July 8, 2008 Filing in Calvary V. Duncan

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CIVIL DIVISION PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, et al. No. GD-03-020941

Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENT TO DECEMBER 19,2006 v. PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STIPULATION AND ORDER; REQUEST THE RIGHT REVEREND ROBERT FOR APPOINTMENT OF A MONITOR TO WILLIAM DUNCAN, Bishop of The Episcopal INVENTORY AND OVERSEE PROPERTY Diocese of Pittsburgh, et al. HELD OR ADMINISTERED BY THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH Defendants. TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 14,2005; AND REQUEST FOR CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL ESCROW ACCOUNT(S) NOTICE TO PLEAD FILED ON BEHALF OF: TO: DEFENDANTS Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; The Reverend Dr. You are hereby notified to file a written Harold T. Lewis; Philip Richard Roberts; and response to the enclosed Supplement To Herman S. Harvey December. 19,2006 Petition For Enforcement Of Stipulation And Order; Request For Appointment OfA Monitor To Inventory And Counsel for these Parties: Oversee Property Held Or Administered By The Episcopal Diocese Of Pittsburgh To Assure Walter P. DeForest, Pa. J.D. No. 05009 Compliance With This Court's Order Of George E. Yokitis, Pa. J.D, No. 29502 October 14,2005; And Request For Creation Of Gary L. Kaplan, Pa. J.D. No. 75524 An Additional Escrow Account within twenty DeFOREST KOSCELNIK (20) days from service hereof or relief may be YOKITIS KAPLAN & BERARDINELLI aWMde~ Koppers Building, 30th Floor 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Walter P. DeForest Telyphone:. (412) 227-3100 Counsel for Plaintiffs .. facsfinit¢t..~itti.l)(.4t1f2~)22Y-'l~1jI0011V,.. : "el A1Nt:lO~ ) " NOISlfdO ,\lIV"v;l{ll"l~ " NO\SIl\\O' . SaCl003~ UlilO:);jO .ld30 ':. SOClO:>3'"

N i!',"~'" •., • • SUPPLEMENT TO DECEMBER 19,2006 PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STIPULATION AND ORDER; REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF A MONITOR TO INVENTORY AND OVERSEE PROPERTY HELD OR ADMINISTERED BY THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 14,2005; AND REQUEST FOR CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL ESCROW ACCOUNT

AND NOW come Plaintiffs, Calvary Episcopal Church, The Reverend Dr. Harold T.

Lewis, Philip Richard Roberts and Herman S. Harvey, by their undersigned counsel, pursuant to their Petition for Enforcement of Stipulation and Order, filed on December 19,2006, as

supplemented by this pleading, and seek the appointment of a Monitor over property held or

administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese"), alleging as follows:

L On October 14,2005, this Court entered, pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties, an

Order (the "Order") prohibiting Bishop Duncan and the other defendants from taking real and

personal property ("Property") held, or administered, by the Diocese with them outside the jurisdiction and authority of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America ("The

Episcopal Church"). (See Exhibit 1, Transcript of Hearing on December 22,2006 Request for

Expedited Discovery, pp. 16-17. See also Exhibit 2, Transcript of Hearing of March 17,2004,

pp. 60-63, where this Court discussed this eventuality wherein Bishop Duncan has abandoned

The Episcopal Church but continues to use the assets.) Property subject to the Order has an

estimated value in excess of $23 million. Notwithstanding the Order, Bishop Duncan and his

compatriots have openly and actively pursued their plan purportedly to separate the Diocese (and

Property it holds or administers) from The Episcopal Church, and Bishop Duncan cannot now

credibly contend otherwise.

2. As discussed below, Defendants' continuing efforts and announced intentions

necessitate monitoring and oversight to protect the Property held or administered by the Diocese

from transfer, use or disposition in violatioQ of the Order. • • 3. Certain recent examples illustrate the unabated efforts of Bishop Duncan and his compatriots to separate the Diocese (and Property it holds or administers) from The Episcopal

Church:

• On January 12,2008, $485,000 of Diocesan funds were appropriated to fund legal expenses related to defendants' effort to separate the Diocese (and Property it holds or administers) from The Episcopal Church. (See Exhibit 3.) • During the Diocesan Council Meeting of April 1,2008, Bishop Duncan distributed materials about the foreign churches with which the Diocese may choose to affiliate or "realign" upon separation from The Episcopal Church. (See Exhibit 4.) • The document entitled "Frequently Asked Questions About Realignment," which was on a CD that was distributed to participants in the May 18-19,2008 Leadership Conference, reprinted in the June-july 2008 edition of the Diocese's monthly magazine, and found on the Diocesan website, asserts that the consequence of realignment will be "that every parish of the Diocese will no longer be part of The Episcopal Church." (See Exhibit 5 at ~7.) • The same document expresses the intention to pursue separation of the Diocese (and Property it holds or administers) from The Episcopal Church, even if Bishop Duncan is removed as head of the Diocese as the result of ecclesiastical proceedings that have been initiated to do so. (See Exhibit 5 at ~12.) • On April 28, 2008, Bishop Duncan created a new Pennsylvania corporation called "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh," obviously as the vehicle for taking control of the Property. (See Exhibit 6.) Upon information and belief, Bishop Duncan has stated that the corporation was to be used to protect the assets of the Diocese. • On or about May 18-19,2008, Bishop Duncan used and distributed at the Diocesan Leadership retreat for the leaders of the Diocese the Power Point presentation attached as Exhibit 7 hereto, which seeks to have entire parishes and the Diocese as a whole attempt to leave The Episcopal Church.

4. The planned date of attempted separation of the Diocese (and the Property

therein) from The Episcopal Church is October 4, 2008, the date of the annual Diocesan

Convention, at which resolutions, supported by Bishop Duncan, Assistant Bishop Scriven,

members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese, and members of the Board of Trustees, are

intended to be presented for the purpose of attempting to separate the Diocese (and Property

therein) from The Episcopal Church. See Exhibit 8.

2 • • 5. Bishop Duncan's efforts to separate the Diocese (and the Property it holds or administers) from The Episcopal Church have continued not only in the face of this Court's

Order, but in the face of ecclesiastical proceedings anticipated to occur this Fall to permanently

remove him as a bishop of The Episcopal Church and head of the Diocese. As set forth more fully hereinafter, a Review Committee established by The Episcopal Church under Title IV of its

Constitution and Canons has already certified to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church

that Bishop Duncan has "abandoned the communion" of The Episcopal Church. As set forth

more fully below, a majority of the Standing Committee and Board of Trustees will attempt to

continue with the plan for separation of the Property from The Episcopal Church regardless of

any deposition of Bishop Duncan.

6. Given Bishop Duncan's and the other defendants' stated intentions, their unabated

and likely increasing use of Diocesan funds and resources to promote and execute separation

from The Episcopal Church [such as the $458,000 appropriation for legal expenses (some of

which, on information and belief, has been or currently will be spent) and undisclosed

expenditures on travel, and other expenditures in support of separation of Property], it is essential

to put in place temporary monitoring and oversight to protect the Property held or administered

by the Diocese for the beneficial use of parishes and institutions of the Diocese from transfer, use

or disposition in violation of the Order. It is important to address these matters in advance of

the Diocesan vote on October 4,2008, so that disposition of assets (including monetary funds) to

accomplish separation is ceased and so that on October 4 and thereafter Defendants cannot use or

dispose of Property in violation of the October 14,2005, Order through Bishop Duncan's new

corporation or otherwise. In addition, it is respectfully submitted that it is important for the

3 • • Court and the parties to begin addressing these issues now rather than waiting until after October

4,2008.

7. Bishop Duncan's intentions and actions to violate the Order are beyond dispute.

The Order declared, inter alia, that Property held or administered by the Diocese would continue to be held in trust for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes might decide not to remain in The Episcopal

Church. Order; Paragraph 1.

8. Of course, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is part of The Episcopal Church.

It appears that Bishop Duncan intends to claim that he still is head of "the Episcopal Diocese of

Pittsburgh" (since he has formed a corporation with that name) even though Bishop Duncan,

Assistant Bishop Scriven, a majority of the Standing Committee, a majority of the Board of

Trustees, and a number of parishes have purported to leave The Episcopal Church. Bishop

Duncan apparently thinks he can outwit the Plaintiffs and the Court, which entered the October

14,2005, Order after full explanation thereof by counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel who then represented Defendants. Bishop Duncan apparently intends to claim he heads the Episcopal

Diocese of Pittsburgh even if he and his followers are not part of The Episcopal Church.

However, such sophistry cannot evade the provisions of the Order. As the Court is aware, this eventuality that Bishop Duncan would lead others out of The Episcopal Church, but still attempt to use the assets currently held or administered by the Diocese, (see Exhibits 1 and 2) was a prime reason for entry of the Order.

