Amicus curiae, Memorial Church of the Good
Shepherd (“Good Shepherd”), is a Pennsylvania
nonprofit corporation that has been a parish of The
Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania (“the Diocese”) since
1870. Good Shepherd’s original 1870 charter remains
today as its governing document and has been
amended only once, in 1907, to change its corporate
name. Since its 1870 foundation, Good Shepherd’s
property has been titled solely and exclusively in its
own name apart from a period beginning in 1910,
when Good Shepherd granted and conveyed the
property to trustees for the Diocese, who, in 1967,
granted and conveyed all the property back to Good
Shepherd. Good Shepherd’s property has remained
titled solely and exclusively in its own name since the
Diocese’s reconveyance.

On February 19, 2009, the Diocese filed an action
in Pennsylvania state court to claim Good Shepherd’s
real and personal property, asserting that the property
“is held in trust for the Episcopal Church and the
Diocese” on the basis of internal church canons and
constitutions unilaterally adopted by those bodies,
declaring that the local congregation holds its property
in trust for the national church hierarchy. These
church canons and constitutions were adopted after
Good Shepherd obtained title to its property.
Ultimately, the state court action against Good
Shepherd arises from the Diocese’s decision in 2002 to
inhibit the sacramental and spiritual ministrations of
the incumbent rector of Good Shepherd and to depose
him as pastor in consequence of doctrinal,
ecclesiological, and canonical disputes between the
parties regarding: priestly and episcopal ordination,
clerical status, and religious vows; ecclesiastical
authority and spiritual jurisdiction; exercise of priestly
and episcopal faculties and pastoral direction;
acquisition, holding, and loss of ecclesiastical office;
and abandonment vel non of religious communion with
the Episcopal Church.

Defendants’ Post-Hearing Brief in Opposition to the Moving Parties’ Claim that the Diocese Violated the Stipulation and Order by Continuing to Hold its Property After Validly Withdrawing from The Episcopal Church

Bennison Deposed - Court Order on Pending Requests - Sept. 30, 2008

Sentencing decision by the court in the trial of Charles Bennison, Bishop of Pennsylvania.

Fourth Amended Pretrial Statement of Plantiff David L. Moyer

The following are confidential documents concerning the inhibition and deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan from Bishop Dorsey Henderson of the Title IV Review Committee to the Presiding Bishop.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/legal/DuncanCert.pdf

Do Bishops Deserve Due Process - by Mr. Mark McCall
Published by Anglican Communion Institute

On Friday the Presiding Bishop notified the House of Bishops that she would seek the deposition of Bishop Duncan next week. This announcement was contrary to other public statements by her office and the published agenda of the upcoming meeting. Any bishops wishing to speak against this unprecedented use of summary procedures against a sitting bishop of the church were given five days notice. She also served notice that she intends to run roughshod over the canons in seeking to depose Bishop Duncan and that only a two-thirds vote of those present and voting will deter her. It will take two-thirds of the bishops present to overrule her gross misreading of the canons, but only a simple majority to remove without presentment or trial a diocesan bishop who even today is fulfilling his responsibilities as the bishop of Pittsburgh. Is TEC still under the rule of law?


http://virtueonline.org/portal/content/legal/do_bishops_deserve_due_process.pdf

Impact Statements and Resolution in the Trial of Bishop Bennison

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/legal/impact%20statements%20and%20resolution.PDF

Complainant's Sentencing Statement

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/legal/Complainant%27s%20Sentancing%20Statement.pdf

Complainant's Response to Sentencing Statements Made by the Respondent and other Persons.


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/legal/Church%20Response%20to%20Sentencing%20Statements.PDF