In his ruling, Judge Dickson made several important conclusions of law. Chief among them was his ruling on the central issue of interpreting the Collective Opinions. As he noted in quoting former Chief Justice Toal, “The Court’s collective opinions in this matter give rise to great uncertainty, so that we have given little to no collective guidance in this case or in church property disputes like this going forward.” He concluded that, “This court must distill the five separate opinions, identify the court’s intent and produce a logical directive.” With respect to parish property, the law of this case follows the precedent of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw (2009). In his deciding opinion, Chief Justice Beatty, “found that the Dennis Canon, standing alone, does not unequivocally convey an intention to transfer ownership of property to the national church…” In accordance with established South Carolina law, establishment of a trust interest must meet the standard of being “legally cognizable”. The Diocese has argued that there is no such evidence of accession to the Dennis Canon that meets this standard and Judge Dickson concluded, “This court finds that no parish expressly acceded to the Dennis Canon” and “defendants failed to prove creation of a trust.” He further concluded, “TEC’s argument that their unilaterally drafted Dennis Canon created a trust under South Carolina law is rejected.”

In the case of the Trustees and St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center, Judge Dickson affirmed that under the All Saints ruling that a non-profit corporation which follows the correct steps to sever its association with another entity does so with all its property interests intact. The Collective Opinions found that the Diocese and Parishes properly disassociated. As Judge Dickson explains, “Applying neutral principles of law, this court finds the Diocese and Parishes properly disassociated and control their real and personal property with any improvements thereon. Following the narrowest grounds of the majority in the Collective opinions, this Court finds that Camp St. Christopher should remain as titled in the Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina as stated in the 1951 deed.”

On the final matter of registered trademarks, Judge Dickson said “This court finds that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over matters related to trademarks, intellectual property and service marks,” Those matters are currently on appeal before the Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Speaking on behalf of the Diocese, the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis observed, “The Diocese welcomes the clarity of Judge Dickson’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Collective Opinion. By twice denying petitions by TEC and TECSC to prevent Judge Dickson from completing this task, the Supreme Court has clearly signaled its desire to resolve these issues. We remain confident that our ability to disassociate from TEC, with all our legal rights intact, will continue to be affirmed.”

Read it all.

‘The Anglican Diocese of #SouthCarolina anticipates that Judge Dickson’s ruling will be appealed and is hopeful that if the State Supreme Court agrees to hear our case again, they will uphold the clarity brought by today’s decisions’ https://t.co/UChGLw2F1U #parishministry #law pic.twitter.com/L8oDVQd0Xk

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) June 19, 2020

Judge Dickson does an excellent job of laying out these conclusions at the close of his Order:

The neutral principles of property, corporate, and trust law [in South Carolina] have been consistent for years. Lawyers and judges understand those principles and are competent to decide issued based upon them. Additionally, neutral principles of law avoids all religious discussion, including which party is “true” to their denomination.

This is a property case. A decision on property ownership is usually governed by the title to real estate—the deed. In this case, all the Plaintiff Parishes hold title to their property in fee simple absolute.

Ownership may be effected by trust: a clear, convincing legal statement of a trust—not a promise, not a pledge, not polity. This Court concludes that there is no signed writing by the Plaintiffs expressly acceding to the Dennis Canon. This Court concludes there is no evidence establishing an intent by the Plaintiff Parishes to create a trust in favor of Defendants nor did the Plaintiffs ever vote on or consider acceding specifically to the Dennis Canon. Statements of allegiance are insufficient to establish an expressed trust. TEC unilaterally drafted the Dennis Canon. Since TEC and TECSC are not the owners of the Parish properties, they cannot establish a trust for themselves simply by declaring that they are also the beneficiary of the trust. The Dennis Canon by itself does not create a “legally cognizable” trust nor does [it] transfer title to property.

What does this mean on the ground? Again, Judge Dickson — in contrast to the indeterminate and scattered holdings of the South Carolina Supreme Court, whose “Collective Opinions” he was forced to parse and make sense of — leaves nothing unclear:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the thirty-six Plaintiff Parishes be, and hereby are, declared and affirmed as the title owners in fee simple absolute of their respective parish real properties, with improvements thereon and their accompanying personal property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that certified true copies of this order shall be filed in the Clerk of Court’s Office in the county where each parish is located.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants herein have no interest in the Plaintiff Parishes’ properties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ownership to Camp St. Christopher remain as titled to the Trustees of the Corporation as stated in the 1951 deed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over all matters related to trademarks, service marks, and intellectual property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for the Appointment of a Special Master, the Petition for an Accounting are denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Your Curmudgeon does not gloat or boast, but tries to keep things humble and accurate here. Nevertheless, this earlier post foreshadowed this result. It was obvious to a lawyer’s mind that no three justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court had agreed on anything except that they were not overruling All Saints Waccamaw, which remained good law. And following that lead, Judge Dickson finds that each of the questions presented for him on remand was already resolved by that earlier decision.

Read it all.

A S Haley–#SouthCarolina Court on Remand Vindicates Bp Lawrence and His Parishes https://t.co/DhdzkgY87h ‘The neutral principles of property, corporate, and trust law..have been consistent for years. Lawyers and judges understand those principles’ #anglican #parishministry #law pic.twitter.com/GYxwkC8sCY

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) June 19, 2020

• “the thirty-six Plaintiff Parishes be, and hereby are, declared and affirmed as the title owners in fee simple absolute of their respective parish real properties, with improvements thereon and their accompanying personal property.”
• “certified true copies of this order shall be filed in the Clerk of Court’s Office in the county where each parish is located.”
• “the Defendants herein have no interest in the Plaintiff Parishes’ properties.”
• “ownership to Camp St. Christopher remain as titled to the Trustees of the Corporation as stated in the 1951 deed.”
• “the Federal Court has jurisdiction over all matters related to trademarks, service marks, and intellectual property.”
• “the request for the Appointment of a Special Master, the Petition for an Accounting are denied.”

