JSC report to Rowan: TEC gone far enough; serious problems remain

As we report today, Thurs, the report of the standing committee of the Primates and the Anglican Communion to Rowan Williams is now available. It is affirming of the TEC bishops, but frank about the serious difficulties still to be resolved - the litigation against orthodox parishes, the interventions inside the US from other provinces. Whether the solutions the JSC proposes will be workable remains to be seen. In my view this is a stunningly brave report, and a tribute once again to the almost desperate determination to resolve the issues facing the Anglican Communion without giving rise to schism. Just how serious things remain is evinced by just one small example - the US parish that was home to Methodism's John Wesley is the latest to leave, to Uganda. How symbolic is that? But maybe John Sentamu can bring some resolution. He is in Mauritius, for one night only, talking to CAPA.

Here are some links to some early reactions to this important document. A blogger on Thinking Anglicans predicts that if the Archbishop tries to force the document on the Communion, he will be 'pouring petrol on the flames of schism.' Anglicans United have posted Anglican Mainstream's distressed response. Within minutes of the document going up, StandFirm had 63 comments, including: 'Not worth the paper it’s written on.  This document should have stayed a tree,' and, 'Isn’t this a bit like trying to get the horses back in the barn after selling the farm to pay the lawyers to sue the architect for designing a barn with doors?' And according to Bishop Gryffin Reid on ClassicalAnglican's American Anglican Council blog,  'This letter is full of poppycock! We need to keep these poor saps in prayer so that they will not suffer the wrath of God. So lets pray for them always. Amen.' Kendall Harmon says: 'This is an illegitimate report based on a deeply flawed process.'

I wonder whether it is significant that the response of Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, pictured above, was not solicited in time for this report to be prepared for the Archbishop of Canterbury. His speech to the TEC bishops' meeting was one of the most interesting and most fearless (as well as fearsome!) delivered in New Orleans. A further two other conservatives have also not given their responses, although England's Elizabeth Paver has now done so. The report is not being received well in conservative circles. 'This was rushed out in order to make villains of CAPA,' said one source. 'It stinks.'

Archbishop Anis is among those most offended. He is said to be 'incredibly disappointed and grieved.' Apparently, the JSC sent out their draft report while Bishop Mouneer was in Syria and Lebanon with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Upon his arrival back, he asked for two days in order to study the draft before responding.  By the time he responded, they had already published their official report. 

His response, which reached The Times a couple of hours after the JSC report was published, indicates perhaps that hopes of reconciliation remain as distant as ever, as the JSC itself appears from this document to fear they might. Archbishop Anis said this evening: 'It is very unfortunate that not all the members of the Joint Standing Committee were present when a response to the HOB of TEC was drafted.  The lack of discussion and interaction will not produce a report that expresses the view of the whole committee.' He said the TEC response merely represented a 'superficial shift' from their previous position and refuted the JSC's claim that there had been a change in position since 2003.

'Therefore I strongly disagree with the report of the JSC which states that "We believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them, and on which clarifications were sought by the 30th of September, and given the necessary assurance sought of them."   The reasons for my disagreement are as follows: 

'On Public Rites for Blessing of Same-sex Unions

'The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of Windsor Report that the "Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites".  It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar El Salam that the Bishops should "make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese."

'They did not declare a moratorium on authorization public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions.  Instead the House of Bishops pledged not to authorize any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.  I understand moratorium as "cessation of activity". In the explanatory discussion they mentioned that "the majority", not all, of Bishops do not make allowances for the blessings of same-sex unions.  This means that a number of Bishops will continue to make allowances for the blessing of same-sex unions.  I see this as an equivocal and unclear response.

'While the House of Bishop's response means that 'authorization' of the rites will not take place, but it also stated that some will continue to ''explore and experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions''.  The exploration of liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions, keeps a window to continue such blessings under another title !! This unashamedly disregards the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion which is still torn over this issue.

'On the elections non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate

'Those who read the whole response of the House of Bishops of TEC, not only parts of it, would find the following.
· The House of Bishops clarified Resolution B033 of the General Convention 2006 in such a way that "non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in the restraint".  But in the same response we find them saying "We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." What does this mean?  This statement contradicts their explanation of B033 which put a restraint on electing and consecrating non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate Order, as it restricts them from full participation in the church.

· 'The request of the House of Bishops to the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways for Gene Robinson to fully participate in Lambeth Conference demonstrates clearly that they see that the manner of life of Gene Robinson, as a non-celibate gay, does not present a challenge to the wider church and will not lead to further strains on the Communion.    This again contradicts their clarification of General Convention Resolution B033 that it does indeed refer "to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons".

On the Pastoral Scheme 

In regard to the recommendation of Dar El Salam Primates Meeting, for the establishment of a Pastoral Council "to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with the Episcopal Church", the House of Bishops did not respond positively. Their excuse was that such a pastoral scheme would compromise the authority of the Presiding Bishop, and place the autonomy of the Episcopal Church at risk. 

The House of Bishops came up with another internal plan that allows the Presiding Bishop to appoint Episcopal visitors for Dioceses that 'request' alternative oversight.  This is completely different from the Pastoral scheme recommended by Dar El Salam.  The composition of the recommended pastoral scheme has the ability to stop the interventions of outside Provinces because it represents TEC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Suspending all Legal Actions

The Primates in Dar El Salam urged the representatives of TEC and of those congregations in property disputes with TEC to suspend all legal actions against each other.  The House of Bishops did not address this issue.

Conclusion

The House of Bishops did not respond meet the recommendation of Windsor Report and the Dar El Salam Primates Meeting Communiqué.  Instead they used ambiguous language and contradicted themselves within their own response. 

Mouneer Hanna Anis.'

Oh dear. It seems as if there is a way to go after all.

Comments

[Stephen Marsden]

On page 5, the report says: 'In giving this commitment with the proviso “or until General Convention takes further action”, the House of Bishops is acknowledging that it does not have the power to bind future actions of General Convention, in the same way that most of the general synods of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion cannot be bound by any part or section of their polity.'

I just wonder how accurate this last clause really is?

In England, the General Synod can in effect be bound by the House of Bishops. Doesn't it take only 25 members of the synod to force a vote by houses - so that the bishops can easily veto anything they want?

And, if memory serves, it takes only 5 bishops in the Australian General Synod to force a vote by houses . . .

[Alan Marsh]

I have just read the report and it is frankly laughable. It is no surprise that it swallows entire the TEC bishops' statements, since one of the signatories is the PB of TEC, and most of the others are sympathisers or clients of TEC.

In other words, a bit like asking defendants to write the judgement on their trial.

TEC has not changed anything in response to the unfolding crisis in its midst, but has announced its intention of exporting it to the rest of the world, and has used the opportunity of the report to go on the offensive against the global south.

They may think it is a great day's work, but in reality it may well consign all prospects of reconciliation to the dustbin of history.

[Jackie]

Wny is it that the Executive Committee can act for GC when they want to such as becoming a member of RCRC - but now their hands are tied? Fudge, fudge, fudge

[Malcolm+]

Curious bit of hypocrisy. "Conservatives" like Orombi decline to come to the meeting, then they get all indignant that they didn't get their way.

Decisions are made by those who turn up. Don't blame my side for the fact that the "conservatives" chose not to come.

Anyway, yet another nail in the coffin of Akinola's proposed coup d'eglise.

[pendennis88]

Well, the simple fact is that the HoB response regarding further consecrations of bishops was little more than a "we'll exercise restraint", the response regarding SSBs is that they will continue as before, they just won't call them "rites" and they won't "authorize" them, but will allow them with their approval. The Joint Standing Committee, ignoring Archbishop Anis (and what ever happened to Archbishop Orombi?), presents a whitewash almost as mendacious as the lie Bishop Bruno told the New York Times that he was not aware of any SSBs in his diocese, only to be presented with a picture of his attending one. Extraordinary. Frankly, I think such a one-sided report only makes the likelihood of schism greater. It is hard to talk with someone who has so little respect for you that they will tell obvious falsehoods to your face with no apparent care.

