The Presiding Bishop is at it again - 9 TEC bishops this time

Posted by The_Elves

Bishops Edward Salmon, Peter Beckwith, Bruce MacPherson, Maurice Benitez, John Howe, Paul Lambert, Bill Love, Dan Martins and James Stanton charged for supporting the Constitution of The Episcopal Church
Two Breaking stories - read them all:

Anglican Ink: Bishops Salmon, Beckwith, and MacPherson charged with misconduct: Charges filed for endorsing brief filed by the ACNA Diocese of Quincy

Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against three bishops of the Episcopal Church under the provisions of Title IV for having endorsed a legal pleading filed in the Quincy lawsuit.

On 28 June 2012, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., former Bishop of South Carolina and Dean of Nashotah House seminary, the Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith, former Bishop of Springfield, and th Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana received an email from the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews stating that the charges had been leveled against them.
...
The bishops have not been informed what canon they violated. But they appear to be accused of violating the canons for having filed a brief in opposition to the national church’s motion for summary judgment in the case of the Diocese of Quincy v. the Episcopal Church.

The 16 Dec 2011 Judge Thomas Ortbal of the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court in Adams County, Ill., dismissed the claim that as a “matter of law” the Episcopal Church was a hierarchical entity with dioceses being subordinate to the national church. The judge rejected the motion for summary judgment brought by the national church against the breakaway Diocese of Quincy and set the matter for trial. Read more


Anglican Ink: Seven more TEC bishops charged with misconduct: Support for ACNA pleading is grounds for discipline complaint alleges

Seven bishops have been charged with misconduct for having endorsed a friend of the court brief prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute in the Diocese of Fort Worth case.

On 28 June 2012, the Rt Rev Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, the Rt Rev John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Rev Paul E. Lambert. Suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt Rev William H. Love, Bishop of Albany, the Rt Rev D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt Rev Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield, and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas were informed they had been charged with misconduct.
...
The bishops have not been notified with violation of the canons they have committed, but Bishop Matthews’ notice refers to the pleading they endorsed in the Diocese of Fort Worth case presently before the Texas Supreme Court.

In an amicus brief filed on 23 April 2012 the seven bishops and three scholars from the ACI – the Rev. Christopher R. Seitz, the Very Rev. Philip W. Turner, and the Very Rev. Ephraim Radner -- argued a Tarrant County, Texas trial court misconstrued the church’s constitutions and canons by holding that the Episcopal Church was a hierarchical body with ultimate power vested in the General Convention. Read more

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts SchoriTEC BishopsTEC Polity & Canons* Culture-WatchLaw & Legal Issues* TheologyEthics / Moral TheologyPastoral Theology

70 Comments
Posted June 30, 2012 at 1:46 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Cennydd13 wrote:

Keep it up, Kate, and you’ll eventually lose those bishops…...and probably a good number of their parishioners as well!

June 30, 3:43 pm | [comment link]
2. AnglicanFirst wrote:

“Roger that”  —-  Cennydd13.
The Presiding Bishop needs to read up on the American revolution if she wants to gain an understanding of this mostly small town and rural diocese.

She will only find support from the supposed ‘sophisitcates’ of the Capitol District.

Their parishes have not been paying their assessments for some time now.  And if they become part of a “vichy” or “quisling” Diocese of Albany, they won’t be able to pay the bills.

June 30, 3:53 pm | [comment link]
3. Saltmarsh Gal wrote:

Goodness!  What a strategic error on the part of the PB et al. !  I guess somebody thought it was a brilliant move - possibly to take out all opposition at once.  Serious blunder.  815 folks have no idea what they have just brought on themselves.

June 30, 4:18 pm | [comment link]
4. Teatime2 wrote:

STANTON?! Oh, she just might be making a huge mistake with this one, lol. It seems that most of us in Texas who remain in TEC do so by paying scant attention to the shenanigans and focus solely on the work the Lord has given us to do. Bishops like Stanton and Lillibridge have steered their flocks calmly and surely through rough waters.

But ++Katharine is now indicating that’s not good enough. One’s conscience and commitment to Christ is usurped by utmost loyalty to her agenda. Lord, have mercy.

June 30, 4:20 pm | [comment link]
5. drjoan wrote:

Is it REALLY in the Canons of the Church that a bishop may NOT excercise his free speech rights?

