With increased awareness of the scope of the strategic litigation that the Episcopal Church is sponsoring against local church congregations, vestries,and vestry members individually and personally, it raises several questions.
First, is it safe to serve on an Episcopal Church vestry, since the Episcopal Church is disregarding both federal and state legal protection granted to volunteer (unpaid) individuals who agree to serve on non-profit boards of directors? This is doubly troublesome since a few important insurance companies, who purportedly issue Directors and Officers Liability Insurance which is routinely purchased by churches, are refusing to provide legal defense or coverage for the vestries and individuals once they are sued. The second major question is, "Where is all the money coming from to wage this litigation campaign by TEC?" Various possibilities have been suggested based on remarks made by some Episcopal Church officials, and speculation about the handling of TEC finances is not healthy for TEC itself. The American Anglican Council, representing many parishes, clergy and individuals still within TEC therefore calls on the Episcopal Church to make the funding for the litigations underway and the source of the funding open and transparent for all to see. To this end the AAC applauds the request that several TEC bishops have made to the administration of TEC for financial transparency with regard to the litigation efforts.
It was a great sorrow months ago to learn that the Presiding Bishop had ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina pertaining to the form of their Bishop Election Confirmation documents. The ruling cancelled the election and has forced the diocese to rerun the process, although at an accelerated rate. Now we discover that the same Presiding Bishop has two sets of rules,one for her enemies and one for her friends. She doesn't like South Carolina (and the Chancellor David Booth Beers certainly doesn't either) so their election is null and void. Virginia, on the other hand, is considered a friend of the Presiding Bishop and the Chancellor, and when they use a non-canonical form to report the confirmations for their bishop-elect, no issue is made, all is wonderful, and the consecration of the new bishop is now history. It is sometimes said by those of the world that all is fair in love and war. Well, this certainly isn't love, so orthodox dioceses should be well advised.
1. David+ wrote:
Something is getting to me more and more. And it is that the orthodox are acting more and more like poor, powerless victims when it comes to dealing with the revisionist crowd in TEC. Instead of preparing to leave because there is no longer any room for us, the Network and other should be going to court and asking that all the diocessan properties in revisionist dioceses be turned over to the Nwetwork as the revisionists have violated the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and thrown away the Christian faith in favor of a neo pagan religion. t the same time we should be appointing new bishops for those dioceses as well claiming the revisionist bishops have violated the conditions of their consecrations and are formally deposed. Win, lose or draw we need to pick up a sword of faith and fight the enemy on their own turf.
July 30, 8:48 pm | [comment link]
2. Cennydd wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly.
July 30, 9:07 pm | [comment link]
3. libraryjim wrote:
July 30, 9:21 pm | [comment link]
“We’re fed up and not going to take it anymore, and our next meeting will detail the strategy we plan on taking at the NEXT meeting, and by golly, you’d better be prepared to—plan another meeting after that! but after that ... well, we’ll see!”
4. Daniel wrote:
As a church council member and officer of the corresponding non-profit religious corporation, I am covered by director’s insurance. Can anyone provide more detailed and specific information about insurance companies refusing to defend the holders of such insurance? Also, what about the various state “shield” laws that protect directors of non-profit corporations from lawsuits? TEC sounds like they could be close to violating RICO statutes.
July 30, 9:47 pm | [comment link]
5. James Manley wrote:
David+, I will ride with you if that day comes. I doubt it will, and I am sad about that.
July 30, 11:06 pm | [comment link]
6. Cousin Vinnie wrote:
If it could be shown that TEC had colluded with or pressured the insurance companies with whom it does business to refuse a defense to the insured vestry members or directors when sued by TEC or one of its dioceses, there could be a lawsuit against TEC and the insurers that would curl your hair with punitive damages. It would also destroy any respectable reputation of TEC, which is what the revisionists have lusted after these last few decades.
July 31, 12:16 am | [comment link]
7. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
I enjoy cavalry. May more riders join the troop.
