Texanglican

"The Preachers chiefly shall take heed that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe and believe, but that which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old Testament and the New, and that which the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that Doctrine." A proposed canon of Elizabeth I, 1571

My Photo
Name:
Location: Bedford, Texas, United States

I am a presbyter in the diocese of Fort Worth, Texas (Anglican Church in North America). I serve as Chaplain at St. Vincent's School and as a canon of St. Vincent's Cathedral Church in Bedford, Texas. In addition to my parish duties and teaching Religion classes in the school I am also the Middle School Social Studies teacher.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Superb Post by the Anglican Curmudgeon on the Legal Situation in Fort Worth

The Anglican Curmudgeon, a lawyer who has followed the ligitation TEC's national headquarters has filed against departing parishes and dioceses carefully, has posted a marvelous piece today recounting exactly what went on in a Fort Worth courtroom over the last two weeks and what it means for the future course of TEC's lawsuit against my diocese.

Read it all here. It is well worth the time.

I am feeling better and better about the legal position of our diocese. Dare we hope that PB Schori will finally see the light and negotiate a decent and honorable settlement of this dispute before any more money is wasted? She has not shown any tendency to do so up to this point, but just perhaps the Dennis Canon's complete defeat in South Carolina and the course of events in Fort Worth last week will bring her around to doing the right thing!

17 Comments:

Anonymous Ron said...

I doubt that presiding priestess Schori will back off. Have you seen the letter 815 has sent to various lawyers requesting donations to cover legal expenses? I saw it on SFiF.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very tired of people telling me "what to think" about the legal battle in Fort Worth. If I want to know what to think about it I will go to the courtroom myself and hear first hand what is happening or I will read the actual transcript of what went on as posted on the diocesan website. Using others second-hand (and slanted) information (all commentary is slanted, no matter what side it comes from) to "predict the future" of the case is not helpful to me in any way. I think it is clear from the transcript how Judge Chupp will rule in this case, but quite unclear what will happen on appeal at the appelate court level. Each judge is different, just like every commentator is different, and to say "I know exactly what will happen" is like what a fortune teller would say, not actual truth. It is a waste of time to dwell on any of this. The church has lots of work to do other than litigation.

12:42 PM  
Blogger texanglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:49 PM  
Blogger texanglican said...

Indeed, Ron. Readers can find that remarkable letter on Stand Firm at
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24719

As for Anon, I whole-heartedly agree with you that: "It is a waste of time to dwell on any of this. The church has lots of work to do other than litigation."

If you have any influence with PB Schori please write her and tell her to stop this madness and leave us alone so we can work to further God's Kingdom. We want nothing more than for this all to go away as soon as possible. There is important work to do and valuable resources are being squandered by 815 in their zeal to take church buildings away from the people who built them.

If PB Schori gets what she so deperately wants almost all of these buildings will have to be sold to non-Anglicans [she has firmly ruled out selling them to non-TEC orthodox Anglican congregations anywhere in the US] or have them foreclosed on by banks.

No one can seriously think the rump TEC "dioFW" will be able to use more than three or four of these buildings for worship if they will their suit. They will have virtually no congregations to put in them if they get what they want! This is a shameful waste of financial resources attacking faithful Christian communities in order to impoverish and uproot them. Simply shameful.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If PB Schori gets what she so deperately wants almost all of these buildings will have to be sold to non-Anglicans [she has firmly ruled out selling them to non-TEC orthodox Anglican congregations anywhere in the US] or have them foreclosed on by banks. "--Texanglican

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad. The money received from the liquidated properties could be divided and given to the surviving loyalist TEC parishes.

4:51 PM  
Blogger The Bovina Bloviator said...

Fr. Foster, I remember your gleeful speculation a few years back how the slick ECUSA lawyers might fare in a Tarrant County courtroom. Obviously that glee was well founded! I am a Catholic now but nevertheless pray the good people of the Diocese of Fort Worth will enjoy continued success escaping the clutches 815 Second Avenue. At this point, I'd say things are looking pretty good. Godspeed.

4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't Iker make a suit back in the 1990's to regain a parish from another secessionist? The irony and hypocrisy is amusing!

12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The madness as you call it is a result of people who no longer wanted to be members of TEC due to their disagreement with theology attempting a coo. There was another way to do this that did not involve secret, behind closed doors planning by a select few that kept many in the dark until months before convention. The group who wanted to leave could have come forward openly, allowed open discussion taking into consideration that in every church family there were those who wished to remain with TEC. A division could have been made leaving everyone with a church home and assets. It was an all or nothing for every church. I've seen many posts about the TEC lawsuit being about "all or nothing" yet isn't that what you wanted? All of it. There was no provision or help given to those at church's where the majority was in favor of leaving TEC. We were left out in the cold. I was at such a church and was ostracized for wanting to remain an Episcopalian. We asked for help from our priest, vestry and none was given. They couldn't even give us a prayer book and spread the word to "watch us" as we might attempt to take things from the church. It was then that I knew I was not among real Christians. I was among people that I could not longer relate to or understand. Blogs like yours blast away at us constantly. Who is mad here? I think you need to look inward instead of pointing the finger outward, disrespecting our PB and the good folk who differ in their belief from you.

10:58 AM  
Blogger texanglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:09 AM  
Blogger texanglican said...

