Jump to content

Talk:Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biased off-shoot

[edit]

This page is obviously a biased off-shoot of the 2008 diocesan convention. the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth still is the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and definitely did not come into being in 2008. It should be merged back with Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. It would be inappropriate to establish a continuing ECUSA page since there are no parishes that wish to remain in ECUSA. Rhwc (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can quibble about the names of these pages somewhat, and the split is an ongoing thing, but it is clearly untrue that "there are no parishes that wish to remain in ECUSA"--unless you are going to claim that the organizations behind this website are not parishes. Is Bishop Iker inhibited? He is not exercising the office of bishop in the Episcopal Church, but he is exercising the office in the Southern Cone. So clearly, the diocese in which he is inhibited (Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth) is not the same as the diocese in which he is not inhibited (Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone)). Therefore, the articles should not be merged.--Bhuck (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we can start with the title. "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" is still the official name of the diocese. Always has been -- always will be. Hasn't changed-wasn't even on the agenda for convention to consider. Second, "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" did not come into being in 2008, but rather in 1983. To say different would be at the very least a biased point of view. Rhwc (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What were exactly the terms of the creation of that entity in 1983? Did it, or did it not, pass an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church? If it did, then it made itself legally incapable of rescinding that (else it would be a qualification), and as a result, whatever body Iker claims to head, is not the one which came into existence in 1983. (And we will just pass over the question of Iker's lying oath at the time of his ordination.) Tb (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tb, as the Texas Supreme Court has pointed out on May 22nd, that the accession statement in the agreement between the diocese and TEC was in a separate, clerical document that was not legally binding. But, the most important aspect was that it was not included into the charter. The diocese was chartered under the Texas Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act which says that association law, control and governance are determined by the charters. The charters make no mention of needing permission from TEC to amend their constitutions or cannons. Moreover, all mentions of TEC were amended out of all organizational documents and charters in the 2007 and 2008 conventions. The Texas Supreme Court just ruled that all actions taken at the 2007 and 2008 conventions were legal under their charters and under the Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act. Moreover, the court ruled that "The Eipsicopal Church maintains that only the individuals in favor of these motions have left the Episcopal Church, while the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth remains a part of the Episcopal Church."[1] Any argument you had is toast.FratGrad (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So Rhwc makes two statements. One is that the content of the article is inaccurate; that is irrelevant to the question of merger. The other is that Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Episcopal Church) should not exist, which is also irrelevant to this page. As a result, I'm removing the merge tag. It should be re-added if some argument about merge could be made, as opposed to things that say nothing about merging the content. Moreover, this is so clearly the same issue as that in San Joaquin and Pittsburgh, that it is ludicrous to suppose that a different strategy should be chosen. Tb (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tb, there is nothing in the Constitution and Canons that prevent the Diocese of Fort Worth from withdrawing from General Convention. In the transcript of the hearing of Sept. 16, 2009, http://fwepiscopal.org/downloads/Transcriptof09-16-09Hearing.pdf the judge asks, "Is there anything in the canons that says that the Diocese can't leave?" Attorney Nelson says, "No, your honor." The judge then says, "So here is no ultra vires, then?" http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ultra_vires This means the Diocese did not do anything that is beyond their ability. So, indeed Bishop Iker is still the ordinary of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, a member of the Province of the Southern Cone, and thus a member of the Anglican Communion. I will agree to keep the page neutral, but the facts must be allowed to stand. I will not attempt to edit the page of the Diocese of Fort Worth Episcopal Church, as that would be vindictive. I would urge you to allow the current editing of this page to stand. Revzoom (talk)

It is correct that the Diocese of Fort Worth which Iker leads claims to be part of the Southern Cone. On the other hand, the constitution of the Southern Cone does prohibit it from having such dioceses outside its geographic area. (Read it!) Your goal here seems to be to try and have the article match Iker's opinions. I'm not interested in your insistence that "the facts must be allowed to stand". The facts are disputed and the article can fairly represent the dispute, but must not simply assert that whatever Ikre & Co. say is true. Here is a specific list of problems with your edits, and I ask you to discuss them in good faith before simply re-asserting them. It is fine to boldly edit the article, and then note that objection has been made, and you must seek consensus for your changes as the next step. Problems are:

  • It is disputed whether the group in question is legitimately part of the Southern Cone, even under the Southern Cone's own constitution;
  • There is no good reason for omitting the statement that The Episcopal Church maintains that only the individuals in favor of these motions have left the Episcopal Church, while the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth remains a part of the Episcopal Church, and your excision of it renders your other edits questionable, because it suggests that you are not aiming for a neutral article, but rather, one which says only what the Iker group believes should be said;
  • The excision of the paragraph indicating challenge to the putative reorganization is again suspect.

