(Anglican Communion Institute) South Carolina: The Church Needs Transparency

Posted by Kendall Harmon

In light of this sequence of events and the manifest importance of this matter for the church as a whole, we believe greater transparency is required than has thus far been displayed. In particular, we suggest the following questions are of sufficient importance to require prompt answers:
When was “the Bishop Lawrence information” first brought to the Title IV Review Committee and who initiated this process? When first submitted to that Committee was the information contained in the document entitled “Addendum” that was subsequently provided to Bishop Lawrence? Or was it initially submitted in another form or by other parties?
Why was the Lucka letter of May 25 to the Presiding Bishop, Bonnie Anderson and Executive Council, which prompted the Executive Council’s June action, not provided to the diocese at the time or ever made public? What is the relation between its “Addendum” and the (in part identical) “Addendum” now under review by the Disciplinary Board?
Why was the June “decision” by the Executive Council handled as it was? Why was the diocese not informed for over two months? How has the Executive Council continued “to monitor the actions” of the South Carolina convention?...
Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: AnalysisEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop TEC BishopsTEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: South CarolinaTEC Polity & Canons* TheologyPastoral Theology

46 Comments
Posted October 21, 2011 at 7:18 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Transparency in TEC is about as clear as MUD!  And that is the way they like it,  ah ha, ah ha, LIKE IT!!

October 20, 8:59 pm | [comment link]
2. Jim the Puritan wrote:

You will probably get a response to these questions about the same time as you get a response about where TEC is getting all the money to pay for litigation, and whether any of that money is coming out of restricted funds.  That request is a couple of years old now, isn’t it?

October 20, 9:17 pm | [comment link]
3. Pageantmaster ن wrote:

What appears to be becoming apparent is:

1. Far from being something cobbled together recently by ‘communicants’ in South Carolina as +Henderson suggested, instead this set of charges has been worked on and refined by 815 and Goodwin Proctor/Beers for some considerable time, checked over with the ‘Forum’ and launched as soon as they could, the relevant committee formed, and Ms Hicks was appointed under the new Title IV canons, following their failure to make them stick under the old ones;

2. This process has been covered by the new process of ‘Secret Denunciation by Unknown Persons’ to protect those who have been putting the package together against Bishop Lawrence and South Carolina at 815 and Goodwin Proctor/Beers’ office.  Secret Denunciation is not something modern jurisprudence recognises or indeed would approve, but the lawyers of Goodwin Proctor have found precedent for the church in an ecclesiastical legal system last used by the Spanish Inquisition.  Nevertheless for good reason it fell out of favour hundreds of years ago, and indeed in this century the Vatican has recognised that this procedure along with the other methods of the Inquisition were unreliable, along with the torture chamber, the auto da fe and the burning stake.  Goodwin Proctor and Beers nevertheless have found it a handy tool in their search for innovative solutions for church governance for their client.

3. Bishop Henderson has let the cat out of the bag: not only were plans laid by KJS/Goodwin Proctor/Beers and their stooges over six months ago against Bishop Lawrence and South Carolina, but he has let slip that attorney Burtch has been working on the South Carolina case and will be picking it up again from Ms Hicks; but moreover there are other disciplinary plans laid which he has been working on and which Ms Hicks of Parker Poe will be proceeding to prosecute notwithstanding her huge conflicts of interest against others in the Episcopal Church.

4. So in summary, it looks like the South Carolina action is not the only one, but a start of the process of the subjugation of all dissent and total control by the Presiding Bishop with the tools provided by Beers/Goodwin Proctor, and it seems not unreasonable to project is indeed the start of her rein of terror into the heart of every diocese, parish and mission of the Episcopal Church.

Those who have gone along, whether liberal, moderate or conservative, with the setting up of this monstrous and un-Christian terror released through +Henderson’s committee of public safety, perhaps should contemplate that they too are now living under the shadow of the guillotine and +Madame Defarge is already in the process of knitting her charges against their names!

October 20, 10:49 pm | [comment link]
4. Pageantmaster ن wrote:

Andrew Carey writes in today’s Church of England Newspaper:

No place for Evangelicals?

The Bishop of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence, is threatened with deposition by the American Episcopal Church. His crime is his diocese’s untidy attempt to find a place of integrity for his diocese in which, while rejecting the liberal direction of his denomination,
they can nevertheless remain under the umbrella of Episcopalianism. As we have seen on so many occasions, it is now pretty much impossible for traditionalists, conservatives and evangelicals to have a home in the American version of Anglicanism.