July 31, 12:21 am | [comment link]
8. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Canon Anderson writes:
t was a great sorrow months ago to learn that the Presiding Bishop had ruled against the Diocese of South Carolina pertaining to the form of their Bishop Election Confirmation documents. The ruling cancelled [sic; canceled] the election and has forced the diocese to rerun the process, although at an accelerated rate. Now we discover that the same Presiding Bishop has two sets of rules,one for her enemies and one for her friends. She doesn’t like South Carolina (and the Chancellor David Booth Beers certainly doesn’t either) so their election is null and void. Virginia, on the other hand, is considered a friend of the Presiding Bishop and the Chancellor, and when they use a non-canonical form to report the confirmations for their bishop-elect, no issue is made, all is wonderful, and the consecration of the new bishop is now history. [Emphasis added.]
Wait a minute — if memory serves, the problem in SC had nothing to do with the form, the wording, of the consents. The problem in SC was that enough signed consents were not physically received before the canonical deadline — a deadline which +KJS extended (possibly improperly) in an apparent effort to help SC get over the finish line. These facts are well known, and suggest some possibilities:
* Perhaps Canon Anderson is lying — but he’d have to be pretty stupid to do so when, as here, a lie would be so easily discovered;
* Perhaps Canon Anderson is mistakenly remembering the SC events the way he wishes they had been, because doing so is convenient to his attack on +KJS and DBB. He’s only human, after all, and it’s not uncommon for people to remember things the way they wish they’d been, as opposed to the way they really were. (This is one of the key factors underlying my skepticism about traditionalist christology: I simply don’t believe we can give that much evidentiary weight to the more fantastic of the NT stories.)
* Perhaps Canon Anderson is prone to carelessly shooting from the lip. (For another example of his apparently doing so, see this posting; scroll down to “The AAC President’s ‘Unauthorized and Inaccurate Statement.’”)
None of these possibilities inspires confidence in Canon Anderson, and by extension, in his secessionist colleagues.
July 31, 8:12 am | [comment link]
9. pendennis88 wrote:
#8 - In neither case was there a question as to whether the standing committees and bishops actually consented. It only a technical question of conforming to the wording of the canon that was in question in both instances. In one case, the technicality was enforced, and the other not. In neither case was the failure substantive. But you knew that. You also know why it was enforced in one case and not the other.
July 31, 8:54 am | [comment link]
10. Words Matter wrote:
Wasn’t the technicality in SC the fact that some consents were faxed and emailed, rather than wording?
July 31, 9:00 am | [comment link]
11. Brad Page wrote:
#‘s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7: The Reasserter aversion (based on their reading of Scripture) to Christians against Christians in the courts is what has left us with the almost universal embrace of “victim” status by the orthodox. And, alas, there is no Cavalry as none were ever recruited, and those who volunteered were told to stand down. As has been mentioned, we’ve formed a lot of groups for strategy meetings and like-minded fellowship. And these have been good things, though their potential as seeds of further splintering among the orthodox must be kept in check.
One is left to wonder how things might be different if we had taken the actions mentioned by #1.
In the thread following Dr Stephen Noll’s letter to Network Bishops I posted a commercial from that great ad campaign of the Royal Bank of Scotland: “Less Talk. Make it Happen”. I suggested it might be a metaphor for the Network Bishops, but it could be used for the whole TEC situation. Where is the guy who will take action?
Watch it here: http://mediacentre.rbs.com/advertising/usa-advertising/tv-advertising/less-talk-make-it-happen/cablecar/index.aspx
July 31, 9:43 am | [comment link]
12. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Pendennis [#10], the point of the canonical procedures, including the requirement that original signed consents be physically received, is precisely to ensure that there is no question whether particular bishops and standing committees have actually consented.
This procedural factor took on added importance in the case of SC. You will recall that it was a real nail-biter whether enough consents would even be given, let alone whether they’d be timely received. You’ll also recall that +KJS (presumably advised by David Beers) went out of her way to “keep the polls open” for SC, so that they’d have every possible opportunity to do the required dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s.
The Virginia case is apples and oranges. I haven’t heard that anyone knew of the allegedly-irregular Virginia wording until long after the fact. In any case, the irregularity seems manifestly non-material, because there was indeed no doubt that sufficient bishops and standing committees had in fact given their consent.
