tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post637201714104265378..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: A New Low in ECUSA's Tactics in San JoaquinA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-76567321823782995472008-12-30T15:44:00.000-08:002008-12-30T15:44:00.000-08:00Father Weir, thank you very much for that comment....Father Weir, thank you very much for that comment. From your reference to 1868, I assume that you are speaking about the predecessor of the current Canon 6 of Title II, which was first enacted as Canon 21 of Title I in 1868.<BR/><BR/>The exposition of how that Canon subsequently evolved is too complicated for a comment, and requires a separate post, which I shall prepare in due course.<BR/><BR/>For now, however, please note that Canon II.6 speaks only of any "dedicated and consecrated Church and Chapel"---it does not speak of other kinds of real property, nor does it address any kind of personal property whatsoever. Also, it is the diocesan Bishop (or other Ecclesiastical Authority) who decides whether the property is sufficiently secured, or whether it can be conveyed away.<BR/><BR/>Thus Canon II.6 has no application to the situation in San Joaquin. No "consecrated church or chapel" owned by any parish or mission is at stake (although such a claim may have been asserted against some individual parishes in the complaint, they have not been joined as parties to the lawsuit), and I am unaware of any church property being conveyed away without the Bishop's consent. The principal claim being asserted in the lawsuit is to personal property (funds, investments and bank accounts) owned by the <I>Diocese</I>, and not even the language of the Dennis Canon applies to those.<BR/><BR/>But as I say, your mention of Canon II.6 and its predecessors deserves a fuller response in a separate post, and I will do that in a week or so. Thanks very much for commenting here!A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-40905299360943862962008-12-30T14:22:00.000-08:002008-12-30T14:22:00.000-08:00The Canons of the Episcopal Church, which the Dioc...The Canons of the Episcopal Church, which the Diocese of San Joaquin accepted when it became a diocese, have since 1868 held that all parish or diocesan prperty is held in trust for the Episcopal Church. When any member of the Episcopal Church decides to leave the Episcopal Church, they have no rightful claim on the property of the church they are leaving.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2775221770009611492008-12-27T18:10:00.000-08:002008-12-27T18:10:00.000-08:00Deacon Phil, Thank you for your comment. I have to...Deacon Phil, Thank you for your comment. I have to offer a variation on what you say, if only a slight one:<BR/><BR/>The DSJ's departure from ECUSA (I can no longer refer to it as TEC) did indeed leave a vacuum. However, rather than fill it by organizing a new diocese and having it apply to GC2009 for admission, ECUSA in its hubris decided to claim that only the group that gathered in Lodi last March 29 was the "legitimate" diocese. But if that was the case, how could it ignore the notice and quorum requirements of the diocesan Constitution? <BR/><BR/>Had it just wanted to meet and reorganize, issues of notice and quorum would have been irrelevant---whoever showed up was entitled to organize a new association. But by claiming that they were still the old association (albeit somewhat reduced in numbers), they then had to abide by the laws and procedures of that organization, which meant giving the required 30 days' notice, and having quorums of clergy and laity both present. This they failed to do, so their claim to legitimacy is defective on its face.<BR/><BR/>With your second alternative, you are viewing the matter from the standpoint of the Anglican Diocese: it did not leave the area; it's still there, and has its own bishop and its own Standing Committee. The one claiming to run the (Episcopal) "diocese" is indeed not the true Standing Committee, since there is no true Episcopal diocese yet of which it <I>could</I> be the Standing Committee.<BR/><BR/>If I were to rephrase your dichotomy, I would say it this way:<BR/><BR/>1. Either the votes by the December 2006 and 2007 diocesan conventions were unconstitutional and void, and hence were ineffective to cause the Diocese of San Joaquin to leave ECUSA, in which case the Remain Episcopal crowd could be recognized as in charge of that Diocese, once they hold a properly noticed convention with a quorum present; or<BR/><BR/>2. The votes were valid under California law, regardless of what ECUSA may think of them, and the former Episcopal Diocese is now affiliated with the Province of the Southern Cone, in which case the Remain Episcopal crowd <I>still</I> needs to hold a proper organizational meeting, and ECUSA has to change a few of its canons in order to allow the Remain Episcopal group to apply for admission as a proper Episcopal diocese to GC2009.<BR/><BR/>You are right---they can't have it both ways. The court will decide which of the above scenarios is true; they cannot both be true.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-51572349476472188962008-12-27T17:50:00.000-08:002008-12-27T17:50:00.000-08:00Fortunately, Pewster, the funds were independent o...Fortunately, Pewster, the funds were independent of ML, and so did not vanish with ML's net worth. Nevertheless, ML's current stock price reflects the market's valuation of its prospects, and they aren't good---I wonder why, since their attitude towards their long-standing clients in San Joaquin, as demonstrated in the current lawsuit, shows the degree of emphasis they place on loyalty. Could it be that ML's brand of customer loyalty is just not what the market wants anymore?A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-59954011323935345102008-12-26T19:36:00.000-08:002008-12-26T19:36:00.000-08:00TECUSA is between a rock and a hard place.Either D...TECUSA is between a rock and a hard place.<BR/><BR/>Either DSJ left and the bishop, clergy, people, parishes, and assets left with it and there was a vacum that needed to be filled by TEC and the "organizing" convention was OK because nothing like this had ever happened.<BR/><BR/>Or DSJ did not leave, only about 8% of the people did and, so, the remaining members of the Standing Committee were the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese and the "special" (i.e."short bus") convention was illegal and +Lamb has no authority and the present Standing Committee is not the true Standing Committee.<BR/><BR/>One or the other can be true. They both cannot be true.<BR/><BR/>YBIC,<BR/>Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-41419557778328345042008-12-26T12:22:00.000-08:002008-12-26T12:22:00.000-08:00If their money is with Merrill Lynch, the question...If their money is with Merrill Lynch, the question I have is how low can Merrill Lynch sink? From $59.60 a share to $7.80 in the past 12 months <A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/merrill_lynch_and_company/index.html" REL="nofollow">(see chart here)</A><BR/>I hope those frozen funds were in riskfree CDs.Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.com