The CEN and the rest of his Lambeth Notes can be subscribed to here

October 20, 11:51 pm | [comment link]
5. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) wrote:

3/4, yes, this is life as we know it here.  Trying to do Gospel work whilst walking around with invisible targets on our backs, wondering when the shoe will drop—or, the unknown charges will get filed by unknown people; handled in a nebulous process by interchangeable phantoms.  Ah, and then—how real will the discipline be?

October 21, 12:07 am | [comment link]
6. TomRightmyer wrote:

The complaints against Bishop Lawrence seem to include (1) actions of the Diocesan Convention, (2) failure to include a small congregation in the southern part of the diocese, (3) ordaining his son who may have been ordained in the ACNA (by a bishop “whose authority is not recognized by this church”) and (4) not sueing a parish that left the diocese.  The bishop is not responsible for (1), (2) is an internal matter, (3) may be a violation of the relevant canons, and (4) is not only an internal matter but may also be a matter of differing legal decisions in different states. I don’t see any real grounds for action.

October 21, 5:20 am | [comment link]
7. WestJ wrote:

The accusations are outrageous, some are outright fabrications.
“Failure to include a small congregation”- These are a group of “TEC Loyalists” in Port Royal who have in fact been offered mission status under St Luke’s in Hilton Head (a like minded congregation). The Bishop is even scheduled to do confirmations there in November.

“Ordaining his son”- +Mark did not ordain his son, another bishop did (I can’t remember his name)

“Not sueing a parish that left with their property”- That one is true, but +Mark felt that the more pastoral response was not to get involved in costly litigation, when the SC supreme court had already ruled that the Denis Canon had no effect in SC. Imagine the gall!

October 21, 10:00 am | [comment link]
8. Sherri2 wrote:

Pageantmaster, I think you have nailed it, only I would compare the actions of TEC and Bishop Henderson’s little committee to the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs—secret police, secret charges, unknown “witnesses” - and no trial, just summary conviction executed in the dark, with no chance of redress. Is this really how an enlightened, liberal, 21st century institution wants to operate? Apparently so.

October 21, 10:19 am | [comment link]
9. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

People on the other side of the Pond, like Pageantmaster and Andrew Carey, get it.  A reporter at the independent Wall Street Journal gets it.  But alas, many people in the pews in TEC still don’t get it.

Actually, the helpful ACI listing of ominous events, like the Curmudgeon’s similar listing of Title IV events on his blog, make it admirably clear that we have plenty of “transparency” in this sordid process.  It’s now abundantly obvious that the powers that be in TEC want to rid the denomination of “this troublesome priest,” or diocese, that refuses to get with the program and obstructs the all-holy cause of “social justice.”

It’s in fact amazing that our shameless “progressive” foes hardly seem to be trying to keep up the appearance of fairness anymore.  The desire of 815 to oust +Lawrence is not even thinly veiled.  Who needs a veil when you have a super majority of votes in the HoB or Executive Council?

This whole fiasco reminds me eerily of Watergate, or the notorious priest sex scandals in the Roman Church.  Whether you think of Nixon’s administration or Cardinal Law’s office in Boston, the trend was the same.  Once the ugly facts started to come out, it quickly escalated into a torrent of evidence showing corruption in high places, where futile atempts at a coverup inevitably betrayed an inept administration.  Things are now spinning out of control faster than any Establishment spin meisters (like +Henderson) can manage to control the damage.

Of course, what’s really needed isn’t merely more “transparency” in this putrid process.  Naturally, what’s really needed is some actual justice, and genuine repentance on the part of those who are behind this railroading or lynching of a noble conservative bishop and his diocesan leadership.  But if any readers of T19 think that either justice or repentance will be forthcoming from the deluded leaders of TEC, well, I have a bridge in Florida that I’d love to sell you.

David Handy+

October 21, 10:44 am | [comment link]
10. Pageantmaster ن wrote:

#8 Sherri2
I did think about the secret denunciations where the accused was kept in ignorance of his accusers, such as we saw in the Stalinist show trials, the investigations of Beria, the show trials and re-education programs of the Cultural Revolution in China, and for that matter the summary trials in Iran after the fall of the Shah.  However I was thinking more about the legal precedent for church courts of using this discredited means of accusation.  The most important example I could come up with was the Inquisition and that was a few hundred years ago.