9. Paragraph 2 of the Order precluded separation from The Episcopal Church of

Property specifically held for or in the name of parishes within the Diocese absent compliance with provisions of the Order. However, Bishop Duncan has publicly taken the position that if

4 • • the annual Diocesan Convention votes to leave The Episcopal Church then all the parishes in the

Diocese have left The Episcopal Church. (See Exhibits 5, ~7 and 9, ~3).

10. The first sentence of Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Diocese (the

"Accession Clause"), since the formation of the Diocese in 1865, has provided as follows:

The Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, being a constituent part of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, accedes to, recognizes, and adopts the Constitution and Canons of that Church, and acknowledges its authority accordingly.l

The defendants are now actively engaged in a course of conduct which they claim will withdraw

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (and Property held or administered by the Diocese) from the hierarchical structure ofThe Episcopal Church and place the Diocese (and Property held or administered by the Diocese) in a new hierarchy that is separate from, and completely outside of, the jurisdiction and authority of The Episcopal Church.

11. At the November 2007 Annual Convention of the Diocese, a controversial resolution called "Resolution One" was adopted, upon first reading, directed at attempting to remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church and to create a replacement Church operating as:

a constituent member of the Anglican Communion a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.

(See Exhibit 11, Proposed Constitutional Amendments, excerpts from the Pre-Convention

Journal regarding Resolution One.)

1 See Journal ofthe Proceedings ofthe Primary Convention ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese ofPittsburgh, 1865, Appendix A, attached hereto as Exhibit 10. 5 • • 12. Resolution One was supported by Bishop Duncan, Assistant Bishop Scriven, and a majority of the Standing Committee and passed at the November 2007 Annual Diocesan

Convention. (See Exhibit 12.) The Constitution and Canons of the Diocese in effect prior to the

November 2007 Annual Diocesan Convention are attached as Exhibit 13 hereto.

13. The purported separation of the Diocese is highly likely to occur at the Diocesan

Annual Convention on October 4, 2008, where the second reading of the Amendment of the

Accession Clause and the passage of Resolutions One, Two and Three of 2008, attached as

Exhibit 8, are expected to occur.

14. The goal of creating an organization operating separately from The Episcopal

Church was reflected in the following amendments to the Diocesan Constitution, passed at first

reading at the November 2007 Annual Diocesan Convention as part of Resolution One:

(a) Creation of a new Article I Section 2 as follows:

"The diocese of Pittsburgh shall have membership in such Province of the Anglican Communion as is by diocesan Canon specified." (b) Amendment and restatement of the current Article I Section 2 to allow parishes in any part of the country or the world to be part of the Diocese.

(c) ,Restatement of Article XIII to eliminate the requirementfor admission to the Diocese that a parish recognize the authority ofthe Constitution~ Canons~ doctrines~ discipline and worship ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States ofAmerica.

Emphasis Added. (Compare Exhibit 11, excerpts from Pre-Convention Journal regarding

Resolution One, at page C2 to Exhibit 13, at pp. 6-7.)

15. The November 2007 Annual Diocesan Convention also amended effective

immediately on that date:

(a) The language in Canon III, Section 2a concerning Parochial Reports of Parishes in the Diocese so as to delete the reference to "forms prepared by the Executive Council of the Church," and to replace it with "standard forms." (See Exhibit 14,

6 • • excerpts from the Pre-Convention Journal regarding "Changes to Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. ") This amendment, passed at the November 2007 Convention, was effective immediately since amendments to the Diocesan Canons do not require two readings (see Canon XXXII, p. 32 of Exhibit 13);

(b) Canon XXVI Section 1 regarding selection of Delegates to the Provincial Synod of the Province of Washington, which is a Province (Province III) of The Episcopal Church, to refer, instead, to "a Provincial Synod in which the diocese shall be a participating member." (See Exhibit 14.) This amendment, passed at the November 2007 Convention, was effective immediately (see p. 32 of Exhibit 13); and

(c) The requirement in Rules of Order, 8.3 (Nominations) that candidates for officers nominated by the Nominating Committee be "a Communicant in good standing of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh" to provide, instead, that such person be "a Communicant in good standing in the Diocese of Pittsburgh." (See Exhibit 14.) This rules change passed at the November 2007 Convention, was effective immediately. (See p. 33 of Exhibit 13.)

16. Bishop Duncan, Assistant Bishop Scriven, and a majority of the members of the

Standing Committee supported the changes to the Diocesan Canons and Rules of Order set forth in the foregoing paragraph 15.

17. Prior to the 2007 Diocesan Convention, Bishop Duncan explained the separatist purposes of the amendments in his 11 th September, 2007 pre-Convention Report letter to the

Clergy and Lay Leaders of the Diocese of Pittsburgh as follows:

It appears to many of us - bishops, clergy, laity - that a moment of decision has arrived in the Anglican Communion. The Windsor Report and Primates Communiques from Dromantine and Dar es Salaam have asked The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to take clear actions committing these two Provinces of the Anglican Communion to 'walking together' with rather than 'walking apart' from the Communion. After four years the offibal, as well as general, response from The Episcopal Church seems to be 'we'll do it our way.' Moreover rejection (by both the House of Bishops and Executive Council) of proposals to allow sufficient integrity to dioceses like Pittsburgh, concerning traditional Faith and Order, now seem all but final. A last minute reversal by the House of Bishops (prior to a September 30th [2007] deadline established by the Communion) seems most unlikely. In light of these events, with heavy hearts and for the sake of our mission, it appears the time has come to begin the process of realignment within the Anglican Communion.

7 • •

Constitutional changes proposed for consideration at the 142nd Annual Convention would begin the process to exercise our right to end the accession of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. The accession clause first appeared in the Constitution of our Diocese in 1868. The effect of the changes would make clear the right to end any claim of spiritual or canonical authority of the General Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and would allow the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to realign itself with another Province of the Anglican Communion. The proposed changes are written in such away, however, that continuing membership in The Episcopal Church remains a possibility if The Episcopal Church were to reverse its "walk apart" from the Anglican Communion. (See Exhibit 15.)

18. Neither Bishop Duncan nor The Episcopal Church has reversed their course and the December 17,2007 decision of The Episcopal Church's Title IV Review Committee, discussed infra, has determined and certified to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church that Bishop Duncan has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church. (See Exhibit 16,

December 17, 2007 letter to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori from The Rt. Rev.

Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr., President of the Title IV Review Committee and Exhibit 17, January

15,2008 letter to Bishop Duncan from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.) 2

19. After obtaining passage of Resolution One, Bishop Duncan posted a statement, dated November 2,2007, on the Diocesan website containing the following:

If the second reading is also approved, the constitutional change will secure for the diocese the right to realign with another province of The Anglican Communion. Exercising that right would require a separate vote at the time of the second reading of the constitutional change, or by a future diocesan convention, preceded by serious discussions with any province that might receive the diocese.

2 Title IV ofthe Constitution and Canons ofthe General Convention ofThe Episcopal Church govern ecclesiastical discipline and provide for the formation ofa Review Committee of five bishops, two priests and two lay persons ofThe Episcopal Church to consider disciplinary actions against a Bishop. 8 • • With a strong mandate after the vote on the first reading, the next year will be spent working through the details of what would be involved in realigning the diocese with another province of the Anglican Communion. Approving this motion, said Bishop Duncan in his convention address "signifies an intention, gives warning, and introduces a period of preparation for anticipated consequences."

(See Exhibit 12.)

20. The support of the Standing Committee to take Property with them accmimlated

over years of membership in The Episcopal Church is also well established. For example, on

June 28, 2006, the Standing Committee joined Bishop Duncan in attempting to take the entire

Diocese outside the supervision and authority of The Episcopal Church, by purportedl>,

withdrawing the Diocese from Province Three3 within The Episcopal Church. (See Exhibit 18.)

This action was ratified by the November 3-4,2006 Convention of the Diocese. (See Exhibit 19,

excerpts from Post-Convention Journal.) On May 28, 2008, the Standing Committee issued the

following statement to the effect that, even if Bishop Duncan has been removed as a Bishop by

The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, at its September 2008 meeting, the Standing

Committee will proceed with the plan of separation at the October 4,2008, Annual Diocesan

Convention. See Exhibit 20.

3 Under The Episcopal Church's Constitution, a Province is a territorial grouping of . Dioceses for governance purposes as set forth in The Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons. The Diocese has been a member ofProvince Three. See Constitution ofThe Episcopal Church, Article VII. A true and correct copy ofthe Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church were attached to the December 19, 2006 Petition for Enforcement as Exhibit 1. The Province is the means by which a Diocese participates in the process ofthe representative governmental structure ofThe Episcopal Church by, among other things, participating in the nomination ofrepresentatives to the Executive Council that governs The Episcopal Church between general conventions. The Province is also the location ofa Court ofReview to review discipline against clergy by a bishop. See, e.g., The Episcopal Church Canon 1.9 (OfProvinces), The Episcopal Church Canon IA.1(c) (Ofthe Executive Council), and The Episcopal Church Canon IVA.30 (Appeals to Courts ofReview for the Trial ofa Priest or Deacon). 9 • • 21. The current wasting of the assets of the Diocese, by diverting them for separatist purposes, is demonstrated by the appropriation by the Board of Trustees of $485,000 for the defense of the anticipated opposition to Bishop Duncan's separatist effort. (See Exhibit 3.) This

is in addition to approximately $240,000, spent in 2007 on legal support for such efforts. (See

Exhibit 9, '15, Exhibit 3.) That means approximately three quarters of a million dollars of assets

of the Diocese 'were used or are to be used to advance Bishop Duncan's attempt at separation from The Episcopal Church.

