“We continue to believe the Division Statute is a violation of the United States and Virginia constitutions because it intrudes into the freedom of the Episcopal Church and other hierarchical churches to organize and govern themselves,” said the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, bishop of Virginia. “Within the Episcopal Church, we may have theological disagreements, but those disagreements are ours to resolve according to the rules of our own governance.” Bishop Lee further stated, “We call on the CANA congregation occupying The Falls Church property to drop their claim on the endowment fund, and thus allow The Falls Church Episcopal to use the endowment for desperately needed outreach in the Falls Church area, in line with the original purpose of the fund.”
Wow, talk about whistling past the graveyard.
Please, Peter Lee, for the sake of Jesus Christ, just drop the lawsuits.
At least the diocese isn’t still going around whining that there is no division. One would think that Judge Bellows might summon the PB into his court to explain her under-oath deposition.
I ain’t no lawyer, but it would seem that this kind of situation is EXACTLY what the Virginia division statute was meant to address.
Indeed, Bp. Peter Lee, give up. No sense in tossing more cash to the lawyers of this.
But the kicker is that, as I understand it, in Virginia, the diocese is not registered as a hierarchical religious structure. So therefore that logic just not apply as far as I can tell.
“The Fairfax County Circuit Court today affirmed that petitions filed by the CANA congregations do not include the endowment fund…..”
Interpretation:
“We lost. Oh boy did we lose. Please leave us a scrap of dignity to take something away from the table later”.
or
Interpretation:
“That &^%#! Schori made us chase you down, and we knew that we would lose. The only real fight was over the endowment.”
Ah yes, irrelevance at it’s finest.
Church of the Word statement on property dispute victory
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
December 19th 2008
We received the judgment today from Fairfax Circuit Court, Judge Bellows presiding, that our three acre property in Gainesville, Virginia, falls under the reach of the § 57-9 Division statute.
This law was originally enacted to provide a fair and neutral principled way for the state to decide church property disputes brought before it. It is clear from this judgment that the congregation owns the property which it purchased only 15 years ago and in which it has invested over one million dollars in mortgage and maintenance since then.
COTW was part of a group of 20 or more congregations, some with property and some without, who were given permission by the Diocese of Virginia to enter into discernment process in the fall of 2006, resulting in a congregational vote in December 2006.
It is important to remember that the Diocese of Virginia set up the parameters for this discernment process in its ‘Protocol for departing congregations’. The protocol was agreed to by the Standing Committee and Executive Board of the Diocese, published on the Diocesan website and recommended to congregations. They provided study material for the discernment process, met with the vestry and sent a delegation to speak to the congregation before the vote to separate. They promised in the protocol to work with the congregations to resolve all differences amicably and so avoid the disgrace of Christians taking other Christians to court.
It is our desire to live at peace with our friends and former colleagues in the Diocese of Virginia and so we encourage their leadership to accept the judge’s ruling today and return to the spirit of the protocol by building working relationships with the CANA congregations and other Anglican bodies in Virginia.
Church of the Word is a part of CANA and, through CANA, a part of the emerging Anglican province in North America. The new province has already been accepted as a legitimate Anglican body by Primates representing a majority of Anglicans around the world.
We look forward to building the kingdom of God in our community and eventual expanding our facilities on this site or some other nearby property. Today’s ruling clarifies some issues for us and allows us to move forward with much needed development.
Ephesians 1:13 ‘You also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel’.
The Rev. Robin T. Adams, Rector
Church of the Word
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Sounds like the DioVa is going to throw good money after bad. I wonder whose grandmothers’ plate contributions will be tapped.
Might be wisest thing for TEC to put their hands up back away from the courtroom without concrete proof that the Dennis Canon was passed and ratified properly and with their violations of church canons right and left… they may only increase their credibility and fiscal and membership decline problems exponentially.
sorry for lack of proper punctuation:
Might be wisest thing for TEC to put their hands up back away from the courtroom.
Without concrete proof that the Dennis Canon was passed and ratified properly and with their violations of church canons right and left, they may only increase their (credibility, fiscal, legal and membership decline problems) exponentially.
That press release is just … weird. To crow as a victory losing the property cases worth many tens of millions, because there was also a decision to determine who owns a million dollar endowment separately under other law? That isn’t a press release; it is a parady of a press release. The people of the Diocese should be truly embarrassed.
