tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post6014326956099745826..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: The PB Looks a Gift Horse in the MouthDaniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-48726327793312339902021-11-22T05:33:27.750-05:002021-11-22T05:33:27.750-05:00Great deals of important information and also a gr...<br />Great deals of important information and also a great article. I am currently following your blog site and I am bookmarking it for future reference. Many thanks for sharing<br /> <a href="https://technologycounter.com/point-of-sale-software/india" rel="nofollow">best Point of Sale Software in india</a>sammarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13723714834110490408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-62753961921843609462021-01-07T05:01:39.476-05:002021-01-07T05:01:39.476-05:00123moviesonline
13377x
1337x
9xmovies
13377x<a href="https://www.techsplashers.com/123movies-online-sites/" title="13377x" rel="nofollow">123moviesonline</a><br /><a href="https://techsplashers120.blogspot.com/2020/10/filmywap-2020-filmywap-latest-hindi.html" title="13377x" rel="nofollow">13377x</a><br /><a href="https://fashionbeautize.com/1337x-download-latest-movies-webseries-list-of-1337x-torrent-alternative-sites/" title="13377x" rel="nofollow">1337x</a><br /><a href="https://www.techsplashers.com/9x-movies2020-latest-news-new-bollywood-hd-movies-website-news/" title="13377x" rel="nofollow">9xmovies</a><br /><a href="https://www.techsplashers.com/13377x/" title="13377x" rel="nofollow">13377x</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-5833403484176573692008-02-01T18:38:00.000-05:002008-02-01T18:38:00.000-05:00Oh my:http://sanjoaquin.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/f...Oh my:<BR/>http://sanjoaquin.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/from-the-standing-committee-of-the-diocese-of-san-joaquin/ <BR/><BR/>They're not dead yet!!!<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>-miserable sinnerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-69099396532007734662008-01-30T22:13:00.000-05:002008-01-30T22:13:00.000-05:00Paul (A): Please send me your email address and I ...Paul (A): Please send me your email address and I will send you a copy of DSJ canons.Daniel Martinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-23689648321503707132008-01-30T21:20:00.000-05:002008-01-30T21:20:00.000-05:00Responding to Randy Muller, an abstention is not a...Responding to Randy Muller, an abstention is not a vote for or against anything. It may have the <I>effect</I> of "voting along with the prevailing vote" but it is not in itself a vote. And it is proper when asked to vote on a matter in which one may have a personal interest, where it would be unethical to vote in favor of your own interest and contrary to your interest to vote against.<BR/><BR/>In short, it is indeed a non-vote that lets other people decide the issue. And by abstaining you have thus acquiesced in the result, whether the matter in question is voted in or voted down.Paul (A.)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07543357437252555101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-40900992164554242462008-01-30T16:52:00.000-05:002008-01-30T16:52:00.000-05:00One Day Closer, that's not how being behind in one...One Day Closer, that's not how being behind in one's assessment works in my diocese. In my diocese not paying assessment only means that the parish isn't given a vote at diocesan convention unless the convention chooses to give them that vote. It would probably be different if the congregation was behind on the mortgage payments on their building or something like that, but if the only problem is that the diocese isn't making any money off the parish it seems like it would make more sense to either have them as some sort of aided congregation or, if the diocese can't afford to give that sort of support, to leave them to get by as best they can on their own and perhaps give them no vote in dioceesan matters, especially on financial matters.<BR/><BR/>On the SC: If a member of a SC leaves the diocese and neglects to formally resign their post who declares the seat empty and starts the process of getting a replacement, and by what authority would they be acting? How would the scenario change if the entire SC left the diocese at around the same time by some unlucky coincidence? Would having a bishop at the time make a difference? With a little imagination I think one ought to be able to see why these questions could be significant in the case of the Diocese of San Joaquin.<BR/><BR/>JonJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13323740465436735706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-3922344890319101032008-01-30T12:29:00.000-05:002008-01-30T12:29:00.000-05:00Regarding voting, abstentions and majorities:I'm n...Regarding voting, abstentions and majorities:<BR/><BR/>I'm not a parliamentarian, I'm not from San Joaquin, and I wasn't at the convention, but I did review some of the relevant sections of Robert's Rules of Order, because I thought the idea that an abstention is a "no" vote was quite interesting and quite wrong.