June 30, 4:25 pm | [comment link]
6. Sarah wrote:

WHAT HORRIFIC HERESY FOR THESE APOSTATE BISHOPS TO WRITE A DIFFERING LEGAL OPINION FROM DAVID BOOTH BEERS. WE MUST ENGAGE IN THE FULL AND WEIGHTY CANONICAL PROCESS OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE FOR THIS FOUL, SOUL-DESTROYING AND UNBIBLICAL ACT!!!!

June 30, 4:31 pm | [comment link]
7. Teatime2 wrote:

Indeed, Sarah. Over-reaching actions like this usually come from frightened and paranoid people. I wish she’d find the Peace of Christ already. I mean that.

June 30, 4:38 pm | [comment link]
8. Terry Tee wrote:

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I am aware that even if the charges are ludicrous, good bishops will have to hire counsel to defend them.  More money and more leadership time down the drain.  Never a good thing.

June 30, 4:46 pm | [comment link]
9. A Senior Priest wrote:

Sarah, you put it right in your comment, #6. We are now in the realm of thought crime. One is no longer allowed to give a civil court one’s opinion.

June 30, 5:07 pm | [comment link]
10. off2 wrote:

I wonder if we have been underestimating Dr Schori and her inner circle. Perhaps they are not sincere-but-misguided heretics at all, but just a group of gangsters who want the trust funds and the (once great) prestige of the brand name. Hope I’m wrong.

June 30, 5:11 pm | [comment link]
11. Teatime2 wrote:

#8 Terry, Sad to say but in this church’s climate, I’m sure these bishops (perhaps all bishops) have legal counsel at the ready and on retainer.

If there is any immediate good to come out of all of this, it is that I think TEC will continue to serve as a cautionary tale for the C of E and other Anglican churches. Even an established church has to be horrified about using secular means to degrade and silence her own bishops, clergy and members. And all for a secular agenda.

June 30, 5:22 pm | [comment link]
12. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

And just in time for the General Convention holiday season!

June 30, 5:49 pm | [comment link]
13. Milton Finch wrote:

Father, forgive her, for she knows not Who she is attacking.

June 30, 5:56 pm | [comment link]
14. Brian from T19 wrote:

http://www.cafepress.com/mybishopwasindicted

June 30, 6:13 pm | [comment link]
15. Brian from T19 wrote:

I think we can all agree that these charges are ridiculous.  The Bishops charged had to know this would happen, so I imagine it is of little concern to them and they have already planned for it.  I do hate that there has to be costs incurred for +Katherine’s vindictiveness.  I wonder if Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a canonical ground for relieving her.

June 30, 7:06 pm | [comment link]
16. midwestnorwegian wrote:

Just in time to give the 10 day long funeral service in Indianapolis a “kick start”. 

I guess they needed some new hatred and retribution to balance-out the planned atonement, hand wringing guilt-fest for the evils of the Northern European expansion across America.  How DARE those Episcopal Bishops Whipple, Clarkson, and Hare bring Christianity to the Midwest and accept government money to do it!!

June 30, 8:03 pm | [comment link]
17. Jill Woodliff wrote:

Prayer.

June 30, 9:54 pm | [comment link]
18. Saltmarsh Gal wrote:

Yes, #16 and also an offset to all of wrangling over the budget, “mission” priorities and such.

June 30, 10:00 pm | [comment link]
19. Marie Blocher wrote:

It is getting to be quite an honor to have TEC file charges against one!

June 30, 11:02 pm | [comment link]
20. A Senior Priest wrote:

While undoubtedly She has greatly honored the bishops in question by distinguishing them from those in grave error, this is a most troubling development. I never ever felt before that we in the TEC had arrived at an authoritarian dictatorship. Now I do.

July 1, 12:32 am | [comment link]
21. Mark Baddeley wrote:

It is bemusing that after decades of not disciplining bishops for departing from the doctrine and practice of the Episcopal Church, and quite famously in several instances not doing so despite the most rank heresy, and celebrating that, you can now be charged because you expressed an opinion that TEC is not hierarchical.

Sooner or later, all functioning organizations need discipline. But if a denomination refuses to use the substance of church discipline, it will eventually have to adopt the practice of the discipline of a corporation. For that’s what this looks like - this is what a company would do if some of its senior or branch managers backed an opposing company in a law suit and honestly expressed a different opinion about the facts then their own CEO.

