Katharine Jefferts Shori: Presiding Bishop Or Ecclesiastical Punk?

Bob Maxwell, a frequent commenter on this blog, gave his notes from the clergy conference in the Diocese of Rio Grande to StandFirm:

Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion/ She, rightly in my mind, sees this as crucial for TEC. I believe she repeated that at least once and referred to that principle several times in the question and answer session. However, the agreement is signed, sealed, delivered and the money became an investment instrument the minute it was received. I don’t believe it can be legally reopened. But she is steely eyed committed to see that this clause gets in all the next agreements. “Warning Will Robinson!”

Third, two bishops threatened +Jeffrey, over this agreement with St. Clement. CO and I believe XX were the bishops. He was really upset by this –in tears and shaking- and it included deposition, law suits, not allowing him to resign. . . We were quite angry on hearing this and wondered if they realized they were talking to a NM – TX bishop. Their cities may have a lot of urban gang problems; but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!

Fourth –from my response in the 2nd TV interview thread: We also are blessed with numerous solid, experienced leaders here in the Rio Grande and, while we do the necessary grief work and say our affectionate “Adios!” to +Jeffery and Debbie, be assured that the orthodox Anglicans will be organizing and communicating with one another.


Finally, I did not have the appropriate chance to speak to ++KJS in the open session. If the wireless had reached I was going to live blog it. God provides. Looking and listening to KJS by the clergy helped illuminate the issues that divide us in TCGC. She helped some of the moderates realize the universalist heretic that she is. Frankly, I had planned not to be there but out walking the stations. Both +Jeffery and Fr. Kelley asked us to stay. Several asked me if I wanted to spend the afternoon with her. I replied saying, “I have a two word response. ‘No’.”

I stayed and prayed for +Jeffrey. I’m exhausted, and working here at work. I was able to level in a 1×1 with ++KJS. We ended up standing in the line at the refectory together and it was long, just long enough. My former deacon told me later she wished she had her camera with her because “it was a real Kodak moment.” Like Paul, I pulled out all my social action credentials, etc, Then with her full admiration and attention, I pointed to B033 offering a promise that this Wesleyan could take hope in and found it dashed in 24 hours. Now, “local pastoral provision” is shouting to the world where we were headed, almost making it impossible for me to have any place at TEC’s table. They are tearing it further.


Also, the PB made the suggestion she that she stop here at our clergy conference on her way to CA. It was not +Steenson’s idea.

7 Responses to “Katharine Jefferts Shori: Presiding Bishop Or Ecclesiastical Punk?”

  1. 1 Kevin September 29, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Brad, I’m hurt! ++KJS gives punks a bad name, for she’ll willing to fudge to look good where a true punk will stand for what he stands for, often alone and take the consequences.

  2. 2 Craig Goodrich September 29, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    Hey, I tol’ja so!

    Thuggery has always played a major role in Mrs. Schori’s very limited repertoire of management techniques…

  3. 3 padraic September 30, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Lucretia Borgia doesn’t have a thing on that old girl.
    Using ecclesial power to intimidate,not a new thing,just a desperate one.

  4. 4 jean September 30, 2007 at 4:13 pm


    As I lawyer I’d be curious about what you think of the desired ‘non-compete clause’ in future agreements and whether that would ever hold up in court. No doubt an apples to oranges comparison, but I’ve seen those sorts of things in employment contracts, and they aren’t enforceable unless well constrained.

  5. 5 Jeffersonian September 30, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    And here is the perfect illustration of why TEC must be drummed out of the Anglican Communion. Just as bad money forces out good, TEC’s heresies and false religion are crowding out the those who follow traditional, orthodox Anglicanism.

    And the ABC sits on his hands. Despicable.

  6. 6 Michael D October 1, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    In my dictionary, “liberal” means 1) abundant, ample, 2) giving freely, generous, 3) open-minded, 4) not strict or rigorous, 5) for the general broadening of the mind. If KJS was liberal, presumably she would be open-minded to the beliefs of the parishes that are leaving, generous with the Lord’s property, and not strict in her interpretation of ownership documents. I would expect a response such as the following: “Well, St. Clement, I can never agree with your theology but I will fight to the death to protect your right to preach it. The arm of the Body of Christ should not say to the foot ‘you are not important’ so neither will I pass judgement on you. To strip you of your buildings would be unloving, judgemental, and ungenerous and we liberals reject all such attributes. I would never judge you to be less worthy of these buildings than anyone else, so please take the titles for your property at no cost. I will continue to pray for you and ask your prayers for us.”

  7. 7 Terry October 1, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    I’m no lawyer but this seems from bizarro-land to say the least.

    It seems to me we need to remember Lewis’s famous tri-lemma except now I wonder whether Jefferts Schori and Beers are stupid, insane or blinded by hate. The absurdity of her stipulations is revealed by substituting the phrase “the Jews” as the party you cannot sell to.

    By any reasonable definition, they are in the same “business” – bringing people and God together.

    When you substitute “the Jews,” I suspect the lowliest mail clerk at 815 would know that that restriction couldn’t possibly be legal!

    Surely their high priced lawyers must know the same, so the question remains — are they stupid, blind or insane?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: