UPDATE: Presiding Bishop places Partial Restriction on Bishop Bruno

by

UPDATE: Church attorney calls for deposing Bishop Bruno and forensic audit of the “Corp Sole” Read it here.

 

Press Release from Office of Public Affairs

 

[June 29, 2017] Today, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate, the Most Rev. Michael Bruce Curry, has placed a “Partial Restriction on the Ministry of a Bishop” on the Rt. Rev. Jon Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles.

Signed by the Presiding Bishop, the Partial Restriction is effective immediately and is a temporary measure only, to protect the integrity of the Church’s disciplinary process, until it is concluded. This partial and temporary restriction does not “express any opinion about the merits of the pending Title IV proceeding.”

The text of the Partial Restriction follows:

Partial Restriction on the Ministry of a Bishop

In recent days, I have learned of actions that, in my view, may threaten the good order and welfare of the Church.  I have learned that, earlier this year, the Rt. Rev. Jon Bruno, Bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, entered into a contract for sale of property (the “St. James property”) that is central to a disciplinary matter now pending under Title IV of the Canons of The Episcopal Church, in which Bishop Bruno is the Respondent. According to Bishop Bruno’s submissions in that disciplinary matter, the contract for sale of the St. James property sets the closing date as July 3, 2017.

Bishop Bruno’s actions and intentions regarding an earlier attempted sale of the St. James property are currently under review in the pending disciplinary matter. I am deeply concerned that his act of entering into a new contract for sale of the same property, while his approach to the earlier sale is still under review, has the potential to undermine the integrity of the Church’s disciplinary process. The secrecy with which the recent sales contract was undertaken adds to the potential for undermining the integrity of the Church’s disciplinary process.

Accordingly, in order to protect the integrity of the Church’s disciplinary process and, thereby, the good order and welfare of the Church, and pursuant to Canons IV.7(3), (4), and IV.17(2), I hereby place the following partial restriction on the exercise of his ministry until the pending Title IV matter has been finally resolved:

During the period of the restriction, the Bishop, acting individually, or as Bishop Diocesan, or as Corporate Sole, or in any other capacity, is forbidden from closing on the sale of the St. James property, or otherwise selling or conveying the property or contracting to sell the property, or, in any way assisting in the sale or conveyance of the property.

This restriction is effective immediately. Nothing in this restriction is intended to express any opinion about the merits of the pending Title IV proceeding.

This document shall be served upon Bishop Bruno today and shall inform him of his right to have any objections to this restriction heard pursuant to Canon IV.7.

(The Most Rev.) Michael Bruce Curry
XXVII Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church

Dislike (0)
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedinmail
Facebooktwitterrss
Rev. David Justin Lynch
Guest

I pray that the sale did not transpire yesterday and that the congregation can eventually move back into its church with title to it conveyed to it as well. And + Bruno should resign or be deposed.

Like (4)
Dislike (0)
Joan R. Gundersen
Guest
Joan R. Gundersen

Actually, the Episcopal Diocese has not reclaimed any property except some sites that were designated as Episcopal Diocese property in the court opinions from 2009 and January 2010. The diocese has reclaimed properties when an ACNA parish decides to move out or the site was vacant already. There have been no demands that anyone leave a building. I can certify this because I served as the administrator who handled all the transitions and communications with the ACNA congregations occupying buildings we owned. Several ACNA congregations still occupy buildings the Episcopal Diocese owns.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
David Allen
Guest
David Allen

Perhaps Jay you should go back and read the articles about the hearing, diocesan leadership testified that as far as the leadership knew the mission was not the thriving growing congregation that you posit. The few required reports and the lack of required reports constituted a much different profile of the mission in diocesan HQ. None of this happened in a vacuum, you had a priest representing the bishop, who was the rector, failing in much of her required job as far as interfacing with the diocese and by witness of others in the diocese, misrepresenting the situation to her laity. She resigned as vicar of the mission, worked a week or so in a new diocesan position offered her in componsation and then decided that she wanted a do over, so she now claims she never resigned. The employment records and the paycheck cut to pay her say otherwise. Now she stands in open rebellion of her bishop from whom she derives her authority. A priest (and a deacon) has no authority apart from that conveyed by their bishop.

Like (0)
Dislike (6)
Jay Croft
Guest
Jay Croft

I think that ultimately, it's all about "conduct unbecoming" a cleric.

I would be puzzled by any bishop who attempts to close a thriving, growing congregation that he, himself had authorized not long ago.

Like (1)
Dislike (0)
Professor Christopher Seitz
Guest
Professor Christopher Seitz

PS.

A single TEC Bishop constraining fellow TEC Bishops, inside TEC, begins to suggest a metropolitan role nowhere stipulated in the TEC Constitution. Church historians will quickly remind you how fraught this history inside TEC has been, for its entire existence. Three senior bishops refused to agree to depose +Duncan, and this polity had been the operative one. After that, Title IV was confected in order to give the PB some kind of special authority over fellow bishops, in effect creating a PB (without diocesan jurisdiction, save the convocation in Europe) with fresh metropolitical power. This is the issue +Bruno--on the hard left!--is challenging. I suspect if the HOB at GC were asked to make a genuine constitutional change re: PB, it would be voted down handily. So we have a Title IV contrivance limping along and being challenged, now from a surprising quarter. The conservative Bishops--afoul of Title IV for **filing an amicus brief**--were shut down and then retired. +Bruno is showing himself more formidable. Constraining property or constraining a bishops isn't at issue here; would that it were so simple. At issue is the relationship between bishops amongst bishops, and a new metropolitical role for one of them, nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere agreed by all the bishops, including a robust progressive like +Bruno.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
1 2 3 6
wpDiscuz