My point was that, in making his above-quoted statement, David Anderson at the very least chose his words carelessly.
July 31, 10:25 am | [comment link]
13. David Keller wrote:
What utter horse hockey. Face it. Friends of the Presiding Chancellor and his Bishop get special treatment and their enemies get sued.
July 31, 10:56 am | [comment link]
edited. crude language not appreciated.
14. pendennis88 wrote:
the irregularity seems manifestly non-material, because there was indeed no doubt that sufficient bishops and standing committees had in fact given their consent.
Just as it was for South Carolina. You prove my point.
July 31, 11:36 am | [comment link]
15. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Pendennis88 [#15], if the canons should be changed to allow delivery of consents by FAX or email, then by all means start a movement to that effect. But please stop the unseemly whinging about allegedly-unfair treatment. +KJS stretched a point to help SC comply with the canons, and this is the thanks she gets.
I just found Lionel Deimel’s report from a week ago (I’ve been out of the country). He notes that the Virginia consent form has apparently been in general use for something like ten years. (He also offers a very sensible solution.)
Also, Pendennis88, you’re still trying to sweep under the rug the fact that it was a real nail-biter whether SC would even get the required consents. That’s where the requirement for delivery of original, signed consents comes in; the requirement was not complied with in SC. I’ve heard of no such uncertainty in Virginia.
Not all irregularities are equal, nor should they be treated as such.
July 31, 12:10 pm | [comment link]
16. Sarah1 wrote:
No, DC, the issues with both VA and SC consents were not “irregular”—they were canonically INVALID.
The truth is, that apparently some of the consents to the election of the bishop of South Carolina were in blatant violation of the canons, and thus invalid. . . . And apparently *all* of the consents to the election of the bishop of Virginia were in blatant violation of the canons and thus invalid.
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose not to invalidate the election of the bishop of Virginia, despite the blatant violation of the canons.
And Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose to invalidate the election of the bishop of South Carolina, based on the blatant violation of the canons.
But the consents in the case of Virginia were all INVALID according to the crystal clear canons which MANDATED the language that was to be used.
It matters not one whit that the non-canonical language “has apparently been in general use for something like ten years”—and furthermore, of course, the “general use” is suspect language, seeing as how a matter of a grand total of 11 dioceses actually used that language in 40 episcopal elections.
Some of the consents for the Diocese of South Carolina’s election were canonically invalid. ALL of the consents for the Diocese of Virginia’s election were canonically invalid.
The only difference between the two is what our Presiding Bishop did with those consents.
Let us all remind ourselves of her lovely words with regards to South Carolina’s consents issue:
July 31, 12:40 pm | [comment link]
“In the past, when consents to episcopal elections have been so closely contested, the diocese has been diligent in seeking to have canonically adequate ballots submitted, asking Standing Committees to resubmit their ballots when necessary,” she added. “It is certainly my hope that in future any diocese seeking consent to an election will use all possible effort to ensure that ballots are received in an appropriate form and in a timely manner.”
17. Stu Howe wrote:
Re # 4 –
Daniel, most if not all insurance policies contain clauses, which deny protection in the case of fraud, or intentional acts that cause injury, on the part of the insured. The real question especially in the case of D&O coverage, since the language varies so much carrier to carrier, is what is the exclusion trigger? Depending on the policy language this can range from at judgment, this is where the insured has lost in court, to a much lesser standard of finding of fact. I will point out that under some wording, this finding of fact could be a simple review of documents, by an insurance company employee. My best advice is to read your policy and to talk with your agent about the coverage provisions and exclusions.
July 31, 1:06 pm | [comment link]
18. Phil wrote:
Hey, D.C., if the canons should be changed to permit dioceses to make up their own wording for consents or use a “short form,” then by all means start a movement to that effect.
July 31, 1:14 pm | [comment link]
19. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
To answer you specifically re: the notification of an invalid form (you used the phrase “allegedly irregular”, about which Sarah corrected you), the first notice that was sent by the Standing Committee of San Joaquin (I don’t know, but there may have been others who have not been made public) was sent HALFWAY through the consent process, plenty of time to acknowledge the error, and notify everyone, and have them re-send in a new proper consent if already done, or make sure the consent to be sent was valid.