It is curious that a people founded on the principles of liberty, the rule of law and due process, yet on entering into the Episcopal Church leave all that at the door, and proceed to model their jurisprudence on the most infamous of judicial abuses and historical tragedies.  Such is the corrosive and toxic effect of the rule KJS, Goodwin Proctor, David Beers, Bishop Dorsey Henderson, Josephine Hicks, Ian Douglas and so on are bringing to this once very fine church, and the still substantial parts of that fine church which remain.  It is just tragic to see and desperately sad.  The reality is that they are eating each other even as the church is collapsing around them, in the way that crew on a holed ship will continue to fight each other rather than attend to restoring the seaworthiness of the ship - hubris and nemesis I fear.

October 21, 10:52 am | [comment link]
11. flaanglican wrote:

#9, you are right about people in the pews in TEC not getting it.  I am no longer in TEC but my parents in another city are still in TEC.  The mantra in their church is, “We we not let what happens in the national church affect us.”  So, an attitude of willful ignorance sets in (ostrich head in the sand; see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; pick your analogy). 

I once had a discussion with my parents and the response I got back was, “I don’t want to hear it!”  In effect, there is a self-imposed news blackout of anything in TEC and the congregation doesn’t have to be bothered by it.  Of course, TEC leadership is happy to keep it that way.  They can go about suing parishes for property and charging bishops with abandonment and the “people in the pews” are none the wiser.

October 21, 11:32 am | [comment link]
12. Satulan wrote:

I cannot understand why the Diocese, and any and all of its parishes, don’t see that this denunciation is simply 815’s way of undoing the SC Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Dennis Canon, and that the argument that the Canon is unconstitutional is pointless.  That argument can only be entertained by TEC’s courts, not the secular courts, and TEC’s courts will rule against the Bishop.  TEC’s plan is simply to depose Bp. Lawrence and the Standing Committee and install its minions in their places, and there is no way to secure redress in the courts of South Carolina.  If the Diocese does not secede from TEC before the deposition, it cannot do so once TEC’s nominees are in place.  And once they are in place, they will depose orthodox clergy and vestries and thereby gain control of the assets and property of the Diocese and its constituent parishes.

October 21, 12:17 pm | [comment link]
13. Grant LeMarquand wrote:

I am curious - there seem to be some legal minds pondering some of these things of the blogs - has anyone weighed whether what is going on against Bishop Lawrence amounts to defamation or slander or lible? I don’t know whether the Bishop Mark or the diocese would wish to make a move in that direction even if the actions of the ‘national church’ might be described with those terms…just curious…

October 21, 12:21 pm | [comment link]
14. Satulan wrote:

That game would not be worth the candle.  So far as I am aware, the factual allegations upon which the accusation is based are true;  the defamation of which #13 complains is merely a conclusion based on those facts, and I cannot imagine that any court would hold that drawing such a conclusion is tortious or unprotected by the First Amendment.

October 21, 12:43 pm | [comment link]
15. Already left wrote:

The ACI has definitely made clear many details which were previously untransparent. My question is this: what is still nontransparent? What else are they hiding?

October 21, 1:24 pm | [comment link]
16. evan miller wrote:

#12
The scenario you outlined is the one I’ve suspected and feared as well.

October 21, 1:34 pm | [comment link]
17. Satulan wrote:

[Comment deleted by Elf - Comments instructing, advising or encouraging groups or individuals to leave or join any church are against the comment policy of T19 - commenters are asked to please observe this - thanks - Elf]

October 21, 1:34 pm | [comment link]
18. Mike Watson wrote:

Perhaps more to the point than slander or libel (e.g., #13) is the issue of breach of fiduciary duty.  To the extent persons acting on behalf of TEC are acting in ways in which they are not authorized to act, which seems likely to be the case even under the new Title IV whose validity is suspect, they may be acting in breach of such duties.  The persons acting on TEC’s behalf owe duties to the member dioceses of TEC, of which South Carolina is one.

It also seems a mistake to predict that a secular court would automatically rule out consideration of a claim that TEC cannot impose canons on a diocese which takes appropriate action in opposition.

