Video: Schori Deposition, Parts 10 - 12

Part 10:  PWNED!  She will not answer the question, will she?  Then she says she is not dodging it!

This is just too rich ... Who’s on 1st?  I dunno ... 3rd base!

“I had a book published under my name which includes my writing”. Not having read the book, does this mean she used a ghostwriter, or are there pieces by other authors included in it?

I’d love to get a group of Episcopalians together and just have them watch her, with the sound off. Her entire demeanor is one of deception and obfuscation.

I don’t think this video helps her cause in any way.

I have a blog thingy

Well,  the videos are an excellent resource..it certainly gives those of us who were not at the national convention an opportunity to see/hear “our presiding bishop”.  She does not answer questions very directly..she seems to consider this “dissension” as just a blip on the horizon as we are just a “tiny fraction” of the Episcopal church.  It seems that her interpretation of “integrity of the Episcopal church”(and hers also)  does not fit into the commonly held definitions. Thank you for posting this most useful and informative information.

Hmmm sounds like #12 makes a case that the DioSJ is perfectly within their rights to leave.

Pertinent prayers—
Jan 07  Dean Lobs exhorts us to pray for Bp Lee
Jan 07  For the 11 VA parishes and their leaders
May 07  A cry for mercy
May 07  An invitation to Jesus to come to this sorry mess
Jan 07  A litany for TEC
Feb 07  Blessing for PB Schori

Is it just me, or does Katie’s nose seem to be growing as she goes through the questioning?

ref #6…I was thinking the same..never noticed that she has a large nose before

KJS’ frequent appeals to “ancient principles” and the “Church Catholic” would be far more credible IF she was not selectively choosing to <i>whichi> principles of the Church Catholic she agrees, like cafeteria Christians tend to do.

My goodness, that was certainly Clintonesque.

the snarkster

That depends on what “was” was.

(a refugee from the Briar Patch)[/size],

Obfuscation?  Yes.  Denial?  Certainly!

Thank you for making this available. After watching these twelve clips I must say that I feel much better about the way the PB answered questions in this deposition—- I had only heard other people offer their opinions on the way this deposition went. The only nasty, “sheikster” moment was when the attorney for the opposition asked questions based on false document purporting to be one thing and actually being something else (an edited or re-written opinion about the Communique). I think the PB presented herself well, explained her position, was patient with the (first?) attorney’s lack of knowledge on Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church (like his inability to know how to pronounce “dioceses” in a document he presented), and the second attorney’s obvious hostility, and I think dishonesty. I actually am embarrassed for the CANA people, or whoever is paying these lawyers.

ah yes… all those ballistic bishops are the issue. Now I know…

I watched all of these videos and found them to be deeply disturbing. I was especially bothered by video part 10 where she continued to respond about other primates while refusing to answer a clear and direct question to what was being asked of her. I have given depositions in the past and I have to imagine that this can only harm her case. I don’t understand how a Christian cannot have problems with the way that she answered these questions. If she was not completely dissembling then she was at least answering with half or part truths. That seems to me to be a case of bearing false witness.

#8
re: “ancient principles”
I had the same thought exactly.  I can think of several ancient principles that some in TEC have been only too happy to part with.

It’s pretty clear why the CANA lawyers have entered this into the record and not 815.  This was most unhelpful to the plaintiffs.  For the life of me I can’t imagine why she resisted answering some of these questions, to the point it makes her appear evasive and dishonest.  To call this Clintonesque is to be grossly unfair to the former President.

I agree about the “Clintonesque” - all the while she was talking couldn’t help but see President Clinton standing before the American people and state that “I did not have sex with that lady” - having successfully redefined what that was in his own mind…....... she is just a bit more cagey ... quick to redefine the question in her own terms .....

To call this Clintonesque is to be grossly unfair to the former President.

KJS is an amateur compared to Clinton.  And besides, it’s impossible to be grossly unfair to that particular former President. 
carl
For those of us who wore the Uniform that Clinton wouldn’t.

#12 FrVan

After watching these twelve clips I must say that I feel much better about the way the PB answered questions in this deposition

Are you really telling me that you were impressed with how Dr. J-S answered the question about whether she agreed with the language?

Let’s be honest, religious or not, progressive or conservative, that was just plainly attempting to be dishonest.

Not meaning to be personal nor unkind, but I assume you are a priest; do you really approve of that kind of a response? Or maybe you just missed that part? If clergy can’t be honest, regardless of the consequences, we are doomed.

What kind of a witness to the Truth was that?

According to Schori, the Anglican Communion is in the midst of “profound disunity” because, rather than meeting face to face, there is a tendency in the Communion to use, among other diabolical methods, “words on the internet.”