Anon, you are very misinformed. There were extensive negotiations for months aimed at a reasonable division of assets between leaders on both side here (some of them took place in the parlor at St. Vincent's, so I know they happened), but PB Schori announced that no Anglican jurisdiction outside of TEC could have use of any of these buildings and told her loyalists to stop negotiating. The "all or nothing approach" has been entirely on the TEC side. See Ms. Wells' remarks (TEC's attorney) in the Star-Telegram precisely to this effect last summer. Bishop Iker actually GAVE two parish buildings away to departing congregations--gave them deeds to file and all--and told two more TEC loyalist parishes they could have their buildings, too, if they would just clear the diocese off of their mortgages. This is all public record and done as an act of Christian charity.
But TEC has a scortched earth policy. No one can leave TEC and take a single building, Prayer Book, or a bank account with them. Period. (Bishop Stanton in Dallas did this a couple of times and brought PB's wrath down on himself with the specter of "breach of fiduciary duty." He has not done so again since since she laid down the law.)

Please, get your facts straight. And what is this claim about closed door secret meetings to take the diocese out of TEC? We voted on it quite publicly in November 2007 and there a FULL YEAR to argue against it before it was officially endorsed in November 2008. Many meetings were held to discuss the matter fully. I spoke at one in the summer of 2008 and got raked over the coals at St. Luke's in the Meadow for supporting the diocese's position. Everyone knew precisely what was going on all the time. Our departure was quite public and all according to our diocesan constitution and canons. The newspapers even carried full accounts of the issues in debate for almost two full years!

You are totally misinformed if you think this was some back room act by a handful of people. Bishop Iker told every parish in the diocese that if 2/3 of the parishioners wanted to leave, good faith negotiations could be entered into. He practically pleaded with the leadership of Trinity and All Saints to settle this matter amicably. Not a single TEC loyalists group anywhere took him up on the offer to negotiate an end to this mess.

Check your facts before you cast aspersions.

11:19 AM  
Blogger David J said...

Anonymous said...

"Didn't Iker make a suit back in the 1990's to regain a parish from another secessionist? The irony and hypocrisy is amusing!"

Anon...there is no hypocrisy or comparison on this 1990 issue. That was a PARISH wanting to take property from the DIOCESE. In that case, and in all cases, the Diocese is the "owner" of parish property. In todays case, the TEC/815 claims they hold title to Diocese & hence parish property. Sorry, but TEC/815 doesn't own any property in FTW, the Diocese does. So, when that parish tried to take the property, it was not the same as todays case. In both issues, then and now, FTW/Bishop Iker is simply going by the C&C of FTW, but TEC/815 is going by feelings and greed.

9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AH. David Jay, Iker is no longer Episcopalian, but Anglican.
Iker abandanded his oaths(we can call hims an oathbreaker), and privelages when he left the Church and joined another church. There is no canon that gives a Bishop in the TEC the right to take a whole diocease out of TEC.
Iker hates +Schori simply because she is a woman. At the same time no one was forcing Iker to install and Gay bishops or Women bishops in his locality. He left because he was a coward to fight for conservative issues in TEC.

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iker still bows down to the Jews!
:((

11:30 PM  
Blogger texanglican said...

"He left because he was a coward to fight for conservative issues in TEC."

ROTFL! For sixteen long years Bishop Iker was THE lightening rod that rose up above all the other conservative and semi-conservative bishops in TEC to take the full blast of the Left's fury and yet anon 1 says he is a coward for not "fighting for the conservative issues in TEC"!!!? Please. That is the silliest thing ever said on this blog, surely. So "cowards" are what you term the kind of men who stand in the front lines of the fight for sixteen long years, constantly reviled by their opponents in public forums and in private but still manfully defending their principles at every turn, eh? Surely you haven't paid a minute's attention to the affairs of TEC during the last 15 years.

I will assume that the anti-Semitic foolishness of the last anon does not originate from the same source as the feminist/gay rights attack on Bishop Iker above it. (Surely no one is that inconsistent in their principles!) Anti-Semitic anon, please take your venom elsewhere. You are not welcome here.

6:40 AM  
Blogger David J said...

Anon: First and foremost you lost any credibility to have a legitimate dialog on this or any issue when you dropped the anti-Semitic bomb. Therefore anything you say is irrelevant going forward. Conservatives has been more supportive of Israel and the Jewish state than any other group in America. Second, please, if you would, post the canon of TEC which states specifically that a Diocese cannot leave TEC. Third, Iker doesn't "hate" Shori. If Shori were a male Bishop with the same progressive beliefs, he and the rest of us would still not agree with "him". And finally, Iker is Anglican, sure, but still Episcopal. Please, look of the definition of that word. ECUSA doesn't own the word as their own. It appears that you have run out of facts and will do what most progressives...turn to slander and even antisemitism.

David J. (not Jay)

11:21 AM  
Blogger texanglican said...

David J, I think we may have two different people posting anonymously here. Surely the person who attacked Bishop Iker four posts back as a "coward" is not the same anon as the anti-Semite. Of course, I could be wrong.

1:27 PM  
Blogger Arizona foreclosures said...

As for Anon, I whole-heartedly agree with you that: "It is a waste of time to dwell on any of this. The church has lots of work to do other than litigation. Texas

2:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats