There is an interesting court case going on in the US right now. Members of 11 formerly Episcopal churches in the Virginia are being sued for their church property by The Episcopal Church. The case is long and has a convoluted history, but you can read the background to it here. Basically these churches have voted to leave the Episcopal Church following the consecration of a partnered homosexual as one of it’s bishops. The Episcopal church claims the buildings belong to them, the parishes claim they belong to them, and so there is a court case. Now to be upfront, my sympathies are wholly with the parishes, and I’ve followed the case closely. One of the key issues revolves around whether or not there is ‘division’ in the Episcopal church. Virginia state law states that when a denomination divides, individual churches can decide what happens to their property. The parishes involved in this case claim such a division has occured, TEC argues it has not. And so we come to the Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. She was deposed to appear in the court case and happily for geeks like me was videoed. Now the Bishop is caught somewhere between a rock and a hard place, because her sides argument is that there has been no division, but she is on record as having signed off on articles and statements that say there has been division. What is she to do? Equivocate. I’ve hi-lighted some of her testimony below. Questions are in normal type, her answers in italics, my comments in green.
If you want to you can watch the whole thing here. It will make you squirm.
The lawyer begins by showing the bishop an article she contributed too, written by a reporter
The article, according to the second paragraph, it says, quote, “Such action Jefferts Schori added, quote, ‘would display to the world division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all.’”
Did you actually use those words in your conversation with a reporter?
I presume I did.
Was that language on the actual letter that you wrote?
It appears to be.
And when you wrote the words “division and disunity,” were you referring to the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion?
I was referring to theological disagreement.
Were you referring to theological disagreement in the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church?
Yes.
Does that mean both?
Yes.
So far, not so good, simple yes or no questions are answered with vague ‘presume’ and ‘appears’ answers. The lawyer moves on to a document ‘the communique’ the Prime bishop signed off on, at a meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. Does she agree with it, when it describes The Episcopal Church as divided, presumably so as it was issued in part in her name. Oh, hang on a minute, maybe not. The lawyer again -
The communiqué goes on to say, quote, “So great has been the estrangement between some of the faithful and the Episcopal Church, this has led to incrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.”
Did you agree with that language when you approved the communiqué?
I think it is fair to say that there were present in that body people who were deeply concerned about that.
My question was, did you agree with that language when you approved of this communiqué?
I think I can agree that people in that room were deeply concerned about that, about what it says there.
Okay. But I am asking you, did you agree with that language when you approved of the communique?
I agreed that there are people in the room who are deeply concerned about this issue.
I am asking you, though, do you agree with that language?
Objection by Schori’s lawyer
I believe she is dodging my question.
I am not dodging your question.
Do you agree with that specific language?
I believe that some people in the room understood it that way.
Did you understand it that way?
I understand that some people in that room were deeply concerned about what they saw as estrangement in the Episcopal Church.
And do you believe that there is estrangement in the Episcopal Church?
I believe that there are some people in the Episcopal Church who are unhappy with decisions of the General Convention.
You would characterize that as estrangement then?
I believe there were some Primates in the room that would characterize it as estrangement.
I am not asking about some Primates in the room. I am asking –
What I am saying to you is that I understand that this accurately reflects the opinions of some of the members in that room.
I am asking you, does it accurately reflect your opinion?
No.
Aaaaaaaarrrrggggghhhh – it’s more painful to watch than it is to read. How hard can it be to say, no I did not approve of that language? Well very hard as it turns out because well, you obviously did when you approved the communique, and you are on record as saying there is estrangement in the Episcopal church. But hang on, if you say yes, then you could lose a very expensive caught case. Best just to witter on about what people in the room might have thought.
Towards the end of the trial it gets surreal. The bishop is so used to dodging yes or no answers she gets suspicious when asked if she has written a book:
I am going to show what you what I am going to have marked as Deposition Exhibit 13. Actually, rather than having this marked as an exhibit, I will just ask you, did you write a book?
I have had a book published under my name, which includes my writings.
Was it called “A Wing and a Prayer”?
Yes.
Are you Katherine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church?
My parents conceived and gave birth to child which subsequently they named with that name. I was that child and subsequently took on a leading role in the denomination which is currently known as the Episcopal Church
Is that a yes?
Some people in the room might think so
Ok I made the last 2 questions up.
Recent Comments