October 21, 2:25 pm | [comment link]
19. David Hein wrote:

Most responses here and elsewhere directly respond to the specific allegations. Perhaps another useful approach would be to ask, What are the marks of being in communion with TEC? And: Has DioSC fulfilled a sufficient number of those to be recognizably within the circle of TEC? For example, if paying national apportionments, showing up at national meetings, etc., are demonstrations of affiliation, couldn’t they be adduced as clear evidence for affiliation? Most organizations stipulate how many absences are allowed, how much must be paid in dues per year, etc., for membership. What are TEC’s requirements, and what happens if someone or some entity doesn’t make them all? Or is some of this business being made up as they go along?

October 21, 3:02 pm | [comment link]
20. Satulan wrote:

The Elf blocked my #17 on the grounds that the Elf construed the comment as urging the secession of the SC Diocese, and the policy of the blog forbids “instructing, advising or encouraging groups or individuals to leave or join any church.” 

I did not intend the post to advise or encourage anyone to leave or join any church; I merely intended to point out that the endless discussion of TEC’s departure from the Constitution is pointless, since the secular courts cannot rule on issues of canon law.  Accordingly, the post pointed out that as long as the Diocese and its constituent parishes remain even nominally in TEC, TEC’s interpretation of canon law must prevail,  and therefore that if that interpretation calls for or permits the deposition of orthodox clergy, standing committees and vestries, and the substitution of TEC’s nominees for the deposed, TEC can and will effectively seize the assets of the Diocese and orthodox parishes.  This is merely a point of law, and not an exhortation. 

It could be that as an exercise of Christian humility, the Bishop, Standing Committee, and orthodox clergy and vestries want to be freed of those assets, and I did not intend to instruct, recommend or advise them to forego their Christian sacrifice.

October 21, 3:54 pm | [comment link]
21. c.r.seitz wrote:

#14—I think attorney Watson is correct:

“It also seems a mistake to predict that a secular court would automatically rule out consideration of a claim that TEC cannot impose canons on a diocese which takes appropriate action in opposition.”

You make it sound like the EDSC will be forced to hand over its parishes to a ‘national church.’

October 21, 4:18 pm | [comment link]
22. c.r.seitz wrote:

“Accordingly, the post pointed out that as long as the Diocese and its constituent parishes remain even nominally in TEC, TEC’s interpretation of canon law must prevail,  and therefore that if that interpretation calls for or permits the deposition of orthodox clergy, standing committees and vestries, and the substitution of TEC’s nominees for the deposed, TEC can and will effectively seize the assets of the Diocese and orthodox parishes.”

As they are doing in Texas?

As they failed to do in SC in the case of the Dennis Canon?

October 21, 4:25 pm | [comment link]
23. Satulan wrote:

Yes, #21, that is precisely what will happen.  I do think that only canonical courts can determine the validity of the new canon and whether it is consistent with the TEC Constitution.  The Supreme Court of South Carolina had jurisdiction of the case upon which the orthodox rely only because it directly affected a matter of trust law and property.  But TEC’s seizure of Diosecan and orthodox parish assets would not be so direct, and the secular courts will not have jurisdiction to protect the current incumbents of leadership posts in the Diocese.

Here’s how it will go down if the Diocese remains in TEC.  The current inquiry will result in the deposition of the Bishop and the substitution of TEC’s nominee.  Should the Standing Committee protest, its current members will also be deposed, and TEC’s nominees will take their place.  This process could be repeated under the new canon with constituent parishes.

Since the legal right of possession of the assets of the Diocese and its parishes belongs to persons described by their status (e.g., the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina), the legal issue will be who is the person occupying the relevant positions. 

If TEC were to say that Nancy Pelosi is the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of South Carolina is at the time of her designation a member of TEC, the secular courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of TEC.  This is because secular courts cannot constitutionally tell TEC who its bishops are, and the secular courts will therefore accord all the legal rights currently possessed by Bp. Lawrence. 

The only way to avoid that would be for the Diocese to secede before the deposition - but note, dear Elf, that I am NOT recommending, instructing, or advising secession, only the consequences of not doing so.

October 21, 4:46 pm | [comment link]
24. David Keller wrote:

Dr. Seitz—There are some interesting legal intertwinings in this thread.  In SC, as a general rule, the courts will not interpret church/canon law.  There is very specific case law on point. The Pawley’s Island case was determined under neutral principles of property/trust law. The SCSCt. held that you cannot create a trust without the consent of the donor and the donee; so, the Dennis Canon is unenforcealbe in SC, unless the diocese directly consents to it (ie not just some gereral statement about acceding to the Constitution and Canons of TEC).  However, they also held TEC is NOT a heirarchical church, meaning the diocese is autonomous. My personal opinion is that the TEC heirarchy are trying to figure out some way to depose Bp. Lawrence under Title IV, on the theory that the SC Courts will not interpret Canon law, so they can then appoint a Bishop and Standing Committee which will accede to the Dennis Canon. I have no basis for that opinion other than the previous snake-like behavior of TEC’s leadership. I certainly hope I am wrong.