<BR/> <BR/>In a body following Robert's Rules of Order, there are two principles which are followed, unless the rules are changed:<BR/><BR/>1. A majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is in order (except for motions which require 2/3rds or some other specified majority by some rule change).<BR/><BR/>2. Abstention is a vote FOR the prevailing side (yes or no).<BR/><BR/>So, if the convention was following RRO and the rules were not changed, it is not true that an abstention is a "No" vote.<BR/><BR/>For example, unless the rules are changed, if there are 100 delegates present, and 55 don't vote on a particular question, and 25 vote yes and 20 vote no, the motion will carry, simply because more people voted yes than voted no.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, an abstention is an unprincipled vote. It is a "vote" to agree with the majority, whatever it is. An abstention is not a protest, and it is not a "no" vote.<BR/><BR/>If someone disagrees with a motion, they should vote "no".Randy Mullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12828902739679063909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-54999108131327891742008-01-29T23:23:00.000-05:002008-01-29T23:23:00.000-05:00One Day Closer, I too, was there for two days, as ...One Day Closer, I too, was there for two days, as well as the Deanery meetings leading up to convention.I stand by what I say.We will leave it at that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-1400222265584247982008-01-29T21:59:00.000-05:002008-01-29T21:59:00.000-05:00Anonymous 5:13I was there and involved for both da...Anonymous 5:13<BR/>I was there and involved for both days from very beginning to the very end! What you are saying is completely untrue. I beleive that Fr. Wes has stated it perfectly up the thread of comments. I encourage you to read it and understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-7359773485385137562008-01-29T20:13:00.000-05:002008-01-29T20:13:00.000-05:00Dear One Day Closer,Unfortunately, many laity do n...Dear One Day Closer,<BR/>Unfortunately, many laity do not take it upon themselves to look at Vestry minutes (if even published)don't understand they have the right to ask questions whether it be budget or anything else. They trusted the Rector,Vestry and Diocesan Officials. Yes indeed, a very big mistake. So the parishioners were notifed at the 12th hour, hence the last minute to pull it out. What they did not expect was that the Diocese had gone back on its word as far as closure. But I have to admit, for the building to be locked up and sold in that short amount of time, one would have to assume, it was already in escrow. Many lessons learned here, first be involved and know whats going on, question, question and question again.Is there any wonder why trust is at an all time low in the DSJ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-73676461194269575552008-01-29T16:38:00.000-05:002008-01-29T16:38:00.000-05:00anonymous or 10:40Just curious? Why did the laity ...anonymous or 10:40<BR/>Just curious? Why did the laity wait until the 12th hour to get the funds to pay their assesments? It seems to me that if a congregation wanted to stay inside their building and be functional they would have pulld out all the stops way before the last minute. Every church in every diocese has to pay assesments and they know this. They also know when they are behind and most congregations get savvy as to how to get the funds to pay the assesments and if they can't they know the cost of not getting them paid. It's kinda like your home, if you don't make your payments it gets repossesed no matter how much money you have put into it for improvements and up keep.<BR/>The key is giving, growth, evangelizing and paying the assesments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-1093778015929119842008-01-29T15:59:00.000-05:002008-01-29T15:59:00.000-05:00Has anyone noticed that Canon I.17, which the PB c...Has anyone noticed that Canon I.17, which the PB cited in her letter, is titled "Of Regulations Respecting the Laity"? Not that the clerical members of the Standing Committee don't have a generic fiduciary obligation, but this is the wrong canon to cite in their case.Daniel Martinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-43629169620167141622008-01-29T15:23:00.000-05:002008-01-29T15:23:00.000-05:00Canon 1.17.8 of the Episcopal Church states with t...Canon 1.17.8 of the Episcopal Church states with the heading of "Fiduciary responsibility:"<BR/><BR/><B>Sec. 8. Any person accepting any office in this Church shall well and faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of this Church and of the Diocese in which the office is being exercised.