UPDATE FROM THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, the true diocese of The Episcopal Church posted the following news story:

CHARLESTON – A motion filed today asks the U.S. District Court to grant a preliminary injunction to stop Mark Lawrence from using the name and marks of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and from representing that his activities are associated with the diocese.

The Right Reverend Charles G. vonRosenberg, the person who is actually recognized as the Bishop of the Diocese by The Episcopal Church, needs immediate relief to prevent Bishop Lawrence from further undermining his leadership of the diocese, according to a memorandum filed with the motion.

Bishop Lawrence’s actions violate the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act, misleading worshipers and donors, causing confusion, and harming the reputation of the diocese, the memo says.

“In holding himself out as the representative of the Diocese and in using the Diocese’s exact marks, there is no doubt that Bishop Lawrence has endeavored to create the very public confusion that the Lanham Act was designed to prohibit,” the memo says.

Confusion is the name of the game played by Mark Lawrence.  The former bishop in The Episcopal Church left the church, but he still wants to claim the name of the diocese he and his followers left behind.  Why?

Matthew D. McGill, an attorney representing the continuing diocese says:

“Bishop Lawrence had every right to leave The Episcopal Church, but he can’t take the Diocese’s name and intellectual property with him,” said McGill, who practices in his firm’s constitutional law and intellectual property groups. “The Diocese is part of The Episcopal Church.  The notion that Bishop Lawrence and his followers can decide to dissociate the Diocese from the Church and keep it for themselves is foreclosed by an unbroken line of Supreme Court precedent stretching back at least 140 years.”

Exactly.  And further;

Affidavits filed on March 7 in support of the case include statements from:

-          Dr. Walter Edgar, Professor of History at the University of South Carolina and author of “South Carolina: A History,” who notes that there is no historical support for the notion that the Diocese of South Carolina was one of the “founders” of The Episcopal Church, or that its formation predates the establishment of The Episcopal Church. In fact, “it was the actions of the organizers of The Episcopal Church that actually precipitated the formation of a structure for the parishes in South Carolina,” Dr. Edgar writes. “The South Carolina organization did not even have a bishop until 1795, six years after the formation of The Episcopal Church.” The Episcopal Church’s Constitution was adopted in 1789, and the Diocese of South Carolina acceded to that Constitution in 1790. That accession stayed in place continuously, Dr. Edgar noted, until Bishop Lawrence and others aligned with him took actions that purported to remove the accession clause and other references to The Episcopal Church from the diocese’s Constitution and Canons.  (My emphasis)

Read the entire news report at the diocesan website.
 
Dr Edgar sheds much light on the history of the diocese, which has been spun in an entirely different direction by Mark Lawrence and his followers. 

The true diocese of The Episcopal Church and the schismatics both meet in convention this weekend.  I offer my prayers.

UPDATE: There's joy and thanksgiving in The Episcopal Church in South Carolina.  Check out the diocesan Facebook page for pictures and reports on the convention this weekend, especially the pictures of the representatives from St Mark's Port Royal, the newest mission in the diocese.  St Mark's appealed for mission status for years, but Mark Lawrence never granted their request.

ST PAUL'S CATHEDRAL AGAINST THE PROTESTORS

From the Guardian:

Officials from St Paul's Cathedral and the wider City district are considering legal action to force protesters to remove a camp set up outside the church more than a week ago, following an impasse between the two sides.

The cathedral has been shut since Friday afternoon after its dean, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said the presence of more than 200 tents and marquees beside the building's western edge was an unacceptable fire, and health and safety risk. Both he and the cathedral's canon chancellor, Giles Fraser, have publicly urged the activists to leave. It is the first time the cathedral has been closed since the second world war, and church officials say it is costing St Paul's around £20,000 a day in lost visitor revenues.

From the website of St Paul's Cathedral:

The Revd Canon Dr Giles Fraser, Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, issued the following statement today (Saturday 22 October 2011)

"I remain firmly supportive of the right of people peacefully to protest. But given the strong advice that we have received that the camp is making the cathedral and its occupants unsafe then this right has to be balanced against other rights and responsibilities too. The Christian gospel is profoundly committed to the needs of the poor and the dispossessed. Financial justice is a gospel imperative. Those who are claiming the decision to close the cathedral has been made for commercial reasons are talking complete nonsense."

What are the health and safety risks? Why won't the authorities at St Paul's say?

Also from the Guardian:

An impasse between St Paul's Cathedral and the protest camp that has spent eight days at its walls remains deadlocked, with activists saying they will not consider church officials' request for them to move elsewhere until they receive a fuller explanation as to why this is necessary.
....

Some would-be worshippers were caught out. "We didn't know, so we're very disappointed," said a woman from a visiting American family forced to revise their plans for the day. But most tourists remained largely positive about the Occupy the London Stock Exchange camp, a protest against the perceived excesses of the global financial system.

"I suppose you could say we're part of the 99% as well," said Levin Brunner, an IT consultant from Munich, using the term coined by activists for the bulk of people who do not enjoy stellar salaries and annual bonuses. "We have similar protests in Germany, so we knew this was taking place and we have a lot of sympathy for it. It's very interesting for tourists to see, anyway."
....

The Occupy the London Stock Exchange movement says it has spoken to both the fire service and local health and safety officials and has been told there are no safety issues.

Why have the staff at the cathedral stopped talking to the representatives of the protestors? Leaving so many questions unanswered equals a PR disaster. It's not the protestors keeping worshipers and visitors out of the cathedral.

H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.

UPDATE: When I was in London in July, I attempted to attend a service at St Paul's, and three sides, including the churchyard, were blocked off by barricades or locked gates due to street construction. I understood the front facing the street being blocked off, but why the side, back, and churchyard blocked or locked off? I could see the staff entering and walking around, so the areas were not dangerous.

By the time I found my way around to the one door which was open, the service was nearly over. There were no signs on the barricades directing people to the open door to the cathedral, which made the church seem not at all visitor-friendly or worshiper-friendly the Sunday I was there.