I'm not sure what it means, but the Capital Annex blog is using the language of the secessionists who use refer to The Episcopal Church as The Church of the General Convention.

And what do they do when the Church itself through its ultimate ruling body says that a parish or a diocese cannot and has not unilaterally seceded? Perhaps this legislator needs to review both Jones v Wolf and Texas v White. This is an unconstitutional proposal and will not stand.

Well, there is a long history of Texas officials taking steps like this based on a "Don't mess with Texas; we're still the Republic" attitude. No, it won't stand; nor is it likely, probably, to pass. However, it would still help for every Episcopalian in Texas who can get to pen, pencil, or keyboard to get a message to other legislators that this is another case of politicians trying to get into a "family" dispute, one the family is capable of addressing if left to themselves.

Marshall Scott

Mr. Chilton noted:

I'm not sure what it means, but the Capital Annex blog is using the language of the secessionists who use refer to The Episcopal Church as The Church of the General Convention.

I'm very sorry about any confusion that caused. I searched for a very long time to figure out what the appropriate terms for both the umbrella body that the Fort Worth Diocese left and the new body they joined.

I'm a United Methodist, so the nomenclature of the Episcopal Church is a bit foreign to me.

Can you clarify for me what the proper names are?

I am not a religion writer; I cover the Texas Legislature, but I found this bill very interesting in light of what happened in Fort Worth.

Sure, Mr. Leibowitz. We are simply called The Episcopal Church. Bishop Iker and his allies are attempting to sow confusion by continuing to call themselves The Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth, even though they have voted to separate from The Episcopal Church and join the Province of the Southern Cone, which is another member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The bishop and his allies take what might be characterized as a states rights approach to church politics. Those of us who remain in the Church do not believe that dioceses have the right to enter and leave at will, and certainly don't believe that if they leave they get to take the name and property with them.

Mr. Leibowitz--Since you live in Texas, I suspect you are probably familiar with the crime of cattle rustling?

This is like trying to take cows with someone else's brand and rebrand them so that they look like they are yours.

Not cool. Not legal. Not Christian.

Paige Baker

Actually, it seems like a case of opening the barn door after the horses have already escaped out the back.

It would have no effect on the rogue diocese of Fort Worth, except to reinforce that, under the law as it stands now, they had no right to take the property when they left. And any of the other Texas dioceses could argue against any of their parishes which try to leave after Sept. 1, that the "factional separation" occurred in 2008, and that the law is inapplicable.

Jim Pratt

True, but one never really knows what the Diocese of Dallas is up to. I hope they make their intentions clear by publicly opposing this bill. In fact, I hope all our bishops in Texas will come out against this bill in a hurry.

Jim and Jim - As I read the bill it would also apply to parishes leaving dioceses.

Also, the author of the bill lives in Corsicana, TX which lies within the Diocese of Dallas. My sense is he is not acting on behalf of Fort Worth, but could be acting on behalf of other dissidents.

If Vince Leibowitz was not so vigilant in reading Texas bills, this bill would have stayed under the radar for some time, I suspect. Thank you, sir.