</B><BR/><BR/>Now, I'm not an attorney. At the same time, this suggests to me that the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has comparable accountability for compliance with and maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church as does the bishop they advise or, as Ecclesiastical Authority, represent. So, for the elected Standing Committee to have continued, and for elected members to have continued on the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin an affirmative statement would seem appropriate. Since she chairs the Executive Council, the representatives of General Convention between meetings, she might arguably be the person to make that point, and to hear the affirmations.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-85741707231001422502008-01-29T13:40:00.000-05:002008-01-29T13:40:00.000-05:00And there it is.. money and property. This thread ...And there it is.. money and property. This thread began with dialogue surrounding the SC and there current predicament, however one perceives it and out comes the real issue at hand. Instead of looking at ways to reconcile, it comes down to who's gonna get the prize. How sad. Interesting when I spoke to "damage" I was referring to spiritual damage,not fiscal. but if you want to go down that road, here are my thoughts on that.<BR/>1. DSJ has not paid any "asking" to TEC in at least 3 years, but still have a voice if they so choose to participate, unlike parishes within the Diocese, if they don't have the assesments they have no voice at all.<BR/>2. I often think why DSJ first instead of Pittsburgh or Ft Worth? Perhaps Duncan and Iker didn't want to go first so they could see how this mess was going to be played out before they got deeper into it. Would the Southern Cone want a "mission Diocese" if they had to support it financially? Will they still "Welcome Home" after nothing is left after the lawyer fees are paid?<BR/>And lastly to James W.:<BR/>I know first hand of a parish that was behind in assesments, were threatened with closure if they didn't come up with the money for the Diocese, parishioners did, including going into their 401K's, second mortgages on their homes, and one week later the doors were locked. Everything was taken out,processional crosses,vestments all given to the glory of God in the name of families, but the worst is the ashes of loved ones in the columbarium, that the folks are told are in storage somewhere. That is spiritual abuse in the most concrete sense. And yes, they can be returned to the parishioners not their estates, albeit they may be in their late 80's or 90's. God help us all.Shame on all of us for allowing this to occur. The time has come for folks to come together and work this out, by the grace of God we have been given the opportunity to praise whats most important I sometimes wonder it isn't so much WWJD, but can't even imagine what he's thinking. We call ourselves Christians, actually I think it should be a verb instead of a noun, we need to behave and act like Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-27215326663440114732008-01-29T13:12:00.000-05:002008-01-29T13:12:00.000-05:00Anonymous of 9:06RE: "If there are 100 delegates,...Anonymous of 9:06<BR/>RE: "If there are 100 delegates, you need 51 to say yes for it to pass. It doesn't matter what the other 49 say."<BR/><BR/>This comment of yours would apply to National, State & Local voting as well! I didn't want PB Schori in the office of PB, I didn't want Bill Clinton as Pres. along with thousands of others. So what of my voice and vote and all he others that agree with me that are less than the majority....what about us? <BR/>Your comment really bares no merit! If the shoe wa on the other foot the comment would be the same....please!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-23470875845182356802008-01-29T11:41:00.000-05:002008-01-29T11:41:00.000-05:00Whoever it was who made the comments that people b...Whoever it was who made the comments that people built and gave to their parishes to continue an "Episcopal" presence is one of the reasons I have stopped giving a dime to my local TEC parish. I do not give to prop up a bunch of left-wing readicals in New York, and since that is what the TEC authorities claim I do if I give to my local TEC parish, I have ceased giving.<BR/><BR/>This attempt at reverse crystal-ball gazing is ridiculous. People in the past gave to the Episcopal Church with the belief that TEC would be responsible fiduciary guardians of the Christian faith.<BR/><BR/>TEC has not been a responsible guardian of that faith. So, if you really come down to it, that money should be returned to whoever's estate it came out of and passed down the line. That isn't possible, so the next best result is to divide the money according to neutral principles of law - which is to say, look at the legal title. Don't make the courts enforce non-legal church law or doctrine, but look to see whose name is on the title.