22. In light of (a) the anticipated formal adoption on second reading of the

amendment oftheDiocese's Accession Clause to purportedly remove the Diocese from The

Episcopal Church, (b) the likely amendment of the Diocesan Canons to purportedly make the

Diocese a member of the Southern Cone (i.e., South America), (c) potential deposition of

Bishop Duncan from the office of bishop of The Episcopal Church, (d) the current planned use

of assets of the Diocese to defend Bishop Duncan's separatist efforts, and (e) Bishop Duncan's

creation of a corporation entitled The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh for the reported purpose of

protection of assets of the Diocese -- all demonstrate the need for a Court-appointed Monitor.

An interim Monitor to inventory and oversee Property held or administered by the Diocese,

pending resolution of the foregoing, is necessary to prevent use or transfer of Property in

violation of this Court's Order.

23. A court in equity has inherent authority to appoint a person with such powers in

an appropriate case. See McDougal v. Huntington & Broad Top Mountain & Coal Co., 143 A.

574 (Pa. 1928) (holding that court had inherent equitable authority to appoint receiver, despite

absence of statutory authority at the time): see also Adler v. Tauberg, 881 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super

2005) (affirming appointment of a receiver by this Court in a business dispute among the owners

10 • • of a midsized corporation). The present use of monetary Property and the imminent attempted transfer of monetary and non-monetary Property in violation of the Order require the requested appointment of a Monitor. Appointment of a Monitor would create no hardship upon

Defendants but only assure compliance with the Order, which is binding upon Defendants.

Frankly, not even the problems with suppliers, customers, creditors, and stockholders -- which might arise in a commercial setting -- are applicable here. All that is being accomplished here is compliance with an existing Order of this Court.

24. A Monitor, therefore, is a necessary step in protecting use of the Property in accordance with the Order until such time as assurance of use of the Property within The

Episcopal Church is resolved.

25. By this Petition, Plaintiffs seek appointment of a Monitor empowered, inter alia, to inventory the Property and to oversee any expenditures or transfers of the Property (including cash assets) until assurance of use of the Property within The Episcopal Church is resolved. The

cost of the Monitor should be borne by the Diocese.

Conclusion and Request for Relief

26. There are millions of dollars of Property (real and personal) held or administered

by the Diocese or entities within the Diocese, including but not limited to the treasury, trust funds, and Sheldon Calvary Camp, which are in jeopardy by reason of the actions set forth

above.

27. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Calvary Episcopal Church, The Reverend Harold T.

Lewis, Philip Richard Roberts, and Herman S. Harvey respectfully request the Court to enforce the Order and provide them relief by appointing a Monitor over the Property, including its cash

assets, with authority:

11 • • • To conduct an accounting of the Property (real and personal) held or administered by the Diocese and its use since October 14,2005;

• To oversee the Property (real and personal) held or administered by the Diocese, and assure that there are no transfers of Property (real or personal), held or administered by tile Diocese, outside of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America and that such Property is not used for purposes of separation from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

28. Alternatively, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court Order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with access to all financial books and records of the Diocese reflecting all transactions occurring and all assets held or transferred at any time since October 14,2005.

29. Previously, Calvary requested and received, with the concurrence of the

Defendants, the ability to create an escrow account into which "any and all amounts that have become or become due and payable by Plaintiff Calvary to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh

... except for payments due for insurance coverage and/or other direct pay benefits obtained by

Calvary through the Diocese, may be deposited ..." Other parishes have indicated to the undersigned that they desire a similar escrow account under similar terms and conditions under which they would pay their Diocesan assessments. In light of the anticipated realignment vote, such parishes should be permitted to make payments into such an escrow account or accounts which would be created by the undersigned counsel and subject to subsequent Court Order. This escrow account(s) will be a separate escrow account(s) from the one that has been in existence for some time ,to hold the payments by Calvary.

30. Plaintiffs are serving Requests for Admissions, Document Requests and

Interrogatories herewith. After the filing of Defendants' Answer to this pleading, Plaintiffs will request that the Court set a date for Hearing hereupon.

12 • • Respectfully submitted, 24;z}~ Walter P. DeForest, Pa. J.D. No. 05009 George E. Yokitis, Pa. J.D. No. 29502 Gary L. Kaplan, Pa. J.D. No. 75524

DeFOREST KOSCELNIK YOKITIS KAPLAN & BERARDINELLI Koppers Building, 30th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-227-3100 Facsimile: 412-227-3130 Counsel for Plaintiffs Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, The Reverend Dr. Harold T. Lewis, Philip Richard Roberts, and Herman S. Harvey

13 • • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH,· ) PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a ) CIVIL DIVISION Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, et aI., ) ) No. GD-03-020941 Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) ) THE RIGHT REVEREND ROBERT ) WILLIAM DUNCAN, Bishop ofThe Episcopal ) Diocese ofPittsburgh, et aI., ) ) Defendants

VERIFICATION OF THE REVEREND DR. HAROLD T. LEWIS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY )

I, Harold T. Lewis, being duly sworn, do hereby verify as follows:

1. I am Rector ofCalvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

2. The facts set forth in the Supplement to December 19,2006 Petition for

Enforcement ofStipulation and Order; Request for Appointment ofa Monitor to Inventory and

Oversee Property Held or Administered by the Episcopal Diocese ofPittsburgh to Assure

Compliance with this Court's Order ofOctober 14,2005; and Request for Creation ofan

Additional Escrow Account are true and correct to the best ofmy personal knowledge or upon information and belief.

sworn/to and subscribed before me thi(UL day ofJuly, 2008. I!M4J$~

Member. Pennsylvania Association of Notaries • • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a CIVIL DIVISION Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, et al. No. GD-03-020941 Plaintiffs, v. Judge Joseph M. James THE RIGHT REVEREND ROBERT WILLIAM DUNCAN, Bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of , 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Supplement To December 19,2006 Petition For Enforcement

Of Stipulation And Order; Request For Appointment OfA Monitor To Inventory And

Oversee Property Held Or Administered By The Episcopal Diocese Of Pittsburgh To

Assure Compliance With This Court's Order Of October 14,2005; And Request For

Creation Of An Additional Escrow Account (the "Petition"), argument of counsel and for good cause shown, said Petition is GRANTED. The Court hereby appoints

______to serve as Monitor over the real or personal Property held or administered by the Diocese. The costs of the Monitor shall be borne by the Diocese.

The Monitor shall have authority:

• To conduct an accounting of the Property (real and personal) held or administered by the Diocese and its use since October 14,2005;

• To oversee the Property (real and personal) held or administered by the Diocese, and assure that there are no transfers of Property (real or personal), held or administered by the Diocese, outside ofThe Episcopal Church in the United States of America and that such Property is not used for purposes of separation from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. • •

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, each parish desiring to establish an escrow account as described in the foregoing Petition, shall so state in writing to Plaintiffs' counsel, who will: (a) promptly notify Defendants' counsel of such notification, and (b) establish an escrow account on behalf of the parish, in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

1. Any and all amounts that have become or become due and payable to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (the "Diocese"), except for payments due for insurance coverage and/or other direct pay benefits obtained by the parish through the Diocese, may be deposited with Plaintiffs' counsel in an interest bearing escrow.

2. Promptly after deposit ofany such payment into escrow, counsel for Plaintiffs shall provide notice to counsel for Defendants ofthe date and amount ofsuch deposit and the identity ofthe parish on behalfofwhich the deposit has been made.

3. Payment into escrow by each parish offunds that have become due and payable to the Diocese to date or that become due and payable in the future shall be treated as payment to the Diocese ofsuch funds on the date ofsuch payment into escrow for any and all purposes related to the good standing, rights, responsibilities, and/or privileges ofthe parish as a member ofthe Diocese and, upon making such payments, the parish shall not be considered delinquent or in arrears in its payments to the Diocese or, for that reason, deemed a Transitional Parish.

4. Any assessment or other funding that the parish has been paying, or pays, directly to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States shall not affect, or be affected by, this Stipulation, and may continue without bearing on the instant action or the parish's good standing, rights, responsibilities, and/or privileges as a member ofthe Diocese.

5. Upon subsequent Order ofCourt, counsel for Plaintiffs shall promptly disburse all sums deposited in escrow in accordance with the Court's ruling and instructions.