And wouldn’t one have thought that the time to hire a constitutional expert would have been, say, two years ago or so before arguments and records were established?
What a nice Christmas present, that you know you can continue to worship in your church.
#11 – and, let’s not ever forget, that’s exactly what Peter Lee, Shannon Johnston, Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers didn’t want. Because they’re tolerant, you see.
The endowment fund issue is not over. it merely goes to another trial later. no one has won the endowment fund.
What a fitting conclusion to the New Sheriff’s inaugural swagger.
What a fine backdrop to ECUSA’s [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/18530]current efforts to raise money[/url] from lawyers for its misguided ministry of litigation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What a contrast between secular courts, where the law still matters, and ECUSA’s continuing travesty of its own rules.
Litigation: the Empress’s new rathole.
This would be a VERY good time for faithful Anglicans still in the Diocese of VA to withhold their pledges until such time as the Diocese ends its litigation. In fact, this would be a VERY good time for ALL faithful orthodox Anglicans still in TEC to withhold their pledges in ANY TEC diocese giving to the national church and/or suing in court over these property issues until such time as these legal actions cease. I respect those pursuing the “inside” strategy, but they need to support their sisters and brothers who have decided to separate from TEC, and withholding their pledges as long as TEC is pursuing these expensive legal battles is a good way to demonstrate support for orthodox Anglican Christianity. Please consider this idea carefully!
Whatever happened to mediation? Two parties in dispute agree to sit down with a neutral mediator and and figure out how to settle things? This is done in business and in no-fault divorce cases all the time. Why can’t the party who wishes to keep a church property simply buy out the other party? If TEC wants to keep a church property it could pay the departing congregation a mutually negotiated/mediated settlement. And, vice-versa, if the congregation wishes to stay in the property, it can pay TEC a mutually negotiated/mediated settlement. Seems to me it would be more economically feasible for both sides. Maybe that’s too simplistic? I don’t know.
GoSane –
What you suggest is what the original protocol was all about. The Diocese was going to receive fair compensation for the property. However, when the Presiding Bishop and her minions insisted on litigation instead of negotiation, all of that went out the window. I would now think that the diocese deserves not one red cent for the property that it never really owned in the first place.
Truly a just outcome to an ugly situation.
Perhaps only Jim Naughton has a finer whine on tap today:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/faith_and_politics/bishop_chane_expresses_concern.html#comment-14914
Ah, ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC – the gathered wholly whining!
I can’t say I am really surprised. The judge has largely ruled in their favor at every turn.
Isn’t there another matter pending, too: the matter of reimbursement of legal expenses to the winning side by the plaintiffs? It must be a considerable amount.
w.w.
[blockquote]
“We continue to believe the Division Statute is a violation of the United States and Virginia constitutions because it intrudes into the freedom of the Episcopal Church and other hierarchical churches to organize and govern themselves,†said the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, bishop of Virginia. [/blockquote]
Danger: thin ice, Bishop. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 recognized the right of states to settle church property disputes according to neutral principles (hierarchical claims notwithstanding — and no threat to religious freedom seen). The Division Statute can be viewed as an early application of a neutral principles approach….
w.w.
I’m disappointed, but hardly surprised or shocked, that the Diocese of VA is continuing to kick against the goads and plans on appealing Judge Bellows’ ruling. It’s sad, even tragic and scandalous, but quite predictable now.
I suspect it’s still all about trying to intimidate the remaining conservative churches, by keeping alive the threat of a reversal on appeal. Their legal case appears very weak (to this amateur on matters of constitutional law) and the likelihood that the VA Supreme Court will overturn the decision seems small (although I’m not a lawyer).
But having lived in Virginia for some 20 years now, and having contacts with leaders in several conservative churches still in TEC, I think it’s safe to say that the exodus isn’t over yet, despite the wishful thinking of many to the contrary. I can readily come up with a list of about a dozen churches in the state that I’d regard as quite plausible candidates for still leaving the denomination and affiliating with the new ACNA. My hunch is that this appeal, as expensive and fruitless as it’s likely to be, is mostly about trying to scare those potential breakaway congregations away from leaving.