July 1, 1:28 am | [comment link]
22. Cennydd13 wrote:

If she does have designs on the trust funds, then I would strongly advise her to think long and hard about the consequences of doing that.  The law takes a very dim view of that in all states.

July 1, 1:42 am | [comment link]
23. DTerwilliger wrote:

I am not the least bit surprised that Title IV would be used for this one year after it went into effect and just before GC 2012 - this was exactly what it was designed for.  I think this is none other than a sweeping attempt to finally draw out, dismantle and silence those final dissenting voices before General Convention does its dastardly deed of redefining marriage and the marriage canons.

July 1, 4:22 am | [comment link]
24. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to #23.

In the lexicon of the radical left around the world its called,
“Consolidation of revolutionary gains.”

Its beyond ,
“Two steps forward, one step back.”

Its an ‘all or nothing’ act.

July 1, 7:49 am | [comment link]
25. David Keller wrote:

As nearly as I can ascertain, the ASA of TEC will go down by 24’ as it appears the 24 of you who commented are the only ones left in TEC who care about what KJS does.

July 1, 12:40 pm | [comment link]
26. Blue Cat Man wrote:

LOL David! Not so.  There will be many more.
#20. A Senior Priest. Absolutely right! Absolute Dictatorship is spot on. The only thing that I find comforting is my diocese is doing its best to not march to this dictators’ drum.

#21. Mark B. Good analogy.  You are right. That does indeed look like a corporate move against their own managers.  Would they not just get rid of the managers as soon as they realized that these men had signed an amicus brief in favor of an opposing company?  I don’t know. Nasty move no matter how you want to describe it.

July 1, 1:14 pm | [comment link]
27. Choir Stall wrote:

This seals it: liberals are absolute frauds. There is no such thing as free thought - just “approved thought”. Mrs. Schori doesn’t want a “House” of bishops or deputies: she wants stenographers who write her every thought as the new gospel. This Presiding Bishop and her acolytes are a disgrace and further evidence that the breakup of this Church needs to be pressed. There is no hope for a Church that crucifies its members over mere expressed opinions at variance with those who were elected. The House of Bishops should rise up in protest. The Executive Council should grow a spine. They won’t. Liberals will invade General Convention, bang on drums, pass assinine resolutions about dead people 600 years ago, march with giant liturgical puppets, and waste millions of dollars congratulating themselves on how “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You”.  Sickening. Just sickening.

July 1, 1:35 pm | [comment link]
28. tjmcmahon wrote:

Choir stall-
It is actually so much worse than you think it is.  It is not that the HoB or EC have no spine in these matters, it is that 2/3 of the current diocesan bishops AGREE with KJS in these actions, as well as gay marriage, COB and other recent actions of TEC- and encourage her to press forward.  On the Executive Council, it is closer to 100%.  KJS election and actions are the will of the bishops, executive council and GC, a direct result of their action and purpose.  Liberals and institutionalists are now a minority in General Convention- the fascist ideologues are in charge. Any bishop willing to stand against 815 is named in the documents.

July 1, 3:13 pm | [comment link]
29. montanan wrote:

I mourn for these fine bishops - as each of the ones I know are ones I admire - but I also think this is great.  The timing is wonderful for those delegates from the more orthodox/traditional dioceses to see what the trajectory is and what the consequences are.  But, at the end of the day, I mourn (and will pray for) for these fine bishops; this must be heart-rending to them.

July 1, 3:31 pm | [comment link]
30. wvparson wrote:

Quite obviously these charges are spurious. I fear to make the following point, but there is no evidence at all that the PB brought these charges or inspired their being brought. It seems likely that persons unknown associated with the rump dioceses in Fort Worth and Quincy are responsible.

This is not an indictment…yet. The new disciplinary canons under Title 4 seem to permit anyone to bring charges and to remain anonymous. The “intake officer” seems to have no discretion in forwarding ‘complaints” to the review panel. The review panel may throw complaints out as happened in the recent case of the charges brought against the Bishops of South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Apparently the anonymity assurance is designed to protect victims in cases of abuse.

It must surely be obvious that this process is so open to abuse that it should be amended. Now I am not suggesting that these complaints (they are not formal indictments) are no made with malice aforethought or designed to inflict the maximum embarrassment. Note we do not know precisely the nature of the complaints brought except that which has been informally circulated by people I might describe as co-conspirators.

