[FONT=Garamond]Dear Bishop of Pittsburgh,
If you reserve the right to withdraw from union with
the other bishops of the American Episcopal Church,
then let it be known we reserve the right to withdraw
from union with you and the other parishes of the diocese.
Just to let you know.
Peace in Christ,
The People of St. Karma[/FONT]
Amusing, Moriah, but if the Episcopalians have a secular legal association similar to that of the RCC, the parish actually could not take their marbles and go home. The congregation could walk out en masse and pool their pennies to rent a hall in which to meet, but the property would belong to the diocese administered by the bishop.
(I do not know the legal situation in the Episcopal Church in the U.S.; I am only pointing out a possibility that would make Moriah’s scenario difficult.)
Title to most Episcopal church property in the U.S. is in one of four capacities:
Held by the parish as a religious corporation, in fee simple.
Held by the parish subject to a mortgage to the diocese or other larger church body.
Held by the diocese, or by the parish in trust for the diocese. (This is by far the most common form of ownership.)
Held by the parish, but in a capacity which puts them in a sort of “trustee” situation – it was donated as the building for the use of St. Swithin’s Episcopal Church, within the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.
This came to the forefront when parishes were threatening to secede – it came as a surprise to them that they couldn’t take their property with them. Only in the rare cases where #1 is the form of title were they able to do so.
But what Moriah raises is interesting – what if a Diocese corporately secedes, with a few parishes choosing to remain behind as parts of the Episcopal Church? The argument put forth by the legal representatives for Siege’s parish is that all property of the diocese properly belongs to the Episcopal Church, since that is what it, or the funds for it, was given in prospect of. In other words, just as a parish cannot take along its property if it leaves the Episcopal Church, neither can a diocese.
Since Bishop Duncan is trying to pull off a takeover bid on the Church à la Paige Patterson and the SBC (see a Pit thread I started some months ago on this), rather than doing anything more than fulminating a bit about actually leaving, that situation is in abeyance. But their cards are on the table – if the good Bishop decides to become a large frog in a small puddle, he may find himself without a cathedral or diocesan office complex to do it in.
Hmm, you’re not at Grace Episcopal, obviously. A friend of mine was a member there; they installed a new rector this past spring and in the weeks directly preceeding his installation, all manner of anti-gay (not just anti-gay clergy or pro-church tradition, but full out anti-gay) material started popping up on the community literature and information tables in the undercroft. The thing which caught my friend’s eye and prompted our conversation on the matter was a bumper sticker which was not just bigoted, but crudely so, displayed freely in the church without any sense that being crass on the matter was not something which ought to be distilled down to pithy (and crass) sentences on stickybacked paper.
I’m very worried about the division I’m hearing from various Episcopal friends in the Pittsburgh area, and moreso in the church at large. I understand that this “advisory” doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but the very idea that the church has been “advised” to apologize for advancing a man of substance and faith to a position of leadership because of who he loves…
It feels like the world has turned on its head.
The funny thing about the way the average RCC church is incorporated is that it has a board: The bishop (president), the pastor (v.p. & secretary), and two lay trustees.
I’ve always wondered what would happen if the pastor and lay trustees decided to vote the bishop off the board…
OTOH, canon law prohibits the selling off or transfer of church property of sizeable amounts without the approval of the bishop.
And so, what would the courts say? Would it go with the new governing board of dissidents? Or would it interpret canon law as organizational by-law and not recognize the validity of the pastor and trustees to dispense with the property as they see fit?
That’s what this situation needs… long drawn out court battles involving the involvement of state in church matters. That’ll settle it.
Peace.
I can tell you that a couple of congregations in Orange County, CA have voted to affiliate themselves with a diocese in Africa (see Homebrew’s second postin this thread), over the objections of the Los Angeles archbishop. The legality of their move has yet to be established in court. Things are not completely analogous to matters in the RCC.
I had hoped to post to this thread with a calmer attitude today, but the more I think about this report, the angrier I get.
Right, Archbishop of Rwanda. You absolutely have the moral superiority to tell me and my church how we ought to behave. Everyone is well aware of Rwanda’s remarkable record in human rights.
Sure, Archbishop of Armagh. Nice group you’re chairing. By the way, have you noticed that people are killing each other in and around your see city? Thank you, I’d rather have a bishop that wears paisley than that supports Paisley.
By the way, would you go back and read your own report again, concentrating on the parts that actually talk about our Christian duty and not the ones where you’re trying to turn the Anglican Communion into Vatican Junior? (That was not a part of your mandate, I’m certain of that!)
Just in case you didn’t get it:
“I know not what course others may take, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” You know Him – the guy who said “Judge not, lest ye be judged” and “Love one another, as I have loved you.” He didn’t make any exception for gay people – and neither do I.
If that’s not acceptable to the Anglican Communion, then maybe it collectively needs to repent, become less interested in what is adiaphoric and what is mandative, and start looking directly at what Jesus said.
