Under further questioning by attorneys for CANA, she said that had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected.

But, “the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop within its jurisdiction,” she said in her deposition.

Seems more like a lack of integrity to me. Such a shame.

This is a really sad admission from Schori that she interfered at the last moment in the negotiations between these congregations and the local diocese. What could have been an example to the wider Church about resolving conflicts amicably and moving on from an organizational division to at least a civil relationship on other matters. I now feel sorry for Lee who seems to have been bullied by his new boss.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/windsor_rpt.html

But does she not also claim that the Presiding Bishop holds no sacramental authority in individual diocese as reason to spurn APO plans? If American bishops are autonomous in relation to her position, why would she interfere with Lee’s arrangements? Isn’t that just as much a violation, in her reasoning, as CANA? She seems to be tying herself in knots…

Agreed with #1, it is a shame. Let us all pray for an amicable arrangement to result from this sordid affair.

She certainly does not want to violate ancient principles of the church. Teaching yes but not territory.

Use of the “ancient principle” argument by Schori is absolutely incoherent.  The “ancient principle” had nothing to do with two bishops having same jurisdiction in the same denomination—she would have had no objections to the property being sold to Baptists or Methodists—but to two bishops having the same jurisdiction in the Catholic Church.  The logic behind that argument is that the bishop is the local representative of the Universal Church.

Either KJS is claiming that Peter Lee is the single representative of the Catholic Church in VA—in which case the local Roman Catholic and Orthodox bishops need to step aside—or the argument is meaningless.  And, of course, TEC’s own intercommunion with the ELCA becomes incoherent, because it is premised on the assumption that Lutheran and Episcopalian jurisdictions will overlap.

Moreover, even if the argument is illogically restricted to Anglican bishops alone, then KJS’s depature from the teaching of Lambeth ‘98, the Windsor Report, and the DES Communique, as well as the legal argument in this case that there is no Anglican Communion, again makes the argument incoherent.  Lee can only be the single legitimate Anglican bishop in VA if the Anglican Communion is recognized as a worldwide Communion of which TEC is the local embodiment and universal representative.  But TEC cannot coherently make that claim and simultaneously refuse the judgments of the vast majority of Anglican bishops and/or primates when they meet in consultation.  A conciliarism in which individual parties pick and choose which bits they want to endorse is meaningless.

Finally, the “ancient principle” presupposes that the bishop in the local diocese holds to the Catholic faith.  The ancient principle did not mean (and was never taken to mean) that a Catholic bishop had to respect the diocesan boundaries of an Arian bishop, or that (as in Augustine’s Hippo), there could be no Catholic bishop where a Donatist bishop was already keeping shop.  Not only were the orthodox not required to remain in communion with heretical bishops; they were forbidden to do so.

There seems to be a typo in the original quote.  “...for matters of its own integrity...” should read “...for matters of its own Integrity...” which makes the real meaning clear. 

Under further questioning by attorneys for CANA, she said that had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected.  Hmmm, I don’t remember any GC resolution to that effect. Aaah. “Polity is what I sez it is.”

Great!  I’m sure that Cardinal Egan is looking forward to his first Mass in the Co-Cathedral of St. John the Divine.

Nothing surprising here.  Ms. Schori’s logic is consistent only in its opportunism and convenience.  With no grounding in the Catholic Faith, how absurd- yet typical- for her to lay claim to ancient tradition regarding territory.

CANA’s presence “violates the ancient principle of the church that two bishops do not have jurisdiction in the same area,” said the presiding bishop,

Take note Roman Catholics, Orthodox Churches, even Methodists and Lutherans, you may not be aware of it, but there can only be “one bishop in a geographic area.” You had better take heed, because you may be interfering with the absolute geographic integrity of The Episcopal Church. The “New TEC Sheriff” says so.

Of course, the gadfly is “how ancient of a principle are we talking here?”  I suggest that she put up an historic timeline for the Christian Church on the wall and then throw a dart at it. Where the dart lands is the date which TEC’s P.B. can establish as the point of authority for this mysterious “ancient principle of one bishop in a geographic area.”