6. This stipulation is without prejudice to Defendants' defenses and objections to the petition as set forth in, inter alia, Defendants' amended new matter and is without prejudice to the right ofany party to move to terminate or amend this escrow agreement.

President Judge Joseph M. James • •

~~~~l::::., 2008, a true and correct copy

n for Enforcement of Stipulation and

Order; Request for Appointment of a Monitor to Inventory and Oversee Property Held or

Administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to Assure Compliance with this Court's

Order of October 14,2005; and Request for Creation of an Additional Escrow Account was served by hand delivery, upon the following:

Andrew K. Fletcher, Esquire Christopher A. Cafardi, Esquire Pepper Hamilton, LLP 50th Floor 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502

and by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:

John H. Lewis, Jr., Esquire David D. Langfitt, Esquire Jo A. Rosenberger, Esquire Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109-1099

~~-/J~ Walter P. DeForest, Esquire

14 ,.,.,,~<' ••••. "'i • • i ~i!

'- . .:~ , ~

. l'.-;=-. '"

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CALVARY EPISCOPAL CIVIL DIVISION CHURCH, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania GD 03-020941 Non-Profit Corporation, et al., REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY

vs FILED BY: Jane E. Sporrer Official Court Reporter THE RIGHT REVEREND ROBERT WILLIAM DUNCAN, Bishop of DATE: The Episcopal December 22, 2006 Diocese of Pittsburgh, et al., JUDGE: Defendants. Hon. Joseph James

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Plaintiffs: Walter P. DeForest, Esq. George E. Yokitis, Esq. DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Kaplan Koppers Building 30th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219

For the Defendants: David B. Fawcett, Esq. Justin M. Gottwald, Esq. Matt Horgan, Esq. Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 • • 16 should be a hearing with regard to the petition and the answer that we frame, the issues that ultimately would be before the Court. So that's my simple presentation and that's the request of the defendant in this case to the Court.

MR. HORGAN: I would just like to add,

Your Honor, in the interest of the shortness of life, I think there are procedural paths we need to follow if you decide to proceed, but this transcript forwarded by Mr. DeForest is helpful and it reflects what you've indicated that you are not interested in engaging in ecclesiastical debates. And what we seem to have here based on the --

THE COURT: Not only am I not interested, Ilm not capable of entering into that ecclesiastical debate.

MR. HORGAN: What we have here today entered into in October was a stipulation, court-approved, about the property. That's really what we should be talking about.

THE COURT: There's more in the stipulation than that. There's discussions of withdrawal and how parish churches can withdraw, how they go about it, delivering notice. • 17

There's lots of things, terms of any disaffiliations. All these thihgs are delineated here. Recognizing that creating as I said in the transcript~ you create a parallel organization and stay in the church, in the buildings. Mr. DeFor~st's clients are concerned that you are using their facilities without having formally transferred them in title and are not affiliated with the Episcopal

Church of North America which has title to the property. So, yeah, they are intertwined. The rightness or the wrongness of who's withdrawing and who's staying is irrelevant to me, but the fact that somebody is withdrawing is relevant because now you are in the facility that belongs to the Episcopal Church of North America and you are no longer affiliated with the Episcopal

Church of North America. If that is discovered to be true, then you violated the terms of the consent order and there'S a question whether the churches are evicted, will have to pay rent or some other remedy which Mr. DeForest's clients would have ..Simply passing of title is not the only thing that violates the intent of this stipulation. • • 1

1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA

3 CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CIVIL DIVISION PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, 4 a Pennsylvania Non-Profit No. GO 03-020941 Corporation; 5 TYPE OF PROCEEDING: THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF Motion ·6 PITTSBURGH, an unincorporated association, DATE: 7 by Calvary Episcopal Church, March 17, 2004 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 8 as Trustee Ad Litem; BEFORE: Han. Joseph James 9 THE REVEREND DR. HAROLD T. LEWIS, Rector, Calvary REPORTED BY: 10 Episcopal Church, Melissa J. Gasper Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Official Court 11 PHILIP RICHARD ROBERTS, Reporter Senior Warden, Calvary 12 Episcopal Church, COUNSEL OF RECORD:· Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; For the Plaintiffs: 13 and HERMAN S. HARVEY, Walter DeForest, Esq. Jacqueline Koscelnik, 14 Esq. Plaintiffs, 15 For the Defendants: v. Joseph Otto, Esq. 16 Robert Del Greco, THE RIGHT REVEREND ROBERT Esq. 17 WILLIAM DUNCAN, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of 18 Pittsburgh; THE RIGHT REVEREND HENRY SCRIVEN, 19 Assistant Bishop of the Episcopoal Diocese . 20 Pittsburgh; 21 BATUNDE FAPOHUNDA, ROBERT MANSON, JAMES MOORE, JOHN 2.2 MORGAN, LYNN PATTERSON, DONALD PEPLER, THOMAS 23 RAMPY, BRUCE G. SEILING, JOHN STEVENSON, RICHARD 24 THOMAS, and DOUGLAS WICKER, all of whom are 25 members of the Board of Trustees of The 2

1 Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; 2 THE REV. CATHERINE BRALL, 3 KATHLEEN MARKS, THE REV. J. DOUGLAS McGLYNN, THE 4 REV. SCOTT T. QUINN, and WILLIAM ROEMER, all of 5 whom are members of the Standing Committee of 6 the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; 7 Defendants. 8

9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 60

1 2 All I am saying is that those were matters 3 having to do with the mission of the church and if 4 the Court wants to throw it into that self and mind, 5 we're happy to do it, but we're going to get into 6 other kinds of lssues not having to do with any real 7 property or any threat of real property. 8 THE COURT: Well, the Court is troubled 9 by obviously the smoking gun that Mr. DeForest was 10 looking for was provided to him by the director of 11 St. Stephen's. 12 Isn't it amazing? Every time that you say 13 that this shall be confidential, don't show it to 14 anybody -- 15 MR. OTTO: And what is the statement ~ ! i 16 there? ~ 17 THE COURT: I say this to you in trust. ~ ~ ~ 18 Please do not repeat this to anyone. It's ~ z~ W 19 guaranteed that you are going to tell half a dozen ~ 0 ~ 20 people. ~ ~ 0 ~ 0z 0 21 What is the sense of having something ~ w~ ~ ~ 22 entrusted to you if you can't tell someone? 23 MR. OTTO: That is a good warning. 24 THE COURT: That is the smoking gun that 25 Mr. DeForest has been looking for, that you seem to 61

1 2 retain ownership of our property as we move into 3 this new alignment, and we're gOlng to have a 4 replacement jurisdiction. 5 It sounds like what he is eluding to is 6 that the Bishop Duncan and his associates, those who 7 believe in the same way that he does, are moving to 8 try to construct the parallel universe and to 9 execute and transfer the parishes, the members of 10 the congregations and the assets of these 11 congregations into this parallel universe. 12 They are building it side by side, and they 13 are not being stopped, even though No. 6 has been 14 withdrawn. What Mr. DeForest and his clients seemed 15 to fear is that this will become a fait accompli and ~ } 16 then they are forced to undo what they don't think i III 17 they should have to undo. ill iii ~ 18 That is, this property lS held in trust for ~ z '"W 19 the Church of North America with or without 0.. e ell 20 ordination of gay bishops and the Court is not ~ a: 0 u. 0z 0 21 involved in that dispute, but the dispute is there ell a: w ~ 22 and there is about to be a cleavage and it appears 23 that there are a number of people who are on the 24 payroll of the diocese being paid by the Episcopal 25 Church of Pittsburgh who are actively working to 62

1 2 separate the church. 3 MR. OTTO: Your Honor, that is the 4 point. I don't think that this is correct. I don't 5 think that there is any eviqence that they are about 6 to separate the church. In fact, they are saying 7 quite the opposite. 8 Now, you got one individual who may be 9 saying whatever they say, like this individual who 10 writes notes on the resolution, for heaven's sake we

11 are talking about somebody's mind thought as they 12 make a note on a piece of paper, let's look at the 13 resolution, not somebody's imagination or thought or 14 desire. 15 THE COURT: The statement that you have ~ i i 16 attached in your addendum, Mr. DeForest, the m 17 statement that is attributed to network planning 0> 'f i;i ~ 18 documents circulated by one Geoff Chapman, is that a ~ z w" 19 hard copy, or was that a piece of paper or was that a. e III 20 an e-mail? :; II: i'2 c z 0 21 MR. DeFOREST: We know that it was at CD II: W

