The Pittsburgh diocese has broken away this weekend in the latest defection from the Episcopal Church over homosexuality.
They decision was not close with 240 in favor of leaving the church and 102 against the proposal.
Pittsburgh joins other dioceses that have either broken away or are planning to break away in San Joaquin, Quincy, Ill., and Fort Worth, Texas.
For the full story, click here.
7 thoughts on “Its Splitsville in Pittsburgh: Episcopal Church Breaks Away Over Homosexuality”
I just read an article on CNN.com regarding unity in the Catholic Church without cultural uniformity (i.e., as Anglican congregations join while retaining their rites). The Catholic Church views this “homecoming” as the work of the Holy Spirit. I then wrote a post about the relationship of unity and doctrinal uniformity. In general terms, does unity require uniformity?
It’s weird but since these are transfers without any compensation I think the land still retains its character as tax exempt properties.
@mespo727272 – That’s news to me. The Catholic Church is a tax-exempt organization, but surely the bishops aren’t. Wouldn’t there be a massive IRS bill with every transfer?
Perhaps the bishop’s name is on the deeds as principle of the diocese, and not as the owner?
I listened to Rev. Schori on Terry Gross today. “The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori” was quite adamant that according to church law and the law of the land, church property belonged to the larger church and it was not possible to break away from the church anyway as doing so was against the rules.
Of course it is pleistocene to refuse lesbian and gay congregants full rights in a church. What really struck me about the interview was a fundamental problem with religious ideology. Whether for or against hating gays, women,…insert group of choice here…the argument always preceeds from the “authority” of some text or some leader. “Reasoning” from authority to reality is like using a cheat sheet. It becomes an argument about who reads the text more purely instead of, asking the question: “does any of this make sense to begin with?” It begs the question of why a text or a leader has the final word about an issue at all. Maybe they do, but often they don’t. And why must people keep looking to books and leaders for answers when these same books and leaders have been wrong about many things? Isn’t it possible to reason things out for oneself, in conjunction with other people, without consulting entrails, whipping around chickens, or using the bible code? We have brains, we should use them.
It is my understanding that in the Catholic Church (RC for short), the bishop personally owns all of the realty and the deeds are changed each time a successor is named. I had a priest abuse case and had to research the issue to determine the quantum of punitive damages available. That may only be the rule in Richmond, but it certainly has a heirarchical appeal to it, and that crowd seems to like a good monarch and a good show for that matter.
I know in the Catholic church it is usually the diocese that owns everything in the parish. I am glad to read that the local parish in this case owns some of the assets, at least.
While the genesis (bad pun!) of the schism is interesting from a theological point of view,I am also intrigued by the land issues raised in the article. Who gets the Churches, and how do you weigh the equities between the purchasers ans subsidizers (presumable the mother church),and the would-be possessors (the break away members) who obviously have an equitable stake in the buildings and grounds arising from their contributions and “sweat” equity. We are going through that analysis now here in Virginia, and I think the outcome is by no means simple or certain.
Comments are closed.