense ,
        as well!)
   
    (snort,  snort,....chortle,  )

er,  .... that’s Schori.
  (before I get a good elf-kicking)

The Presiding Bishop was not dodging. She was answering the questions put to her in the form and legal contexts in which they were put. And my read of the body language is that I saw no sign of dishonesty in the interchange
LOL, Rev.Spouse!  That’s so funny!