Bishop Anderson asks some interesting questions in this week's commentary. I'm sure that since pecusa minds are the best and brightest all his questions have already been addressed in the private meetings of the pecusa legal cabal (plc). However, it is possible that the plc is so desperate that they don't care about the possible jeopardy that Christ Church, Alexandria risks by entering the legal fray. ed.
Beloved in Christ Jesus,
Although there are a number of items in the news this week, I am commenting on just two: the Pittsburgh situation and the Northern Virginia legal case. My commentary this week is shorter because I am on the road and needing to catch a flight back to Atlanta.
This last week, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to change their Constitution and to leave the Episcopal Church as a diocese and affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. This is the same Province with which the Diocese of San Joaquin in California is affiliated, and is the probable future home of two more Episcopal dioceses. Maybe they will have to learn some Spanish: "Donde' esta' el Obispo?" Pittsburgh will have another Diocesan Convention in November to elect a bishop, since while they were still in TEC, their bishop Bob Duncan was allegedly deposed by the Episcopal House of Bishops. Rumor has it that the former bishop just might be a top contender for the position of bishop; you might say, the once and future bishop of Pittsburgh.
In Virginia, the litigation scene goes from the bizarre to the absurd while the highly paid but frequently bumbling TEC and diocesan lawyers keep changing their theory on the litigation as the judge rules against them. We are told that on September 5, the diocesan/TEC lawyers decided to include in their lawsuit, as a co-litigant on their side, the historic Christ Episcopal Church of Alexandria, alleging that some of the Falls Church land really belongs to Christ Church Alexandria. The main problem is that the diocesan lawyers didn't even ask the vestry of Christ Church for permission to include them until September 22. Isn't that a problem? Shouldn't they have had the parish's permission before adding their name to the complaint? And to top it off, the vestry didn't approve the request until September 24, and that without notifying the congregation until very recently. Isn't adding the parish's name to the litigation in progress without their permission a fraud towards the court? If not, it certainly seems irregular. Other churches might begin to wonder what documents the diocese has affixed their names to, and whether there is something that could come back to bite them.
Joining the litigation now puts Christ Church Alexandria into the ongoing legal fray. Could their participation make their land and assets available for satisfying any adverse judgments of the court? What if the judgment finally went against the Episcopal Diocese and Christ Church, and attorney fees of millions of dollars were awarded - would the land and assets of Christ Church be considered to be available for paying the fees? Who knows... but it is very risky business to enter into a fight where Christ Church has nothing to gain and only property and money to lose. I would think that the vestry, upon reconsideration, would wish to withdraw quickly from the litigation, and if they don't, then the Christ Church Alexandria congregation might wish to recall any vestry person who may have violated their fiduciary responsibility to the parish and congregation.
One wonders at times if this is all real or if some of the participants didn't just stay at a Holiday Inn Express and count that as wisdom enough (for our international readers, this humor is based on an advertisement run by that hotel chain).
May our Lord bless and protect you and your family in this perilous time.
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
No comments:
Post a Comment