[Neal in Dallas]

Stephen Marsden,

The quoted statement is, at best deceitful, and at worst, ludicrous.

1. Nothing can be authorized by General Convention unless passed by both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. If these bishops were serious in their commitment to the Windsor assurances, they could have said, "While we may not speak for the House of Deputies, as for me and my House, we will give the primates the assurance they have asked for."

2. I find it interesting that these same bishops (with a very few changes brought about by the election of new bishops) had absolutely no difficulty declaring a moratorium on the consent to all bishops' elections until the next General Convention. The boldness that these bishops exhibited in declaring a total moratorium on consents to bishops' elections is in stark contrast to the fretful and worrisome great hand wringing at their inability to provide the assurances requested by the Windsor Report and the Dar Es Salaam Communique.

The Constitution and Canons of teh Episcopal Church serve as a smokescreen to prevent these bishops from doing what they don't want to do and as a weapon to do those things they want to do, .

[NewbieAnglican]

In my view this is a stunningly brave report. . . .

Sorry. I can't see this extreme reluctance to discipline apostasy as anything but cowardice.

[Charlotte]

There is no hope of reconciliation, and never has been. Not unless the contending parties have the will to reconcile with one another. We can pray that they will all be willing to reconcile.

[Andrew]

stephen,

The HOB statement is not accurate.

Our "polity" does not preclude a more robust commitment as nothing passes through the General Convention unless it passes both houses (one of those houses being the House of Bishops).

Therefore the HOB could have given unequivocal assurances to the Communion, but instead chose to put yet another re-evaluation date.

This was a way for them to make concessions to their liberal constituents back home. Upon returning to their diocese they can say, "Yes, we're headed there but not all at once today. Relax, bide your time, and in 2009..."

And of course those in TEC, on both sides of the aisle, know that that's exactly what will happen. TEC doesn't actually care about Communion discernment. They have made up their minds completely. The only questions left are ones of political expediency.

[Neal in Dallas]

The statement that Stephen Marsden quotes is, at best, laughable, and at worst, disingenuous.

1. Nothing passes by General Convention without being passed by BOTH the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies (made up of clergy and layperson). These bishops could just as easily have said, "While we may not speak for the House of Deputies, as for me and my Hose, we will give forthrightly the assurances asked of us by the Windsor Report and the Dar Es Salaam Communique."

2. Interesting that these same bishops had absolutely no difficulty resolutely declaring a moratorium on consents to ALL bishops' elections just prior to General Convention 2006.

Why is it that giving the assurances requested by the Primates is accompanied by so much hand wringing and fretting, yet such bold protestations declaring the need for the listening process and cessaton of incursions?

The Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are really used as a smokescreen for the bishops to prevent them from doing those things that they really don't want to do, and a weapon for them to do what they really do.

Ruth, FYI, this is my second post on this topic, as my first one failed to go through even though I twice--I think accurately--typed in the letters and numbers for the verification page.

[Martial Artist]

It is quite clear, even without Abp. Anis' analysis, that the TEC House of Bishops has responded by attempting to put a thin coat of whitewash over their intentions. I do not "know" why they did this, rather than frankly accepting Abp. Anis' invitation to proclaim and defend their "prophetic" stance, but it strongly suggests that their attitude toward the Dar es Salaam communique is that "they will do as they please" with respect to the presenting issues.

In my humble opinion, any moral person of integrity speaks honestly and forthrightly, particularly in an exchange of views amongst Christian brothers and sisters, whilst not abandoning the general rules of civility and mutual respect. Certainly, that is what I expect from a Christian shepherd, and most particularly what I would expect from the shepherd to the clergy of a diocese. Such is the behaviour that has become increasingly rare within TEC's House of Bishops over the past several decades. It has been replaced by vague catch phrases, code words and ambiguous (if not explicitly evasive) language. I give thanks for shepherds of the quality of Abp. Anis for their honest and frank language. It is a true scandal and a great sorrow that there are not more like him within TEC.

[John Wall]

What was Elizabeth Paver's response to the document?

[Mike Homfray]

There never was any prospect of reconciliation. That takes compromise, and the conservatives are clearly not prepared to accept any compromise from their side at all.

The sooner the conservatives leave with Gauleiter Akinola and the rest of the premodern delusion merchants, the better

[billofthecarolinatriangle]

Looking at what appears to be at least a degree of some type of careful "engineering" in connection with the JSC report, I feel I have something in the nature of a "prophetic" vision as to how the final outcome of this wild ride of the past few years re TEC will play out, i.e., (i) consistent with what appears to be the desire of the See of Canterbury (and also the desire of TEC), TEC will remain a member of the Anglican Communion (and will probably always be able to do so given the almost limitless ways that the English language can lend itself in ways that will mollify), (ii), given the most difficult issue to resolve in this entire matter--i.e., the "episcopal oversight" issue re the TEC minority--and the desire of the See of C. to retain the TEC minority, Global South, etc. in the Communion without forcing TEC to come up wiht a truly realistic alternative episcopal oversight within TEC, the TEC minority will also be allowed to be a member of the Communion in some capacity, probably fairly-well-separated from TEC, and (iii) to the great disappointment of TEC as well as other members of the Communion, the "separated" TEC minority will demonstrate extraordinary and exemplary ministry!

[Michael H.]

The House of Bishops are not being truthful when they state that they are powerless to enact the Primate's requests and that only General Convention has the power to do such. Here's why:
1) According to TEC canons, all held services must have the tacit or implicit approval of the diocesan bishop. Therefore, it is well within a bishop's power to prohibit any service from taking place, including the blessing of a same-sex union. The ironic thing about this is that during the 2006 General Convention, there were many occasions where people emphasized that this body had little power over diocesan bishops, in terms of what they could or could not do.
2) No EC bishop-elect can be consecrated without a majority approval of the sitting diocesan bishops. In the episcopal consecration service, a bishop reads a statement on behalf of the House of bishops certifying that the required number of assents have been given. Therefore, the House as a body, could indeed vote not to approve the election of anyone in a sexual relationship outside of marriage without the actions of General Convention.

[robmdphd]

I really liked the JSC report! The ineptness of its release openly shows the travesty of the process. It is as believable as the parliamentary process in communist countries.

[Stephen Marsden]

Thank you, Andrew ('The HOB statement is not accurate'), and Neal in Dallas ('The statement . . . is, at best, laughable, and at worst, disingenuous'), for confirming what I was almost certain to be the case: that there is probably not one province in the Communion where the bishops cannot bind the synod.

The statement is, then, neither laughable, nor disingenuous nor even inaccurate. In the interests of calling a spade a spade (or, as they would put it where I come from - a f***ing shovel) let us be quite clear what that clause actually is: it is a terminological inexactitude or, if you prefer, a lie.

[Tom Jackson]

Yep; no question, this is a delaying tactic by the House of Bishops. Nothing has changed, no agenda altered and no real movement intended. The HOB is saying, ok, we will not get there in one great leap but don't worry; we are on course and will achieve our objective by some small steps under a smoke-screen of seeming negotiation and concessions. That will satisfy the weak members of the Communion (including the Archbishop, we hope) and enables us to place the blame for any future schism firmly on those members who are trying to remain true to Christ's teaching.

[Alan Marsh]

Stephen, you are certainly right in respect of the Church of England. Within recent memory the House of Bishops has exercised its collective veto in a Synod debate, curiously enough on the same issue.

[Malcolm+]

As reported by a commentator on Thinking Anglicans (http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002666.html#comments):

- Elizabeth Paver has now apparently assented to the report,
- +Jerusalem's dispeptic response has now been appended as a minority report,
- Two non-episcopal members (Phillipa Amable of West Africa and Jolly Babirukamu of Uganda) have not yet responded - and it is no sure thing that their responses will be in accordance with their Primates' positions, and
- +Uganda, having absented himself from the whole process, hasn't responded either (though his response is as predictable as nightfall).