As has also been pointed out (you must not have been reading for a while) the allegation that “everybody” has been using the same wrong form has been limited to 11 consent processes since late 2000.
So, they knew; oversight has been inconsistent, to say the least; there have been at least 11 invalid consent processes, which must stand without canonical precedent since so many others used the valid form; now how shall “we” deal with these invalid consents if not simply admit, and given already-consecrated bishops who have presided over already-convened diocesan conventions and taken part in already-ordained deacons, priests and other bishops, ask for the mercy and grace of the House of Bishops and Standing Committees and send out new valid consent forms for immediate return.
That’s called leniency in a canonically broken situation, which is what should have happened for South Carolina - Standing Committees, sending in what would be judged invalid consents, who thought they were doing it correctly found out they weren’t.
And yet, there was NO RESPONSE.
July 31, 1:22 pm | [comment link]
20. David Keller wrote:
Elves—Sorry about that.
July 31, 1:31 pm | [comment link]
21. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Sarah [#17], in an ideal world you’d have a point. But it’s not an ideal world, and we have to decide how the church should allocate its limited time and resources in correcting the human errors that will inevitably occur. Presumably we should be focusing those resources on where we will get the most bang for the buck.
It sounds as though you think the church should re-do some 40 uncontroversial episcopal elections — which of course we’d want to do for all the relevant elections, not just the recent one in Virginia — for the sole purpose of correcting the language used in the consents.
Your only reason for wanting this seems to be that, in the intensely-controversial SC election, +KJS followed the canons requiring evidence that the necessary consents actually happened.
In other words, SC’s ox got gored, so you want Virginia’s to be gored too, even though the situations are markedly different.
Forgive me for saying that this sounds like pure spite to me. If this is your notion of a sensible allocation of time and resources in furtherance of the Great Commission, I guess I have yet another reason to be thankful you’re not in charge.
In any case, San Joaquin spoke up far too late:
• The Virginia election took place January 26.
• Bishop Johnston was consecrated May 26.
• Yet San Joaquin’s initial inquiry about the consent forms evidently wasn’t sent until May 31.
SJ’s July 20 letter unsuccessfully tries to bootstrap itself into timeliness: It says “We asked you [+KJS] in writing, within the [sic] 120 days from the date of notification of election, to confirm that a properly worded consent form was returned by a majority of Standing Committees.” That sounds like a lawyer trying to manufacture an objection period where none exists. “The” 120 days is simply the deadline for consents to be returned (Canon III.11.5.) If enough consents are returned before that time, the consecration is to proceed (III.11.6).
So far as I know, no one is claiming +KJS or David Beers knew about the irregular consent forms in Virginia before the consecration. San Joaquin had fully four months between the Virginia election and Bishop Johnston’s consecration, yet it didn’t speak up until after the consecration.
I still think Lionel Deimel has the right idea about how to proceed.
July 31, 1:37 pm | [comment link]
22. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Minor correction concerning timeliness: San Joaquin had whatever period of time between their receipt of Virginia’s request for consent and the consecration in which to object to the language of the consent. They should have objected within a reasonable time after receipt, and certainly before the consecration.
July 31, 1:49 pm | [comment link]
23. Phil wrote:
It sounds as though you think the church should re-do some 40 uncontroversial episcopal elections ...
No, it sounds as though the church should never have singled out South Carolina as the only case in which the canons were to be taken seriously. And it sounds as though the church ought to admit it used a double standard, apologize and pledge to apply the canons equally to all dioceses - even those whose leadership is hated by the top brass of ECUSA - in the future.
July 31, 1:52 pm | [comment link]
24. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “It sounds as though you think the church should re-do some 40 uncontroversial episcopal elections — which of course we’d want to do for all the relevant elections, not just the recent one in Virginia — for the sole purpose of correcting the language used in the consents.”
