Personally I think that’s just a tad pessimistic; I can’t believe that after being told time and again how Courts around America will positively encourage the theft of Church property any Wicked Apostate Sinners, Homosensualists, and Priests-Without-A-Penis would be so ungracious as to gloat over little Bobby’s loss. Especially as my Conservative Brethren have never said an unkind word to any of the filthy godless swine daring to question their right to a monopoly on Jesus..
After all, it’s not as if the game’s over for good. Having wasted this much of his sect member’s money in pursuit of the legally unattainable, it’s unlikely Pittsburgh’s Favorite Eyebrows will be able to wean himself off what’s clearly become an addictive pastime. As long as there’s a higher court with the most tenuous of jurisdictions (I hear there’s a tribunal somewhere in Malta which was established during the Crusades, that might well - according to a long-forgotten canonical tradition and a hitherto secret papyrus little Phil Ashey ‘just happened’ to find under the back seat of his car – have the final authority to decide in this matter), and a lawyer prepared to accept his money (now that’ll be hard to find. Not.) I’m sure little Bobby will keep on fighting to keep what obviously doesn't belong to him.
Indeed, one look at the Court’s ruling shows how close the decision really is: if findings like
“Regardless of what name defendants now call themselves, they are not the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal church of the United States of America.”aren’t ambivalent I don’t know what is. Or how about this one concerning the Prince of ACNA and his vassal’s biblically creative claims:
“There is no basis in law or fact for their position.”See how difficult the Court found it to reach a conclusion? With statements this ambiguous you’d better believe there’s still lot’s of fighting left to be done in Pittsburgh before little Bobby moves into a trailer park. Especially while some of his followers still have homes they can sell to finance a campaign which has been so obviously blessed by God.
I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible.
7 comments :
Please may I be the first to gloat on your blog? xxx
But you miss the point, Fr. Christian, the lawsuits are about financial punishment, not simply property acquisition. I think it was Susan Russell who published the 2000 IRD playbook which talked about this strategy.
A conservative blogger who, since I rather like her, I will refrain from naming or linking, recently commented on the self-importance of the Duncan entourage
"I talk on the phone with Bob Duncan's office and it's "His Grace" this and "His Grace" that and I want to scream and run out of the room.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no."
Pretty bad, by the sound of it. Not to mention, yet again and while we're about it, the apparent Orthodite article of faith that Gregg Venables, Argentine poacher and Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, is an "Archbishop". These people need "Status" SO badly. Guess the P-B title is hopelessly tainted by Girl Cooties.
Please read the article about this in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today, (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09280/1003568-455.stm). In it, you'll see the diocese wants to help the seceding parishes keep their properties, as well. (Of course, all are welcome back to TEC if they choose.) That's how we handle things in Pittsburgh.
ah!! 'his grace!' Now I get it - this is forbidden by TEC from the very beginng, so +Eyebrows had to get a nw church going to be able to us that appelation!
After I posted above, Fr Craig, I read a post on StandFirm's thread by Jeremy Bonner, who is, I understand, a lay member of the Pittsburgh cathedral chapter. He writes "I once put it to Bishop Duncan (at a chapter meeting) that the legal battle could be corrosive to those who participated in it, even as they went after a legitimate goal, and that financial costs were not the only ones that should be reckoned. He acknowledged the point, but somewhat grudgingly, and didn’t suggest what sort of benchmarks - other than financial - might have to be met before considering ceasing legal action."
Posted at another site.."Given the following:http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/news_reports/the_situation_in_pittsburgh.html from Joan Gunderson circa June 6, 2008
“Please note that Bishop Duncan has assured himself of a comfortable transition. He has built a retirement house on land owned by the diocese and he and his wife have been deeded (as of November 2007) a life interest estate (to the longest lived survivor) in that house. The diocese also loaned Bishop Duncan the money to build that house (terms not in the public record.) In addition we understand that he AND Bishop Scriven have signed consultant contracts with the diocese for two years at full pay which will go into effect SHOULD BISHOP DUNCAN BE DEPOSED.” I am wondering, is the land in question near or on the Donegal Lake Common Property that Bishop Duncan had worked so hard to acquire and improve? See: http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/donegal. If so, is his property alleged to be owned and the loan something for the the consideration of the Judge James? Was this done in anticipation of the expected deposition, and attempted secession? What are the legal ramifications? I have not been able to verify Gunderson's original source for the terms of the alleged agreement. EmilyH" If such is true, have you Fr. Christian been taking advantage of such wonderful retirement opportunities....? I am assuming that the agreements are airtight to insure Bishop Duncan's future regardless of what happened to the diocese? This certainly is slick and truly worthy of a GAFCON prelate.
Post a Comment