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-41809824375476595522008-01-29T11:10:00.000-05:002008-01-29T11:10:00.000-05:00Anonymous,While you might refrain from using the t...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>While you might refrain from using the term "liar" your rhetoric speaks for itself. <BR/><BR/>As to the plan, to my knowledge it was presented and approved by all three bodies, which is irrelevant given the overwhelming support for the plan manifest at the convention. I smell sour grapes because it wasn't YOUR plan. <BR/><BR/>Just because certain friends were not the architects of the plan does not mean "due diligence" was not followed. That these friends assert as much does not make it true. <BR/><BR/>The "damage" done by our bishop is manifest in the overwhelming unity demonstrated when the vote was taken in December.<BR/><BR/>As to timing on the vote, waiting even one year could derail the work for multiple dioceses considering the same action, giving time for TEC to make such action clearly illegal. Time is on TEC's side.<BR/><BR/>As to minutes, etc., I believe you know who was on the subcommittee, but your lack of contact with any of those friends, let alone a visit with Bill or Van betrays your bias. <BR/><BR/>I am sorry for your assumption that Diocesan Council and others in leadership could care less about these who may lose some pension benefits. There remains a way and the will to help these friends if necessary. For my part, I don't want TEC matching funds any more than I want money from the Church of Scientology, bleah! It may be a significant sacrifice, but the cost of staying in TEC is too high to get such money if that proves necessary. On the other hand, money our churches contributed on our behalf is protected by law.<BR/><BR/>My concern around all this second guessing stands. Perhaps someday I may achieve the profound humility you possess. In the meantime I remain,<BR/><BR/>Your ignorant, uninformed, inexperienced and arrogant friend,<BR/>WesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-63417932709690208392008-01-29T10:53:00.000-05:002008-01-29T10:53:00.000-05:00I have a couple of questions, one of fact, one of ...I have a couple of questions, one of fact, one of opinion.<BR/><BR/>There is uncertainty as to whether the Standing Committee's individual members gave tacit or active assent to the actions of 1. +Schofield attempting to secede from TEC and 2. Joining of San Joaquin to Southern Cone<BR/><BR/>A. Did an abstemtion from voting count as a "yes" vote? I audited the convention and I thought I heard a ruling from the chair that it did. Was there such a ruling? If so, did +JDS have the right to make it and was it audible to all present?<BR/>I realize taking <BR/>this apart might mean whose rules of order were in effect and at what point?<BR/><BR/>B. By refusing to acknowledge the Standing Committee, does +KJS put it, and everyone else, on notice that TEC will not accept liability for any of its members acts, especially financial acts. As +Schofield has removed the committee, should they act in any way that incurred a liability, they would not be protected or indemnified by +Schofield? Has +Schori warned tbem that that is also the case with TEC? EmilyHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-50777085637006281212008-01-29T06:28:00.000-05:002008-01-29T06:28:00.000-05:00Fr. Dan, once you have your laptop back (prayers f...Fr. Dan, once you have your laptop back (prayers for its recovery) if you email the documents to me as attachments I will see about getting them posted somewhere accessible.Paul (A.)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07543357437252555101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-39090025179342399082008-01-29T05:15:00.000-05:002008-01-29T05:15:00.000-05:00Fr Wes: "Your assertion that the bishop and staff ...Fr Wes: <I>"Your assertion that the bishop and staff worked without the Standing Committee at all on this, and violated the mandate from the previous convention directly contradicts the testimony from the committee rep. himself who testified at convention...and while some of your friends voted against the plan when presented to the SC, it was approved."</I><BR/><BR/>The mandate from the 2006 Convention was to the bishop <B>AND </B> the Diocesan Council <B>AND</B> the Standing Committee - i.e. any 'detailed plan' brought to the 2007 Convention was to have been approved by all three. The work was entrusted by them to a Sub-Committee. One might ask:<BR/><BR/>- Were minutes of the Sub-Committee meetings kept?<BR/>- Where is the final report of the Sub-Committee? Is there one?<BR/>- Was this final report submitted for approval to both Diocesan Council and Standing Committee?<BR/>- If so, was it approved by both? If one was not submitted, why not? <BR/>- If there was no final report, what was submitted to Diocesan Council and Standing Committee, and on whose behalf? Was it approved?