I have little doubt that these complaints will be dismissed by the review board, will never be framed as formal indictments or the accused brought to trial. However if I am wrong I hope the bishops will elect to be tried in full view of the church and media. In such a setting the level of vindictiveness and fanaticism demonstrated by some activists from Illinois and Texas would become apparent.

July 1, 4:18 pm | [comment link]
31. Scott K wrote:

#30 is correct - let’s not get ahead of ourselves and blame the PB. (Elves - the title of the post gives the false impression that these complaints were levied by her). Anyone can file a complaint with the intake officer, and Bp Matthews then has no choice under Title 4 but to inform the accused of the complaint. I have little doubt that these complaints will go nowhere - even most liberal voices in TEC are dismayed by them. See Mark Harris’ blog for example.

July 1, 5:50 pm | [comment link]
32. SC blu cat lady wrote:

While I agree with most of what you say, Scott K. A close reading of Mark Harris’ blog just says that IF the charges are only because of filing amicus brief in these court cases, then and only then are the charges are incredulous. However, there is the expectation that the filing of the amicus brief is not the only possible misconduct.

July 1, 6:44 pm | [comment link]
33. David Wilson wrote:

To those bishops charged:  Perhaps it’s time to swim the Monongahela.  The water’s warm and the view from the ACNA side of the river is spectacular—- just sayin`

July 1, 7:51 pm | [comment link]
34. Todd Granger wrote:

I noticed the same thing, SC blu cat lady.  In fact, it almost seems that Mark Harris expects there to be some other misconduct.  But also note the comments - there are others who think that simply putting one’s name on an amicus brief constitutes misconduct.  I wrote it on another thread, and I’ll do so here:  in the breast of every progressive (theological or political) beats the heart of a Jacobin.

July 1, 7:51 pm | [comment link]
35. Scatcatpdx wrote:

[a]http://www.lionspeak.asinglelion.com/wp-content/uploads/Episcopal-Inquisition.jpg[/a]

Nobody Expects the Episcopal Inquisition.

That what came to mind

July 1, 8:43 pm | [comment link]
36. Milton Finch wrote:

Those that have been touched by Christ being attacked by those that have not been touched by Christ.  Seen it.  Been there.  Regular activity.  Conservatives living and let live…Liberals attacking and taking no names….so regular as to activities displayed.  Christians being attacked by Muslims…we see it every day….just not at our High Altar.

July 1, 9:10 pm | [comment link]
37. Milton Finch wrote:

Scott K,
“Bp Matthews then has no choice under Title 4 but to inform the accused of the complaint. “

I see no complaints against the PB about the last accusations that were allowed when Bishop Lawrence was brought publicly up on charges.  She SHOULD have dropped them before they made it out the door of her office.  She did not.  She waited until public furor turned against her.  Then the complaints against HER actions began.  We saw nothing from our wonderful Bishop Matthews though WE KNOW the charges were brought.

July 1, 9:20 pm | [comment link]
38. Milton Finch wrote:

Conservatives leave it alone, because there is the possibility that God MAY be in them.  Liberals attack because they believe the Godly MAY be proved wrong in some public eye.  One inch at a time.

July 1, 9:38 pm | [comment link]
39. Milton Finch wrote:

Conservatives do not attack because they know God is present all the time.  Liberals attack because they desire their reality present all the time. 

July 1, 10:14 pm | [comment link]
40. Milton Finch wrote:

Weaker religious belief attacks those that seem stronger than them…Muslims in Africa attacking with bombs Christians that are growing faster without bombs…seen it…experienced it.  Oh, what bombs they throw when they are threatened.  And threatened by what???????  LOVE?

July 1, 10:23 pm | [comment link]
41. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) wrote:

Based on what I’ve read so far, my favorite theory is the “Wag the Dog”-type distraction here instead of justifiable laser-beam focus on her “leadership” thus far—declining membership and giving, budget problems, wrangling over dictatorial behavior, and not making very nice with(at least) the House of Deputies, etc. 

Gotta love the people who, in the absence of a chaotic environment, make one, or make even more chaos.  Freud and co. would have a field day with that, not to mention the Melody Beattie adherents.  Hmm…I suppose all this will turn GC into an even more enjoyable party… hmmm  Glad I’ll be at home for the duration…

July 1, 10:36 pm | [comment link]
42. Milton Finch wrote:

Bookworm,

“I suppose all this will turn GC into an even more enjoyable party”
Aren’t those that are dramatic always doing what you say???

