Search This Blog

Monday, October 17, 2011

Andy Roman and Bp Ken Price Explain to Their Diocese Why TEC-Pgh Has Ceased Negotiations With All ACNA Parishes

Attached is a letter Bishop Price sent to his parishes giving his spin on the failed negotiations. He never mentions the draconian disaffiliation clause TEC required that ACNA parishes must agree to prior to any negotiations commencing. Aren't the leaders in the ACNA Diocese so unreasonable!

October 6, 2011

Rector Wardens and Vestry

Dear Friends in Christ,

We write this letter to provide you and all members of your parish with current information on the property litigation and related negotiations involving the Diocese. It is meant to update the Bishop's letter of May 11, 2011 another copy of which is closed for your convenience

Read it all


  1. "It is our legal position that these additional properties are held in trust for our Diocese and the Episcopal Church and are canonically owned by our Diocese."


    "these property issues, too, must eventually be resolved."

    Well, resolve away!
    What are we waiting for?

    Paul Cooper

  2. Good morning David. I'm back after a brief time on retreat out at St. Gregory's in Three Rivers and so have been out of touch with the blogosphere.

    Based on the both the successful and the unsuccessful negotiations to date, I don't believe it is the case that Anglican congregations have been required to agree to a "draconian disaffiliation clause . . . prior to any negotiations commencing."

    I personally am opposed to the concept, as you know. But I'm probably in the minority among my Episcopalian friends and colleagues.

    I honestly think you would do better in the long run by trying to understand why it is that many on the Episcopal Church side of the stream think that it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to engage in beneficial negotiations about the sale or transfer of assets owned by the Episcopal Diocese to an entity that in so many ways continues to use its own energies and resources, formally and informally, to undermine the ministry of the Episcopal Church.

    You reach "friendly settlement arrangements" with people who are your friends, and I think we all need to look into our hearts, read back over the pages of our own blogs and press releases, etc., and ask some hard questions of ourselves.


    Bruce Robison

  3. Hi Bruce,

    I trust the retreat was refreshing. And I understand what your saying. I know where you stand Bruce and my posts are not aimed at you. The disaffiliation requirement which Ken Price fails to mention is draconian and is a non-starter now and will be tomorrow and next week, next month and next year. It is a shame that KJS stance is the stance your diocese has decided to adopt. If you guys are serious about wanting to negotiate with friends then begin acting friendly. You can't tell me the letter responding to David Rucker was a friendly response.

  4. Hi, yins.

    I agree with Bruce about Anglicans seeking to better understand the TEC Diocese. I really do. Now, to really listen to each other would require a profounder humility for everyone involved, but would, I think, engender some healing and a better way forward. How might some fruitful dialogue like this begin to happen ... that is, real and honest communicating between two receptive, humble parties? I'm not sure, given that the only exchanges these days tend to involve lawyers. But I honestly think such an arrangement would help, and drain some of the bad blood away. Perceptions of one another might really begin to change.

    It's simply true that perceptions need to be better understood. For example, Bruce indicates that the common TEC-Pitt perception is that the Anglican Diocese "in so many ways continues to use its own energies and resources, formally and informally, to undermine the ministry of the Episcopal Church." I would have to say from our side of the stream we perceive things in the exact opposite way. Or "in so many ways, the TEC-Diocese uses its own energies and resources, formally and informally, to undermine the ministry of the ACNA-Pitt-Diocese." I am not naive; I know that our side is far from perfect. But I personally find it hard to sympathize with TEC-Pitt which (formally) has won everything from the majority of the Diocese who realigned and which has on several occasions demanded things like disaffiliation. And if we are judging by the informal attacks against the Anglicans, one need look no further than angry bloggers who label us as 'minions,' 'duncanites,' and 'schismatics.'

    But those are my perceptions -- and I'm saying that they may be wrong or impartial. Bruce is right -- we all do need to look into our own hearts and ask the Holy Spirit to do some serious reconstruction. I also think we need to find a more respectful, honest, and collegial (and perhaps even 'informally arranged') way forward. If we find that more honorable and brotherly path, we may view ourselves more honestly and others more charitably.

    Ethan Magness

  5. Just what I'm talking about.

    Bruce on your comment paragraph 3 you call yourselves a diocese but you call us an entity.
    Go to the 3 Rivers Episcopal blog today and and in the headline we are called "Anglicans". What are the quotation marks all about -- I guess in Dr. Simons mind we don't qualify as real Anglicans.