CONNECTICUT: Parishioners never led away by church leader

Via VirtueOnline:

by Karen Wescott Mystic
http://www.theday.com/article/20100425/OP02/304259959/1069/rss06
April 25, 2010


Recent articles regarding the Episcopal Church's lawsuit against Bishop Seabury Church are misleading. ("Bishop Seabury parishioners can continue to use building," April 16. "Episcopal Diocese is ruled owner of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton," March 20.)

Father Ronald Gauss has not "led" us away. He doesn't have a vote. The Episcopal Church radically changed its doctrine, and is demanding we support it financially and exclusively, or else.

It was the parish's unanimous decision to also affiliate with the Anglican Church, which is in the same denomination as the Episcopal Church.

We haven't formally disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church. We added the other affiliation in order to obtain godly episcopal care. The opposition wants the court to order our Anglican bishops to not set foot in our building without their permission.

The judge refused.

Also, 35-40 (not 25) of us attended court. At the most recent hearing, Father David Cannon - so-called "priest in charge" - had nobody with him except attorneys, because there are no dissenters in the parish.

In fact, the hearing was the first time parishioners saw Father Cannon. His attorneys claim to represent the parish, but the only people they represent are Father Cannon and his imaginary congregation, which does not exist.

END

Here is Karen Scott's full (unedited) letter sent to VOL by Fr. Ron Gauss

April 28, 2010

It would be nice to just once see the facts stated correctly in this matter. Calling us "his [Gauss'] followers" makes Bishop Seabury parishioners look like lemmings, blindly following a self-serving rogue leader. Further, this article exudes the diocesan view, with only one brief comment from Fr. Gauss and no comments from our attorneys. It is nakedly, transparently telling a story from the point with which the reporter agrees. Apparently telling both sides of the story doesn't sell enough papers. Let me explain what Ms. Florin has misstated and left out.

Somebody needs to tell our side, so if not the reporter, I guess it might as well be a parishioner.

First point: Fr. Gauss did not lead us away. As the rector, he doesn't even have a vote on such matters. He is a member of the vestry "ex-officio". It was the parish's UNANIMOUS decision to also affiliate with the Anglican Church. We find the theological innovations of the Episcopal Church in recent years to be unacceptable, and cannot in good conscience support them. We haven't technically disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church.

Second point: The beef that the Diocese has with us nothing to do with what we believe, and they never said it did. We could affiliate with the Druids and the bishop wouldn't care. Their objections with us can all be traced back to their own money problems. You see, a little-known fact is that they're just upset because ever since 2003 we don't send them money anymore. The Diocese was comfortably accustomed to getting about $50,000 a year from our parish because we believe in giving a tithe to the church. This we do without ever passing offering plates. They can't wait to get their accountants in to see what their booty will be. It's all about the money.

Third point: We have not changed our beliefs to become more conservative, and it's not just about sexuality. It involves the exclusivity of Christ as Savior, his sinless life, and other beliefs central to the core of the Christian faith. The Episcopal Church has changed these beliefs, and is demanding that we conform to their radical views and practices or else. People say that if we don't like it we should leave. We respectfully disagree. When the powers that be in the Episcopal Church no longer believed the articles of religion and deemed them to be quaint "historical documents" of the church, it is THEY who should have left. In other words, they started it. The Bible hasn't changed (though that would be convenient for them), and God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Therefore, we haven't changed our 2000-year-old sacredly-held beliefs and we feel that to do so would be nothing short of heresy.

Fourth point: How is it that a secular court of law can make us choose between changing what we believe or forfeiting all assets to those we see as heretics if we don't? Where is the separation of church and state that liberals so love to enforce to get what they want? I guess they couldn't confiscate all our money and property if they bring up that annoying little point.

Fifth point: We are not "Fr. Gauss' followers". He works for us. We follow Jesus Christ, led as we trust by the Holy Spirit, as expressed in our unanimity of all parish decisions. Nothing happens in our parish unless everyone agrees after prayerful consideration. If one person dissents, things stay as they are. It's really quite a unique way of ensuring that we do nothing unless everyone feels led by the Spirit of God to do it.

Sixth and final point: I attended the court hearing yesterday, and the previous one. There were about 35-40 of us, not 25. We filled a small bus and 2 cars. Every seat in the courtroom was filled. This is a significant percentage of our voting membership, who dropped everything on one day's notice to pile into a bus on a weekday. People took time off from work and other responsibilities to be there. The judge even thanked us for coming. On the other hand, Fr. Canon, the diocese's "priest in charge" had nobody with him except his attorneys.

In fact, yesterday was the first time we in the parish have ever seen him. We recognized him from photos. Fr. Canon's attorneys claim to represent "Bishop Seabury Church", when in fact, the only people they represent are Fr. Canon and his imaginary congregation. They don't exist. So before people start commenting on how good it is that "the real BSC finally got what is rightfully theirs", they should know that WE are the real BSC, and the one they are thinking of is a figment of the collective imaginations of our opponents.

*****

Footnote from Fr. Gauss to VOL:

Our Judge has not set a time for ending the stay. He has said that he will decide when he decides, not TEC or the Diocese. One thing the judge said: After reading all of the cases from across the country..."I have been corrected by the appellate court in the past, and I may be corrected again".