July 1, 10:46 pm | [comment link]
43. Milton Finch wrote:

Non-bombiing Muslims in a country that has just bombed Christians never discredit bombing Muslims for the travesty that just conspired.

July 1, 10:54 pm | [comment link]
44. Milton Finch wrote:

The same way a liberal won’t SCREAM against another liberal when she has crossed a line.

July 1, 11:17 pm | [comment link]
45. MichaelA wrote:

DTerwilliger wrote:

“I am not the least bit surprised that Title IV would be used for this one year after it went into effect and just before GC 2012 - this was exactly what it was designed for.  I think this is none other than a sweeping attempt to finally draw out, dismantle and silence those final dissenting voices before General Convention does its dastardly deed of redefining marriage and the marriage canons.”

Good point.

However, perhaps there is an additional reason.  KJ Schori and +Sauls are facing public criticism from their own side, from liberals like Katie Sherrod and Jim Naughton, because of the budget.  That criticism has been quite strong and shows no sign of abating.  I wonder if this is 815’s way of demonstrating their power to liberal dissenters in TEC.  By purging kulaks like +Stanton et al, they don’t actually take action against anyone that the liberals in TEC care about, but they do send a message about what they can do to ANY dissenters, liberal or orthodox.

July 2, 12:25 am | [comment link]
46. Milton Finch wrote:

Yes.  Any dissenters…bombed…or non-bombed.  So Muslim of them!

July 2, 12:30 am | [comment link]
47. MichaelA wrote:

Is this an attempt to punish the bishops for filing their amicus curiae brief? If so, is it an attempt to dissuade them and others from resorting to the courts?

July 2, 4:32 am | [comment link]
48. Albeit wrote:

In light of this, +Bishop Love needs to consider withdrawing his recently provided DEPO to the four Via Media parishes in his diocese.

July 2, 9:56 am | [comment link]
49. Scott K wrote:

Please note Bishop Martin’s most recent blog post concerning these developments and see that he disbelieves that the PB is involved. It seems to me (as Bishop Dan also surmises) that this is the result of a complaint by some wounded people in what is left of the diocese of Ft. Worth, and the most likely outcome is that the complaint will be found by Bishop Matthews to be without merit. Even if he does pass it along to the board of inquiry, it will go no further.

July 2, 10:40 am | [comment link]
50. c.r.seitz wrote:

#49 I believe the point of having an Intake Officer is precisely to assess what needs to go further. Or not. This could not be allowed to go further unless the PB agreed. (Or +Matthews acted irregularly).

If the charges are subsequently dismissed, and it accrued to an aura of ‘noblesse oblige’ on behalf of the PB and others, this will have the consequence of asserting that Title IV is just fine as it is. I’d hate to think that is what this little exercise is about, but it cannot be ruled out I suppose. Better for the Intake Office and PB to conclude that these complaints—re: filing an Amicus brief—are without merit and avoid all this. Instead nine fellow Bishops are insinuated into Title IV proceedings.

On the propriety of Title IV in its present form, see the essays at ACI.

July 2, 11:21 am | [comment link]
51. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to Albeit (#48.) who said,

“In light of this, +Bishop Love needs to consider withdrawing his recently provided DEPO to the four Via Media parishes in his diocese.”

That has the potential of turning a ‘minor skin infection’ into a ‘cause celebre’ and a ‘festering wound’ that would give the presiding bishop and her ilk authoritative access to the Diocese of Albany.

July 2, 12:18 pm | [comment link]
52. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Actually Milton, the Curmudgeon has commented how the Presiding Bishop could have charges brought against her both after the charges against Bishop Lawrence (and the Standing committee!!) were made public and again after these possible charges for filing an amicus brief were made known. I don’t know that anyone has actually filed charges against the PB. IF someone would want to do it, it would have a be a group of lay people who are not part of any “orthodox” diocese. I am not suggesting anyone waste their time doing just this as we all know the intake officer would just ignore them.