And as has already been pointed out to you TWICE on this thread, the only elections that would need to be redone would be the ELEVEN that used the non-canonical wording on the consent forms—NOT 40.
Furthermore, of course, there is no need to redo any elections at all. What was needed was for both Virginia and South Carolina to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This was manifestly not done.
And that, reappraisers, is what you don’t like pointed out. But it will not cease to be pointed out, and pointed out, and pointed out, and pointed out.
You folks are pretending to “solve the problem”—but to do that you’d have to admit that our Presiding Bishop treated one diocese differently from another because of their theology, rather than bloviate and sputter and fuss about “what to do about the canons and all the elections”. And of course . . . that’s tough for you to do! ; > )
But no matter—all reasserters who read this blog, the world over, know the truth about this. And so do many reappraisers.
And so . . . there we all are—knowing that you know that we know that you know that we know that you know.
We’ll be continuing with that. ; > )
July 31, 1:53 pm | [comment link]
25. Sarah1 wrote:
Oh yeh . . . I forgot.
RE: “But it’s not an ideal world . . . “
July 31, 1:54 pm | [comment link]
26. Andrew717 wrote:
Sarah, you stumped me. What, pray tell, is “JFOMCLOL”
July 31, 2:09 pm | [comment link]
27. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
Good God, D.C., you are in the middle of a thread focused on you and your comments. Make sure you read them.
Look at my comment to you at #20, and read carefully the first paragraph re: notification of the problem.
Like Sarah said, it’s all out there in the open. If you need more clarification, or to hear the same facts again, contact me offline.
July 31, 2:16 pm | [comment link]
28. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “What, pray tell, is “JFOMCLOL” . . .
It is “Just Fell Off My Chair Laughing Out Loud”. It’s a terribly humiliating condition that I have. So embarrassing . . . ; < (
July 31, 2:20 pm | [comment link]
29. Andrew717 wrote:
Ah ha! Seems so obvious now i know it. What a common condition, at least for me. Thanks!
July 31, 2:22 pm | [comment link]
30. Brian from T19 wrote:
I’m glad to see (from at least the first few posts) that the reasserters are recognizing the irrelevance of the American Anglican Council and its Communique’ Compliance Whatever.
July 31, 2:52 pm | [comment link]
31. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Perhaps I’ve missed something.
So far as I’ve been able to tell, no one has claimed that anyone appreciated the irregularity of the Virginia consent language before the consecration.
I’m guessing that not even San Joaquin appreciated the irregularity. Otherwise, it’s a safe bet they wouldn’t have waited until five days after the May 26 consecration to raise the issue (according to their July 20 letter).
That being the case, I fail to see how +KJS, David Beers, etc., could have “chosen” not to enforce the canons in the Virginia election, when (by hypothesis) they didn’t even know there was an issue that required such enforcement.
You folks seem to be looking for any excuse you can find to attack TEC, regardless whether it fits the facts.
And Sarah, I’m not ROFLMAO, I’m SMHIWAB (shaking my head in wonderment and bemusement).
July 31, 3:49 pm | [comment link]
32. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Rob Eaton [#28], I’ve not seen any evidence that San Joaquin raised the Virginia consent-language issue at any time before May 31 (and even that is limited to a statement in their July 20 letter). If you have any such evidence, please share it with the rest of us.
And it’s irrelevant whether it’s 40 elections in 11 dioceses, as I’ve read, or just 11 elections as you claim.
Please keep in mind that my comment was that David Anderson is, shall we say, careless in his phrasing at the very least. It’s your side that has wrenched it back into the merits of the Virginia and SC election processes.
July 31, 3:54 pm | [comment link]
33. Phil wrote:
“Fail to see?” Then, look harder. Schori knows there’s an issue now, and has for some time, and, unless you’re going to break some news today, the response isn’t in the mail. That’s choosing not to enforce.
July 31, 3:59 pm | [comment link]
34. Steven in Falls Church wrote:
Given that 11 defective consent forms have been accepted by 815, a question that should be asked is whether 815 has in past episcopal elections accepted faxed or emailed diocesan consent forms and counted those toward the total of valid consents. If a faxed or emailed form is not valid as the 56th consent received for Fr. Lawrence, then it also cannot be valid as the 100th received for another episcopal candidate. I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that TEC has a history of counting faxed and emailed consents as well as canonically deficient short forms in past processes where the consents were overwhelming.