Too bad. In many ways +Peter James Lee was a fine bishop, who dedicated himself unstintingly to taking one of the strongest dioceses in the country and making it even stronger. He was a theological moderate, a gifted communicator, and a superb administrator, not to mention the fact that he was a staunch supporter of church planting (and the great majority of new church plants were led by evangelical clergy). But now it appears that his legacy (which once appeared to be very honorable and solid) will end up being that he presided over the worst schism in the history of that illustrious diocese, and left it in terrible financial shape.
“How are the mighty fallen!” I used to respect the man, and trusted him as a man of integrity with real character, and I admired his highly developed skills as a regional church executive. I still do respect him personally, but I certainly no longer trust him.
Sadly, I think +Lee could have risen to the challenge and become the ecclesial statesman I believe God made him to be, but he shrank back. And when the crunch came, +Lee acted like a mere mid-level manager who couldn’t stand up to the PB, and he responded to a severe crisis like an ordinary bureaucrat in any organization.
It’s a shame. If he’d stuck with the protocol, he could’ve won some additional honor to add to his impressive track record in leading the Diocese of VA through a remarkable period of sustained growth over 20 years. But now it’s all ending in disaster. And he really has no one to blame but himself.
There’s a sobering lesson here for us all. It’s not how you start the race that counts, it’s how you finish it.
David Handy+
Three different posts in this thread so far have in one way or another raised questions or comments on what happened historically in 2006, especially toward the end of the year, that led to the huge legal fight in Virginia.
It’s commonly known that in the last half of 2006, the VA parishes were in the process of working out a very amicable settlement with VA bishop Lee… and then, right around the time that PB Griswold officially left office and KJS took it, Bishop Lee completely and inexplicably reversed his approach and became the poster boy for draconian lawsuits.
The common wisdom appears to be that KJS/Beers “pressured” him. Certainly that seems reasonable given the timing of the 180-degree turn and its timing. But what I have never understood is what KJS/Beers DID to him. If it is really true that KJS/Beers did “force” him to make that about-face, what form did their pressure take and why was he unable to resist it? I don’t like KJS or Beers at all, but I don’t think they threatened to break his kneecaps or shoot his wife.
I apologize to everyone at T19 who has heard me ask this before. I am very sorry to bore people with this question. But if anyone knows the answer, I’d very much like to hear it. It’s a very relevant question because the answer will help us understand what KJS will do in 2009 with Pittsburgh and other dioceses. I’d be especially grateful for #6 or #18 to comment if they can.
Note to David Handy…. I just read your post. I would be most grateful if you too could comment on my post (#23). Does anyone know concretely what KJS did to Lee to make him change so abruptly and totally?
Jon (#24, 25),
I’m afraid I have no inside scoop or special information to offer in answer to your question. But it needn’t be assumed that +KJS or her hatchet man David Beers actually threatened +Peter Lee and coerced him into acting against his better judgment.
In the end, +Lee is a loyal institutionalist and I suspect that neither +KJS nor DBB had to twist his arm very hard. It may have been enough that “the new sheriff in town” was summoning a posse to run the troublemakers out of Dodge and was presumably calling for the bishops to circle the wagons, close ranks and all follow the same script.
But it’s all a matter of speculation. As far as I can tell, no one on the inside of Mayo House (the diocesan offices in Richmond) or 815 Second Avenue has leaked any information on just what happened two years ago this month. So your guess is as good as mine.
David Handy+
#26… thanks NRA. (Are you also a pro-gun advocate? Just noticed your acronym…. grin.)
Do I understand rightly, however, that Lee was very committed to a gentle and amicable (if regretful) negotiate settlement for departing parishes, during all of 2006 and up until just days prior to KJS formally taking power? That’s what all the VA parishes say as I understand them — they appeared in Jan 2007 to have been completely taken by surprise by what they perceived as a sudden 180-degree about face on Lee’s part.
What objective public documentation exists (from earlier in 2006) seems to bear that out… am I right? E.g. the ‘Protocol for departing congregations’?