Thus it is:

- 10 assents
- 1 dissent
- 2 yet to reply and
- 1 having abdicated his responsibilities.

At the point when the report was issued, it had the assent of nine members from a total committee of 14 - not quite 2/3 of the JSC. It isn't really like the (entirely predictable) responses of +Jerusalem and +Unganda were going to tip the balance in a close vote.

[Malcolm+]

Yes, in the context of a synod / convention of the Church, the bishops as a house do have an effective veto. Indeed, we saw that recently in Canada, when both the clergy and the laity approved moving forward on the blessing of same sex unions while the bishops (narrowly) demured.

However, in this example (as in the others referred to) the bishops were not acting unilaterallym but rather within the context of the respective general synod / general convention.

It would be interesting canonical / constitutional minutiae to discern whether the the bishops acting outwith that context have the canonical / constitutional authority effectively to pre-empt a potential future discussion at some future general synod / general convention. Indeed, doing so would arguably constrain a future edition of the House of Bishops, and it is a principle of parliamentary procedure that no current body has it within its authority to so constrain successive sittings of that body.

Thus, the House of Bishops functioning outwith the context of a general convention are correct (it seems to me) that they cannot pre-empt a the debates of the next general convention since doing so would pre-empt not only the laity but an ensuing formation of their own House.

[Stephen Marsden]

Malcolm writes: 'Thus, the House of Bishops functioning outwith the context of a general convention are correct (it seems to me) that they cannot pre-empt a the debates of the next general convention since doing so would pre-empt not only the laity but an ensuing formation of their own House.'

Yes - and no! It is clearly open to a house of bishops to decide a issue, particularly a matter of, say, faith. (They are, after all, supposed to be 'Guardians of the Faith'). But, having done so, that does not in itself constrain a future convention or synod from debating the same issue and reaching a different conclusion. However, if the bishops wish to retain any credibility, they will vote synodically in line with their earlier decision (and thus exercise their right of veto). The fact that certain members of the college of bishops had changed in the intervening period (death, retirement, appointment/election) seems completely irrelevant. Of course, if enough of them had changed, their vote might also change, but that can hardly be avoided.

The more interesting question is the extent to which there is any degree of 'collective responsibility' in a house of bishops. According to Bennison of Pennsylvania, apparently not. He voted 'no', so nothing agreed in New Orleans applies to him and he will carry on as normal. (Or whatever passes for 'normal' in his diocese.)

[Malcolm+]

The outcome of a vote between one sitting and another might change because several members of the House had changed. It could also change because several members were persuaded by lively discussion, by prayerful consideration or by direct revelation to change their view.

I agree that the House making a decision for now does not preclude revisting the decision at a later date. But what the ("conservative") Primates were demanding was exactly that - a once and for all committment never to do this thing ever again. It would have been entirely inappropriate for the House to make that sort of commitment.

One might argue that the things agreed may not apply to Bennison of Pennsylvania since he voted "no." One might likewise argue that they do not apply to his neighbour, Duncan of Pittsburgh because he wandered off and missed the vote.

I will note that Bennison of Pennsylvania had the integrity to stay at the table, contend for a position and then take a stand. A small handful of others refuse to talk to anyone who disagrees with them - and I see no integrity nor any virtue in that.

[Alan Marsh]

"It would have been entirely inappropriate for the House to make that sort of commitment."

It was entirely inappropriate to give their consent to the consecration of VGR, but they managed it. It is entirely inappropriate for them to conduct same-sex blessings, but several of them do, and most of them permit it.

It was entirely inappropriate to fail to heed what was asked of them if they wish to remain Anglicans recognised by the rest of the Communion. But they have chosen to walk apart by what they have produced in response to the DeS communique.

[Malcolm+]

Whatever the propriety or prudence of approving the Bishop-elect of New Hampshire, it is still ultra vires of the current meeting of the House to tie the hands of a future meeting of the House - which was, after all, what the "conservatives" were demanding.

Most of the members of the House do NOT permit same sex blessings. Really Alan, repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.

And we shall see who ends up walking apart. It now appears that even Akinola realizes how badly he has misplayed his hand, with increasing numbers of Primates (even some who agree with his position on the presenting issue) actively rejecting his demands for schism.

I remind you, Alan, when you and your friends in England decide to depart the C of E and affiliate with some foreign prelate, don't be expecting to take the property with you.

[Alan Marsh]

Ah, Malcolm, your tender concern for legal niceties! (Which you fail to comprehend in any event!)

Few institutions are barred from taking decisions for fear that their successors might disagree. I know of no provision in the precious constitution of PECUSA which prohibits its bishops from making up their minds. The TEC House of Bishops has certainly made up its mind to engage in internecine warfare both with its members and with the Anglican Communion.

SSBs are taking place in many dioceses, with the tacit approval of the PB, and the active involvement of a number of diocesan bishops, such as Chane of Washington. These are facts, but somehow you seem incapable of acknowledging facts - rather like the House of Bishops...

You clearly have not been keeping up with your reading, either. The CAPA Communique, the statement today from Sydney, and news of an English boycott of Lambeth, all indicate that there is more than one bishop concerned to bring order back to the Anglican Communion. Your repetitive diatribes against Peter Akinola do not take account of the views frequently expressed by the majority of the Primates, representing the great majority of Anglicans.

You still do not comprehend how the Church of England works. The property does not belong to the diocese but to the local church. This has been reaffirmed recently by a General Synod working party, in case of any doubt. Bishops do not even "own" their own houses, let along any parish churches or cathedrals.

Can you please think up some new arguments? I am getting rather bored with your old ones.

[pendennis88]

I had not realized how effective American arguments regarding the involability of their polity could be.

Why, if only George Bush started arguing that, under the American political polity, since both the House and Senate have approved the war in Iraq American cannot change course, every other country would have to throw up its hands and say, "that is right, you are a democracy, we cannot presume to ask you not to do something".

As opposed, to, for example, a simple request that America stop doing what it is doing, and the political details be worked out as it sees fit - if, that is, it wants to really stop doing it at all.

The orthodox have not demanded anything of TEC. They asked. The HoB has said no. What TEC is now demanding is that there be no consequences to its answer.

I do not think, no matter how clever the bureaucracies of the ACO and Lambeth may be, that there will be no consequences.

[J Pearce]

"You still do not comprehend how the Church of England works. The property does not belong to the diocese but to the local church."

Except when it belongs to a third party (lets say, for example, a certain Mr & Mrs Wallbank), who just happen to have "lay rectorship" of their property under the archaic Chancel property law. Then the Church can (cough) "outsource" its repair bill, by screwing the third party for, ooh, 200K.

I hardly think the CofE is in ANY position to lecture the Yanks on property decisions, seeing as it has no compunction in bankrupting innocent people to get its grubby mitts on cash, do you, Alan?

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, you deserve a prize for ingenuity, rather than anything else. But you are still wrong.

Details of this case are available on the House of Lords website at:

Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37

The parish church belongs to the local church, in the person of the incumbent. But in many places the land which was supposed to provide an income for him was taken over by "lay rectors" - a contradiction in terms if ever there was one - who had no ministry, just the right to take the money.

There is a sting in the tail, however, in owning such property, and that means having to repair the rector's bit of the church building, the chancel.

These arrangements having been put in place centuries ago, it should come as no surprise to current owners that they have duties to fulfil, especially when such estates are generally sold cheaply on account of the attached obligations.

I don't know why the Wallbanks thought the rules did not apply to them. And the figure requested by the church was nothing like £200,000.

If you have to pay rent of any kind on a piece of land, you can not escape your liability by arguing that you don't have to pay it because the Church owns it.

[Malcolm+]

I rather doubt that Parliament will permit random vicars - or my Lord of Roffen - to keep the property when they declare themselves out of communion with Rowan.

And yes, Alan, there are a small handful of bishops who intend to join my Lord of Abuja in his act of schism. Doubtless the Akinolist Communion will prosper for a time - just as the Reformed Episcopal Church did, and likewise the Traditional Anglican Communion. Heck, even the non-jurors (for whom I hold considerably greater sympathy) thrived for a time.

