The Real San Joaquin diocese, Episcopal Church file suit to regain property

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and The Episcopal Church (TEC) filed a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court on April 24 "to reclaim possession of the real and personal property belonging to the diocese."

Bishop Jerry Lamb, who was affirmed as interim bishop of San Joaquin by a March 29 special convention of the diocese, said the diocese and TEC have a canonical, fiduciary and moral duty to protect the assets and property of the church for the church's mission.

"While it is regrettable that legal action is necessary, the diocese and the Episcopal Church have no other viable option but to seek the intervention of the court to recover the property and assets of the diocese," Lamb said. He emphasized, however, in a letter sent to all congregations that "there are no legal actions underway at this time that involve individual church properties."

Lamb, in that letter, also invited clergy and church wardens "to enter conversations with me about their status in the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. There are no conditions for these conversations."

Concurrently, the wider Episcopal Church -- the other named plaintiff in the case -- seeks to enforce its rights to have the proper leadership and structure of the diocese recognized and to see that all property of the diocese is used for the mission of the larger church.

more

[MaryAnn]

Got a question. Why do the writers of these things consistently insist that the acronym for the Episcopal Church in the US is TEC? To the best of my knowledge, it's officially ECUSA. From Anglicans Online:
"THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE USA (ECUSA) is the American branch of the Anglican Communion."

The reason for that is that there is also an Episcopal Church of Scotland. To call it TEC is just confusing.

Hope they get their property back. It's devastating to everyone to have to deal with that stuff. Good riddance to Schofield. He apparently made up the church as he went without a thought for reality.

[1noteasilyfooled]

I just wanna know why the "church" is now fighting among itself? Are we seeing the beginning of the end? Will they finally just kill each other off? Maybe there will be wars over what corner does what church get.. The whole damn thing is silly and stupid.. but..........
Its par for the course silly church people!

[bookguybaltmd]

1noteasilyfooled wrote:

I just wanna know why the "church" is now fighting among itself? Are we seeing the beginning of the end? Will they finally just kill each other off? Maybe there will be wars over what corner does what church get.. The whole damn thing is silly and stupid.. but..........
Its par for the course silly church people!

No, it's just a political disagreement that reflects the political division in this country.

On one hand are a people who feel that they know better than the majority and have the right to dictate (word chosen deliberately) to everyone else; on the other are the people who feel that democracy and majority representation and rule are still a valid form of government.

[John P]

MaryAnn wrote:

Got a question. Why do the writers of these things consistently insist that the acronym for the Episcopal Church in the US is TEC? To the best of my knowledge, it's officially ECUSA. From Anglicans Online:
"THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE USA (ECUSA) is the American branch of the Anglican Communion."
The reason for that is that there is also an Episcopal Church of Scotland. To call it TEC is just confusing.
Hope they get their property back. It's devastating to everyone to have to deal with that stuff. Good riddance to Schofield. He apparently made up the church as he went without a thought for reality.

General Convention 2006 (GC06) officially changed from PECUSA to TEC. If I remember correctly, it was to recognize the international member churches.
As far as I know, the full legal name remains, "Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America"

[Mort]

MaryAnn wrote:

Got a question. Why do the writers of these things consistently insist that the acronym for the Episcopal Church in the US is TEC? To the best of my knowledge, it's officially ECUSA. From Anglicans Online:
"THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE USA (ECUSA) is the American branch of the Anglican Communion."
The reason for that is that there is also an Episcopal Church of Scotland. To call it TEC is just confusing.
Hope they get their property back. It's devastating to everyone to have to deal with that stuff. Good riddance to Schofield. He apparently made up the church as he went without a thought for reality.

It is tragic that you anti-Christian bigots within ECUSA think that those who bought and paid for property should be denied of its use. After all, it was you homofascists who departed from the faith.

[KGC]

Mort wrote:

<quoted text>
It is tragic that you anti-Christian bigots within ECUSA think that those who bought and paid for property should be denied of its use. After all, it was you homofascists who departed from the faith.

Mort,

You are full of bsloney.

You assume that everyone GIVES with strings attached. No. People who give do so out of a concern for the welfare of others. Christians, especially, give for the express purpose of helping the ostracised and rejected in this world to gain a foothold onto the Way of Christ.

Just remember, buddy. There ain't a one of us who is one whit better than the next.

KGC

[bookguybaltmd]

Mort wrote:

<quoted text>
It is tragic that you anti-Christian bigots within ECUSA think that those who bought and paid for property should be denied of its use. After all, it was you homofascists who departed from the faith.

Actually, that is a false argument. The funds were given to TEC for the church, in some cases over the course of centuries. It is gross;y bad stewardship of that heritage to allow a small group of people to steal that patrimony from the church. The real issue here is whether or not a small group is going to be able to use the threat of stealing the church's patrimony into blackmailing the entire church to abandon democracy. That, of course, is exactly the kind of tactic that was invented and used so effectively by the fascists of europe. So, really, it is the break-away folks who most resemble that political movement. They seem to feel that a "scorched earth" political tactic is more than the christian message.

[Dan]

bookguybaltmd wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, that is a false argument. The funds were given to TEC for the church, in some cases over the course of centuries. It is gross;y bad stewardship of that heritage to allow a small group of people to steal that patrimony from the church. The real issue here is whether or not a small group is going to be able to use the threat of stealing the church's patrimony into blackmailing the entire church to abandon democracy. That, of course, is exactly the kind of tactic that was invented and used so effectively by the fascists of europe. So, really, it is the break-away folks who most resemble that political movement. They seem to feel that a "scorched earth" political tactic is more than the christian message.

With all due respect and apologies if I am misinformed:

My understanding is that the Lambeth resolution did not provide an imprimatur for ordination of non-celibate homosexuals to the clergy.

I also understand that Bp. Robinson is a bishop of the church, and that his office/status as such is not confined to his Diocese.

If my understandings are correct, then the laity who object to Bp. Robinson's ordination were not granted the "democratic" process, as they had no say in the matter.

What avenue for redress do these people have in the church, as the decision they object to was made without allowance for their input?

[MaryAnn]

Mort wrote:

<quoted text>
It is tragic that you anti-Christian bigots within ECUSA think that those who bought and paid for property should be denied of its use. After all, it was you homofascists who departed from the faith.

Hey, Mort, I'm Jewish. Sorry not to fit your stereotype.

[KGC]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
With all due respect and apologies if I am misinformed:
My understanding is that the Lambeth resolution did not provide an imprimatur for ordination of non-celibate homosexuals to the clergy.
I also understand that Bp. Robinson is a bishop of the church, and that his office/status as such is not confined to his Diocese.
If my understandings are correct, then the laity who object to Bp. Robinson's ordination were not granted the "democratic" process, as they had no say in the matter.
What avenue for redress do these people have in the church, as the decision they object to was made without allowance for their input?

Dan,

Did you have any input in the selection of either your Bishop or your Pope?

KGC