Anglican Ink: Loyalist meeting learns Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is behind them

Posted by The_Elves

'The presiding bishop's attorney told the 15 Nov 2012 meeting of TEC loyalists the national church had been preparing for the fight with Bishop Lawrence and the majority faction in the diocese for some time.'
Questions over the presiding bishop’s actions have arisen in light of statements made by Mr. Tom Tisdale, a lawyer for Bishop Jefferts Schori given at a 15 Nov 2012 “clergy day” held at St Mark’s Episcopal Church in Charleston. An open letter to the bishops of the Episcopal Church detailing her alleged violations of the canons prepared by the Anglican Communion Institute has also prompted questions.

The presiding bishop’s office has not responded to queries concerning the ACI’s open letter, nor is it known if Bishop Jefferts Schori has complied with Canon Iv.4(f), which requires her to self-report to “the Intake Officer all matters which may constitute an Offense as defined” in the canons.

Mr. Tisdale told Anglican Ink he too was unable to comment. My “inability to answer your questions is that I have consistently held to a long standing practice and policy of not engaging in press interviews on matters in which I am representing a client. The only exception to this practice would be when I am specifically requested to do so by the client.”

In his address to the approximately 40 clergy and lay members of the diocese present, Mr. Tisdale stated that in light of the suspension of Bishop Lawrence on 15 Oct 2012 by the presiding bishop and the vote by the standing committee to withdraw from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, there was no functioning ecclesiastical authority in South Carolina.

He stated he was legal counsel for the presiding bishop in South Carolina and a “few months ago” had been asked to organize a transition group by the national church in preparation for such an event.

Read it all

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: South Carolina

23 Comments
Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:44 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Stefano wrote:

Soooo… the question is what did the presiding Bishop know…..

...and when did she know it.

November 29, 11:09 pm | [comment link]
2. "Peter in the pew" wrote:

Dropped the cards and lost the pot. Told ya, truth will out.

November 30, 12:24 am | [comment link]
3. Cennydd13 wrote:

If anyone is so gullible as to think that Katharine Jefferts Schori will ever “report herself” for canonical violations, then I’ve got a steel bridge across the River Styx that I’d like to sell them.  She’ll never admit to anything.

November 30, 1:32 am | [comment link]
4. Chip Johnson, cj wrote:

Add the Stefano’s comment above, the observation that Tisdale’s mouth was moving, therefore he must have been lying, since he is an attorney, we can begin to grasp the meat of the matter.

She lied, he lied, the whole pack of thieves lied, and we shall never really know, tho’ inquiring minds we might be

November 30, 9:34 am | [comment link]
5. Pb wrote:

So they were organizing another diocese in SC. I think she should be held accountable for this. If I were a bishop, I would like like the precedent.

November 30, 12:02 pm | [comment link]
6. Undergroundpewster wrote:

It sounds like she had more than just contingency plans drawn up. I think this qualifies for disciplinary action. Perhaps it could be considered border crossing, or is the P.B. exempt from ecclesiastical boundaries?

November 30, 12:56 pm | [comment link]
7. Marie Blocher wrote:

Sorta kind getting the scaffold built before the trial…

November 30, 1:17 pm | [comment link]
8. Cennydd13 wrote:

Does the term “Star Chamber” ring a bell?  It should, because that’s exactly what this amounts to.

November 30, 2:04 pm | [comment link]
9. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Pb, The feeling here is that they are free to organize another diocese. We have a couple of stipulations/suggestions:

1) DO NOT use our name or seal!
2) Organize the NEW diocese according to the canons of TEC. They will have to wait until GC 2015 to be admitted to GC. Good luck!

November 30, 3:23 pm | [comment link]
10. Ralph wrote:

#9, I’d wonder whether the remnant group would (or will ever) have the cash to organize another diocese, paying for office expenses, salaries for lay and clergy staff.

#6, the PB has no authority in a diocese, without permission of the diocesan bishop. The Archbishop of Canterbury could visit a TEC parish and sit in the pews, but could not serve liturgically without permission from the diocesan bishop. The ACI lays the groundwork for canonical charges, and the Anglican Curmudgeon explains how to file charges. But, if she’s the totalitarian that we believe she’s become, then the charges will go into the dustbin. However, what she’s doing is being laid up in a little treasury in heaven, and it will be unlocked at just the right time. She cannot escape that except by true repentance.