Finally, both Alan and Pendennis - the specific demand of the "conservatives" was that the House promise that a future House would not take a specific action. In other words, the specific action this House was being asked was to constrain its successors.

Sorry, but such things simply aren't allowed by normal bodies - as much as the two of you wish to recreate the world in you consevo image.

[Alan Marsh]

Your assertions become more and more bizarre, as you try to stretch reality further and further, Malcolm.

Almost any corporate body frequently takes decisions which affect both the present day and the future, but in the knowledge that its sucessors might view matters differently, and act accordingly.

The TEC House of Bishops was asked to demonstrate its intention to live according to the Christian understanding of human sexuality which was agreed at the last Lambeth Conference. It not only refused, but a number of its members declared their intention to press on with their present trajectory - binding their successors, so far as they are able, to the policies which they are pursuing.

You have some odd notions about Parliament, too. It does not run the Church of England any longer and has not done so for some 90 years.

[J Pearce]

"These arrangements having been put in place centuries ago"

Yes, and the Law society has been petitioning to get the law changed exactly because it is such an archaic, unfair and utterly ridiculous piece of legislation. But you conveniently skip the crux issue here - I'm not arguing the legality of the case, I am arguing the morality of it. The Church doesn't need the money, but it went after the Wallbanks like the scummiest, money-grabbing extortionist you're ever likely to meet on any inner city street. The Church wasn't even prepared to negotiaite and it has left the couple in a parlous financial position. It took them to the cleaners.

And you would call this "Christian" behaviour? What would JC have said about it, I wonder? Do you really think your Lord and Saviour would have approved of such actions, carried out in his name? As if!

The bottom line, Alan, is that the CofE is more than willing to tun a blind eye to its own, loudly trumpted morality, when it comes to raking in the cash. Which makes your continual harping on about the supposed moral iniquities of TEC sound pathetically hollow.

Not so wrong, then.

[Alan Marsh]

Still wrong, JPearce.

The church in question did need the money. You repeat the same silly assumption as so many others, that "the Church doesn't need the money".

In fact the Church of England nationally is living on the edge of a financial precipice, and with the exception of one or two parish churches in areas of great wealth, almost every local parish church is also having to struggle to keep its buildings repaired and to pay the bills.

Which also demonstrates the point I was making for the benefit of our Canadian contributor. The local parish church is the responsibility of the local church membership, for whom it is held in trust by its incumbent.

There are no central funds to maintain these buildings, which are not owned by "the Church" but by the parish: every penny has to be found by the local church, which can not simply dispense with income which rightfully belongs to it.

If you have troubled to read the link I provided you will see that the present situation IS regarded as being legally unsatisfactory. But the obligation to pay debts is a moral obligation, and there is no excuse for being unaware of the responsibilities which are attached to owning land on which a charge has existed for centuries.

The couple in question were badly advised by the lawyer who tried to use the Human Rights Act to get around a moral obligation to pay a debt. He was responsible for the huge bill which was incurred. Taking a case to the House of Lords is only for the super-rich who can afford to lose.

[J Pearce]

"In fact the Church of England nationally is living on the edge of a financial precipice"

Utter rot. The Church has numerous valuable assets, it just can't be bothered to liquidate them to offset short term cash flow problems. This façade that the Church is somehow "in penury" is a pernicious falsity. After all, it had enough money to finance the legal costs to pursue the Wallbanks, didn't it (not to mention all the little jollies around the world)?

"But the obligation to pay debts is a moral obligation, and there is no excuse for being unaware of the responsibilities which are attached to owning land on which a charge has existed for centuries."

To quote the Wallbanks - "the church authorities were demanding a Rolls-Royce job when more limited repair work would suffice".

The Wallbanks apparently argued that the extent of their liability towards repair costs should be limited to keeping the chancel wind and waterproof. This clearly cut no ice with the Church, who demanded for more wide ranging repairs. In other words, the Church refused to compromise and refused to listen to reason. So much for acting as Jesus would have!

The Wallbanks have lost a farm in Wales to stump up for the costs incurred. They cannot sell their current residence in Aston Cantlow precisely because of the Chancel travesty. They have been royally screwed by the Church, that’s the bottom line. How's that for "moral obligation"?

[Alan Marsh]

You keep insisting, JPearce, that some kind of principle exists where you only pay up what you think fit, rather than what you owe, if you owe money to the Church of England.

Like any trustee body, the Church of England can not afford to endorse such a daft principle, and with a large part of its much-needed income at stake, it had to defend itself in court. It has a considerable number of people to house and pay, and provide pensions for them.

There are no assets to be liquidated. Everything the Church of England owns nationally has been scrutinised a thousand times, and what remains is being used to generate income to help pay the cost of a workforce of some 10,000 people in the 16,000 parishes of England.

If you know of some hidden crock of gold somewhere, which the Church of England has overlooked, I am sure the Church of England's offices at Church House will be very pleased to hear from you. Perhaps you might like to detail it here? I would also like to know.

[pendennis88]

The HoB was asked to do some specific things (e.g., not undertake SSBs).

TEC argues that they cannot do so, because, as much as they might like to do so (well, really they strongly don't, but that is beside the point since the following argument is intended to get them out of it), TEC has two legislative bodies and is a democratic entity (which TEC arguably is, though it is hardly representative) and its legislative body cannot take an action because the action might be overturned by a subsequent legislature. It has nothing to do with that those legislative bodies would never take such an action and never will, for even a day.

Right. So, there. It is not that they don't want to do it and never will. It is the polity. Can't you see it? Well, there you are.

This is TEC's argument, and TEC thinks the orthodox are simpletons. Or that TEC does not need to come up with any logical arguments, since they have all the money and lawyers, and can force their will.

The problem is not TEC's polity. That is a transparent excuse. It is that TEC does not want do anything which would compromise its power in the interest of cooperation with other provinces. It could do anything it wanted to to meet the wishes of the greater communion, if its bishops, clergy and lay people, or even a majority of them, actually wanted to.

So I reiterate. Questions were asked. The answers were all "no". Not because they couldn't say yes, but because they wouldn't say yes. Consequences will follow.

[Malcolm+]

Alan, Alan, Alan.

It will be interesting to watch when it happens - when +Mike Roffen tries to take the diocese of Rochester out of Communion with Canterbury and into the new Akinolist Communion. Parliament may have delegated authority to the General Synod, but I'm certain that Parliament has an interest in ensuring that the General Synod is not robbed blind by +Mike Roffen.

And likewise, General Synod and Parliament will have a direct interest in how random vicars choose to dispose of parish property should they choose to decamp from the Church of England. If you believe that they shall be allowed to take the property with them, I suspect you're barking mad.

Tell me, Alan, of a single precedent where an incumbent of a CofE parish, having chosen to convert to another church besides the CofE and has been allowed to take the parish property with him.

Finally, Alan, it is quite proper for a deliberative body to decide an issue, on the understanding that a future sitting of the body might overturn the decision.

That wasn't what was being asked for here.

What the "conservatives" wanted from the House of Bishops was a committment that future sittings of the House would not be allowed to take certain decisions. That is another mater entirely.

When was the last time that the UK Parliament passed a bill in which it precluded the possibility of revisting the issue in a future Parliament.

I can tell you the answer, Alan. It has NEVER happened.

[Alan Marsh]

Malcolm, Parliament can not bind its successors. There is no constitution here to make that possible. But it does not preclude it from passing laws which are designed to take effect immediately and to have effect. The Human Rights Act is a case in point.

Equally there is nothing to prevent the American HoB from stating that they will change their current policies and work towards a restoration of the previous status quo.

As a former member of General Synod let me spell it out for you. The only role which Parliament retained when it created the Church Assembly was a right of veto over Church of England Measures, which are themselves the equivalent of Acts of Parliament. It does not intervene otherwise. The General Synod is the governing body of the Church of England, not Parliament.

I know of no instance where any American priest who has left TEC has attempted to take the property of the Church with him. I can think of congregations which have opted to do so.