This episode is giving reappraisers hives because it undermines the validity of the Dennis Canon by demonstrating that TEC enforces its own canonical rules in a slipshod, arbitrary, and indeed discriminatory manner. A civil court will be less willing to enforce TEC’s rules—of which the Dennis Canon is part—if it finds that TEC fails to observe its rules strictly. Perhaps my question above will be asked in the form of a discovery request served on 815 by attorneys for the CANA parishes in Virginia.
July 31, 4:11 pm | [comment link]
35. Stu Howe wrote:
This is a follow-up to my #18 earlier this morning regarding insurance coverage. In watching the livestream of the ACN Council Meeting, there was a short presentation on this subject just now. If we are lucky, Kevin will include this part of the meeting when he clips things later.
July 31, 4:15 pm | [comment link]
36. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
July 31, 4:29 pm | [comment link]
37. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Phil [#34] writes: “Schori knows there’s an issue now, and has for some time, and, unless you’re going to break some news today, the response isn’t in the mail. That’s choosing not to enforce.”
Phil, pray tell what you would have +KJS do to retrospectively “enforce” the canon with respect to the Virginia election.
It’s one thing to declare an election null and void before the bishop-elect has been consecrated, as in SC. But as I understand the ontological view of ordination, now that +Johnston has been consecrated a bishop, he can’t be unconsecrated, even if the consents to his election were found to be irregular.
(And in any case, the irregularities for his consents seem to have been manifestly immaterial, in sharp contrast to SC’s failure to get its act together to “prove up” Mark Laurence’s highly-controversial consents.)
I understand that y’all are still upset about SC. But this sudden, spite-driven obsession with form over substance is childish.
Rob Eaton [#37], I’m perfectly willing to trust you that you think you’re telling me the truth. But I don’t have sufficient information to judge whether you know what you’re talking about. If there’s something you want to communicate privately, please send it to dc [att] toedt dott comm.
July 31, 4:53 pm | [comment link]
38. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “And in any case, the irregularities for his consents seem to have been manifestly immaterial . . . “
Nope. ALL of Virginia’s consents were in violation of the clear and mandated canons. All were invalid.
RE: “. . . Mark Laurence’s [sic] highly-controversial consents.”
Nope—some were also in violation of the clear and mandated canons. And they were “highly-controversial” because our Dear Leader decided to declare the election null and void—as she should also have done in the case of Virginia’s invalid consents.
July 31, 5:05 pm | [comment link]
39. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Sarah [#39], let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right, that +Johnston’s consents were all invalid.
Once more, with feeling: What would you have +KJS do?
Should she reverse her previous position and proceed with the SC consecration, solely because she consecrated +Johnston while (presumably) not knowing that his consents were invalid?
That’d be saying that SC is entitled to violate the canons just because Virginia did.
July 31, 5:14 pm | [comment link]
40. D. C. Toedt wrote:
There are people who perversely enjoy endlessly dwelling (and expounding) on their discontents. I suspect some of those people can be found in the traditionalist blogosphere comments about the Virginia consents.
July 31, 5:17 pm | [comment link]
41. Phil wrote:
D.C., what I would have her do - at the least - is what I said above: acknowledge the canons were applied unfairly, apologize for it and make a statement about how they will be applied in the future (to the letter of the canon or with dioceses inventing their own consent wording) - equally, for all dioceses, even ones with leadership 815 dislikes.
What’s more, I would prefer she do one of the following: either declare Virginia vacant and have it re-do the election and consent process (of course, +Johnston would not have to be re-consecrated); or, compensate South Carolina for the time, expense and effort it’s expending to re-do its own election.
I think that’s absolutely straightforward and equitable.
July 31, 5:25 pm | [comment link]
42. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Phil [#42], your proposal for an acknowledgment of error makes a great deal of sense. It sounds much like Lionel Deimel’s detailed proposal along the same lines (linked in my # 16 above).