October 21, 4:47 pm | [comment link]
25. Satulan wrote:

My point exactly.

October 21, 4:53 pm | [comment link]
26. c.r.seitz wrote:

I think #24 is closer to the truth than #23.

I will let AS Haley’s view on this matter represent the view I hold. You may see his thread. I’d be curious where you believe he is wrong.

October 21, 5:07 pm | [comment link]
27. c.r.seitz wrote:

How are SC civil courts going to hand property over to the national church? I am confused. St Michaels on Broad Street will be handed over to national church officers? The Diocesan Headquarters next the the Cathedral, pack up and move out?

Why would they do that? How?

October 21, 5:10 pm | [comment link]
28. c.r.seitz wrote:

“the legal issue will be who is the person occupying the relevant positions”—exactly. And SC will say that they hold the depositions to be invalid. For the civil courts to rule otherwise would be to enforce a hierachy and to intrude in church business. I suspect they’d say it is not a battle they will enter. This is what makes SC different to TX. But again, I believe you should deal with a lawyer’s arguments here, not my own. Kindly point out where AS Haley is wrong. Thanks.

October 21, 5:14 pm | [comment link]
29. jamesw wrote:

There is the additional issue of the DSC’s claim that the Title IV is in violation of TEC’s constitution.  KJS and her lackeys obviously would argue that it isn’t, but the Diocese argues that it is.  The secular courts will not be able to make that determination and there is no court in TEC that has that authority.

Thus, TEC will claim in the secular courts that Lawrence was canonically removed as bishop, but Lawrence will argue that he has not been removed.  In order to conclusively resolve this question, the courts would have to interpret TEC’s constitution, which the court cannot do.  Thus, the secular courts would not be able to conclusively resolve who the bishop of South Carolina is.

Lawrence et.al. maintain ownership of the properties and are on the deeds.  Thus, it would seem to me that TEC would have a tough time of it because they are the ones who would need to prevail in the courts.  If the courts say that they can’t act, then Lawrence and the Diocese keep the property because the National Church will not be able to have a court throw him out of his See.

October 21, 5:16 pm | [comment link]
30. c.r.seitz wrote:

#29—exactly. Thank you.

See also:

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/10/clearing-up-misconceptions-about-south.html

October 21, 5:18 pm | [comment link]
31. Satulan wrote:

Tell me how to find Mr. Haley’s views and I will happily be instructed by them.

October 21, 5:19 pm | [comment link]
32. jamesw wrote:

I agree with Seitz and Haley.  I could go to court in South Carolina and claim to be the TEC Bishop of South Carolina, but I would need to prove my point.  Unless I can prove my point, the current Bishop of South Carolina will remain in place.  TEC must be able to prove that Lawrence is no longer Bishop of South Carolina, but in order to do so, they would need to have the courts reach a definitive conclusion on the constitutional validity of Title IV.  If the courts either agree with the DSC or decide that they cannot interpret TEC constitutional issues, then TEC cannot prove that Lawrence is not the rightful Bishop of South Carolina and they lose their case.

October 21, 5:21 pm | [comment link]
33. c.r.seitz wrote:

They are there before you. The relevant portions are at the end.

For the avoidance of doubt, I’d wager TEC will fail in Texas as well. My only point is that they differ in respect of circumstances peculiar to each, viz., Diocese of FW and Diocese of SC are at different places (FW is incorporated; it has left in a manner different to SC; etc).

October 21, 5:33 pm | [comment link]
34. Milton Finch wrote:

What about what David Anderson points out?  Please give it a read and let us know how you feel this will play out.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15045

October 21, 5:38 pm | [comment link]
35. c.r.seitz wrote:

I should add. I suspect it plays out like this, if TEC goes this route.

It appoints “Bishop Halburton.” 

SC simply says, Bishop Lawrence is Bishop of SC.

Courts say. Looks like Bishop Lawrence is the Bishop of SC.