Ha! So how does it feel, you minions of Stand Firm, to have the bright light of truth shining down upon you and exposing you and your internet words for the, uhh, internet words that they are?!

Do you now see the damage to human relationships that you have caused with your “level of rhetoric”, your “pronouncements” and your “caricatures”? Yes, you and your fiat lobbing, edict hurling, intercontinental ballistic bishops of disfellowship and impaired communion!

well it seems that what we say and think is important enough to a growing number of revisionists that they not only read but reply to our observations…

Dear Gone Back to Africa:
  I do feel better about the PB’s answers than I previously did, because I think she did a good job. I didn’t hear her respond dishonestly, or with obfuscation. I think the folks on the “other side” have so much hatred and animosity built up toward her that no matter what she did or said they wouldn’t approve. Don’t misunderstand, I am very much against the modernist liberal agenda that seems to have TEC by the throat, and yes I feel that she supports and promulgates much of it. No, I do not feel she is fundamentally dishonest, nor is she a liar. As a person, I like her. As a priest, I’ll bet she was compassionate and caring, as a bishop I don’t know how she performed, and as a PB I don’t think she has found her voice and she certainly was not given much time before being thrown into the fire, so I am not surprised at missteps and mistakes she has made. I am opposed to the splitting that is taking place, and I am opposed to lawsuits in general between Christians, certainly within the Episcopal Church I think this is all premature. I don’t think either group has come off well, sadly. And, I don’t think ++Akinola, or ++Venables, nor the American leadership of their groups, nor other separatists have come off as “saints” either. Which is not to say they are evil or bad, just terribly human, as the PB is, but with different agendas. I feel that there should be continued talk through Lambeth, and that a Covenant be drawn up and signed by those who wish to remain, or return to the Anglican Communion. Property issues can be decided at that time—- as in the case of the Presbyterian Church years ago. Unfortunately, the actions being put in motion may take generations to repair—- if ever. This lawsuit is one such action, as is the split. I cannot disagree with the PB at this time about her perspective related to property issues and CANA, or any other of the groups. The only dishonest thing I saw in these clips was the act of an attorney on the other side, as I mentioned in #12…

I didn’t hear her respond dishonestly, or with obfuscation.

FrVan:  You need to turn off the mute button!

I wondered why their mouths moved but there was no sound ...no wonder she sounded better

Except for your post #24, I totally disagree with you FrVan.  But you have a great sense of humor and are truly a good sport!

<blockquote>Q. My question was, did you agree with that
language when you approved of this communiqué?
4 A. I think I can agree that people in that
5 room were deeply concerned about that, about what
6 it says there.
7 Q. Okay. But I am asking you, did you
8 agree with that language when you approved of the
9 communiqué?
10 A. I agreed that there are people in the
11 room who are deeply concerned about this issue.<blockquote>

The question could not be more clear, did you
agree…Yet she obfuscates by answering a question that was not asked, yes I agree that people are deeply concerned. She was not asked whether their were people who were concerned.

This is intentionally dodging the question because she is dishonest. We all realize that the point of a deposition is for the deponent to give as little information as possible. Yet, one would hope and expect that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is not the run of the mill deponent. Most of us would hope and expect that she would be honest and answer direct questions directly and honestly.

That she does not do this is the crux of the current problem. Schori is dishonest, and from her actions appears to care more about her secular power than her Christian duty to help each of us find and follow Christ.

Dear BillS:
  Perhaps she was not obfuscating but perplexed by the document the lawyer asserted was the communique and was not. I am sure she probably felt that her memory was playing tricks on her because it was not exactly as she remembered. It turned out to be a commentary, or edited opinion. or something, about the Communique. I think it makes the lawyer look dishonest and sleazy, not the PB.

I’m missing something. #12 and #27 refer to a “false document”.  Is this referring to the portion of the DES communique, just prior to the appendix, labelled “The Key Recommendations of the Primates”?  Are you suggesting that that is not part of the communique?  Or are you suggesting the communique is a false document?  Or referring to something else?  Because if this is the portion you are referring to, it would be the first time, I think, anyone has claimed the recommendations were not part of the communique.  Indeed, that would contradict the Anglican Communion News Service.  I think you should explain what you mean.

Dear Pendennis88:
  The PB is shown a document purported to be the agreed Communique. Instead it was an “addendum” in the words of the PB. This sounded like a trick to get her confused and unclear on the question of the Communique and what the agreement was actually about…

PS:PD88: It is on clip #11…If I remember corectly…

You better believe it was part of the Communique - it was the page beginning with this:

Page 8:

The Key Recommendations of the Primates
Foundations

The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore emphasise the need to: 􀂃 affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference); 􀂃 set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion; 􀂃 encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion; 􀂃 respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole; 􀂃 respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church. In order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult situation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the following actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required. A Pastoral Council 􀂃 The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council. 􀂃 The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the scheme proposed below to o negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the Primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 20031; o authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme; (page 8)

and of course, it continued to page 9:

- assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care; o liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who currently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those parishes within the scheme; o facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion (TWR, §156); o advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion; o monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report; o consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion; o take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme and report to the Primates. A Pastoral Scheme 􀂃 We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions. 􀂃 We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters2. We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion. 􀂃 We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar. On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that 􀂃 the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles”3, or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ; 􀂃 in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council; 􀂃 the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

And then continuing to page 10:

Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above. We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary. Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.

It was the part of the Commuinque - as many of us may remember - that kept the primates going and going and going until there was agreement.

Dear Baby Blue:
  Than why is it referred to as an addendum, and something she apparently was not familiar with?

Baby Blue—Maybe the Addendum to the Communique ended up in the same round recepticle under the PB’s desk where the Standstill Agreement was also filed.

If I understand what you are referring to, iI think the PB referred to it as an addendum.  But that is not even what the communique itself calls it.  It calls it “Key Recommendations”.  It precedes the appendix, it does not follow it.  Fr. Van, I think you owe the lawyer involved an apology.  It was not a false document, nor dishonest, but an actual part of the communique which, looking at the transcript, the PB, for whatever reason, failed to immediately recognize.

Sounds like a good place for it…

Sorry, ewart (#21). I thought my comment (#20) was self-evidently sarcastic or ironic or snarky or something like it.  I guess I should have made reference to the specific part of her deposition that I was commenting on (start at 7:28:08 of Part 12) in which she employs what I would call rhetoric (in the elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous sense) to decry the rhetoric (in the effective and persuasive use of language sense) of those who disagree with her.

Are we suggesting that Katharine Jefferts Schori knew nothing about the Pastoral Scheme or the Primatial Vicar or the Pastoral Council????

No, Mame, “we” aren’t, “I” am suggesting that the exchange “I” saw, and heard, in clip #11, was not about the Communique as the PB understood it, but included other things that had been added…

If she was confused about the document, then the clear, honest, direct way to respond to the question is to clarify whatever confusion she had about which document was being referred to. She did not appear confused about the document. She simply did not want to answer a clear, yes or no question, with an honest, yes or no answer.

Again, I understand that this is standard technique in a run of the mill deposition in a run of the mill law suit. But, this is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and as such, it is her moral duty both to TEC as well as CANA to tell the truth clearly and distinctly and to not play word games.

It is this fundamental dishonesty, where “respecting the dignity of all people” is a code for SSB, and “inclusiveness” means SSB, and “no SSB are occurring in my Diocese without my knowledge (Bruno)” when they are, that makes any kind of reasonable discussion of differences impossible.

That depends on what “was” was.

Was was was..was it not?
Intercessor

#38 - you are claiming that the primatial vicar, pastoral council and call to cease litigation are not part of the communique?  That they were added later?  And you accuse someone else of dishonesty?

Schori’s inability to answer the Communique question (or is it plain refusal?) reminds me of a certain political Q&A;between UK news presenter Jeremy Paxman and the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is

PD88: Did you look at the exchange on clip #11?

Yes, and I read the transcript, too.  I think you are confused.  I think Schori was merely, and apparently only momentarily, confused, as the document itself is quite clear.  That is why I think it is shameful for you to accuse someone of submitting a false document (and being dishonest and sleazy) when that is demonstrably false.  You should apologize.

PD88: Once again I heard her say “this is not the Communique…”

I heard her say the same thing that Fr. Van heard her say.  However, what she was claiming was not part of the Communique was, I believe, the appendix attached to the Communique that spelled out the specific recommendations of the Primates.  I suppose, technically, it is not part of the Communique, per se, but was attached to the Communique.  Of course, it was part of what was agreed to, but that of course is of little consequence to the PB.

Dear Tjm:
  I believe that she is also denying that the “addendum” was discussed at the meeting, or voted on… I am guessing that means it was something the primates came up with later to express the whys and wherefores?

Father Van,
Obviously, I was not in the room at DeS, so I do not know what order things were discussed in.  However (I believe), the addendum was released simultaneously with, and as part of, the Communique, and the points within it were discussed at the press conference immediately following the meeting.  The primatial vicar plan that KJS took credit for interviews immediately post-DeS is part of the addendum.  So I am left with the conclusion that in the deposition, she was trying to split hairs.  No one else, from +Peter Akinola to +Phillip Aspinall to +Rowan Williams has to date tried to separate the document, or implied that the addendum was in any way not part of the Communique.