If you wish to make the other minor changes you are interested in, and then discuss the larger ones, that would be welcome, but the goal to express the political and legal view of the Iker group to the exclusion of all others is not permissible. Tb (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tb, it seems that your goal with this page is to further your own agenda by writing about things you think are controversial. Where is the neutrality in your writing? As for the status of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Wort regard to the Province of the Souther Cone, read this: http://fwepiscopal.org/downloads/+VenablestoFWclergy.pdf As for that statement you quoted above, I don't really have a problem with it. I'll put it back in if it makes you happy. Admitedly, I used a heavy hand in the editing, and admitedly I really disliked the disrepectful tone used in the piece about Bishop Iker. Your goal seems to be casting the Diocese in a negative light. Furthermore, I would like to know your real identity, and why you think yourself an expert about the Diocese. Pray tell. Revzoom —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Well the Texas Supreme court just cleared this up for all of us. "(2) under the governing documents, the withdrawing faction is the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth." So is there any point in keeping the "The Eipsicopal Church maintains that only the individuals in favor of these motions have left the Episcopal Church, while the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth remains a part of the Episcopal Church?" The Supreme Court of Texas just ruled that is not the case.[2] FratGrad (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are statements you think are not neutral, please point them out, so they can be discussed clearly and openly. As for the document you cite, it expresses the position of Iker & Co and not the only position that anyone holds. It expresses exactly what the article said: that the diocese claims to be part of the Southern Cone. I frankly don't care a fig if you think the article has a "disrespectful tone" towards Jack Iker. My "real identity" is exactly what it says in my Wikipedia user page. I don't claim some special expertise, and you will find that your insistence that, as a member of this particular dissident group, your protestations of special expertise will only downgrade the respect you get, because it makes you look more and more like a single-issue editor pushing one POV from a conflict of interest. As for my personal opinion, you don't want it, trust me. Tb (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your page, but I didn't get much out of it. I have found that anonymity tends to allow the worst in people to come out, so I like to know who I'm talking to. You don't want to tell me, so that's OK. You talk about what is permissible on WP, and from your page, I can tell you have gotten the respect of others. That's great. Let me ask you then was it permissible for the user Bhuck to make an identical copy of the original page and put in big words Controversial Status? Was he not pushing his POV? Does he have a COI? I don't know who he is either, so who gave him permission to create this page and make it controversial? From the history page,"10:25, 17 November 2008 Bhuck (talk | contribs) (2,622 bytes) (starting point: an identical copy of Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth) He changed a vital point about the Diocese stating that is was created in 2008, and is he allowed to state that as a fact when it's seems quite controversial to me. If your expertise is in WP protocol, how was that allowed to happen? --The Rev. John H Munson Revzoom 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was expressing the consensus of the editors who were concerned with the issue. I'm not interested in your desire to have a broader fight about it. This page was created on 17 November 2008, and nothing was "changed" in it, since it didn't even exist before that. It is similar to--but different from--a distinct page (Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Episcopal Church)) and his edit log is simply indicating the origin of the text, as the GFDL requires. In any case, your predecessor User:Rhwc was busy being misleading about whether there were any parishes in the bounds of the diocese which wanted to remain in the Episcopal Church. I hope you are better than him. Before repeating old discussions, why not review their history? And, please, be aware that single-issue editing really makes you look bad. If you want to gain some Wikipedia respect, spend time working on other stuff, and build some cred as a hard-working and sensible editor. Tb (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see very many editors involved. This page was created with the controversial statement that the Diocese was created in 2008. That, my friend, is what I'm talking about. It's allowed to stand as fact, when all of us who are members of this diocese believe otherwise. What's fair about that? Sorry, but this is my single issue. I just don't have time to meddle in the affairs of other's pages. --The Rev. John H Munson (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tb Ok the Texas Supreme Court has just explicitly stated that "(2) under the governing documents, the withdrawing faction is the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth." So regardless of the previous quibbles over whether or not Bishop Iker was right, The Texas Supreme Court has explicitly stated that this group, the ACNA group, is the rightful Epsicopal Diocese of Fort Worth. This should be the real page; not the TEC diocese.[3] This argument is over and you and whoever else (I don't see anyone else commenting aggreeing with you) was part of your consensus was wrong. The group that this page describes (ACNA) is the only Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. The TEC page either needs to be removed or state that it was started in 2008 not this one. This one is the direct lineage per the highest legal authority on the matter other than SCOTUS who is not going to take this case even though TEC is going to try and ask for Cert.FratGrad (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that were your only issue, you would have confined your edit to that point. I'm intrigued by your "all of us who are members of this diocese". Given the history of wildly false claims about what "everyone" in Iker-led organizations believes, I'll just say that I don't count your words as worth much. Tb (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I would not have stumbled in with a sledge hammer, but my wife tells me I'm just a bull looking for a china closet! OK, mea culpa for the bad behavior, OK? Can we start over? I'm nobody special, just a priest in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which means I'm a sinner in need of a savior.--The Rev. John H Munson (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if I had just looked at the history page first, I would have started my post with a big THANK YOU. God bless, --The Rev. John H Munson (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tb; how do you do, Revzoom; I do think this article really is not neutral in tone and needs some revision. Notice, for example, the way it leads, not with a description of the diocese but with talk about controversy: the Diocese "claims" XYZ. I think we can probably come up with some improved text that adds uncontroversial material to the article -- e.g., about the post-split history and current status of the diocese -- and deals with the break between Fort Worth and the Episcopal Church in a factual, neutral way. I may make some edits in an effort toward NPOV. -- Chonak (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. I've made some tweaks. Tb (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chonak, that's what I'm talking about! Thank you very much for your concern. I certainly learned my lesson about editing, and will try not to blunder into any more pages without making an effort to get consensus. Tb, thanks for the education! God bless you both, --The Rev. John H Munson (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the Texas Supreme Court has just explicitly stated that "(2) under the governing documents, the withdrawing faction is the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth." So regardless of the previous quibbles over whether or not Bishop Iker was right, The Texas Supreme Court has explicitly stated that this group, the ACNA group, is the rightful Epsicopal Diocese of Fort Worth. This should be the real page; not the TEC diocese.[4] FratGrad (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1446580/180438.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1446580/180438.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1446580/180438.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1446580/180438.pdf

Name change

[edit]

This diocese is now a member of the Anglican Church in North America and the article title should be changed to reflect that. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of November 30, 2009, the Fort Worth diocese retains its Cone affiliation [1] -- Chonak (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

[edit]

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. [2]ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Episcopal_Diocese_of_Fort_Worth&oldid=1201782932"