Churches and Lawsuits

Sep 17, 2009 00:34

[NOTE--How the heck do I get lj-cut to work with pasted text?  If I paste something in from the clipboard, it NEVER goes into the "put your lj-cut contents here" gray box in rich text, and even if I switch into HTML and add the tags and after the text it doesn't work--all it adds is a box that says "read more" but it doesn't cut the lj-cut text out of the post.]

This is really good news for the Diocese of Fort Worth.  I'm not being triumphalistic--it's not over yet.  But I've been on pins and needles about this all day.  If The Episcopal Church had gotten away with this it would be a blatant and grievous injustice.  The hearings are set to resume mid-October, and I have to keep praying that justice will be done.  I've gotten the below from accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-noon-in-fort-worth.html
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
High Noon in Fort Worth

A momentous confrontation is occurring right now in Fort Worth. At issue is ECUSA's "go-for-broke" litigation strategy against departing dioceses. According to the official guideline for this strategy (as conveniently published in ENS), as soon as a diocesan convention has voted to amend its Constitution so as to remove the language by which it accedes to the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, the steps that follow are these (not always taken in the same order):
1. If not done already, obtain a letter from the Title IV Review Committee charging the bishop of the diocese in question with "abandonment of communion."

2. Obtain permission from the three most senior diocesan bishops in the Church (currently -- for a little while longer, at least, +Frade, +Lee, and +Walker; when +Lee steps down this fall, it will be +Frade, +Walker, and +Howe) to the renegade bishop's inhibition, issue an inhibition, and bring a resolution to depose before the next House of Bishops meeting.

2a. If #1 is possible, but not #2, inhibit the bishop anyway, and declare that Canon IV.9 cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow any senior bishop the ability to prevent the Presiding Bishop from "doing her duty."

2b. If neither #1 nor #2 is possible, take any announcement to the press by the renegade bishop of the Convention's decision as a "renunciation of ministry" pursuant to Canon IV.8, and sign a certificate of renunciation.

2c. If the required number of bishops (a majority of all active and resigned (retired) bishops with a seat in the House) does not attend the meeting, take a voice vote on the resolution anyway and declare -- no matter what opposition is made -- that the vote to depose carried because there were no objections (or because you overruled in advance any that could be made), and sign a certificate of deposition immediately afterwards.

3. Having gotten rid of the diocesan bishop by one of the means in Step #2, declare that you no longer recognize the Standing Committee of the departing Diocese as legitimate (unless one or more of its members swears allegiance to you, in which case use that one or more to appoint new loyal members to the positions on the Committee which have become suddenly vacant).

4. Exercising your claimed authority as Primate of the Church, convene a special diocesan convention in the affected area as soon as possible. Never mind requirements for notice, call or quorum; just require everyone attending to sign an oath of conformity to ECUSA.

5. Meanwhile, send a letter to the banking institutions at which the departing diocese maintains its accounts, and suggest that they might want to freeze all those accounts if they do not wish to be held responsible for disbursing funds to "anyone claiming to be the Diocese [in dispute] without first informing us."

6. At the special convention you called, take the following actions:
  • Pass a resolution rescinding all the amendments made by the previous Convention as having been ultra vires and void.
  • Elect (or confirm in office) persons to a Standing Committee and to any other positions you declare are "vacant" by reason of the opponents' departure.
  • Have the Convention approve your designation of a "Provisional Bishop" to act for the "Diocese" in all matters.
  • Pass a resolution authorizing the newly designated provisional bishop to file suit against the departing bishop, and to file any necessary amendments to the latter's corporation sole (if one exists), so as to claim title to all of the departing diocese's assets.
7. Immediately announce that you "recognize" the Standing Committee and the provisional bishop as the Standing Committee and diocesan of the departed Diocese, express your regret for the people who chose to leave, but maintain that the "door remains open" for them to return, and reaffirm the principle that "people may leave the Church, but Dioceses cannot".

8. As is convenient, have other branches of the Church (the Executive Council, the President of the House of Deputies, etc.) "recognize" the provisional bishop and Standing Committee as well; obtain invitations as necessary for them to any events where they can represent the national Church, and seat their deputies in the House of Deputies and their bishop in the House of Bishops. But do not, repeat: do not, have the "Diocese" apply for admission to General Convention, or have General Convention pass any kind of resolution admitting the "Diocese": that could be taken as an admission in a court of law that the "Diocese" which you set up is not the same entity as the one that claimed (illegally) the right to depart.

9. Once the lawsuit authorized in Step #6 has been filed, bring a motion for summary judgment as soon as possible to have the court declare that the departing group (remember, you cannot call it a Diocese) and its bishop must turn over all of their assets to the new provisional bishop. Justify the motion by showing how the national Church "deposed" the departing bishop and replaced him with a new bishop which it recognizes as the lawful head of the "Diocese", and tell the Court that the First Amendment prevents it from making any inquiry into the matter -- that it must accept your recognition of the latter as an "ecclesiastical determination" which is not reviewable in any court of law.

---

That's all I'm posting.  This shows the lengths at which The Episcopal Church is willing to go to persecute dissenters.  For specifics on what happened during the actual case, follow the link to the blog at the top of the page.
Previous post Next post
Up