In the Church of England congregations do not opt out, because they do not need to do so. If their minister leaves, they have a very strong voice in ensuring that they get a replacement who has their approval, and they have a right of veto where an incumbent is being appointed.

You will not see dioceses or parishes opting out here because the Church of England does not go in for the jackboot tactics of its unfortunate progeny in N America. The bishop can not turn up with locksmiths to oust the vicar and churchwardens, as happened in one Canadian parish, or with armed security staff as well, as took place in more than one USA parish.

As I have said many, many times before, there would be no crisis now if it were not for the totalitarian mentality of some of your bishops, and those of the TEC.

[J Pearce]

"You keep insisting, JPearce, that some kind of principle exists where you only pay up what you think fit, rather than what you owe, if you owe money to the Church of England."

No Alan, you have entirely made that up for the purposes of your (lack of) argument. I am arguing the point you are studiously avoiding like the plague - the moral aspect to this farrago. The Church clearly did not require the vast quantity of money it demanded from the Wallbanks, to do the job required by the Chancel law. Instead it acted like the local drug dealer on the block, demanding money with menaces - and took them to the cleaners. So I ask you again - what would your Lord and Saviour made of that kind of behaviour, eh? You think JC would condone extortion, do you?

"There are no assets to be liquidated."

Are you playing three monkeys for fun?! Do you understand the words "land, property, artifacts"? Not to mention this Chancel law, a nice little fall back option option if I ever saw one. The Church has a vast set of assets which could easily be liquidated (or, as in the case of the Wallbanks, a simple case of legal persecution sufficed), so please stop playing the "pauper" card with me, it doesn't wash because it simply isn't true. And as I mentioned before, when the Church is on the hunt to screw people for cash, it certainly doesn't spare any expense for that.

[Alan Marsh]

How obtuse can you be, JPearce?

The House of Lords, the highest court in the land, ruled against the Wallbanks, because the local parish church was entitled to make a claim on the land, a claim which is legally and morally established over several centuries. If the Wallbanks did not want the rectory land, why not return it to the church from which it was originally taken?

You are simply ignoring the facts in order to make a foolish argument.

Again, which "land, property, artefacts"? You don't have a clue, really.

The Church's land is either producing a much needed income, or it is in use for church buildings and churchyards.

Property investments are used to produce a much needed income to pay staff costs, as I have already explained.

Such artefacts as exist are not common property capable of being flogged off, not that the law would permit listed buildings to sell their contents.

So come on, tell us where the money is hidden. I would like to know. We would all like to know. You seem to think you know. Details, please.

[Malcolm+]

Positively amusing, Alan. The oft repeated propaganda of the poor "conservatives" who were "forced" to leave the Episcopal Church by their "jackbooted thug" of a bishop.

But like most propaganda, it is false.

And congregations cannot choose to leave the Episcopal Church any more than congregations can vote to leave the Church of England.

We have seen honest conservative departures, as in at least one case in Central Florida.

You seem quite confident that there will be no "crisis" in England. I hope there won't be.

But if there isn't, it will be because the Nigerian junta will surrender.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

I commend you on your ability to avoid the locus of debate entirely. You display a mastery of spin and obfuscation that A. Campbell would be proud of. You have managed – so far – to entirely ignore the central point of this (mini) debate; that being, the morality (or otherwise) of the Church exploiting an ancient and acknowledged unjust legal loophole to screw innocent people out of their livelihoods.

You’ve managed to shift it onto grounds which you feel more comfortable with (the Church’s financial stability) and away from the questionable moral actions of the CofE, who have – I repeat – blithely prosecuted an ancient law to force innocent landowners to pay an extortionate and completely out-of-proportion amount of money for Chancel repairs.

Again , Alan, I put to you the simple question – would Jesus Christ, who’s teachings the Church claims to uphold - have given His assent to such a rapacious and financially damaging manoeuvre that the C of E has performed against the Wallbanks? A simple yes or no will suffice (and please spare me the irrelevant waffle).

When you answer that, simple, moral question, then I will be more than happy to argue the finer points of C of E assets and finances.

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, Jesus told us to pay our debts where they are due. He would have refused to give judgement in a lawsuit.

You are still struggling with a category error. The parish church concerned is not "the CofE", it is an independent legal entity, which has the financial responsibility for repairing its church building. One of its historic sources of income is a piece of land which was taken away from it at some time in the past in return for payments for church repairs from time to time. There are many such arrangements still in existence as the House of Lords report reveals.

Those who occupy such property can not claim that this is some modern innovation. Those who own a "Rectory Farm" which is part of a lay rectorship know that at some stage they will be called upon to pay for repairs to the chancel.

If they don't like the idea they can sell the property on the open market. Its value will reflect the liability which it carries with it.

But if they want to hold on to the land AND refuse to pay their debts, then I would count that as an immoral proposition.

I am still waiting for you to reveal where "the CofE" is hiding its crock of gold.

As there isn't one we will all be waiting a very long time.

[Shaun Clarkson]

I believe one of the factors which contributed to the legal action was that the couple inherited the land. If they had bought it the standard legal searches which take place would have made clear the responsibility ownership carries, they would have been able to weigh up the price and value of the land in the light of this and decide whether it was worth buying. Evidently this didn't happen when they inherited, so they didn't realise they had this liability. I can understand the couple reacting in shock, but the fact remains, the land was originally given in trust specifically to provide income to maintain the church building. When it passed into private hands the owners would be able to keep the income from the land, but only on condition they paid the bills - otherwise it would have been a betrayal of the orignal donation.

And the original bill was small, the £200,000 came from fighting the matter through the courts (the usual practice in England is that the looser in a civil action is liable for the winner's legal costs.)

This can cut both ways. As an example, the land our parish church is built on was donated specifically for that purpose, with a (fairly common) clause in the contract that if it ceases to be used to provide a church, ownership reverts to the original donors. So for instance we wouldn't be allowed to sell off part of the grounds to fund repairs to the building.

[pendennis88]

Concerning the New Orleans TEC HoB statement, a note posted by Elizabeh Kaeton, a revisionist New Jersey TEC priest, said the following:

"This friend is now a retired priest who was once one of the organizing forces behind the movement in this church to ordain women. He’s a brilliant political strategist with a keen mind which is astutely tuned at the cross roads cultural and theological analysis, so I always listen to him, even when he annoys me.

He said, “Elizabeth, listen to me. You don’t want to hear what I’m saying, but you have to listen. What the bishops - especially the ABC - did was good political strategy. They know that the Left - even the ‘radical fringes of it - will stay. They know that nothing will appease the ‘radical fringes’ of the Right. So, they gave enough to the “middle” of the Anglican Communion for them to stay as The Radical Right goes off in a huff and they can work with the rest.”

“The ABC did this by “selling” something the HOB could buy, which they, in fact did. Now, he can “sell” Public vs. Private Rites to the Middle while the Radical Right continues the act of schism which they launched when they said, “Choose The Day” and distributed the Chapman Memo.”

“Is this scheme politically solid? You bet. Will it work? No doubt.
Is it duplicitous and morally bankrupt? Absolutely."

“But when, in the course of the civil rights of anyone has the church not been effective politicaly and bankrupt morally?”

But note that the reason this priest, and other priests like Malcolm, assume that the global south will depart is because they start with the assumption that TEC will not change on consecrating bishops, will not change on SSBs, and will not afford any safe haven for orthodox priests. If you start with that premise, yes, a split in the communion may well be inevitable.

As to the treatment of orthodox parishes and priests in the US, the evidence is there, and anyone can look at it and draw their own conclusion.

[Malcolm+]

By the perverse reasoning of Alan and Pendennis, if a thief breaks into my house and I call the police to have the thief apprehended, I am "oppressing" the thief.

Choices have consequences, gentlemen.

And choosing to spit in your bishop's eye and attempting to alienate the property of your denomination will likewise have consequences.

And Alan, don't bother with another meaningless roundabout about vicar's property in the CofE. You know as well as I do that no vicar and no congregation purporting to leave the CofE will be permitted to take the property with them.

