[Magdalen] +Bruno

[Roger Stokes]

David,

Like Lynn I have been following this sorry saga on the HoBD list, and 
the official reports from Episcopal News Service. She is right that is 
is bad and weird. As the diocesan bishop +Bruno is the corporation sole 
in which diocesan properties are vested. However it seems he may have 
not made the distinction between his person and his status as 
corporation sole and sought to take certain actions, such as disposing 
of this church building, as if it were his personal property rather than 
his being technically the legal owner but without the authority to 
dispose of it purely on his own initiative. Under the Canons he should 
have sought the approval of the Standing Committee but apparently did 
not do so before acting.

He exacerbated this by seeking to enter into a second and secret 
contract to sale while the Hearing Panel were still deliberating, which 
is what prompted the Presiding Bishop's first intervention to say 
basically "You can't do that". The PB seems to me to have been cautious 
in his interventions, allowing the legal processes to follow their 
prescribed course but also now acting to allow the congregation to have 
proper pastoral oversight from their priest and the bishop coadjutor. It 
is notable that the congregation and TEC have not been vindictive but 
have sought reconciliation on the basis of proper pastoral care for the 
Christian community. In particular TEC's official recommendation to the 
Hearing Panel was not for deposition from Holy Orders but to allow the 
bishop to effectively retire early. The second attempted sale, 
particularly its secrecy, seem to indicate an unwillingness on the part 
of the bishop to accept he may have acted unwisely and without proper 
pastoral care and concern.

Roger

On 05/08/2017 20:15, Cantor03--- via Magdalen wrote:
> I just read the lengthy article in The Living Church magazine
> (the USA independent weekly) on the Bishop Bruno affair and
> the punishment (may not function as priest or bishop for 3 years).
> I can't make good sense of the article.
>   
> The parish building has been returned to St. James, and its
> Rector restored secondary to the action of a TEC panel.
>   
> The TLC seems to assert +Bruno and his group decided to
> sell the St. James property because it was a small, not yet
> self-supporting mission parish whose church was sitting on
> some very valuable land for real estate development.  They
> did so unilaterally, and mostly in secret, and, in the end, simply
> suppressed the Mission Church of Saint James.
>   
> Is this it?  Does anyone on list know the particulars of this
> sad case?
>   
> It strikes me as harsh outcomes for both parties.
>   
>   
>   
>   
> David S.
>