After all, we in TEC do proclaim that “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” correct? So, it must be that there can only be “one bishop” for all of us who are members of that “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” At least that is what ++KJS would have us all believe. Well, kinda, sorta. Or is it? Darn if I can figure it out.

Ah, but I’ll bet that she’s referring to “within the Anglican Communion.” If that is what she means, then she has just made the case for a hierarchical Church scheme in which TEC is a part of a much larger whole, making her and TEC (gulp!) subordinate to the Anglican Communion. And if that’s the case, the CANA Churches never really “abandoned Communion” (left) in the first place.  Now imagine how it must sound to the Anglican Primates when she testifies for the court that she directed a diocese, against their recommendation, to “sue, sue, sue!”

I think the P.B. is once again applying her pretzel logic in yet another very unique way. I would think that this wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone by now.

“Bishop Jefferts Schori defended her actions “as a means to preserve assets of the Episcopal Church for ministry and the mission of the Episcopal Church.”

So, she is asserting, for the record, that TEC (a branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Church of Nigeria (a branch of the Anglican Communion) have not merely different, but contrary missions???  Gee… that sounds like “division”, doesn’t it?

If there is no Anglican Communion then what does this mean?

PREAMBLE
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby
recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution, adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.

I believe it is far to long past for TEC’s integrity to be preserved.
+KJS fears a real competitor because she knows her product would be rejected by too large a percentage of Episcopalians if given a viable alternative and a free vote of concious. She is truly a force for bad.

Wow.  As one of your ecumenical partners, my observation is that your leader appears she wants to create a serious train wreck. Doesn’t she know when you start out in an aggressive mode you immediately run out of options if someone calls your bluff?  Wow.  Just wow.

Maryland Brian
ELCA pastor

“With no grounding in the Catholic Faith, how absurd- yet typical- for her to lay claim to ancient tradition regarding territory.”

Indeed.  This isn’t the first time that she’s made tragically ironic statements, but has been to stupid to realize it.

Sounds like what angered her was a “division” of the Episcopal Church into more than one body.  I would think her testimony is helpful in proving facts supportive of CANA prevailing under the statute.

I hope copies of the transcript are being sent to all of the Primates - so they will know what type of Christian she is by her “love”.

the Episcopal Church, for matters of its own integrity, cannot encourage other parts of the Anglican Communion to set up shop   within its jurisdiction

Set up shop? SET UP SHOP!?!?! Is the Anglican Communion merely a franchise to protect the bottom line? Is it to be protected not by principle and faith but by copyright and patent… in courts?

I have no sympathy for Bishop Lee either, he is the leader of his diocese. Having decided the course he was pursuing in negotiations in his diocese was allowed by the canons he has no real excuse for allowing this breakdown if the only reason presented by another Bishop is an objection to “shop” operations.

Under further questioning by attorneys for CANA, she said that had the property been sold to a Methodist or Baptist congregation, she would not have objected.

I hope Rowan Williams reads this as it is his solution to the crisis.
Kick TEC out of the AC ASAP so they are no longer of the same denomination as Anglicans and parishes can peacefully negotiate, with THEIR Bishop,  their departure without interference from the PB.

Kate Schori is a principled woman.  Granted, her principles are all wrong, but no one can fault her for not being zealous in her spite and apostate views.

It would be interesting to know, when the subject of these same lawsuits was brought up at DeS, whether she was so forthright with her Primatial colleagues.  I cannot believe that she told them outright what she is reported as saying in court- that she personally was the moving force behind the lawsuits.

#18 I agree with your sentiment, but her approach is more along the lines of an action under trademark law - her corporation’s branding, name, and trade dress are threatened, and she fears losing the benefit of the good will that has been built up over the years.

The reference to Nicea appears to be simple expediency, for she has shown that she cares little for other aspects of the historic faith.  Apparently, logic, accuracy, and consistency in these matters are not requirements of her intended audience.

In defense of +Schori (who, me!!!?):

for matters of its own integrity

should probably be interpreted in terms of definition 3 of integrity,

The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

rather than in terms of definition 1:

Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

which +Schori manifestly lacks.

