tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post8103737601623698648..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Fresno Bee Features San Joaquin AppealA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-31302523760837708212009-12-16T10:51:53.588-08:002009-12-16T10:51:53.588-08:00Yes, there is a reason, DavidJ -- and it is this: ...Yes, there is a reason, DavidJ -- and it is this: each of the four "dioceses" in question has been personally called into "convention" by the Presiding Bishop. She claims to have the authority to do this under Canon III.13.1, which provides (emphasis added):<br /><br />"A Diocese without a Bishop may, by an act of its Convention, and <b>in consultation with the Presiding Bishop</b>, be placed under the provisional charge and authority of a Bishop of another Diocese or of a resigned Bishop, who shall by that act be authorized to exercise all the duties and offices of the Bishop of the Diocese until a Bishop is elected and ordained for that Diocese or until the act of the Convention is revoked." <br /><br />Without the Presiding Bishop, some of the "dioceses" might have managed to get together and organize on their own, and invite in a Bishop to assist them (Canon III.13.2 gives them that power). However, that would have taken too long to suit the PB, because she needs to have a plaintiff to go to court and sue the departing Bishop for all of the diocesan property ASAP. By appointing a Provisional Bishop, the "diocese" chooses one of her hand-picked candidates who will then bring the litigation the PB wants.<br /><br />So that is why those "dioceses" all have "Provisional Bishops."A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-57057506097575519332009-12-16T10:04:46.306-08:002009-12-16T10:04:46.306-08:00I can't help but think of this (and this may b...I can't help but think of this (and this may be better for a previous post), but it's interesting that, e.g., in Ft. Worth, the TEC Diocese of Ft. Worth and 815 believe they are the true Diocese of Ft. Worth. If so, why have a Provisional Bishop? If they are so sure that they are THE Diocese of FTW, why not install a "regular" Bishop and be done with it? A.S. - perhaps you have some insight?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-65387725113909254542009-12-15T21:29:48.568-08:002009-12-15T21:29:48.568-08:00AllsVanityAll,
One might think that principle cou...AllsVanityAll,<br /><br />One might think that principle could be applied to the court case, except that I would suspect (I am not an attorney) that there is a fundamental difference which places the two examples (insurance contract law vs. the law applicable to TEC, its constituent dioceses and parishes) in different classes of law.<br /><br />The latter is an <i>unincorporated association</i> of what are essentially equals, as the Curmudgeon has often pointed out, whereas the relationship between an insurance company and an insured is a matter of contract law. I would surmise that the two instances are in some sense(s) incommensurable.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-58755949573668599732009-12-15T15:39:06.876-08:002009-12-15T15:39:06.876-08:00I wanted to ask something, and it relates to this ...I wanted to ask something, and it relates to this thread (or perhaps is a topic for another?). I am not a lawyer, but working in insurance I have had to study contract law in order to understand contracts of insurance. So I want to understand the contract-law implications of the Episcopalian conflict.<br /><br />Here is part of what I have had to learn: Contracts of insurance are considered contracts of adhesion, because one party (insurer) sets all the conditions and the insured either accepts (adheres) or else there is no contract. That being so, the courts regard the contract as inherently one-sided in favor of the party who invented it. To somewhat compensate for that one-sidedness, the courts will interpret any ambiguity in a contract of adhesion (such as insurance) in favor of the party that did not dictate the terms (for example, the insured).<br /><br />Now I have never heard anybody bring up this idea in any discussion of recent church cases, and I wonder if this legal theory might favor the right of dioceses to secede. For, the constition of the national church seems to be a contract of adhesion, requiring an "unqualified" accession for a new diocese to be united to the national church. Well, that being so, the deck seems to be stacked in favor of the national church (they wrote the contract, not the acceding diocese of X). And therefore, ought not the courts construe any ambiguity in favor of the diocese of X, if they want out? For, it seems obvious that reasonable people could at least agree that the national church constitution at least leaves the topic of a diocese seceding ambiguous (by not saying anything about it). That ambiguity, plus the contract-of-adhesion nature of the constitution, ought to be reason enough for the court to interpret in favor of the diocese of X.<br /><br />What do others think?AllsVanityAllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11168375850975589866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-5910644627077397182009-12-14T11:13:02.973-08:002009-12-14T11:13:02.973-08:00TK+,
One truly distressing aspect of the failure ...TK+,<br /><br />One truly distressing aspect of the failure you cite is that one of the people therein involved appears to be Mr. Justice Corona.<br /><br />It is a most troubling matter when a justice of the court fails not only logic, but mastery of basic language, <i>i.e.</i>, the simple and straightforward meaning of the word <i>accede</i> (I do not think Webster's to be vague in its definition). It should be troubling to all of us for what it portends for the future of our society, and for the future of the <i>Rule of Law</i>. If Mr. Justice Corona is unable to correctly understand things this simple, what justice can one expect in his court, even granting that he may lack any unjust intent.<br /><br />The decline in the general level of literacy and ratiocination that infects our society has demonstrably found its way onto the benches of our judicial system, at the least in this instance.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-45874833509661514872009-12-14T11:04:05.187-08:002009-12-14T11:04:05.187-08:00You have that exactly right, TK+ -- their argument...You have that exactly right, TK+ -- their argument is completely circular. Let us hope the Fifth District Court of Appeals is well schooled in logic.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-67031623096226333872009-12-14T03:03:29.869-08:002009-12-14T03:03:29.869-08:00'Since the Church is hierarchical, its diocese...'Since the Church is hierarchical, its dioceses are subordinate by definition to the governance of the larger Church. Each diocese's promise to accede to the Church's governance, therefore, merely reflects the hierarchical nature of the Church. . .'<br /><br />It strikes me that the logic here is circular. They're trying (ultimately) to prove that the Dio SJ is subordinate to TEC; in order to do that, they have to prove that TEC is hierarchical, which they do by appealing to 'accession.' However, when forced to defend accession as implying hierarchy, they assert that TEC's hierarchical nature provides the correct definition of accession in this case, not seeming to realize that that hierarchical nature is what they're trying to prove.<br /><br />I think several people involved here just failed Introductory Logic.TK+https://www.blogger.com/profile/16402992732775778006noreply@blogger.com