To Priam, Gobear, Sol Grundy, etc. – if you ever visit Raleigh, I would be deeply honored to have you accompany me to church – and I would like the opportunity to give each of you a big bear hug at the Passing of the Peace. So would my wife, and our priests, and 99% of our parish. And if we can complete the paperwork to institute the process, we will be happy to celebrate the formalization of any vows of union you and your partner make. In North Carolina, it won’t be recognized by the state. But it will be real before God and before His People in St. Mark’s Episcopal Church – and for me, that’s what’s important.
Once we’ve changed some hearts, it’s only a matter of time before we change some laws.
Pax vobiscum!
Poly, I might be in Raleigh next month (depends on the route I take on my road trip) and I might have to stop in and worship with my Episcopalian brethern at St. Mark’s. You’ve made it sound like just the sort of place that all congregations ought to strive to emulate.
Ah, Poly, the knives are VERY sharp today! Do you mind that you made me laugh? It was in a sadly ironic manner, of course.
And an invite from me to anybody, gay or straight, who visits the western burbs of Chicago. I’ll make sure I go that week, too. We ain’t Epicopalian but we’re in full communion witchall. And even if we weren’t there’s no loyalty oath to sign. 
First of all, concerning church and property, this link will tell you what my church is doing. As I said (perhaps badly), we’ve openly declared our support of Bishop Robinson, and will resist any attempt by our bishop to create a schism over this matter.
The report on the commission in my local paper (link) has both sides in this dispute.
For the past year, Anglicans and Episcopalians have been praying devoutly for unity. I have been praying that our Christian obligation to love each other would allow us to overcome our differences. Instead, it seems there are some who are so interested in power, so interested in proclaiming to the world that they are right that they lose sight of Christ’s teachings and even Paul’s – “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-24).
I go to a church full of liberal sinners, some of whom are quite aware that we are dependent on God’s mercy. On the other hand, our sermons will make you both laugh and think, and I hear they’ve got a pretty good choir. For those of you who’ve never attended an Episcopalian service, I’m told by a certain reliable source it’s a little too much like something out of Monty Python, but our faith is real. I also know what it’s like to walk into a place and feel unwelcome. Any church which does that to someone, no matter what its justification, is not one I will choose to attend, and I will work to hold the door open to all. To those of you reading, gay, straight, or bisexual, liberal, conservative, or generally fed up, even Christian or non-Christian, if you’re in my town, you’re welcome in my church. I’ll be the first alto on the right.
CJ
Actually the same situation is going on in reverse. A few parishes in New Westminster decided to remove themselves from the Bishop’s authority because they don’t want to perform SSM; instead they decided to join (so help me, I am not making this up) the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The diocese of New Westminster may be (is?) going to court to try to recover the parishes’ physical property.
Because the colonial religious vestige of a 3rd world country with an abysmal human rights record is JUST what the discerning Anglican-type neanderthal is looking for…
The Archbishop of Singapore (!) and two Bishops from the Church of the Province of Rwanda (!!) were the consecrators of the priest in low country South Carolina who claims to be the Bishop of the Anglican Mission in America, one of the breakaway schismatic groups from the Episcopal Church. Hence my comments regarding Rwanda in post #27 above.
Rwanda.
RWANDA.
Rwanda!!
Has the world completely taken leave of its senses?
Or am I out to lunch here?
Last Advent, our bishop came to talk to our adult Sunday class about convention and Bishop Robinson’s ordination. One of the things he said made things much clearer regarding who was against VGR and why. He said that if you looked at a map of who founded the Anglican Church in a particular country, all countries against us were founded by conservative missionaries. To me, this explains why the church in Rwanda doesn’t accept our action, while the church in South Africa does (politics aside). I agree with you Polycarp that Rwanda’s position is ironic at best, but they may be relying on the values they were founded on. I was always taught that Anglicanism was supported on three legs: tradition, scripture and intellect. Take away any one of those legs and you’re going to fall over.
Vlad/Igor
I cannot believe this thread has gone 33 posts without someone calling for a “Cite?” other than the Advocate story which Homebrew linked to in the OP – must be Dopers are slipping! – but http://windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/downloads/windsor2004full.pdf]here’s the full report of the Windsor (Eames) Commission. (Warning: large PDF file.)
Sometimes I think my Church misheard Micah: “Do justice, and love Murphy…” :smack:
Was the first woman ordained before or after the “rules” were changed?
Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained in 1944, in Hong Kong – well before the rules were changed. (Interestingly, in 4.5 hours from this post, Barb and I will be attending a teaching at our church by the Rt. Rev. Barbara Harris, Ret. Bp. of Massachusetts, first woman to serve as a Bishop anywhere in the world.)
As anyone knows, you can’t stand on only two legs!!
:eek: :eek: 