July 2, 3:38 pm | [comment link]
53. tjmcmahon wrote:

Scott K (31 and 49)-
I do not think most believe the charges were formally initiated by the PB.  However, the PB and the intake officer are required NOT to investigate any charge when the charge itself does not rise to the level of an offense (this is a principle of law, as I recall, with a latin term that I forget- perhaps Mr. Haley could step in if my understanding of the principle is incorrect).
Let us say that you have a neighbor who objects to consumption of alcohol.  One day, you are in the yard, having a beer at a barbecue.  The neighbor calls the cops because you are drinking beer.  Your town has no ordinance prohibiting you from drinking beer in your own yard, so the cops politely decline to file a complaint, or do an investigation, because although you are “guilty” of drinking beer, there is no law against it.
To conduct an investigation implies that what you are accused of is an offense.  The “investigation” is SUPPOSED to be into whether you actually did it, or not.  In this case, we know the bishops did do what they are charged with doing, the question is whether what they did is an offense, or not.  Since there is an investigation, it is perfectly logical for all of us to assume the PB and intake officer (required by canon to consult with each other) have already consulted to determine that the accusation, if true, rises to the level of a disciplinary offense.

July 2, 3:43 pm | [comment link]
54. Already left wrote:

A couple of thoughts:
Do you think they did this in order to make everyone vote for Shori’s budget (if it becomes a voting matter)?
Also, if someone votes for any other budget might they also be brought up on charges?
Just sayin’

July 2, 5:50 pm | [comment link]
55. Scott K wrote:

tjmcmahon, I take your point. But I think the wisest course for all of us is to not make any assumptions yet, and wait for the facts to emerge. It seems to me that the Intake Officer is in a no-win situation: if he pursues investigation he is assumed to already have judged the charge as having merit; if he fails to escalate to the inquiry stage he is no doubtedly accused of squelching charges and/or institutional cover-up.

July 2, 5:53 pm | [comment link]
56. MichaelA wrote:

Well, if the Intake Officer does decide to pursue the matter it should be given as much publicity as possible, particularly in the UK.  Too many Anglicans there still do not understand how far things have gone in TEC.  They need further wake-up calls and this is tailor-made to be one.

July 2, 7:05 pm | [comment link]
57. Cennydd13 wrote:

From the PB:  Freedom of Speech for those bishops who oppose me?  You’ve got to be kidding!

July 2, 9:44 pm | [comment link]
58. Albeit wrote:

AnglicanFirst #51: Sorry, but I can’t agree with your assumptions. DEPO, as agreed to by all parties in Albany, can be revoked by the +Bishop at any time. In fact, as clearly stated by the +Bishop, there are several conditions that the involved parishes must meet in order to maintain participation in the Albany DEPO arrangement. That isn’t to say that the situation wouldn’t get hot in the event of a revocation, however, to my understanding, a DEPO is purely established and maintained at the discretion of the Ordinary of the diocese that choses to enact it. That means that the whole matter is relegated to the diocesan level, so there is no vehicle for any outside interference (read: “authoritative access”), including by the P.B.. Of course, we all know that +Bishop Love is far too pastoral and deferential to revoke the DEPO agreement in Albany in response to this current affair. However, I think that most of us would agree that if the shoe were on the other foot . . .

July 2, 10:25 pm | [comment link]
59. tjmcmahon wrote:

Scott K-
TEC is being run by a group of tyrannical heretics.  Until such time as Matthews brings the PB up on charges in the Bede Parry scandal (where, exactly, is the investigation of THAT he is REQUIRED BY CANON to institute?), for the numerous non-canonical depositions, and for overstepping her constitutional authority on numerous occasions, he is NOT doing the job he is responsible for, and is CLEARLY not objective.  Likewise, he is required, by canon, to bring charges against each and every bishop who has publicly allowed communion without baptism, and investigate every bishop alleged to have allowed it secretly- that is at this point 70 of the 110 bishops of TEC.  Blatant, obvious, unquestionable breaches of the canons, doctrine and rubrics, going on for a decade, with no investigation and not a single charge filed.
Ergo, Matthews is completely compromised, and should himself be immediately deposed. 

There can be NO “institutional coverup” when the “offense” in question is a public statement that no one denies making.  The only question is, does making a statement constitute a depose-able offense.  The answer to that is either yes or no.  No investigation necessary on that point.

July 2, 10:36 pm | [comment link]
60. Pb wrote:

Why cannot someone bring Canon 4 charges against the PB just to see how it feels? There are a number of good grounds.