Your additional proposal to declare the Virginia election invalid seems overly harsh, however.
In SC, all concerned were acutely aware of the timing issue for days before the 120-day consent period expired. This includes 815, which improperly extended the period by three days in an attempt to help SC cross the finish line. SC knew what they had to do, but didn’t get it done. Making them redo their election doesn’t seem unwarranted.
In contrast, I’ve seen no claim that Virginia’s problems arose from anything other than innocent and unwitting error. The punishment should fit the “crime,” and invalidating their election would not qualify.
Your alternative proposal to have 815 pick up SC’s cost of a new election would penalize the national church for the Diocese of Virginia’s mistakes. Moreover, it would in effect indemnify SC from its own mistakes.
July 31, 6:09 pm | [comment link]
43. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “There are people who perversely enjoy endlessly dwelling (and expounding) on their discontents.”
And then . . . there are those of us who are not at all discontented that our Presiding Bishop has so clearly and publicly demonstrated her bias against diocese of traditional theology. We are, actually, *contented* when truth is so demonstrated. It’s always best to have clarity.
And we will continue—much to some people’s dismay—to point out our Presiding Bishop’s publicly demonstrated bias clearly . . . especially when reappraisers try to obfuscate that fact.
July 31, 10:10 pm | [comment link]
; > )
44. Cousin Vinnie wrote:
I missed something. 815 had the consents, and also had the pettifogging David Booth Beers, Esq. to advise them. 815 thus had knowledge of the invalidity of consents. Now, how should San Joaquin have known this same information? Were they copied on everyone’s consents?
August 1, 1:29 am | [comment link]
45. Bill C wrote:
“.....Forgive me for saying that this sounds like pure spite to me. If this is your notion of a sensible allocation of time and resources in furtherance of the Great Commission, I guess I have yet another reason to be thankful you’re not in charge….”
I am sorry that the speaker of the above words appears not to understand that God is in command, not “you”, and most certainly not ECUSA.
On a different note, is it possible that our prisons will soon be filled with a very large influx of vestrymen and vestrywomen? If so, they will share their predicament with many of the Apostles and thousands of Christian martyrs. Theirs too was often the result of persecution and intimidation.
August 1, 1:53 am | [comment link]
46. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Cousin Vinnie writes: “815 had the consents, and also had the pettifogging David Booth Beers, Esq. to advise them. 815 thus had knowledge of the invalidity of consents.”
That’s a bit of a stretch, CV. I doubt +KJS or Beers counted the consents themselves, and the people who did do the counting probably weren’t thinking about whether the wording was canonically correct (especially given that the wording appears to have been “standard” in that it seems to have been in widespread use). To reiterate, I’d be surprised if anyone at 815 was conscious of any problem in the wording of the Virginia consents — at least not before San Joaquin brought up the subject after the consecration.
In an ideal world, maybe someone at 815 should verify the proper wording every time, for every filled-in episcopal-election consent form that comes in. But budgets are tight and most people have other claims on their time that are at least equally important. It’d be entirely understandable if other matters were given a higher priority, especially when there have been no apparent problems in the past.
My impression is that the moaning on this subject is merely yet another secessionist attempt to get attention and shift the agenda in the direction they want. Until someone makes a persuasive case that the Virginia wording irregularities are worth spending even one more minute on, +KJS and the rest of 815 should do as Lionel Deimel suggests: Admit error; apologize; explain how they’ll do better next time; and move on to the other things they have on their plates.
August 1, 10:20 am | [comment link]
47. MargaretG wrote:
My impression is that the moaning on this subject is merely yet another secessionist attempt to get attention and shift the agenda in the direction they want
How kind of you!
And I thought that they were wanting an acknowledgement that they had a legitimate point which needed to be appropriately addressed and wasn’t ... and a bias that was likely to be equally applied in the next election just around the corner.
I hope that they have their lawyers check even the typeface of the text is as mandated, because with the kind of concern shown in this exchange it would appear one tiny mistake will be enough ...
August 1, 4:14 pm | [comment link]