Pope Benedict to the rescue? See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml
http://tinyurl.com/3bopk6

#23 Yes Prof Tighe - Damian Thompson - I read it over my corn-flakes this morning, but it is off topic.  Are you off on another bombing run such as you made with +Venables remarks I wonder?

I suppose hope springs eternal that some of our dear anglo-catholics will take the lure.

I think we should support her desire to turn to traditional ...then ask for her to resign due to the incompatibility of her gender with her role as supposed Arch-bishop. .....

I tihnk everyone has seen enough know for any serious Christian to instinctively declare- she is not ‘the real deal’

I had thought the ancient prinicples referred to Christianity but then it occurred to me that I had neglected to consider pagan values and practices. No wonder they think I am narrow minded.

Y’know, even the Catholic Church has Bishops with overlapping jurisdictions.  Such as Archbishop Bustros of the Eparchy of Newton, which covers the entire US, or Bishop Mansour of the Eparchy of Brooklyn.  I don’t see how the PB’s argument regarding “catholic” principles of jurisdiction holds water.

I have been very hard on Bishop Lee and would like to apologize here for any statements I made attributing spite or malice toward him. 

I should have realized that someone who would go to the trouble of establishing such a Godly committee to work out the details of separation would not, on his own, spurn their advice.

I do wish that he had treated Bp. Schori as an equal as opposed to a superior (a Pope, if you will).  This was his mistake. 

Still, it is not too late to dismiss the lawsuit—I suspect the opposing parties would allow him to do so “without prejudice” (meaning he can refile again later), if it is within their capacity to do so (I don’t practice in Virginia and have always had trouble with its procedures).

One interesting legal point:  The Presiding Chancellor is asking the court to stay away from the “religious thicket” and not interpret religious doctrine, then has his chief bishop define her actions based on interpretation of religious doctrine.  I don’t know the judge, but if I can figure out the speciousness of such an agument, I bet he can too.

Re: #24:

“Are you off on another bombing run such as
you made with +Venables remarks I wonder?”

Don’t need to, thank you, as the Anglicans are bombing themselves at the moment quite nicely, and so I can save my bombs for another occasion.

“I suppose hope springs eternal that some of our dear anglo-catholics will take the lure.”

It does; and they will.

So our Kate reveals herself by demonstrating her duplicitous, manipulating sophistry and heretical apostasy.  She is in dire need of some rehabilitative therapy.  Reminds me of one of the Democratic party’s candidates for president, equivocating so not to be pinned down.  Under oath, however, she is forced to ‘fess up.  She needs our prayers more than ever, I think.

Fair point Prof. Tighe - but Damian Thompson?  Not the sort of authority I usually hear you quoting.

Re: #32,

Probably I should have added FWIW to the link.  Still, I think that Ruth Gledhill makes more mistakes than Damian does.

IMO, PL was already was gutless when he said that he could not vote against the consecration of Gene Robinson on the basis of diocene sovereignity.  The comments by the PB indicate he is also impotent.  It is the ultimate irony that the bishop of what was once the most powerful and influential diocese in TEC, that could not find it within himself to intrude on the activities of another diocese, is in fact the “victim” of the very same thing.  The PB must have known that she was going to make PL look even more foolish and powerless by that deposition.

The PB is used to dealing with invertebrates.

Her charge to sue instead of negotiate is personal animus, is it not? This hardly shows good judgement in a bishop andit contradicts what an earlier entry said about her maturity and good judgment.
Again and again, we see that she lacks the wherewithal to be a true leader. If nothing else, her incompetence alone would have damaged TEC irreparably. LM

IANAL, but it would seem to be interesting from a legal standpoint what force KJS’s instruction held.  If +Lee was operating under the threat of presentment only, then I believe that parishes would have a claim that any property trust, implied or otherwise, would end at the diocese, no?

Another telling point on KJS as to how she picks and chooses which ‘ancient traditions’ to follow, as she does the canons.  If she accepts the ‘ancient principle’ of one bishop, why not the ancient principle of being united in theology?

If I were a betting man, I’d bet Schori falls into her own trap—I think the Episcopal Church will get much less than they would have under the agreement Bishop Lee and the congregations were working out.

