Counterattack By Countersuit: Has It Come to This?

I was at a War Between the States living history event this weekend at Stratford Hall, VA, (more about that later) where I met a gentleman who is very active in things Anglican and moreso in spreading the Good News and fighting the fight for preservation of the historic faith handed down from the Saints.  This gentleman drove to Stratford, which is really not on the way to anywhere else, to talk to me about what I thought about this idea he had.  I won't spill the specifics just yet, but the essence was his interest in being pro-active in defense of the orthodox remaining in the Episcopal Church, by instituting litigation against TEO for fraud, malfeasance, and other claims.  He wanted my opinion of whether such a suit was viable.

Having never researched the question, I was left to discuss it from a purely theoretical perspective. Anyone who reads this and who knows more, please comment.  But our discussion centered around the theory of a suit against the P.O. and her pit bull, Beers, in the nature of a corporate shareholders' derivative suit.  In the corporate world, shareholders in a corporation are entitled to file suit against management when they believe that management has either grossly mismanaged the corporation, or fraudulently done so, in a manner inconsistent with the purposes and goals of the corporation, to the detriment of the "owners", i.e., the shareholders.  Would such a model work in litigation AGAINST TEO?   Hmmmmm.

Putting aside for the moment whether a legal/statutory framework that includes the doctrine of "separation of church and state"  (which I contend is a gross over-extension of the First Amendment) would contenance such a suit, the vehicle holds some interest.    In this setting the parishioners, who have pledged their money and otherwise supported the Church throughout a period of time, would file suit against TEO and its upper-level management including the P.O., Beers, and perhaps even the members of the HOB claiming that they had fraudulently and inappropriately managed TEO in a manner inconsistent with its mission and purpose, to the detriment of the church and its membership.  So far, this is fitting pretty good, right?

The prospective suit would seek relief in several forms - removal of the P.O., Beers, et al., from office;  removal of "directors", i.e., Bishops, who have aided and abetted the P.O. in her malfeasance;  a complete accounting of expenditures of Church funds, including those spent on litigation and on liberal causes that are inconsistent with the Church's historic teachings, such as pro-abortion rights and pro-GLBT groups, and reimbursement of same to the Church by those in management who have improperly authorized such expenditures; restoration or proper faith-based management of the Church; and so on.  All of which are things that truly need to happen in TEO.

The threshhold spanner in the works for attempting this in a public court of law would, of course, be the historical and arguably Constitutional reluctance of the secular courts to interfere in internal Church matters.  There would also be the problem of whether state or Federal courts would accept such a cause of action as being a legitimate exercise of judicial authority aside from the Constitutional issues, in the probable absence of a specific state statute providing for such a form of litigation. 

Assumming for the moment that roadblock could not be overcome, could there be found in Canon law a similar vehicle?  Quick reference to Title IV, Canon I, Section 1, together with some creative thought yields these possibilities:  (1) Section 1(c), "Holding or teaching, publicly or privately,  and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church"  (this is a moving target and probably un-satisfactory);  (2) Section 1(e), violation of Constitution or Canons;  (3)  Section 1(h), violation of ordination vows; (4)  Section 1(i), Habitual neglect of ministerial office; and (5)  Section 1(j), conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.  The recent memorandum of law setting forth the P.O.'s most blatant violations of Canon Law would be a nice cornerstone for this case, but there are many, many more facts since the inception of her term as P.O. which would serve as building blocks for this sort of proceeding.

The point here seems to be this - there remain in TEO many thousands of Episcopalians who are very dissatisfied with the way their Church is conducting itself.  Many are unhappy with how their support of the Church has been bastardized into a vehicle to support so many liberal, secular, so-called "social justice" causes and agendae.  Many have stopped pledging or contributing tangible support and merely occupy pew space for lack of a better place to go.  Given the opportunity, I suspect that a fair portion of these people would join in a fight to take back their Church, and in doing so might attract back into the fold some of those who have left but remain dissatisfied with their current worship opportunities.  To this end, would not a Canonical proceeding styled on a shareholder's derivative suit be something worth support and pursuit?  It could have at its core the recent legal memo of specific violations, but go far beyond that into an examination of the entire term of office of the P.O.

Here is what I see - as I have said here many times, the P.O. has essentially destroyed what was once the Episcopal Church.  It is but a pale shadow of its former self, numbers of parishes and members notwithstanding.  Bragging and claiming "All is Well" based upon half-baked numbers does not a denomination make, and cannot mask the widespread destruction of the faith of the parishioners in the institution, much less the ability of the denomination to attract new members or evangelize the Word of God.  If, indeed, the Episcopal Church is still worth saving, still worth fighting for, I think perhaps the gentleman I spoke with this past weekend may have the right idea - it may well be time to go on the offensive.

Comments

[Tregonsee]

As Gandhi observed, pacifism, which is what has so far been practiced by the Orthodox, works only when the other side has a better nature to appeal to. Clearly that is not the case here. One can continue the exodus, or stand and fight using the tools appropriate to the chosen battlefield. given the extremes of +Kate, I suspect more than a few liberals are uneasy as well.

[Alfred North]

I think TEO itself is an unincorporated association, so I'm not sure whether principles of a derivative action would apply.

Meanwhile, have you seen the analysis posted here?

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-will-stand-up-for-what-is-right.html

It seems very interesting.

[Undergroundpewster]

If the masses did not take up arms after the 2003 election of Bishop Gene Robinson, I doubt they will be moved to action over these well documented violations and abominations. They (the pew people) are not actively practicing ahimsa, if they were, perhaps more would be witholding support for the national church. Most don't care about the principles being debated, they are easy prey for the party line "Let's focus on the MDGs." To switch churches would be heartrending and difficult for most pew sitters. They can be expected to close their ears and eyes when hearing of more scandals.
What hope then for change? As Gandhi would have instructed, change can come from one small man at a time doing the right thing. Since the orthodox approach appears to me to be the right thing to do, let's keep hammering away until the walls fall down or we start anew in another church. To sign on to a lawsuit would be like going over to the dark side. Perhaps I am falling on the sword of principle, but I would steer clear of litigation.