November 30, 3:35 pm | [comment link]
11. Cennydd13 wrote:

She’s sure that she’s got all of her bases covered, and, I’d say she’s being rather smug about it, wouldn’t you say?

November 30, 5:02 pm | [comment link]
12. Pb wrote:

#9. I agree that this is the situation now. I was talking about organizing a new diocese apart from the authority of the diocesan bishop which I believe to be illegal.

November 30, 6:06 pm | [comment link]
13. tjmcmahon wrote:

#10- Of course they will have the cash.  It will be provided from collection plates all over TEC, courtesy of the national asking.  And likely the bishops will pay up, too, lest they run afoul of whichever Title IV canon happens to be most convenient.

November 30, 6:14 pm | [comment link]
14. Cennydd13 wrote:

And they’ll be dumb enough to keep right on doing it, won’t they?  How many times do they have to be bombarded with the truth before it finally sinks is that they’ve been hoodwinked and bamboozled by a bunch of charlatans parading around like clowns in a circus?

November 30, 7:20 pm | [comment link]
15. Milton Finch wrote:

40 clergy being paid by 1000 communicants…let’s do the math.  If they are families representing 1/3 giving units, that comes to 333 giving units.  If EACH gives $10,000 a year, that comes to 3 million 30 thousand at the end of each year.  If every clergy is paid $45,000, that comes to 1 million 800 thousand a year.  That leaves a little over 1 million 200 thousand to make ends meet for the parishes they will hold but add taxes.  Let’s not forget the tithe to the national group headed by that woman. Looks like a WINNING (Charlie Sheen phrase) proposition to me!

December 1, 12:32 am | [comment link]
16. Adam 12 wrote:

I am wondering to what extend endowments and trust funds are part of the ultimate target of this operation.

December 1, 8:21 am | [comment link]
17. Gregory wrote:

Are you all really that surprised?

December 1, 11:30 am | [comment link]
18. Cennydd13 wrote:

Adam 12, I’d say they’re at the top of the list.

December 1, 11:50 am | [comment link]
19. Ralph wrote:

If alms, given to the parish, were deflected to fund lawsuits, would that be an infraction of tax codes? (I’m not a lawyer…)

December 1, 4:25 pm | [comment link]
20. tjmcmahon wrote:

Gee Ralph, where do you think the money for all the previous and current lawsuits came from?  Granted, sometimes it is old money, you know, your grandparents alms to the parish, but other than some cash thrown off by Trinity Wall Street investments, and the occasional gift that goes directly to the national church, most of the money used for everything in the budget (including lawsuits) is a portion of diocesan income, which, in turn, is a portion of total parish income.
So, yes, they use alms, given to the parish.  Which does mean, with the exception of Dallas a maybe a few other dioceses that withhold money from 815, part of anything you throw into the plate on Sunday goes to fund lawsuits.

December 2, 12:10 am | [comment link]
21. Cennydd13 wrote:

Even though one may choose to withold his or her offering, that doesn’t mean that it will have an effect on TEC’s funding of lawsuits, unless, of course, hundreds of thousands of pew sitters choose not to contribute.  That’s not going to happen unless they get hit by a “great awakening” and realize what it really means.  God will speak to them, and when He does, they’re in for a rude shock.

December 2, 11:37 am | [comment link]
22. tjmcmahon wrote:

21- While I am sure you are correct, that TEC will fund its lawyers by whatever means are necessary, I would have to think that the dwindling number of contributors is of some concern, even to KJS.  Actually, when you figure that even by their own figures, TEC loses 10’s of thousands of parishioners every year, I think it would be fair to speculate that additional people reduce or withhold their pledge.  Granted, the total income stream to TEC usually goes up in a given year, but that income is being provided by fewer and fewer people.  And most people are know are floored when they discover that TEC is putting more money into seizing property and suing congregations than into feeding people in the 3rd world.

December 2, 3:43 pm | [comment link]
23. Cennydd13 wrote:

If I were still an Episcopalian, I’d have to think twice before I’d give any money to my local church if I had any idea of where it eventually ended up once the vestry got their hands on it, given my suspicious nature.

December 2, 4:30 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): From the Morning Bible Readings

Previous entry (below): Women, Sex and the Hookup Culture (III)—Matthew Lee Anderson responds to Emily Esfahani Smith

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)