[Alan Marsh]

The Church you belong to must be very unpleasant indeed, Malcolm, if you are representative of it, obsessed with property ad nauseam whatever anyone says about any other province. No wonder your bishops feel free to seize the churches of congregations who dissent from their unAnglican policies.

The Church of England has its problems, but nothing even faintly resembling the wild west across the pond. Congregations here have such a degree of independence that the concept of leaving "with the property" is completely meaningless. They already have it.

[pendennis88]

Except that there is some question as to whether it is you house, or whether it belongs to the fellow who just entered it that you called the police on. Apparently, he has lived in it for a long time, still does so, and his name is also on the title. I think the courts will have to decide this one.

As to oppression, to get the facts right, I think the main oppression is in revisionist bishops not allowing orthodox parishes to call orthodox priests, such as by banning graduates of evangelical seminaires like Trinity and anglo-catholic seminaries like Nashotah. I've heard a bishop tell that to a vestry, and it has been common for years. Changing the locks in the middle of the night happens occassionally, but the main thing is systematically removing all orthodox priests and bishops, often on slim pretext, just to get rid of them. Mark Lawrence, anyone?

Oh, and the bishop of Virginia, Lee, agreed in writing to negotiate to sell properties to departing congregations, agreed to a protocol for them leaving, and encouraged them to follow it. Then reneged, presumably under pressure from the American Presiding Bishop and her attack lawyers. So some saliva went into some eyes, but I think it came from the bishop.

Revisionist priests should consider trying to mix a few facts into their arguments from time to time.

[J Pearce]

” JPearce, Jesus told us to pay our debts where they are due. He would have refused to give judgement in a lawsuit.”

I’m impressed by this (cough). An entire ideological stance has been built up by the Christian Church against homosexuality, even though JC never actually made any direct comments about it, according to the Bible.

Yet here is Alan telling us that, in what is a clear case of unjust persecution and unnecessary legal profiteering by the Church, JC would have “sat it out”. Err…hello?! And Alan is also presuming to understand what the Son of the Lord would have done! I thought you could only do that after several decades worth of Bible study and countless pointless theological qualifications?!

That’s what I like about Churchies – always ready to lecture everyone on their behaviour, right up until the point where they get hoist by their own petard. Then, miraculously enough, the non-negotiable teachings of JC and the Bible suddenly become of secondary concern and things get rather morally fuzzy…

I’ll get back to you on the C of E finances, oh yes.

[Alan Marsh]

Well, JPearce, you asked for an opinion on what Jesus would have done/said, and "after several decades worth of bible study" at four universities, this is my opinion: Jesus refused to be drawn into disputes like this. He refused to accept the role of a judge on a number of occasions.

As for the term "profiteering" I suggest you examine a dictionary. There are no profits involved, except for the lawyers' fees for which the Wallbanks opted. When a church building is surveyed the only work carried out is the work reommended by the architect. The church has to pay for his report, and for the work to be carried out. It is a legal requirement. The church spends a great deal of money. It does not make a profit.

I would be interested to know what your qualifications are for interpreting the bible. You claim to know a great deal about it. Like your detailed knowledge of the Church of England's hidden finances?

[Malcolm+]

One of the remarkable things about the Episcopal Church is the manner in which it has always circumscribed the powers of bishops. The grounds on which an American bishop can deny a parishes choice of priest are very limited, and virtually the only power he has to dismiss a priest is inhibition - which can be appealed to diocesan and provincial bodies.

And Alan, I'm still waiting for you to provide a single example of a case where a C0fE parish has chosen to decamp to another denomination and keep the property.

[Alan Marsh]

Malcolm, you are evidently unaware of a case in Washington DC where the bishop refused to accept the Vestry's appointment of a new Rector on the grounds that he disagreed with her theologically, and he was removed after litigation costing more than $1m which overturned the Vestry's right to call its own priest. As a result of the Accokeek case bishops now routinely veto priests whose views they dislike.

It has also become routine for TEC bishops to depose clergy, without permitting a right of appeal, by abusing a canon designed for clergy resigning from TEC, claiming that they have resigned when in fact they have done no such thing.

The episcopal abuse of canon law in TEC is quite remarkable when one considers how loudly they appeal to canon law when it suits them.

So far as the CoE is concerned, I know of only one congregation which has left en masse in the past fifty years. It decided to become a Free Church, and no attempt was made to retain the parish church.

With that one rather extreme exception, these things do not happen and are not necessary in the CofE, as our congregations already have great freedom to live as they choose, from Pentecostal worship to High Mass and everything in between. Bishops have no power to enforce the sort of corporatism we see in TEC.

[pendennis88]

Actually, under the TEC canons, the bishop has the right to reject any rector elected by the vestry and wardens. And if the vestry and wardens do not elect a rector who is acceptable to the bishop, the bishop can unilaterally appoint a priest in charge. Bishops frequently send their consiglieres, I mean suffragan bishops, to lecture vestries on what the bishop wants to see if they want to expect such approval. Such as, no one too evangelical, and certainly no Trinity grads.

If that doesn't work, then the bishop can easily reduce the parish to mission status. Intimidating vestries is not as easy as it once was, which is why you hear of parishes being reduced to mission status more often. The vestry and wardens lose their right to elect a rector if the parish is reduced to a mission. A bishop can reduce a parish to a mission if he declares that it does not acknowledge that it recognizes his authority as bishop. So, basically, if the parish disagrees with the bishop on anything important, he can reduce it to mission status and take away its right to appoint its own clergy and instead appoint his own vicar without their consent.

As Marsh alludes to, a bishop can depose a priest for failure to obey a clear directive the bishop has given. So that should be the way that revisionist bishops get rid of orthodox priests. Just give them an order they cannot follow, and whoosh, they are caught in a trap. Except that that particular penalty requires an ecclesiatical trial. The last thing most TEC revisionist bishops want is to see a forum given to the orthodox to defend themselves, and possibly win in a fair court. So, instead, those bishops avail themselves of the canon regarding abandonment of communion. Not trial is required for that, since it was written to cover priests who openly declare their abandonment of the church. But in order to avoid a trial, TEC bishops have in the last couple of years decided to interpret abandonment of communion to include asking for a transfer to a bishop in another Anglican diocese. That this is an admission they are not in communion with the global south concerns them little.

Anyway, it was said that "One of the remarkable things about the Episcopal Church is the manner in which it has always circumscribed the powers of bishops. The grounds on which an American bishop can deny a parishes choice of priest are very limited, and virtually the only power he has to dismiss a priest is inhibition - which can be appealed to diocesan and provincial bodies."

If you still believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. And if you have any questions about what I have said, you can read the TEC canons on the web. However, the real lesson should be how little regard TEC representatives have for truth, and I don't think that is limited to the canons.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The Church of England is waiting anxiously for the revelations from JPearce about the vast sums hidden away - but only silence ensues!

Our vicar is hoping to rebuild our parish church with some of the missing £billions, employ a couple of youth workers, open a night shelter for the homeless, sponsor a new school in Kenya....

but where is the money, JPearce?

[J Pearce]

"but where is the money, JPearce?"

Did you read the Church Commissioners report delivered in 2006, Alan? Here are some interesting stats I've pulled from it:

* Property portfolio - 120,000 acres in rural areas alone ("...large tracts of land in cathedral cities such as Canterbury, Ely, Peterborough and York..").

* 15% of its commercial property is based in Londons West End.

* 19 million in profit selling 99-year leases on garage space in the capital.

* 4.3 billion in assets, returning 19.1% on investment in 2005.

4.3 billion in assets, Alan? I don't know what rarified oligarch circles you waft around in, but 4.3 bloody billion (plus interest accumulated) sounds like a f*** off large amount of money to me (ye olde english expletive fully justified in this particular case, I feel). If you want to quibble, I suggest you read the Church Commissioners report yourself?

