I have a couple of topics I want to get through this weekend, but tonight my ability to crank it out just is not there. I had it very easy today, so there’s really no excuse.
One piece I should be doing is an update to my Good Shepherd Rosemont (Pennsylvania) series. If you caught that one last year around this time, the Rector and Vestry had gone in with litigation against a big-name lawyer who was also a communicant of the parish. This has to do with the fact that the Episcopal bishop sought to “inhibit” (basically: dismiss, get rid of, can) the Rector of Good Shepherd. The Rector took it court, the attorney helped, and in the meantime the Bishop himself was sought to be gotten rid of, (for a different reason having to do with a sex abuse cover-up,) by the Standing Committee of the Diocese.
Have I lost you? Good. Because I get lost following it.
Well, now the Rector and vestry decided that they don’t want to sue their attorney who is a fellow communicant afterall. And, in addition, the Bishop got himself reinstated through a committee of his fellow bishops. I posted a bit this week about what I thought on Virtue Online, but aside from a few private e-mails telling me I was either way off on one faction’s side or another (and in fact I’m neither), I still don’t know what was going on with that one. The comments section there reads like the one faction is making rumblings and threatening the other via the website, and I guess welcome to disputes in the 21st century.
As I’ve told you all some time ago, none of this would be a problem in Rosemont if it weren’t for two judges in Philadelphia about twenty years ago. When I get around to it, I’ll go with something on those two. As I say, enough for today. It’s kind of like a Quaker meeting, where you have to be “moved to speak” by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes you just aren’t “moved to blog” by the Great Blogger in the sky.
Hoofin 