1 2 we believe that there are e-mails related to that, 3 Your Honor. We have not been given any of that. 4 THE COURT: There is a letter? 5 MR. DeFOREST: Yes, sir. 6 THE COURT: And it was in the Washington 7 Post? 8 MR. DeFOREST: It was eventually printed 9 in the Washington Post for the same reason that you 10 stated, Your Honor. 11 MR. OTTO: It was confidential. '12 THE COURT: That is even better, isn't' 13 it? 14 MR. DeFOREST: And the Washington Post 15 confirmed it with Reverend Chapman and I said to you E 8 I 16 before that the bishop has not -- f ill 17 THE COURT: It is hard to say it wasn't 1? ~ ~ 18 since it says that I am Geoff Chapman. So much for ,; < z '"w 19 confidentiality. a. e 20 I am concerned. Again, I am reluctant, I '"~ a: ...0 0z 0 21 am very reluctant to get myself into this, and I :n a: w '"~ 22 know the pitfalls of these ecclesiastical debates. 23 However, I am concerned that if, in fact, there is a 24 dissipation of church assets In violation of Dennis

25 Canon and if, in fact, there lS going to be an ,. • • Agenda

Board ofTrustees Saturday, January 12, 2007 Church ofthe Ascension

.A2enda Item Purpose Lead

Opening Prayer Bishop Duncan Welcome and Annpuncements Information Doug (Board Chair) Bishop's Report Information Bishop Duncan Assistant Bishop's Report Information Bishop Scriven Canon Missioner's Report Information Canon Hays Consent Agenda Dec 11thMeeting - minutes Approval '" Doug (Board Chair) 2008 Officers and <;:ommittee Chairs Actions and approvals * Doug (Board Chair) Prayer Book Society No Report Jack (Ldrshp Temn) Real Estate Conupittee No meeting - No proposals pending Mark (Chair) FinancelJnvestm.ent Committee Status Report -. Doug (Chair) Audit Committee Status Report Marsha

Chapl'amcy Committee. Status Report- (1) award, $ pre-approved David (Chair) Risk Management Status Report Jack

Common Life Property Status Update - Jim (Chair) Growth Fund Committee No Report- several requests pending Jack

New Church Resources - CMRF Infonnation - Tom (Chair) Director ofAdministration Information - and- (1) resolution requesting Jack continued funding oflegal costs. '" Old Business Doug (Board Chair)

New Business Doug (Board Chair) Adjourn. Closing Prayer Doug

* = Voting Issues

Regrets to Janet @ 4U-325-0087 (Xl40) or email, [email protected]

Lunch will be provided. Donation requested. --I~ -_. -- "'- ,- . - '-::. • • Reguest: Diocesan Council to B. O. T. - January 5, 2008

Date ofBoard ofTrustees Action: January 12, 2008

Draft Resolntion ------. -_···_-_·v- I-- .' ...... ••

Request: Diocesan Council to B;O. T.- June 5, 2007

Date ofBoard ofTrostees Action: June 12,2007

Resolution (\ ~~ WHEREAS, the newcomplaints filed in court by Calvary Episcopal ~~the Diocese have created significant unanticipated legal defense costs in~7'r loss of asses~~~.of$116,820, and . ~~

WHEREAS, the Dioeesan Council bas moved to IeV1S~ethe ~ its meeting ofJune 5, 2007 by ~ginningto reduce costs, creating a "Missio Fund" that bas raised in excess of$50,000 to date, transferring a total of$, m accumulated surplus funds leaving a balance ofonly $6,579.80 inthis B~. e F~ and

WHEREAS, the anticipa1ed legal costs and.Je'll~ents for 2007 greatly exceed the amount ofthese actions, and ~ Y

WHEREAS, the Diocesan Council is to balance the operating budget ofannual operating revenue and annual opera butmust tum to the Board ofTrustees for use oflonger-term invested fUnds coverextraordinary situations such as this

THEREFORE. BE ITRM~D,that the Board ofTrustees approve the request of the Dioce~Council=:fimds ofup to $350,000 to support the payment oflega! costs as incurred d~ ce of2007.

a Diocesan Council Discusses Realignment: The EPisceocese of Pittsburgh • 4/4/08 12:18 PM News H..esources

Diocesan Council Discusses Realignment

Members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh's Diocesan Council passed a "sense ofthe council" resolution on Aprill. The vote does not bind the diocese to a particular course of action. Instead, it recorded the Diocesan Council's sense of how the diocese might best proceed if it chooses to realign. It also creates the process by which the Diocesan Council is expected to forward its recommendation to this year's diocesan convention.

The motion, put forward by Betsy Hetzler and Sherman White, passed with twenty affirmative votes, one no - Mr. John Hose, and three abstentions Mrs. Ardelle Hopson, the Rev. Dr. Moni McIntyre, and Mrs. Joan Morris.

The full text of the resolution follows:

RESOLVED, the Diocesan Council ofthe Episcopal Diocese ofPittsburgh records its sense ofCouncil that alignment with the Province ofthe Southern Cone is the wisestforward course for the Diocese should the second reading ofthe constitution changes adopted on November 2,2007 be passed at second reading.

FURTHER, the Council asks that a resolution with this provincial realignment be prepared and brought to Council not later than June for final consideration and subsequent forwarding to the 143rd Annual Convention.

- Posted April 2, 2008 -

http://www.pghanglican.org/news/local/councilrealign040208 Page 1 of 1 • • Basic Provincial Information

• Southem Cone ofAmelica (Seven Dioceses and 22,490 members, plus San Joaquin)

Ino official website)

• Uganda (28 Dioceses and 8,000,000 members)

http://www.coupdr.co.ugl

• Kenya (28 Dioceses and 2,500,000 members)

http://www.ackenya.orgl

• Southeast Asia (four Dioceses and 168,079 members, plus archdeaconries for Nepal, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Indonesia}

http://www.anglican.org.sglindex.html (Diocese ofSingapore, no provincial site)

• Rwanda (nine dioceses (plus AMiA) and 1,000,000 members)

http://www.peer-hq.org.rw/

• Nigeria (77 dioceses (plus CANA) and 17,500,000 members)

http://www.anglican-nig.orglindex.php

• The Episcopal Church (98 dioceses and 2,320,000 members)

http://www.episcopalchurch.orgl h The Anglican Communion 0. Website: - Iglesia Anglicana del con.de America Page 1 of 1 Provincial Directory: Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America

Map and Statistics

,:I!"'~~f:: ;:;~::~cal Area: 5,239,;~~4:,~

"",. History

British immigrants brought Anglicanism to South America during the nineteenth century. The South American Missionary Society continues to work among indigenous peoples. In 1974, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave over his metropolitical authority for the dioceses ofthe Southern Cone and, in 1981, the new Province was fonned. It includes Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. Information:

Primate:The Most Revel GregoIY James Venables

Provincial Secretary: Nils Leticia Gomez Guen-ere

Provincial Treasurer: Ms Margarita Cornejo Diocese:

Ar~ntina Bolivia Chile Northern Argentina Paraguay Peru Uruguay

http://www.anglicancommunlon.org/tour/province.cfm?pagevievv=print&view=a1pha&ID... 3/25/2008 The Anglican COlmnunioneial Website: ~ The Church ofthe pro.fUganda Page l.of I y _

Provincial DiTectory: The Church of the Province ofUganda

:Map and Statistics ., . Geographical Area: 241,000 Sq Km Population: 22,800,000

"'; ".';:':.- ~.: .. History

After its founding in 1877 by the Church Missionary Society, the Church grew through the evangelization ofAfricans by Africans. The rust Ugandan clergy were ordained in 1893 and tbe Church ofUganda, Rwanda, and Burundi became an independent Province in 1961. The history of the Church in Ugandahas been marked by civil strife and martyrdom. In May 1980 the new Province ofBurundi, Rwanda, and Zaire was inaugurated; the ProY,ince ofUganda has grown since then from seventeen to twenty-seven dioceses. Information:

Primnte:The Most Revd Bena Luke Qrombj

Provincial Secretary: The Reyd Aaron Mwesigye

Provineilll Treasurer: Mr Moses Makasa Diocese:

~ Ruwenzori Bunvoro-Kitara ~ fu!§Qgn SQm1i. Central BugMda South Rwenzori East AnJeole West Anlcole ~ West BUl!'anda Kararooja ~ ~ JillID!Dl ~ !.d\ngQ ~ Madi & West Nile Masindj-Kitara .Mbll.!!< ~ Muhabura Ml!.lmnll Namjrembe Nebbi North Kigezi North Mbale Northern Uganda

I Contacb~ I Comments I Help ISearch I Published by the Anglican Communion Office.O 2008 Anglican Consultative Council

httn://www.am?licancommtmion.omJtour/orovrnce.cfm?nageview=nrint&view=alpha&ID... 3/25/2008 The Anglican Communion OW Website: - The Anglican Church ofr. Page 10f2 Pl'ovincial Directory: The Anglican Church of Kenya

Map and Statistics .~.• :' ;~::};;:i:;·Pl';,;:~·r~)~i~','>:: Geographical Area: 580,400 Sq Km .6t{/. Population: 30,700,000

History

Mombasa saw the arrival ofAnglican missionaries in 1844, with the first Africans ordained to the priesthood in 1885. Mass conversions occurred as early as 1910. The flIst Kenyan Bishops were consecrated in 1955. The Church became part ofthe Province ofEast Africa, established in 1960, but by 1970 Kenya and Tanzania were divided into separate Provinces. Information:

Pl·jmate:The Most Revd Benjamin MP Nzimbi

Pmvillciul Secl'ctary: The Rt Revd Lawrence Dena

Provincial Treasurer: Mr William O!!ara

Provincial Treasu rei': Mr John Muhoho

Website:The Anglican Church ofKenva Diocese:

All Saints Cathedral Diocese Nambale Bondo Nyahururu Bungoma Southern Nvanza Butere Taita-Taveta .E.1.dm:m Thika Embu Kaiiado Katakwa Kirinvaga Kitale Kitui Machakos Maseno North Maseno South Maseno West Mbeere Meru Mombasa Mount Kenya Central