As even a cursory review of news reports at the time will show, #48 is correct, and what #47 says (“I believe that she is also denying that the “addendum” was discussed at the meeting, or voted on… I am guessing that means it was something the primates came up with later to express the whys and wherefores?”) is false.  Actually, I don’t think she actually denied that the “Key Recommendations” (there is no “addendum” to the document, just an appendix which is something different), which were in the communique from the moment it went public were part of the communique.  The transcript only shows that she was not clear on them.  See 136 and 137.  She makes no further point about it and, frankly, if TEC is now trying to deny that they are part of the communique (which the PB expressly declines to do in 137), that would be big news.  I mean, DES was less than a year ago and TEC supporters are already hoping people have forgotten enough that they can tell whoppers about it without being fact-checked?

The words in this clip are very clear, and in fact the lawyer rephrases his question to include the “addendum.”

Yes, because he asks her if she is claiming what she calls the addendum was “not approved”, and she says she does not know (“I don’t know if it was.”)  Para 137.  The quote the lawyer was referring to, though, was from the Key Recommendations of the Primates, which is not referred to as an addendum in the DES communique.  I mean, if you are going to just make stuff up, try to at least make it not so easily verifiable.  It might damage your reputation.

I have a question that I hope one of you can answer for me. PB Schori makes a case that the TEC jurisdiction is for the TEC only. That Anglican bishops can’t set up shop here in TEC’s area. How is it, that in Europe, there are churches that are part of the TEC (prov 2) and churches that are part of the England Diocese of Europe? So in Rome for example, there is a church that is part of the TEC in Prov 2 and there is a church that is part of the England Diocese of Europe. If the TEC can co-exist in Europe, why can’t an Anglican Diocese co-exist here?

#52 - Bishop Whalon of Europe has in the past written a long answer to this.  I will sum up their official position:  “It is different because we like it in that case and not in the other case.  Now go away.”

PD88: “Yes, because ...” 
I’m glad you acknowledge your mistake about the
“addendum…”

#52, I imagine that we have two overlapping jurisdictions in Europe because the Brits set up churches for their ex-pats and we set up churches for ours (around US military installations, etc.)  We did not set them up as missions to the Europeans.  If we had, then perhaps the C of E and ECUSA would have coordinated things and there would not have been overlapping jurisdictions.

I am all for overlapping Anglican jurisdictions in America (or better yet, a replacement jurisdiction) but I think the facts about Europe need to be known in order to talk about it most fruitfully.

Archbishopess, the ____ will set you free?

Joel
http://allsoulsva.blogspot.com/

#14, Parson from SWFLA, is onto something.  The PB’s habitual failure to answer simple questions addressed to her about herself (did YOU agree to such and such), indicate the extent to which self-reflection/reflexion or self-observation is blocked by a misaligned will.  Someone who repeatedly confuses herself with or who can’t distinguish herself among just about anyone else in the room is pretty scary or sad.  And someone who cannot recognize herself linguistically with the self-referential, “I”, is the same person who is unable to see her own actions clearly.  Her linguistic patterns reveal the extent of her self-deception, held firmly in place by her determination to keep to her ruinous course of action.  However buried in superficial or conventional decorum, she publicly presents as a classic case of the ever-shrinking tyrant in complete oblivion of herself, the kind who, when she is finally understood for what she is, vanishes in a poof of smoke.  Obversely, she remains inflated as long as many others keep propping her up.  Very sad.  For all concerned.

“Is Jesus the sole mediator of salvation?”

“Well, there are some there that feel that way.”

#55 - By the way, CANA was originally set up to minister to ex-pat Nigerians.  With the permission of the Bishop of the Diocese of Washington, DC at the time, at least.  I don’t think he likes the way it has developed.  Also, here is Bishop Whalon’s essay on the overlapping jurisdictions:  http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/parajurisdiction.html
Why are they okay in Europe and not in the US?  I recommend reading it, but here is the Cliff Notes version.  Because they are “spiritual jurisdictions” and therefor, though they physically overlap and parallel, they do not “spiritually” overlap and parallel.  Also, they are a “unique anomaly caused by the unusual circumstances”.  Get it?  They are different and okay because ... we say they are, that’s all.  And TEC likes them.

I want to thank all those who responded to my question #55. I know why the TEC would not like it if there were 2 anglican/episcopal communities in the US. In light of that, the information you provided gave me insight and information I needed that I would not have found elsewhere to comprehend the rationality of Europe’s unique position. So a special thank you to pendennis88 for your information and link.