October 21, 5:40 pm | [comment link]
36. c.r.seitz wrote:

I should add: and ‘the autonomous legal entity is the Diocese of SC. Its Bishop is Bishop Mark Lawrence. Bishop Halburton may be a Bishop, but he is not the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina (an autonomous legal entity which they recognise to be such).

October 21, 5:43 pm | [comment link]
37. Satulan wrote:

I did read the Anglican Curmudgeon’s blog on the issue with great interest, but it seems to my untutored eye that the critical point was that the secession occurred before the inhibition and deposition.  I shall append the relevant excerpt from the blog following this comment, but it seems to me that the universally accepted principle that secular courts cannot determine eccleastical questions would defeat Bp. Lawrence’s claim to be the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina if at the time of the deposition the Diocese were in TEC.  If there are two claimants to the position, there has to be some principle deciding the issue.  Since the validity of the deposition depends on the interpretation of the Canon and Constitution, SOMEBODY has to make that interpretation, and since secular can’t do it, TEC’s interpretation has to govern.  In any case, herewith the relevant excerpt:

“Notice how the Court fudges the ecclesiastical points at issue here. It declares that “at some point [Bishop] Schofield became the Anglican Bishop presiding over an Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin,” without deciding that such point occurred upon the passage of the operative amendments to the Diocese’s Constitution on December 7, 2007—well before the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop claimed the power to inhibit Bishop Schofield on January 11, 2008. If Bishop Schofield became the “Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin” upon the passage of the amendments, then he could no longer be inhibited or deposed by the Episcopal Church (USA), because he had already left that body when they went through the motions of pretending to inhibit and then depose him. Thus the transfers of property to the related diocesan entities, about which the plaintiffs are complaining, occurred when Bishop Schofield was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church,[unbold] and was under the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone.

October 21, 6:00 pm | [comment link]
38. c.r.seitz wrote:

“...the universally accepted principle that secular courts cannot determine eccleastical questions would defeat…” the claim of TEC that the Bishop of the autonomous legal entity of the Diocese of SC is Bishop Halburton and not Bishop Lawrence.

October 21, 6:05 pm | [comment link]
39. JBallard wrote:

Dr. Seitz,

You’ve referenced Texas several times in passing:

“I’d wager TEC will fail in Texas as well”

“This is what makes SC different to TX.”

“As they are doing in Texas?”

What, exactly, is going on in Texas?

October 21, 6:06 pm | [comment link]
40. c.r.seitz wrote:

The Fort Worth case presently before Judge Chupp. See—actually as of yesterday I believe—the latest ruling from his bench, at the Diocese of Ft Worth web site. Or on blogs…

October 21, 6:09 pm | [comment link]
41. c.r.seitz wrote:

See here at T19, below, for Ft Worth ruling in Texas courts.

Added by elf

News from the Fort Worth Legal Fracas Between TEC and the Diocese led by Bishop Jack Iker

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/39216/

October 21, 6:12 pm | [comment link]
42. The_Elves wrote:

Comments on this thread have now wandered way off topic - please return to the thread topic.  Further comments which are not on topic will be liable to be summarily deposed - thanks - Elf

October 21, 6:37 pm | [comment link]
43. jamesw wrote:

Okay, allow me to make this comment.  I think that the ACI and the Curmudgeon deserve a lot of credit for bringing to light so much of what KJS’s toadies had hoped to achieve in he dark.  Also, Bp. Lawrence and the Diocese also deserve a lot of credit for their publicizing everything so quickly.  I think that the fact that all of this has become so public, and that TEC’s actions have lacked so much transparency and appear to be so corrupt will, has evidently caused Henderson to stumble around somewhat.

It is much more difficult to defend ongoing and future corruption once the light is shone upon it, then it is to beg excuse for and cover up past corruption.

October 21, 7:07 pm | [comment link]
44. Milton Finch wrote:

Here is some wonderful transparency!

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/10/conflicts-galore-on-kangaroo-court.html

October 21, 10:02 pm | [comment link]
45. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

Personal aside to jamesw.

Great to see you posting again.  I’ve missed your keen and incisive comments, and I’m glad to see you resuming more frequent posting again.  FWIW, I agree with you and Dr. Seitz, although I claim no expertise in either legal matters or church politics.

David Handy+

October 23, 6:26 pm | [comment link]
46. desertpadre wrote:

Dream on, ACI——————
desert padre

October 24, 2:00 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): David Campbell and Robert Putnam—Pinpointing Romney’s Mormon Challenge

Previous entry (below): South Carolina Post Links

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)