http://liVW'vv.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?pageview=print&view=alpha&ID... 3/25/2008 "The Anglican CommlUllon Offi"ebsite: - The Anglican Cl1Urch ofK.

Mount Kenya South N V!ollnt Kenya West Murnias 1Il Nairobi & Nakuru Ii] within The Anglican Church oflCellya:

Mission Organisations

http://Wvvw.anglicancommunion.orgltour/province.cfm?pageview=print&view=a1pha&lD... 3/25/2008 :rhe Anglican Corrununion OW Website: - Church ofthe Province Of. East Asia Page 1 of~ Provincial Directory: Chllrch of the Province of South East Asia

IIistory

The Anglican Church in South East Asia was originally under the jurisdiction or the Bishop ofCalclltta, India. The first chaplaincy was formed in West Malaysia:in 1805; the first bishop was consecrated in 1855. The Diocese ofLabuan, Sarawak, and Singapore was formed in 1881, dividing in 1909, 1962, and 1970. Until the inaugm.·atioll ofthe Church ofthe Province ofSouth East Asia, the four dioceses (Kutching, Sabah, Singapore, and West Malaysia) were under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbmy. Although the Province exists under the restrictions ofa Muslim government, the Church has experienced spiritual renewal and has sent out its own mission partners to various parts ofthe worlel. Information:

Primate:The Most Revel Dr John Chew

Provincial Secretary: Mr Dennis Wee Khui Chew

Provincial Treasurer: .rvCr Keith Chua Diocese:

K.nching Sabah Singapore West Malaysia lVlore information & links within Church of the Province of South East Asia:

Mission Onmn.isatiol1s

http://wW\v.anglicancommunion.orgitour/province.cfm?pageview=print&vie'vv=alpha&lD... 3/25/2008 The Anglican Communion 0e Website: - L'Eglise Episcopal au RW. Pa2:e- 1 of~.

Provincial Directory: L'Eglise Episcopal all Rwanda

Map and Statistics •.. ;c:":::-';. ... •.. 'i:..;.:i: '.• ~~'J!.~: ,,:,~~-,,:;:.: ':~T:":;!~ '::; .:' .. ·.· i· :id.\~;'~ ;<;~tfgan~~im Geographical Area: 26,340 Sq Km . ,~,'f.,:. ihWfl:Uti;j: Population: 8,700,000 ;1(;.... :';'!. ":,"

•~i~ia~:~t~

\.,~:: .::.:-.: History

Injust over 26,340 square Kilometres are 180,000 Anglicans, out ofa quic1dy growing population of8.7 million. The former Ruanda Mission established its first station at Gahini in 1925 and grew through the revival ofthe 1930s and 1940s, with the first Rwandan Bishop appointed in 1965. Eight dioceses have up to 40 parishes, which in turn comprise 15-20 congregations. Like all strata ofRwandan society, the Church suffered through the genocide, and it is a major priority ofthe church to replace clergy through training.

The Church has a role as a healing ministry to the many traumatised people in Rwanda and to reconciliation, restoration, and rehabilitation. The Chmch has also been involved in rural development, medical work, vocational training, and education.

Information:

Primate:The Most Revd Emmanuel Musaba Kolini

l'rovincial Secretary: TIle Revd Enm1al1uel Gatera Diocese:

Butare 13vumba Cyangm!u Gahini Kibungo Kigali Kigeme ~hyira Shvogwe

http://www.anglicancommunion.orgltour/province.cfm?pageview=print&view=alpha&lD=R 3/25/2008 The Anglican Communion OW Website: - The Church ofNigeria (~an Commtm... Page 1 of 1

Provincial Directory: The Church ofN"igeria (Anglican Communion)

Map ancI Statistics Geographical Area: 923,800 Sq Km Poputation: 129,900,OOC

...

History

The rebirth ofChristianity began with the arrival ofChristian freed slaves in Nigeria in the middle ofthe nineteenth century. The Church Missionary Society established an evangelistic minis!Iy. particularly in the south. The division ofthe Province ofWest Africa in 1979 formed the Province ofNigeria and the Province of West Africa. During !he 19905, nine missionary Bishops consecrated themselves to evangelism in northern Nigeria. Information:

Primatc:Jhe Most Revd Peter Jasper Akioola DD

Provincial Secretary: The Ven Ranii Odubogun

Website:The Church QfNigeria (Anglican Communion} Diocese:

~~ View alphabeticallv Po» View bv Province. Aill! Enugu Katsina Oke-Ogun Yewa (form. E!!hado) Abakalikj ~ ~ Oke·Qsun Yola Abuja. ~ Kubwa Okigwe Noab Zon~ A&m!la .Y.Y.sm! Kwara Okjgwe South Abmll!n GwagwaJada .Li!ful QJillk.I! Ajavi Crowther ~ ~ Qkh t\kQlm lbadnu North Lagos Mainland On theNiger Alqlre lbadan South Lagos West Oodo ArochukwulOhal;a Idah Lokoja Qrlg ~ ldealo Maiduguri lliYn ful1ill Ife Mi!k!!n!i Qillr!ulQ ~ 19bomina ~ ~ Bauchi IWm M.inJm Owo ~ tiebu - North NewBusa ~ lliQll Will NgQQ Remo ~ Ikwuano Niger Delta North Sabangidda-Qra Damaturu 1.Il:m Niger Delta West ~ Diocese on tbe Coasl Isik\\'\lato Niger Pelta The !.lghilli formerlv m

I ~ I Comments IJ:kln I Search 1 Published by the Anglican Communion Office <0 2008 Anglican Consultative Council

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.ctin?pageview=prinr&view=alpha&ID... 3/25/2008 ," The Anglican Communion Off.website: - The Episcopal Church in thW Page 1 of:!

Provincial Directory: The Episcopal Church in the USA

Map and Statistics Geographical Area: 9,600,000 Sq KID Population: 284,000,000 Number ofAnglicans: 2,319,844 Baptized members Number ofParishes: 7347

History

Anglicanism was brought to the New World by explorers and colonists with the first celebration ofthe Holy Eucharist in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. There was no resident Bishop for nearly two hundl'ed years, causing problems when many ofthe clergy sided with the CroWD during the American Revolution. In 1784, the Scottish Episcopal Church consecrated the first American Bishop. The Church maintains ninety-eight dioceses plus twenty overseas jurisdictions.

information:

Primate:The Most Revd Katharine Iefferts Schori

Provincial Secretal'y: Ms Margaret Larom

Provincial Treasurer: Mr N. KlIIt Barnes

Websitc:Tbe Episcopal Church in the USA Diocese:

H View alphabeticallv. H View by Province. Alabama Eastern Qre!iW.ll Massachusetts Oregon Venezuela ~ ~ Michigan Pennsylvania Vermont Albany Eau Claire :Milwaukee Pittsburgh Virgin Islands Arizona El Camino Real Minnesota Puerto Rico Virginia Arkansas EUTOw;;. Mississip1ll Quincy Washington Armed Forces and Florida Missouri Rhode Island West Missouri Micronesia Fonddu Lac Montana Rio Grande West Tennessee Atlanta Fort Worth Navajoland Area Rochester West Texas Bethlehem Georgia Mission San Diego West Virginia California Haiti Nebraska San Joaquin Western Kansas Central Ecuador Hawaii Nevada South Carolina Western Louisiana Central Florida Honduras New Hampshire South Dakota Western Massachusetts Central Gulf Idaho New Jersey Southeast Florida Western Michiean Coast Indianapolis New York Southern Ohio Westem New York ·Central New York rowa Newark Southern Virginia Western North CaTalina Kansas North Carolina Southwest Flodda ~ Kentucky North Dakota Southwestern Virginia Wyoming Pennsylvania Lexington Northern California s.~ Chicago Litoral Ecuador Northern Indiana Springfield Colombia Long Island Northern Michigan Taiwan

http://w\'vw.anglicancomIDunion.org/tour/province.cfm?pageview=print&view=alpha&ID... 3/25/2008 The Anglican Communion Offici.bsite: - The Episcopal Church in the • Page 2 of::

Colorado Los Angeles Northwest Texas Tennessee IV Connecticut Louisiana Northwestern Texas Dallas ~ Pennsylvania Upper SouthCarolina IlJ Delaware Maryland Ohio Utah & Dominican Oklahoma Republic Olympia Iii East Carolina W East TelIDessee Eastern Michigan T E Church in the USA:

Mission Ol'ganisatiolls

htto://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfrn?pagevievv=print&vie\ov=alpha&lD... 3/25/2008 • • • •

Frequently Asked Questions About Realignment

1) What does it mean to be an Episcopalian? What does it mean to be Anglican?

Episcopalian means "governed by bishops". Anglican means that we have come out ofthe Church ofEngland. The words can be and are used interchangeably throughout the world.

2) Why are we really considering realignment? Are the differences between the Diocese ofPittsburgh and The Episcopal Church really just about Gene Robinson and sexual morality, like the popular media argues?

Newspapers and mass media are more concerned about sales than theology. As has always been the case, sensational oversimplifications (especially that contain the word "sex") sell more papers than quiet truths. In actuality, this debate revolves around questions like, "Is Jesus really who he said he is?", "Can we trust Sacred Scripture?", and "Are there absolute moral norms given to us by God?" The "big issue" here is what it means to be a Christian, not just one single facet ofmorality.

3) By considering realignment, are we disobeying Christ's command "to be one" as his Body?

Our goal is not to divide from the church, but to remain with the church. The leadership ofTEC is taking the Episcopal Church out ofmainstream Christianity. This has broken our relationships with the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants, the large majority ofthe world's Anglicans, and many others. The only way we can repair those relationships with our Christian brothers and sisters is to not go on this journey with The Episcopal Church.

4) Ifthe Diocese chooses to realign, what would the immediate consequences be for individual a) parishes and b) clergy?