<BR/>- What do the minutes of both Diocesan Council and Standing Committee show in regards to the submission, approval and adoption of the Southern Cone plan?<BR/>- did the Sub-Committee have any input into the Southern Cone plan?<BR/>- had what was brought to the 2007 Convention received the approval (in all details) of Diocesan Council and Standing Committee, in addition to the bishop; and was it brought in the name of all three - as mandated by the 2006 Convention?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-4513139149993147512008-01-29T02:08:00.000-05:002008-01-29T02:08:00.000-05:00Did I miss something? Have the six orphaned Stand...Did I miss something? Have the six orphaned Standing Committee members said that they are remaining in TEC, as some of the above comments state or imply?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-56671853353533243862008-01-29T01:02:00.000-05:002008-01-29T01:02:00.000-05:00Fr Wes.. "suing for OUR properties"?? Just exactly...Fr Wes.. "suing for OUR properties"?? Just exactly the arrogance expected of those that flew South. I suppose you don't understand that all gifts are given in the name of the Lord and for the Glory of God? What makes you think they belong to you or The Bishop? The gifts of property and such were given by faithful Episcopalians for the glory of God and future Episcopal generations in San Joaquin. I can assure you, the intent was not to bequeath them to a particular person or to a province in South America! Not sure how long you have been in this Diocese and if you are the Fr Wes who spoke at Convention, you have not been here long. I would never go so far as to call the Bishop a liar, nor the SC members. I will say I think the vote was in haste, I said it at covention and I will say it now. Due diligence was not achieved in many aspects, including clergy pensions and multiple other questions and consistently we were told it would be worked out. Blind faith maybe?? The truth is it never was worked out, and Diocesan officials, Gandenberg, Schofield et al, were less than honest, just as they have been for many many years. You just haven't been here long enough to experience all the damage this bishop has caused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-70844564376012826142008-01-29T00:35:00.000-05:002008-01-29T00:35:00.000-05:00Dan,On a more conciliar note, I commend you on you...Dan,<BR/>On a more conciliar note, I commend you on your insight that KJS shot herself in the foot by declaring not to recognize any longer our SC. That helps our case, and yes, she once again assumes authority not established in TEC C&C, much like her presumed "fiduciary responsibility" she invokes when suing for our properties. Hopefully the courts will recognize that this is abusive when the time comes.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I hope you are still enjoying the snow! :)<BR/><BR/>Your brother in ministry,<BR/>WesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-28165922824313942912008-01-28T22:08:00.000-05:002008-01-28T22:08:00.000-05:00Dan,Your assertion that the bishop and staff worke...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Your assertion that the bishop and staff worked without the Standing Committee at all on this, and violated the mandate from the previous convention directly contradicts the testimony from the committee rep. himself who testified at convention. I know that rep. personally, who was on the SC at the time, and while some of your friends voted against the plan when presented to the SC, it was approved. I do not appreciate the insinuation that our bishop and staff are a bunch of liars.<BR/><BR/>Further, once the convention took its vote, the entire diocese ceased to be part of TEC, including all governing boards. If the SC presumed to act as a TEC SC after the separation from TEC took place, that would support the claim TEC asserts that the diocese never really left, making their claims on our property, bishop and ministries valid. Thank God this did not happen.<BR/><BR/>I really hope you might let go of all this second guessing because it only serves to divide the faithful in our diocese at a time when we need to stick together as the assault from Remain Episcopal and TEC ensues.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Fr. WesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-60606569897578787292008-01-28T20:41:00.000-05:002008-01-28T20:41:00.000-05:00Fr. Dan..While you're looking at the Canons, anoth...Fr. Dan..<BR/><BR/>While you're looking at the Canons, another question I have is the status of the Corporation Sole. In the canons of our diocese it is spelled out that it's name shall be the "Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in ____."<BR/><BR/>Was a change made in the canons and/or in the name filed with the Secretary of State?<BR/><BR/>This could be another source of messiness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com