All of which makes the behaviour of the Church in screwing the Wallbanks for Chancel repairs look like the bullying extortion that it is. To argue that Jesus would have "refused" to stop his own Church from persecuting an innocent couple for an over-inflated sum of money is farcical. If that’s the insight that several decades of study at four Universities gives you, then you've been academically short changed, mate!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Well, Alan, are you another David Smith? After that tirade from Mr Pearce, do you still think you can engage with a frenzied atheist? A poster who uses disgusting language as he does should be struck off the blog, and anyone who encourages this troll to use 'olde english expletives' should be reprimanded. I hope, Alan, you have now acquired the good sense to see how futile your response is when faced with such anti-Christian malice.

[Niamh Devlin]

Again Geoffrey Smith, I denounce you as a malicious, despicable, troublemaker.

Your crusade against JPearce mirrors those you have carried on against other intelligent, humanitarian contributors on this blog.

Those capable of thinking for themselves are clearly a danger to your tunnel-vision of infallible righteousness.

"... disgusting language"? Far worse is the language of deceit; the false 'propriety' which is intent on harming another.

I hardly think a man of Alan Marsh's intelligence, measured prose and devotion to his faith needs your instruction on 'suitable' debating opponents.

[J Pearce]

Niamh - thank you. Geoff - get a life, mate! Any half-wit will see my use of language has been couched in mildy humourous terms. And I haven't been having a pop at Alan, he asked me a question and I gave him an answer! Just because I thoroughly disagree with his reasoning over the case of the Church vs the Wallbanks, doesn't mean I'm having a go at him - I'm attacking the Church as an institution for what I perceive as unjustified behaviour. I'm sure he is busy researching the aforementioned Commissioners report even as I type, looking for some financial loophole to explain the apparent similarity between the C of E and Northern Rock that he's been arguing.

On an entirely different note, I quite like the image of a "frenzied atheist" - shame that I'm an agnostic...

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Again Geoffrey Smith, I denounce you as a malicious, despicable trouble maker. Your crusade against J Pearce mirrors those you have carried on against other intelligent, humanitarian contributors on this blog".
- Niamh Devlin, 17 OCT 2007, 19:54:00

You know , Ms Devlin, I'm beginning to think that you really don't like me, and I can't imagine why not.
Do I detect a slight tone of opprobrium in your post, or is it my imagination? Be that as it may, I set a trap for you and you stepped right into it. I told you in a previous post that I would not be surprised if you told me that you were an advocate of relaxation of the Church's condemnation of abortion and contraception. I implied that you were a heretic in these moral matters. A true Catholic would have indignantly repudiated this charge, but you said not a word in reply. The posters on this blog would conclude that you were indeed out-of-line with the Church's thinking in moral theology, as indeed your support of Mr Pearce's stance on homosexuality clearly indicates. So, let us have no more of this nonsense that you are a devoted daughter of the Catholic Church, rebuking me for a supposed infraction of Christian charity. The truth of the matter is that you are a renegade, and you hate all Catholics who insist on opposing any and all attacks on our Holy Mother Church. If I have chosen a persistent, aggressive style of response, that is because I feel the need to reply in kind to my critics. This is not to everyone's liking, but at least I have never called another poster a fool. I await your apology.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Any half-wit will see my use of language has been couched in mildly humorous terms".
- J Pearce, 18 OCT 2007, 12:27:45

The sad thing is, Mr Pearce, you don't even know when you are using foul language, obliquely or otherwise. Another unprovoked insult, I notice - 'half-wit' - from
your extensive inventory of abuse. It would be nice to read a civilised post from you for a change.

[J Pearce]

"The sad thing is, Mr Pearce, you don't even know when you are using foul language, obliquely or otherwise."

Bollocks!

"It would be nice to read a civilised post from you for a change."

Well, when you stop constantly referring to me as a troll...

[Niamh Devlin]

Geoffrey Smith - Don't flatter yourself. To dislike you, in any personal sense, is a waste of emotion. I simply discern from reading your posts that you are a disgrace to the Church.

That you continue to make yourself ridiculous trying to "trap" another Catholic speaks for itself. I have no intention of entering into debate with YOU about the tenets of my Faith.

A heretic on "moral matters"!? Such pompous hilarity. Ever heard of the Commandments Geoffrey? The one about 'false witness' against your neighbour. OR ever read what Our Lord said about 'loving' one's neighbour as oneself?

False witness is precisely what you do in hounding and abusing others. False witness as you consistently impose distorted interpretations of those words and exhort boycott.

Homosexuality? I gather, from your vitriolic posts on the subject, that you are all too aware - the Church is crammed with homosexuals. What you are too far up your own posterior to grasp is that many of these are celibate - some are not - that is the business of themselves and their bishops.

However, your verbalised - on the page - hatred of the orientation does explain a great deal about your attempts to 'cosy up' to David Smith.

Actually Geoffrey, I don't know why I bother, were it not that I have been influenced by many in the Church - good people who in their lives and care for others personify the love of Christ. For those individuals, the Geoffrey Smith fascistic version of Catholicism is firmly in the past.

I recommend 'The Valley of the Squinting Windows' by Brinsley MacNamara (1918) - mean-minded inhabitants of a small village relish the misfortunes of others, actively assist in compounding those misfortunes, preach unforgiving Catholic dogma, and worship the hierarchical clerical structure.

I can see your net curtains twitching Geoff!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Another mildly humorous use of language, Mr Pearce? I would hate to read a really hilarious post from you. You are not merely a troll, but a great advert for atheism/agnosticism/secularism or whatever you like to call it.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I have no intention of entering into debate with YOU about the tenets of my Faith".
- Niamh Devlin, 18 OCT 2007, 20:16:35

After all the rhetoric, Miss Devlin, this is the one sentence in your post that I could have easily predicted. I don't blame you at all for declining to tell us what your REAL beliefs are. I'd be ashamed to admit it, too. As far as recommended reading is concerned, Matt. 10:34-36 should be of interest to you. You will find it in the Bible. An unknown book to you, no doubt, but one quite well-known to the rest of us.
Still no apology, I notice. What were you saying about loving one another as ourselves?

[Niamh Devlin]

Twitch, twitch, Geoffrey:

You are SO utterly tedious. So desperate to be centre of attention - significant and god-like. The tragedy is you are SO repetitive, predictable and tunnel-visioned.

The 'creepy' suggestion that any woman would wish to discuss with YOU how best to become "a devoted daughter of the Catholic Church" is risible in the context of your opinions (on women) on other threads here.

I've made my point. You are a disgrace to the love of Christ taught to me growing up in Catholicism. No twisting and turning or attempted deflections detract from the horrible reality of your own self-aggrandising.

[David Smith]

Niamh Devlin to Geoffrey Smith:
' ..your verbalised...hatred of the [homosexual] orientation.. '

'You are a disgrace to the love of Christ taught to me growing up in Catholicism.'

Which of these two Catholics is right?

Let their leader have the last word:

" ..the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father...special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not...when homosexual persons engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination."
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
1 October 1986

"The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions."
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
3 June 2003

[Geoffrey Smith]

Your rhetoric is most impressive, Miss Devlin, but, without the apology I requested, nothing more than an exercise in hair-drying.
Do us all a big favour, madam, and stop calling yourself a Catholic. You are no more a Catholic than Ian Paisley.. I don't seriously expect you to apologise for your insult, so don't bother responding to this post unless you decide to do so.

[Niamh Devlin]

Hey Dave and Geoff - some double act! The terrible twins! How does it feel?

David Smith is as virulent in his detestation of the Catholic Church as he is of homosexual orientation. [Check out any thread here relating to Catholicism]. He believes the Pope is the anti-Christ yet offers the 'infallible' word of Benedict in support of his own questionable methods and fallacies!!

Geoffrey Smith is the most rabid of rabid Catholics anywhere on the planet, yet he seeks approval from, agrees with, and praises David Smith's efforts to pollute decent thinking ad nauseam. Or should that be - reductio ad absurdum - the contradiction is by definition absurd.

