It seems to me that if one disagrees with the interpretation of the Episcopal Church's polity the appropriate place to seek a particular outcome and or a clarification is through the General Convention process through a change or modification of the exisiting Constitution and Canons.

Whatever Bishop Martins' good intentions, the result of his action and that of the other bishops in filing the brief might also be seen as an attempt to help the breakaways in their case before the court. With Terry Pannell, I ask why not take up the matter within the church, rather than the court?

June Butler

If the diocese is the basic unit of the Episcopal Church, and the national Church is a voluntary organization of dioceses, what about the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth and other dioceses, which remain within and faithful to ECUSA? Should these dioceses not have a valid claim on the buildings and the money which have been taken over by the groups that have left ECUSA?

The Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, under the leadership of Bp. Ohl and Assisting Bishop Hulsey, while working through the courts for the restoration of the buildings and the accounts, supports a policy of reconciliation with those who have left. There is and always has been room for disagreement in the Episcopal Church, but filing an amicus brief in favor of groups that have left TEC and taken money and property does not appear to me to be remaining faithful to "the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church." This does not sound, to me, like "loyal opposition."

As to timing - one has to wonder who filed the complaint, and as there was no official word of them from TEC -- who put out the word of the filing and what where their motives?

I suppose that anyone can group themselves up and call themselves an Episcopal or Anglican diocese. We are all free in that regard. However to have the protection and endorsement of TEC, that group must accede to the C&C without qualification. There is no rescission period or take backs. Every clergy person, every bishop, every diocesan convention and every speck of property and assets come under the trust and care of DFMS.

People are free to leave TEC, but in doing so they surrender any and all claims to that which has been acceded. As one Orange County judge said, "What part of 'unqualified' don't you understand." when a Convention says it removes is accession it becomes a random group of people who may worship and think as they please, hire whom they please, and even call themselves "Anglican" , but they may not steal property.

Hmmm...

It appears that Bishop Martins is justifying his action/consequences on the principle of the "double effect." He did not "intend" by his testimony to "harm" the TEC or the continuing Diocese of Fort Worth nor to intervene in the affairs of that diocese, even though the "effect" might be that such harm did/could clearly come from said actions.

I would, however, question this little bit of ethics. Inasmuch as the "bad effect" in this case, a finding in the court against TEC would be a means of obtaining the "good effect" of the clarification of polity of TEC, I am not sure that this is a clearly sound application of that ethical principle, as the undesired effect may not be a means to achieve the desired one. Furthermore, the "Right intention" must clearly be separated from the "bad effect" motivationally and yet the "bad effect" is indeed presumably to Bishop Martins a _desirable_ outcome of the presumed intent/beliefs regarding church polity. In short, the "good effect/intent" and "bad effect/non-intent" seem a bit too tightly intertwined here to permit a simple application of the "double effect."

I suppose I would be open to hearing his reasoning as to how _not_ signing the Amicus brief would facilitate "harm to the church for decades to come?"

@Jeffrey: His point, as outlined elsewhere in his blog post, is that while General Convention DOES have a great deal of power, we also have a tradition of the semi-autonomy of individual dioceses. His example is that General Convention would be over-reaching if it compelled dioceses to combine even against their wishes. His stated reason for signing on to the brief was to point out that dioceses DO have a great deal of power over what happens within them and to them.

@ Tom

Thanks for the additional information. I don't think, however, that this "states rights" approach is one that would be helpful to the church in any obvious/prima facie sort of sense. This is the argument in the Dio of SC, of course, where they have left TEC in all but name. How his failing to support such a position would be harmful to the church for "decades to come" is beyond me. If he truly feels that is the case, then why resort to the "double effect" language? Just "out with it" then and drop the "double talk."
As an additional aside, realizing that I am not a lawyer, this simple "belief" in the polity of the church is not how the argument in the brief is framed. The brief cites not so much church polity but other cases in which the civil courts were prohibited/restrained from acting because to do so would have required that they exceed some nebulous boundary as becoming to "deeply involved" or having to probe "too extensively" in internal church matters and polity. I am not sure what the "point" of supporting this particular brief, then, as a "statement" is, as the "States rights" argument does not seem to be the center of the points made in the brief. Perhaps I am unaware that Bishop Martins has special expertise in civil law, but making a "moral" point about dearly held beliefs regarding the church and the convoluted civil case law arguments of the brief has to do with one another is beyond me. It looks to me that having the bishops sign is rather more like creating "spin" to suggest a perception of a "reality" that a significant percentage of TEC bishops believe that this is the way that TEC is organized.