Support the Café

Search our Site

Bishop Bruno hearing: Day 3

Bishop Bruno hearing: Day 3

Mary Frances Schjonberg of Episcopal News Service reports in detail about the third day of the ecclesiastical disciplinary hearing for Diocese of Los Angeles Bishop J. Jon Bruno.

Church Attorney Raymond “Jerry” Coughlan, appointed to represent the Episcopal Church, and Diocese of Los Angeles Chancellor Richard Zevnik did not make oral closing statements. They will submit written briefs for the Hearing Panel to consider before making its decision.

“I have no idea how long our decision will take but there are other canonical processes involved that could mean this could go on for a while,” Diocese of Southern Virginia Bishop Herman Hollerith IV, president of the Hearing Panel, told spectators at the end of the session. “This is not going to be something that is going to happen before Easter.”

The third day featured further testimony by Bishop Bruno and Diocese of Los Angeles staff and the Standing Committee.

March 30 began with Bruno spending nearly two hours answering questions from Coughlan and Zevnik about his March 28 testimony. The questions ranged over a number of topics aimed at understanding the bishop’s actions surrounding his attempt to sell St. James the Great, and his motivations for those actions. High on the list of motivations was providing money to fund the ongoing mission and ministry of the diocese.

And reported on the conflict between diocesan leaders:

Testimony March 30 also showed that the sale of St. James the Great caused controversy between at least two diocesan leaders. The Rev. Canon Melissa McCarthy, committee president during 2015 and 2016, told the panel that then-Bishop Suffragan Mary Glasspool called her to inquire about a possible sale of St. James. McCarthy said Glasspool told her that, as standing committee president, McCarthy had a duty to block the sale. She said Glasspool gave her the name of another Episcopal diocesan chancellor in the state who could help her develop an argument against the sale.

Read the details here.



Image: Photo by Mary Frances Schjonberg ENS


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Bonwitt

“Too sensitive for comment?” Are we afraid to comment about the way in which this whole saga, including the bill from the Marriott, shows the contrast between “The Church” and the teachings of Jesus? How afraid we are to bite the hand that feeds us rather than follow the Master who would teach us.
(In fairness I have lived in Church owned housing since 1980.)
A lifetime of sermons and letters for Screwtape.

Jay Croft

Now that the trial is over, I guess everyone’s waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Joe Rawls

I guess not.

Joe Rawls

Too sensitive for comments?

leslie marshall

Isn’t Bruno the least bit ashamed?

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café