July 3, 9:41 am | [comment link]
61. In Texas wrote:

Given that the PB clearly violated the Constitution and Canons of the TEC Diocese of San Joaquin when she appointed her own standing committee and interim bishop (when the diocese left, there was one member of the Standing Committee that did not leave, and that person was the Ecclesiastical Authority who could have appointed people to fill the open slots), I would not be surprised if some sort of complaint(s) had been filed after the changes in Title IV.  Of course, these would have been ignored, and not “investigated”.  As we’ve seen from comments on TEC blogs, the “charges must be investigated”, so why have we not seen an investigation of the PB for her clear violations of canons?

July 3, 10:01 am | [comment link]
62. SC blu cat lady wrote:

#60. If no one files a complaint/charges against the Presiding Bishop, then there is nothing for Bishop Matthews to investigate. So far, I will guess, no one has but maybe not.  If someone really wants to bring a complaint/charge against the PB, go right ahead, the Curmudgeon has documented pretty clear examples of canonical abuses/violations by the PB as well as about how to do so in two posts that I can remember. 

#61. Why has no one brought charges against the PB for what seem to many of us to be clear violation of TEC’s own canons? That is an entirely different question on which I can only speculate.  See what I have already written in #52.

Scott K, The actual facts of who did what when and why may never emerge.

Back to the Bede Perry scandal, there was discussion at one time that charges might be brought against the PB. Or is my memory failing me?? Does anyone know anything more about that??

July 3, 11:31 am | [comment link]
63. Cennydd13 wrote:

KJS is so well insulated that no matter how many times she screws up, and no matter what she does, no charges will ever be brought against her, and she will finish her term of office.  What might happen after she leaves office, however, is a different matter entirely.  Remember, she has seen to it that several retired bishops have been brought up on charges…....and she will be a retired bishop, won’t she?  I don’t think she’ll still have that immunity.

July 3, 11:45 am | [comment link]
64. bettcee wrote:

Don’t courts in the United States still require that those who testify or give evidence there, swear to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?
It seems to me that these letters indicate that the recipients will be punished for “telling the truth” in court by the powers that be in the Episcopal Church.
Are TEC leaders under the illusion that their hierarchical powers extend even to the State and Federal Courts of our country.

July 3, 2:56 pm | [comment link]
65. tjmcmahon wrote:

I wonder if Mr. Haley or one of the other attorneys out there might comment…. I am under the impression that the court only accepts an amicus brief from a party that the court sees as having some knowledge or expertise in subject matter pertaining to the case, and that the court sees as being not party to the case.  Is this not correct?  What I am getting at is that would the court not have rejected the filing of the amicus if in the court’s opinion, the bishops were taking sides, or had a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

July 3, 3:07 pm | [comment link]
66. Saltmarsh Gal wrote:

Do you suppose this is the Canon which may be referenced?  Title IV, Canon 19, Sec. 2.  Thought I remembered this and recall thinking at the time that it was pretty repressive…Not exactly applicable here but I can see someone trying to stretch it.

Canon 19, Sec. 2. No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.

July 3, 3:13 pm | [comment link]
67. Cennydd13 wrote:

66.  When it comes to violating the civil rights of accused clergy with respect to the canons, I think that civil law would apply.  The Constitution guarantees ALL Americans the right of Freedom of Speech, and makes no mention whatever of the separation of Church and State with regard to the violation of anyone’s civil rights…..be he a member of the clergy or a lay person. 

So in other words, if I were a clergyman and if I wrote an Amicus Curiae brief addressed to the court, my civil rights with regard to Freedom of Speech would be no different than anyone else’s.  It’s still Freedom of Speech.  It is not a bird of a different feather.

July 3, 5:54 pm | [comment link]
68. Milton Finch wrote:

I just saw this on another thread.  “Isn’t this witness tampering?”

July 3, 7:07 pm | [comment link]
69. Milton Finch wrote:

Wildcard wrote it.

July 3, 7:09 pm | [comment link]
70. Cennydd13 wrote:

I think that someone…...some honest God-fearing attorney in TEC who is sick and tired of the goings-on perpetrated by TEC’s leadership should look into filing RICO charges against them.  Seriously!

July 5, 1:00 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): A Letter to the Clergy and People of the TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh from the Bishop-Elect

Previous entry (below): Allan Haley comments on the aggressive action taken against 9 TEC Bishops on the Eve of GC 2012

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)