Support the Café

Search our Site

Faithful South Carolina diocese’s appeal taken by state supreme court

Faithful South Carolina diocese’s appeal taken by state supreme court

The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear the appeal of the Episcopal Diocese in South Carolina, the faithful diocese, in the process agreeing with the diocese to bypass the state appellate court. This is the second heartening piece of news for the diocese in recent days. Two weeks ago the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a false advertising case to the U.S. District Court in Charleston; the district judge had refused to hear that case brought by the faithful diocese until the state case ran its course. (The breakaway diocese on Wednesday appealed the order of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.)

The Post & Courier:

The S.C. Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear a lawsuit over a local Episcopal Church schism involving more than $500 million in church properties, bypassing the state appellate court in the complex case.

The justices set a Sept. 23 date to hear oral arguments.

“We are pleased that the court has agreed to hear the case, and we look forward to presenting our positions on these important issues before the Supreme Court,” said Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., chancellor of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, which comprises about 30 parishes that remain with the national church after the split.


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Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published).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
Br. Hal Weiner, OUM

Are y’ all still chewing over same sex unions ? Get over it. Get a life. If God didn’t want people to be attracted to others of the same sex, they wouldn’t be wired to do it.
Worry more about fulfilling all the other commandments you seem to be ignoring in your zeal to forget the admonition to love.

Cynthia Katsarelis

Conservatives achieved “clarity” on how the Scripture is minimized and reason maximized over the gay issues? It looks more like mass hysteria to me. It takes some serious cherry picking to justify the exclusive view. That’s in addition to using a handful of passages to outweigh almost all else, as John Wirenius+ pointed out.

1. Leviticus: abominations include wearing mixed fibres, eating seafood, and adultery. It also justifies slavery and advocates forgiving the debts of the poor every 7 years.
2. Sodom: (pasting from Believe Out Loud because I’m tired of re-typing) In Isaiah 1:10-17 [the sin of Sodom] is thought to be injustice, not rescuing the oppressed, defending the orphan, pleading for the widow. In Jeremiah 23:14 it is adultery. In Ezekiel 16:48-49 it is the sin of not aiding the “poor and needy.” In Zephaniah 2:8-11 the sin is bullying, boasting and pride. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is “the bitter hatred of strangers.”
3. Numerous scholars have de-fanged the passages in the NT.

To me it appears that the folks creating schism on the basis of gay inclusion are themselves creating a bigoted God in their image, rather than seeing all as created in the Image of God.

David Fine

Are you sure the main emphasis of conservatives is sex.

That is not my experience.

However, for many, that was a moment of clarity on how Scripture is minimized and reason is maximized.

christopher seitz

One wonders what might happen if a PB were elected who decided to cease the Beers-Schori model of handling internal diocesan disagreements. Separations could then be undertaken in the model of Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. This is hardly free of pain, but the millions spent in the last nine years would have been avoided. Perhaps when the candidates are named, we will see people who want to go a different way. Nine years of this has been very tragic.

John Wirenius

Er, I meant “affect” not “effect” but the difference here I’d of no effect.

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