What a contrast between these amicable negotiations and the diocese’s current resort to litigation!

And how tellingly it highlights the gratuitous malice of ECUSA’s revisionist rulers.

Thanks Irenaeus. It is a shame. Although given subsequent events that will be disclosed later, I am not altogether sure there was ever, on the part of the diocese, a genuine interest in anything other than getting us to reveal information about our financial situation. I hope I am wrong.

Mathew 19:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and gentle as doves.

Matt,
We cannot control how others act or react.  We cannot make bishops or priests behave as Christians or even behave honorably.  We can only control our own behaviors and reactions.  We are the ones responsible for acting in a Christian manner and behaving honorably.  If others negotiate in bad faith, there is nothing we can do about it until we know that they negotiate in bad faith.

So, keep the Faith.  Live the Faith.  Share the Faith.  Put on God’s faithfulness as you “armor up” each morning.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Uh-oh.
Things start to sound ominous here.
The bishop is being offered half a loaf here - and I am sure the parish thought they were being generous.
But the other message that the bishop might have got is: if these people leave TEC, maybe we can get the whole loaf. Am I guessing right?

obadiahslope,

At the time I would have thought you were being too cynical. Now, unfortunately, I am not too sure.

Seeing that we were offering to give quite a sum from our own financial assets in exchange for the diocese relinquishing any to our own property, yes, I would agree that we believed we were being generous.

Seems to me that the Bishop’s 2006 statements would be admissible in the present litigation as admissions against interest and/or inconsistent statements, i.e., back then he indicated interest and willingness to sell, and now he is asserting the Dennis Canon and all of the “hold in trust” language.  If he is now contending that the lawsuit is his fiduciary duty as a Bishop to safeguard the property for an Episcopal parish, where were all his concerns in 2006?  If he was merely being disingenuous in 2006 and doing a little investigation into Good Shepherd’s financial wherewithal, doesn’t this all sort of lead into that classic cross-examination question, “Gee, Bishop, were you lying then or are you lying now?”

Matt+,
In my Darth Vadar voice “I want it allllllllllll.”
The familiar playbook.

Cynical maybe. But inadvertantly the parish had revealed a hollow log. And hollow logs tend to get raided by cash strapped institutions.

With the exception of very few bishops and standing committees, let this be a warning to other parishes thinking their loving bishop is willing to negotiate about property.  I think your bishop and +Lee are just the tip of the iceberg.  I am so grateful to be under the care of a shepherd whose yes means yes and whose no means no.

Bp Adams wakes up at 2:00 am from his dream and exclaims --"I can have the bequest and the property too!!”

obadiahslope,

I agree. we revealed too much. But if you remember, at the time +KJS had yet to raise the black flag. We were still operating under the impression that she would continue +Griswold’s more generous policy.

"Gee, Bishop were you lying then or are you lying now?”

Excellant observation. This sets up damages to the local church. For the first time I’m beginning to see what 815 was saying to Lee, Howe and Adams to make them change in midstream. The dialogue must have been “If you release those local churches 815 will be looking to the Bishops personally for damages.” They will do that till the Denis Canon is broken in court. So much for ever considering negoiating with 815 or any nice local Bishop. 815 will break them and the local parish will pay the price. In order to be free, 815 will have to be brought down. It is them or us.

I hate to think that this bishop was so disenginious… It would be so much less expensive if TEC kept property but gave the money necessary, or at least part of the money necessary, to help reestablish the folks leaving in another location of equal value. I’ll bet the money spent on attorneys and lawsuits, not to mention ancillary expenses, is huge and could be put to better uses. Fr. Matt. it makes me sad that your family and congregation are going through this, but I do admire your courage and faith, if not your choice to leave. May God’s will be done in all this, and may his will be to bless us all to His glory and the glory of His Holy Church Universal. May he forgive us our sins against God and each other, especially those committed in His Name.

It sure seems that something happened to cause the bishops to stop negotiating and start litigating.  That’s a “duh” statement to most of you, I guess.

I find it odd that the outcome is the same - the diocese no longer has the buildings but they have the money from the buildings.  That will occur if the court gives them the buildings through litigation, and they sell them since they can’t afford them, or if the departing congregations make payments for the buildings. 

If the outcome is the same, actually the settlement is easier and simpler, why in the world are they wasting so much money on the lawyers, when the Bible specifically admonishes Christians not to sue each other?

#15
You ask why?  IMO, it’s not just about money but also about control.  It’s like the abusive husband who, when a battered spouse finally gets the courage to leave the husband basically says you can go but you’re leaving everything else here...not just cash and valuable stuff but her hairbrush, curlers, etc.  Does the husband have a need for curlers?  Nope but he’s going to make it as painful and shameful as he possibly can on the fleeing spouse.....and what did the husband do with those curlers?  He threw them away, but at least that bitch doesn’t have them.

BigTex AC

"+KJS had yet to raise the black flag”
---Matt Kennedy [#12]

A phrase worth remembering and repeating.
_ _ _ _ _ _

I’m assuming that Matt refers not to the black flag of anarchy but to 815’s version of the Shroud of Turin:
http://www.seatcoverman.com/images/Prints/Skull-and-Crossbones-11656F.jpg

If the outcome is the same, actually the settlement is easier and simpler, why in the world are they wasting so much money on the lawyers, when the Bible specifically admonishes Christians not to sue each other?

It’s an intimidation technique, pure and simple. TEC follows this course because most of parishoners will simply not want to go thru the trials such as this that those of us who have broken away are facing. And that keeps the little sheep safely in the pen.

815’s version of the Shroud of Turin:

Ah.  I get it: Kate raises the black flag, and all the conservatives get jolly well rogered.
Makes sense.

Matt,
Peace be with you, “good and loyal” servant. I know both you and this Bishop. Bishop Adams looked cooly into my face one day and lied right to me. He promised that he would never sue my parish and within 6 months he filed the suit. (I had since moved to Columbus, Ohio where you blessed my house after “convention”.) I am ashamed that a Bishop could be so intentially disingenous. My prayers remain with ALL concerned. I fear for the Bishop and his eternal soul.