Saint Philips Charleston–A Legal Update Based on Judge Edgar W. Dickson’s ruling today https://t.co/CScT9ip43p #law #religion #anglican #parishministry #history #southcarolina #lowcountrylife #ethics #language #episcopalchurch #neutralprinciples #property pic.twitter.com/fAZtOSiohU

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) June 19, 2020

“This Court finds that no parish acceded to the 1979 Dennis Canon; the deed of Camp St. Christopher titled to the Trustee Corporation is controlling; the Federal Court has exclusive authority to decide all issues relating to the trademarks, service marks, and intellectual property; and the Defendants’ Petition for the Appointment of a Special Master and Petition for an Accounting are denied.”

Read it all.

Judge Edgar W. Dickson Dickson Unpacks the #SouthCarolina Supreme Court Ruling on the Property Dispute between TEC and the Historic #Anglican Diocese https://t.co/IcHxQnTDrD #parishministry #history #religion #lowcountrylife #law #ethics pic.twitter.com/W42aZiJZRu

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) June 19, 2020

Whatever the caricatures, almost no one, even among the most religiously conservative, argues that religious freedom outweighs every other concern. Everyone recognizes that as with freedom of speech and other constitutional guarantees, there will be some hard cases.

But it would be tragic to trample over the consciences of citizens whenever their beliefs come into conflict with the fluctuating norms of secular sexual orthodoxy. Likewise, almost no rational person would suggest that a religious-freedom consensus would evaporate our “culture war” disputes. We have real differences, and they are not going away anytime soon. What’s perilous right now is how we choose to have these arguments.

One need not agree with Christians or Muslims or Orthodox Jews or others on marriage and sexuality to see that such views are not incidental to their belief systems. They did not emerge out of a political debate, and they won’t be undone by political power. In many cases, these beliefs aren’t even, first of all, about sex or family or culture in the first place, but about what these religious people believe undergird them. In the case of 2,000 years of small “o” (and big “O,” for that matter) orthodox Christians, this is the belief that sexual expression is confined to the union of a man and a woman because marriage is an icon of the gospel union of Christ and his church.

That does not mean, in any way, that all Americans of deep religious belief agree on how to address these questions in the public square. One could find multiple views — even in church pews — about what, for instance, public nondiscrimination laws should be. It does mean, though, that such views are not peripheral to the missions of many religious institutions. One cannot simply uproot them and expect these people to adjust their consciences to fit the new cultural expectation.

Read it all.

Grateful for @drmoore and this important word in the @nytimes.

Just How Secular Should America Be? https://t.co/e9r96M0CVO

— Dub Oliver (@DrDub_UU) June 18, 2020

Dr. Sarah Williams addresses the current sexual identity crisis that we experience today by advocating for 1) a better understanding of history and 2) a more nuanced use of language that can help us have better conversations about marriage, sex, and identity.

An NPR survey of state health departments shows that the national coronavirus contact tracing workforce has tripled in the past six weeks, from 11,142 workers to 37,110. Yet given their current case counts, only seven states and the District of Columbia are staffed to the level that public health researchers say is needed to contain outbreaks.

Contact tracers are public health workers who reach out to each new positive coronavirus case, track down their contacts, and connect both the sick person and those who were exposed with the services they need to be able to safely isolate themselves. This is an essential part of stamping out emerging outbreaks.

To understand how that picture had changed since NPR’s initial contact tracing survey in late April, NPR reached out again to all state health departments, as well as Washington, D.C., and the U.S. territories. In total, NPR reporters were able to assemble data from all 50 states along with D.C., Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Read it all.

Contact tracers are an essential part of stamping out emerging outbreaks. But do states have enough of them to safely reopen? https://t.co/wK6VKXRPiU

— WGBH News (@wgbhnews) June 18, 2020

Hand sanitisers, one-way traffic systems, and priests in PPE greeted people who were allowed inside their churches for the first time in three months this week.

Permission to reopen for private prayer was brought forward at short notice by the Government from Monday to last Saturday, in the wake of protests that churches were still off-limits while non-essential shopping was permitted. The Dean of Truro, the Very Revd Roger Bush, described the process as “typical of the slapdash way the easing of lockdown for faith groups is being handled”.

Truro Cathedral was one of many churches that waited until Monday to open. “It just wasn’t feasible for us to bring the reopening 48 hours forward,” the Dean said. Between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m, 73 people came in. “Some were regulars, many of whom were tearily relieved at the reopening,” he said, “but many were casual visitors. All the clergy residentiaries were on hand, and we had several moving conversations with people about loss and separation.”

Southwell Minster delayed opening until Tuesday. “We couldn’t cope with the very sudden change to 13 June,” the Dean, the Very Revd Nicola Sullivan, said. The cathedral is now open daily from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Three children were among the 45 people who came on Tuesday.

Read it all.

Hand sanitisers, one-way traffic systems, and priests in PPE greeted people who were allowed inside their churches for the first time in three months this weekhttps://t.co/bGIPCtFyZM

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 19, 2020

O God, we know and believe in the love thou bearest towards us. May we, by dwelling in that love, dwell in thee, and thou in us. We would learn to love and to serve him whom we have not seen, by loving and serving our brethren whom we have seen; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Dost thou work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise up to praise thee?…Is thy steadfast love declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in Abaddon? Are thy wonders known in the darkness, or thy saving help in the land of forgetfulness?

–Psalm 88:10-12