Litigation Season

Let's take a look at the current activity from 815.

First, January 9th, the Presiding Bishop (& PRIMATE, lest we forget) writes to Bishop Iker.

January 9, 2008
The Rt. Rev Jack L. Iker, D.D.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
2900 Alameda
Fort Worth, TX 76108

Dear Jack,

Thank you for your letter. I believe you have misinterpreted my previous letter. I gave no "acknowledgement that dioceses can and do leave the Episcopal Church." On the contrary, I continue to aver that individuals may leave, but congregations and dioceses do not. I continue to urge you to withdraw from any encouragement of such a belief, or action toward departure, as i believe it to be a violation of the vows we have both repeatedly taken to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church."

I lament your belief that clergy and laity with your theological position are being systematically eliminated from positions of leadership and influence. If they are disappearing, it is by their own decision and at their own hands. I note how carefully the current and former Presidents of the House of Deputies have been to ensure broad representation in appointment to various church bodies, and know that my predecessors and I have also sought to include all theological positions in appointments within our purview.

You state your concern about those who would stand by their convictions being threatened with depositions and lawsuits. I would also note that depositions and lawsuits have no substance if there has been no violation. Fear of same is probably not rational if there is no basis for same.

I pray that your ministry may be one of abundance in the coming year, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

This is the craziest line in the whole letter: You state your concern about those who would stand by their convictions being threatened with depositions and lawsuits. I would also note that depositions and lawsuits have no substance if there has been no violation. Fear of same is probably not rational if there is no basis for same.

Okay, true enough I suppose. If a lawsuit is brought against someone for, oh let's say robbing a bank, and that person is manifestly not guilty, than of course the deposition and lawauit have no substance. However, to bring charges where there is no case is a threat. Lawsuits are costly, time consuming and soul wearying. Lawsuits brought against clergy for their holding to the old, orthodox teachings are harassment. "Fear of same" is rational. The PB seems to like to accuse the conservatives of mental illness. Remember when she implied Bp. Scofield was perhaps a little unhinged, what with his sense of isolation and all?

And speaking of Bp. Scofield, on January 11, the PB inhibits Bp. John-David Scofield.

Mike Glass, a San Rafael, California attorney who represents congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, welcomed the actions.

"The Title IV Review Committee's certification of abandonment is the first step in clarifying and resolving John-David Schofield's canonical status.

(I love this line:)

The accompanying inhibition will provide safety and assurance to those who are working toward the continuance of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the Episcopal Church," Glass said.

"The inhibition also provides a safe space for those who wish to remain Episcopalian, but may have otherwise felt they could not speak their true heart for fear of retribution. My clients, Canon Robert Moore and I will use this time to continue our efforts to reach out to those individuals, missions, and parishes."

Saftey and assurance. Just how dangerous is Bp. Scofield? Does he have the power to take away pensions? Oh, no,wait. That would be in TEC's hands.

On January 12, we get clarifiation from San Joaquin & the Southern Cone. Bishop Scofield is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. How can he have abandoned communion with TEC unless TEC admits it is not in communion with the Southern Cone?

Onward to January 15, where we see that the Title IV Review Committee accuses Bp. Duncan of Pittsburgh of also abandoning communion. But, oops, at least one of the three senior bishops needed to sign on to this won't cooperate & Bp. Duncan must resign the loyalty oath & faces a dressing-down at the next House of Bishop's meeting in March.


So, in review, "remind" Bp. Iker, inhibit Bp. Scofield & try to inhibit Bp. Duncan, but issue a summons to appear instead. Not bad for a week's work. But do you think it occurs to her there might just be a little something wrong in TEC if you have this many bad boys you need to discipline?