#28 William Sulik: the voluntary nonsuit in Virginia is very broad. VA Stat 8.01-380

http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc0800100/8.01-380.html

Here she is acting Popette without a mandate from the laity of the GCC or in opposition to the LAITY of the Churches of Virginia and LORDetting it over +Lee.  After signing the Dar Es Salaam Communique, too.  Can anyone prove that this PB did NOT have lessons under Frank “the Pluriform Truth liar” Griswold?  I think actions reveal the reality, don’t you?

Love the non sequiter of no division - division, oh, and the allegation of integrity.  That’s rich.  Enough irony there to fortify a subcontinent.

Um, people, has anyone confirmed this?  Has this supposed statement been backed up?  Consider the source, for pete’s sake.  The Washington Times, once a fairly reputable newspaper, is now nothing more than a Moonie-rag and hardly known for unbiased journalism.

#39

I agree.

Having KJS as the final witness for the defense to clinch the case that a division indeed exists was a stroke of legal brilliance, IMO. If the judge agrees, and is upheld on any appeal, poor Peter Lee will get none of the property. No buyout income. His diocese must cough up not only the payments for its own legal bills but also the CANA churches’ legal defense costs. He will need to beg on bended knees for 815’s help short term and long term.

My, my, the cost of kowtowing to the “new sheriff in town” who turned out to be a control freaking lone ranger. Bp. Lee should have exercised his authority. His successor is left with the mess.

w.w.

#39

Seasoned religion reporter Julia Duin, a Trinity educated Episcopalian, is covering the trial. She would have witnessed and heard what everyone else heard KJS testify in her videotaped deposition. Baby Blue reported similarly on her blog, and she is there.

Your “Moonie rag” description is out of date and irrelevant. I would be more curious about the Washington Post’s sparing its readers the pain of knowing what KJS said.

w.w.

The ancient principle quote is priceless.  But better that that, for someone leading a faction that is constantly whining that conservatives want to create an Anglican Magesterium, she is behaving like she is a pope.  She really is a stitch.  At least when her “pontificate” is over she can make a living on the comedy circuit!

#40, Brother Sinner,  thank you for the clarification.

Oops. My #44 was really addressed to #42 Kevin.

Apologies.

w.w.

#31, Schori’s oath seems to have had a salutary effect.  I wonder whether she took an oath invoking the help of her God, or whether she merely affirmed under penalty of perjury.

Episcope (official Episcopal church blog)  has this comment on this story:

  It’s all here ...and can someone explain how you get from “I told Bishop Lee I could not support” to “says she forced”? 

So does that mean this was all a misunderstanding? Lee thought Schori told him he couldn’t settle out of court, but she didn’t really mean that?

Also, the CANA lawyers seem to have missed some basic questions in their deposition of the presiding bishop. They should have gone through the Apostles creed line by line, and asked the Presiding Bishop which, if any statements she believed were factually true. And then deposed the rest of the house of bishops with the same questions. Then we could have under oath, what the Episcopal church really believes. That would surely be in the scope of this case, as it goes to the heart of the matter before the court - is the Episcopal church still a Christian church?  If the bishops lie, they can be sued personally for perjury. That would be a turn of the tables….If the bishops tell the truth, then it will expose the unvarnished truth to the whole church and make for some good headlines. Unless they really do believe in the creed that is, in which case there is no reason for these churches to be leaving.

43, there’s no claim for legal fees by the congregations and no basis for adding one.

44, you have a higher opinion of Julia Duin than her reporting merits.  Non-legal reporters usually struggle to describe what’s going on in a courtroom, and she is no exception.

observing,

remember that the depositin that was shown in the courtroom on which Julia Duin reported was only excerpts of the complete 4 hour deposition.  Also in this case, the judge has been clear from the beginning that both sides must stay away from what he terms the “religious thicket” and I think questioning by the attorneys to the creed in the deposition would have put them in the middle of such a thicket.  Believe me when I say that this judge is no non-sense he is straight forward and asks a great deal of questions.  He is sharp.  The outcome of the case will be interesting.

Unless you are going to just look at the recorded deed to see whose name is listed as grantee, and leave it at that, there is no way to completely avoid the “religious thicket.”  Even the internal structure of the church and the question of whether there is a division, has religious overtones.