a) There would be few immediate consequences for parishes. No property would immediately change hands. Expected lawsuits would largely target the Diocese. • •

b) Clergy would need to enter a new retirement plan and would be clergy ofthe province that the Diocese joins instead ofclergy of The Episcopal Church.

5) Can a congregation "opt out" ofdiocesan realignment? What would happen to the a) parishes who do not wish to realign, and b) clergy who do not wish to realign?

a) Parishes would be given time to consider whether to leave the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh by changing the "accession" in their by-laws. The Diocese would work with parishes to make such a decision as conflict-free and charitable as possible.

b) Clergy would apply to the Bishop for letters dimissory (transfer letters) from the Episcopal Diocese ofPittsburgh to whatever entity the leadership ofthe Episcopal Church sets up.

6) Ifa congregation decides to stay with The Episcopal Church, who will be in charge ofthem and how will this appointment happen? Will they be elected?

We don't know. Ifwhat is happening in the formation ofthe new "Episcopal" Diocese of San Joaquin is any indication, local Episcopalians may be given very little say in how the process proceeds or who leads them.

7) What will happen to a parish that chooses.not to do anything regarding realignment? Where will they stand with The Episcopal Church, the IDiocese ofPittsburgh and Bishop Duncan?

Ifthe convention passes realignment, every parish ofthe Diocese will be realigned. That means that every parish will no longer be part ofThe Episcopal Church, but will continue to be part ofThe Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

8) Is Bishop Scriven in favor ofrealignment?

Yes. He writes, "I come from having worked in several different jurisdictions in the Anglican Communion. I place a very high value on membership ofa worldwide Communion and am very distressed to be in a church (TEC) with which a majority ofProvinces ofthe Communion say they are in 'impaired communion'. Many attempts • •

to resolve this issue have ended in the House ofBishops (ofwhich I am a member) saying effectively that TEC will go its own way and they do not really care what others think. I do care. I believe TEC has indeed walked apart. I intend to stay within the mainstream of the Anglican Communion."

9) Where does the Archbishop ofCanterbury stand in all this?

The Archbishop ofCanterbury himself is on the record saying that it is the diocese, not the province that is the concrete reality ofthe communion. Ifthe Diocese votes to realign, we would maintain our relationship to the Archbishop ofCanterbury through the Anglican Province with which we have aligned.

10) Have the actions ofThe Episcopal Church affected our worship in Pittsburgh?

The Episcopal Church constitution and canons control our Prayer Book and our Scripture texts. Over the past few years, we have seen offices ofTEC promote worship services modeled on pagan fertility rituals and sell books ofspells (see endnote links). It is only a matter oftime before content that bears no recognizable connection to Christianity makes its way into common use in The Episcopal Church.

11) [frealignment passes at the convention, what is the long-term plan?

To be One Church ofMiraculous Expectation and Missionary Grace. We would plan to focus on local ministry, sharing the gospel, building up all ofour churches and continuing to plant new congregations. Jurisdictionally, we would expect to work for several years on forming an Anglican province in North America that would bring together the hundreds ofparishes that are staying within mainstream Anglicanism.

12) What will happen ifBishop Duncan is deposed by The Episcopal Church? Who will be in charge?

It is our strong beliefthat the Episcopal Church has no canonical (legal) grounds to depose Bishop Duncan, as was stated in recent letters to the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor. Ifhe were, illegally, removed from office, then the Standing Committee would become the ecclesiastical authority. An assistant bishop might be hired by • •

the Standing Committee to serve a sacramental role (confirmations, etc.), but he/she would not fill the role ofthe diocesan bishop. Regardless, we would hold the scheduled Diocesan Convention this fall and vote on realigning the Diocese.

13) How much money is litigation costing the Diocese per year? Is this budgeted? What happens ifthe courts freeze diocesan assets?

Over the past year and a half, we have been forced to spend approximately $240,000 defending ourselves from litigation. We have spent almost nothing since July of2007, when those who brought suit shifted their efforts to The Episcopal Church's ecclesiastical court system. The Board ofTrustees has supported and funded our efforts to defend the Diocese. We believe it is unlikely that the court will freeze diocesan assets.

14) What about the lawsuits? Wouldn't it be better to spend money on ministry than denominational battles?

Absolutely. We are defending ourselves from lawsuits that we did not initiate or desire. We have repeatedly sought resolution. We are being good stewards by defending the assets ofthe Diocese so that they may be used for ministry for many years to come.

15) Ifthe Diocese chooses to realign, who actually owns the church buildings and endowments?

The church buildings, endowments and other resources ofthe Diocese are entirely held in either the name of the parish, the Diocese or the diocesan Board ofTrustees. It is our contention that, whether or not we realign, the ownership ofthose assets should not and will not change.

16) What would happen to shared diocesan assets, like the Common Life Property at Donegal, ifthe Diocese votes to realign?

Nothing would change. It would still be available to all members of the Episcopal Diocese ofPittsburgh. • •

17) What about change "from within"? Can't we just wait for a year or two and see how things are progressing at that point?

Since 2003, the leadership ofthe Diocese of Pittsburgh has worked tirelessly to fmd safe haven for orthodox beliefwithin the structure ofThe Episcopal Church, but none has been granted. Absolute conformity to TEC's agenda is expected without compromise or exception, and the legal avenues for a diocese to realign out ofThe Episcopal Church will be closed completely after canonical changes proposed for the 2009 General Convention. We act now, or forever hold our peace.

18) Ifwe vote to realign, who will "The Episcopal Diocese ofPittsburgh" be?

We would continue to be "The Episcopal Diocese ofPittsburgh", pursuing exactly the same vision with renewed attention and vigor, as One Church ofMiraculous Expectation and Missionary Grace.

19) Who exactly would we be realigning with?

Although realignment would not occur unless passed at the 2008 Diocesan Convention, a recent "sense ofthe council" vote indicated that the Diocesan Council is strongly in favor ofrealigning with Province ofthe Southern Cone. This orthodox province ofthe Anglican Communion occupies the southern portion ofSouth America, and is led by Archbishop Gregory Venables.

20) Ifwe realign with the Province ofthe Southern Cone, which does not ordain women, what will happen to the practice here, and what does it mean to our women in ordained ministry?

It would not change anything. We would not join any province that would not allow us to continue our witness and our practice of women in Holy Orders. The Southern Cone has said emphatically that they would welcome us under these circumstances, as they have already welcomed the Network in Canada, which continues to ordain women.

21) What about others considering realignment?

Since 2000, some 300 individual congregations have realigned. The entire Diocese ofSan Joaquin has realigned, and the Dioceses of • .'

Fort Worth and Quincy are also considering realignment this year. Several dozen Anglican Churches in Canada have also realigned.

22) Ifa church realigns, will the 1979 BCP still be used?

The 1979 BCP is our present prayerbook. We will be able to use it without compromise. The greater danger is ifwe do not realign. Before many years pass, liturgical changes encouraged by The Episcopal Church will greatly alter our traditional liturgy. The Episcopal Church forced the acceptance of the '79 Book ofCommon Prayer, as it will with any successors.

23) Because The Episcopal Church has not complied with the Windsor Report, how many bishops may not attend the Lambeth Conference? What percentage ofthe world's Anglicans do they represent?

A quarter to a third of all Anglican bishops will not be attending Lambeth. Because they come from some of the largest provinces of the Anglican Communion, they represent approximately half of all practicing Anglicans in the world.

24) Why is Pittsburgh being targeted as a diocese that the president ofthe national Episcopal Women's Caucus called "decidedly hostile to women"?

This accusation is entirely without grounds. To the contrary, the Diocese has not just a goodly number offemale clergy members, but is proud that many key clergy positions ofleadership are filled by women, including the Canon Missioner and the Cathedral Provost.