Yet, the Tweedles persist. Geoff in his own infallible definition of Catholicism - Dave in his! Who is right? Are we to take from this post that Dave has accepted papal infallibility i.e. concurs with his equally domineering twin?

OR, is it simply that both have rigid, immutable ideas on Catholicism - diametrically opposed but conveniently allied for the sole purpose of absolutum dominium.

Geoff old bean - no idea why you keep warbling on about 'apologies'. If you're expecting something from me you'll expire under the weight of severe disappointment.

[Geoffrey Smith]

David Smith, can we agree to quarantine this Hibernian hellcat, Niamh Devlin? I am not going to receive the apology I feel that I deserve, and you are most certainly not going to receive a rational response to your posts from this lady (I use the term charitably).
Please don't regard Ms Devlin as a Catholic. I think what you have read in her recent posts is enough to convince you that her adherence to the Christian faith is just a charade. She is fanatically committed to the homosexual cause and determined to promote it come what may - Catholic Church or no Catholic Church. We have been wasting our time debating with her.

[J Pearce]

Niamh,

Ah, you too spotted the astonishing conundrum of a rabid anti-catholic Christian quoting the Pope. Two peas in a pod would sum up my newfound blog stalkers (hey, my own stalkers - I must be famous!).

However, I am more interested in a certain Mr. Marsh’s lack of response. He asked me:

”where’s the money?”

Well, I told him (£4.3 billion of it – not an amount to be sneezed at). He has yet to respond. Given this lack of response, I feel it is only relevant to drag this back to the original point I made – that is, where do C of E members get off slating the actions of the US Church regarding property, when it has been shown that the C of E is more than comfortable rapaciously exploiting an ancient legal edict to stiff some unsuspecting landowners out of inordinate amounts of cash?

Alan has yet to satisfactorily explain why:

a) the Church needed the amount it went gunning for, when it appears that the amount required was far less substantial (and hence the protracted discussion about the Church being allegedly “poor”, when in fact it is actually swimming in a sea of money, i.e it doesn’t need the money it extorted from the Wallbanks), and

b) how the Church can justify a legal action which frankly does not accord in the slightest with the teachings of Jesus Christ (you might remember, he’s the bloke upon which the entire Church bases its belief system?)

I’m still waiting for Dr Marsh to supply an adequate answer…

[Niamh Devlin]

Geoffrey Smith

Forever the comedian, albeit inadvertently. "Hibernian hellcat"! I like it. Particularly the inherent 'racist', not to mention 'fear' of women, implications! One such (Anne Enright), has just won the Man Booker.

Others include: Grace O'Malley, Mary Ann McCracken, Anna and Fanny Parnell, Maude Gonne, Constance Markievicz, Eva Gore-Booth, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington, Delia Larkin, Dr Kathleen Lynn, Helena Moloney, Margaret McCurtain, Mary Robinson... to name but a few ... they keep coming Geoffrey ... in every generation.

Readers might ponder the irony of your allegation, "She is fanatically committed to the homosexual cause".

Until I came across - specifically the contributions of David Smith, Geoffrey Smith and somebody called 'Jill' - I knew nothing of the hateful and damaging propaganda (against gays) circulating in fundamentalist 'religious' circles.

It is both intellectually and morally repugnant. 'Pots and kettles' Geoff - I am not a 'fanatic', merely one opposed to the fascism of the closed-mind, in whatever form it materialises.

[David Smith]

Niamh Devlin:
'Until I came across - specifically the contributions of David Smith, Geoffrey Smith and somebody called 'Jill' - I knew nothing of the hateful and damaging propaganda (against gays) circulating in fundamentalist 'religious' circles.

It is both intellectually and morally repugnant. 'Pots and kettles' Geoff - I am not a 'fanatic', merely one opposed to the fascism of the closed-mind, in whatever form it materialises.'

So, I suppose, Niamh, that you also think that Pope Benedict should be de-frocked forthwith?

[Niamh Devlin]

David Smith: '..Pope Benedict should be de-frocked forthwith?'

Forever fatuous and self-serving. As noted on another thread, the David Smith inanity, as in attempting to turn perfectly valid points against the contributor making them, is just further evidence of the shallowness of his arguments.

Perhaps you need to find out more about Catholics on the street! I guarantee the majority in the UK and Ireland are not Geoffrey Smith clones.

However, Geoff suits your purpose on two counts.
SO, are we now to understand that YOU believe Benedict is infallible? If you do not, the argument you present here is as vapid as others you make on different threads.

DO NOT even attempt to pursue ME David Smith as you are on record as on having pursued and abused others re. their religious beliefs.

Even the pursuit of JPearce is 'creepy. The old now 'Nice now Nasty' strategy. I stand with Ciaran Scott whom, I believe has your full measure. I will not waste time or energy by entering into any discussion on my personal faith with you or your Catholic clone.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I guarantee the majority [of Catholics] in the UK and Ireland are not Geoffrey Smith clones".
- Niamh Devlin, 22 OCT 2007, 16:53:45

Been round the country, have we, putting a questionnaire to the people? There's a clever girl! A bit like your pompous declaration on hearing of the Motu Proprio: "We don't want it".

"I will not waste time or energy by entering into any discussion on my personal faith with you or your Catholc clone".
- op.cit.

Maybe that's because you don't have one, dear. Perhaps you are a closet secularist, a J Pearce incognito.
Speaking of Anne Enright, have you read that disgraceful attack she made on the McCanns recently? As if losing their daughter wasn't bad enough, they had to be subjected to this chirping from your Booker bird. Not even Margaret McCurtain, strange woman though she is, has ever lowered herself to the level of the gutter press.

[David Smith]

Niamh Devlin:
' David Smith: '..Pope Benedict should be de-frocked forthwith?'

Forever fatuous and self-serving.'

Actually this was a perfectly serious question. The Pope believes emphatically and clearly that homosex is wrong and not to be condoned by Christians. As former guardian of the Faith he authoritatively wrote as much. He now heads the magisterium of a church that teaches that what it teaches IS Christianity. You call yourself a Catholic. So I ask: Do you subcribe to this teaching or not?

'SO, are we now to understand that YOU believe Benedict is infallible?'

I am not a Roman Catholic, so I don't have to believe the Pope is anything, let alone infallible.

' ..the pursuit of JPearce.. '
I hardly think 'J' will agree with you that I pursue him. If anything he complains that I am not communicative enough.

Nearer the truth is that this has been the standard resort of those who have got themselves into deep water and then desperately tried to run away.

' ..you and your Catholic clone.'

You seem a little confused. Two posts ago it was: 'David Smith is...virulent in his detestation of the Catholic Church' and 'Geoffrey Smith is the most rabid of rabid Catholics anywhere'.

Lastly:
'David Smith as you are on record as on having pursued and abused others re. their religious beliefs.'

Like to back this statement up with a quote, Niamh?

[Niamh Devlin]

David Smith. I dislike repetition. But .... as has been pointed out by others, you clearly suffer comprehension difficulties.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO BE A PRACTISING CATHOLIC TO BE CLONED with Geoff or vice versa. LANGUAGE is the key.

Egotism and literalism characterise your use of language, so too Geoff. There is no place for nuance, allusion, shades of meaning or intent.

No hint of lightness or celebration of diversity. ONLY self-aggrandising absolutism of opinion.

Those opinions - including unhealthy interest in anal sex - present (on the page) as identical. The only difference is that Geoff claims to be the Uber-Catholic and you the Uber-protestant.

"Being uber catholic just makes you hate yourself, uber protestant makes you hate everyone else". (Noam Choamsky on George Bush).

I actually HAVE read through this blog Dave. I couldn't be bothered with further repetition of the mind games you (and Geoff) believe yourselves so proficient in ... boring, boring, boring.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Rhetoric, evasion of the question, denigrating opponents, maligning an opponent's character, quoting pretentious 'authorities' such as Noam Choamsky (sic), (you can't even spell his name correctly, Ms Devlin). Do you have any plans to oppose Mr Bertie Aherne at the next election? You should, you know. You would make a fine politician.