25) Have we learned anything by watching events unfold in the Diocese ofSan Joaquin?

We have learned that little quarter or consideration will be given to the orthodox who choose to stay with The Episcopal Church. We have also learned that The Episcopal Church feels no need to obey its own internal laws regarding disputes with bishops or dioceses. The events in San Joaquin have been followed closely, and the Diocese ofPittsburgh has leamed a great deal that can be applied to our situation. • •

26) Although we disagree on many things, is the Episcopal Church at least following its own rules in this conflict?

The leadership ofThe Episcopal Church has been relentless in its persecution ofindividuals who have challenged their direction. They have blatantly ignored their own canons (church laws) in doing so. The purported depositions ofBishops Cox and Schofield and the proposed depositions ofBishops Duncan and MacBurney are cases in point (see endnotes for a link to this story).

27) How would Pittsburgh's international and ecumenical role be affected by realignment?

The actions ofThe Episcopal Church have left it in a damaged relationship with many ofthe world's Anglican believers, and with mainstream Christians in general. By realigning, the Diocese of Pittsburgh would be able to preserve and strengthen the valuable ecumenical and international ties that have proven so fruitful in its mission. Locally, the Diocese is held in very high esteem by leaders and people across denominational lines.

28) Since we are the stewards ofwhat they have left us, how would the founders ofour churches have felt ifpresented with a choice between Christian orthodoxy and remaining in a straying Episcopal Church?

Although the decision would have been difficult for them, as it has been for us, they would no doubt have chosen the gifts ofHoly Scripture and the Faith ofthe apostles over the "innovations" offered by The Episcopal Church. Christianity without a unique Christ, a Gospel without truly transforming power, would not have been something our founders could have conceived of, let alone condoned.

29) What Scripture passages can be used in support ofrealignment?

I Corinthians 5:9-13, Galatians 1:6-9, Titus 3:1-11, II Peter 2:1-22, II John 1:4-11, Jude 1:3-4,17-23

a. How should we respond to 1 Corinthians 6: 1-11?

First read the context (1 Cor 5:9-13 and 6:12-20). Then consider whether it is acceptable to defend yourself. We are not bringing the lawsuit. We continue to work for every other alternative. • •

b. How should we respond to Matthew 5:26-26?

We have tried repeatedly to settle with our accuser. Is it wrong to stand for what is right? Jesus didn't "settle" with Pilate, or make a deal with the Sanhedrin.

30) In the heat ofthis controversy, how can we as believers in Christ maintain a love for each other?

We can always pray sincerely and earnestly for one another. When you are tempted to "curse," instead, "bless." This is a powerful aspect ofChristian love that should not be overlooked in the midst of conflict. Also, we can continue to work together on projects that impact the entire community, like cooperation at Shepherd's Heart, Seeds ofHope, Uncommon Grounds and many other shared ministries.

Links in support ofQuestion 10:

http://www.episcopalbookstore.org/wc.dll?main~di~&vt=71883&idx= 15216RU NQ&idc=1&idi=I18670&ids=&idd=&pn=1

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/octoberweb-onlvlIO-25-21.0.html

Linkfor Question 27:

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/4/9/pb-presses efforts-to-remove-more-bishops ,. ,,~L.:r' ~~{

,::},' - i~.F~:

,db>""",. " Tk~t3IDrn@~;;;f~~, l.:;~ ::~il)< ~'-'_':}l, -': "_."}' ,~~'~- 't'",~: '{.~I;r.':,~", ,~~~;_ \ Breqt1~ntl}r,Asked••QUestions Ahqp.t .'~;~/'. " "'." . - '.'...... nmetlt

n these chaflenging times, it is important to st,ay as informed as possible. The following ques tions and ansV,Vers are drawn from a larger r~source, which can be found on Parish Toolbox at www.porLshi2?plbox.org/indr=x.p0P/tqyentr/f83. , ' ',' I .~~ \,~ ,-~, :~.: :~.~ ~~. ••. ;: .. 'J '.:: \ .. .. :-"J-•.. " ,'. . .

Why ar,e we rea~y CPiJs!.«~n~gre~!~g~~\ What Scripture ~assages cqn be used in ment? Are the differences~'betweenjthe ;. '~support, of'realiglJment? Diocese of pntSbii;.gh ani/The Epi~c:op;'1 I Corinthians 5:9-13, Galatians 1:6-9, Titus 3:1-11, Church really just about Gene Robinson and \I Peter 2:1-22, II John 1:4-11, Jude 1:3-4, 17-23 sexual morality, like the popular media argues? The "big issue" here is what it mean? to be a ~ow sh,ol{ld we re.spond to 1 Corinthians Christian, not just one single facet of morality. 6:1-1.;'?. ,r ' Newspapers and mass media are more con- First read the context (1 Cor 5:9-13 and 6:12 cerned about sales than theology. As has always 20). Then consider whether it is acceptable to been the case, sensational oversimplifications (espe defend yourself. We are 'not bringing the law cially that contain the word "sex") sell more papers suit. We continue to work for every other alternative. than quiet truths. In actuality, this debate revolves around questions like, "Is Jesus really who he said he How should we respond to Matthew 5:21 is?", "Can we trust Sacred Scripture?", and "Are there 26]' absolute moral norms given to us by God?" ,I . ~ We have tried repeatedly tb settle with our By considering realignment, are we dis accuser, Is it wrong to stand for what is right? obeying Christ's commtllid lito be one" as Jesus didn't "settle" with Pilate, or make a deal his Body? with the Sanhedrin. Our goal is not to divide from the church, but What about change IIfroin within'? Can't to remain with the church. The leadership of we just wait for a year or two and see how TEC is taking Jhe Ej)iscopal Church out of things are progressing at that point? mainstream Christianity. This has broken our rela tionships with the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Since 2003, the leadership of the Diocese of Catholics, evangelical Pr<;ltestants, the large majority Pittsburgh has worked tirelessly to find safe of the world's Anglicans, and many others. The only haven for orthodox belief within the structure of way we can repair those relationships with our The Episcopal Church, but none has been granted. Christian brothers and sisters is to not go on this Absolute conformity to TEe's agenda is expected journey with'The Episcopal Church. without compromise or exception, and the legal avenues for a diocese to realign out of The Episcopal Church will be closed completely after canonical changes proposed for the 2009 General Convention. We act now, or forever hold our peace.

16 + TRINITY JUNE· JULY 2008 Can a cOl1gregation "opt•out" ofdiocesan plant new congregations.• Jurisdictionally, we would realignment if the second vote passes at expect to work for several years on forming an Convention?'What would happen to the Anglican province in North America that would a) parishes who do not wish to realign, and b) bring together the hundreds of parishes that are clergy who'do not wish to realign? staying within mainstream Anglicanism. Pari\;h'e~ would be given tim~ to consider What will happen if Bishop Duncan is whether to leave the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh by changing the "accession" in their deposed by The Episcopal Church? Who will be in charge? by-laws. The Diocese would work with parishes to make such a decision as conflict-free and charitable It is our strong belief that the Episcopal Church as possible. has no canonical (legal) grqunds to qep,ose Bishop Duncan, as was stated in recent letters Clergy would apply to the Bishop for letters dimis to the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor. If he were sory, (tri3!1sfer letters) from the Episcopal Diocese of illegally removed from 'office, then the Standing Pittsburgh to whatever entity the leadership of the Committee would become the ecclesiastical author Episcopal Church sets up. ity. An assistant bishop might b~' hired by the Who exactly would we be realigning Standing Committee to serve a sacramental role with? (confirmations, etc.), but hEVshe':would not fill the role of the diocesan bishop. Regardless, we would Although realignment would not occur unless hold the scheduled Diocesan Convention this fall passed at the 2008 Diocesan Convention, a and vote on realigning the Diocese. recent"sense ofthe council" vote indicated that the Diocesan CounCil is strongly in favor of Where does the Archbishop of realigning'with 'Province of the Southern Cone. This Canterbury stand in all this? orthodox province of the Anglican Communion The Archbishop of Canterbury hims~lf is on occupies the southern portion of South America, the record s9ying that it is the <;lipcese, not the and is led by Archbishop Gregory Venables. province that is the concrete reality of the If we realign with the Province of the communion. If the Diocese votes to realign, we Southern Cone, which does not ordain would maintain o,ur relationship to the ArchiJishop women, what will happen to the prac of Canterbury through the Anglican Province with which we have aligned. ' '. tice here, and what'does it mean to our . ' wom~n in 'orrJain~fl ministry? . ;

JUNE· JULY 2008 TRINITY + 17