Jon (#27),
Yes, your impression is correct. Babyblue probably has one of the best sources of documentation on the whole thing, since she’s a member of Truro herself and has followed closely the whole convoluted tale all along. I wasn’t directly involved, but I too was simply stunned and shocked by the sudden U-turn that Bp. Lee took. It was very out of character for him to reneg on the carefully negotiated deal at the last minute. However, in fairness to him, it should be noted that his Standing Committee was clearly less happy with the protocol arrangements than he was.
And as for the acronym NRA, well, I will freely admit that I chose the screen moniker without giving a thought to how it would inevitably be abbreviated. Ironically, I don’t even own a gun; although I have no problem with people having handguns as well as hunting guns.
I’ll come clean. I’ve never belonged to the National Rifle Association, although I do admire Charleton Heston.
And as for the political/ethical issue of gun control, I’m fond of what one friend of mine (a VMI grad who owns some fine weapons)jokingly says: “Sure, I’m all for gun control. It means hitting your target on the first shot.”
David Handy+
Although of course the whole thing is very sad, David, your posts do encourage me in that it sounds like KJS really doesn’t have a whole lot of power in a diocese except that which a bishop chooses to give her. If I understand you right, your guess is that Lee ultimately just bowed to a firm request from her majesty — but ultimately if he had wanted to (as far as you can tell) he could have said: No. He could have in fact gone further and publicly and sharply criticized 815 if it attempted to sue any parish in his diocese or otherwise interfere in the ongoing negotiation. That he didn’t was, if I understand you right, just him caving when there was really no meaningful threat KJS could have made; and ultimately he’s got to take responsibility for that.
Sound right?
#22 w.w. says:
I’ve said it before, but I think the VA division statue is not the same thing as neutral principles. The division statute imposes a particular protocol only on religious bodies, and it does so without regard to the governing rules of those bodies. Neutral principles would treat a religous body in exactly the same way as any similar incorporated body, and it would do so by reference to its own rules of order.
So a truly neutral neutral principles ruling would begin by asking, whose name is on the title for, say, TFC? I don’t know, but I would imagine it’s some non-profit corporation incorporated under Virginia law. Very well, the ruling would continue, who is empowered by the bylaws of that non-profit corporation to make decisions on its behalf? Again, I don’t know, but I would guess it would probably be the vestry of TFC. Now, the vestry could of course choose to put the matter to a general vote of the congregation, but unless the bylaws of TFC specifically say so they’re not required to. So the division statute (probably) overrides the bylaws of TFC, which is not in accordance with neutral principles.
And even if I’m wrong about the way that TFC is set up — and I easily could be — you can see that a given church could quite plausibly be structured that way.
For that matter, suppose hypothetically that a congregation was attempting to separate from its parent denomination under the auspices of the division statute, but it happened to be the polity of this congregation and written into their bylaws that matters of import are decided by a vote of all members who are red-headed left-handed men over 43 years old. Would the congregation be required by the division statute, against their will and against their practice, to put the question to a general vote of all members of the congregation?
I’m not a lawyer, but if I were going to challenge the constitutionality of the VA division statute this is where I’d start.
Jon: I suspect that (1) KJS threatened to sue Bp. Lee, along with the departing parishes, if the Diocese of Virginia proceeded with the settlement and (2) that he cravenly caved in. Perhaps KJS’s lawyer, Beers, nattered to Lee about how, ECUSA would attempt to hold him personally liable for breaching his fiduciary duty under state law. Perhaps Beers also suggested that KJS would seek ecclesiastical discipline against Lee (e.g., removing him from office).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] Whatever happened to mediation? [/i]
It only works when both parties are willing to let it to work. ECUSA hasn’t wanted settlements; it has wanted to maul congregations that leave with their property and deter other congregations from attempting to do the same.
I continue to find it odd and ethically and morally objectionable that those who desired to leave felt it necessary to keep the physical property. It would have been a more unequivocal statement of principle simply to depart. This haggling over bricks is unbecoming. Leave it with the church being abandoned. I suspect that the prospect of being able to keep the property swayed many votes at the time of departure.
32. NoVA Scout,
Did Luther leave his physical property?
If you believe the TEO hierarchy is thoroughly corrupt and its advancement of liberal proposition including the homosexual agenda poses grave danger to Christianity (look how Christianity has been crushed in Northern Europe), then it is a moral imperative that one keeps the valuable properties out of the hands of the apparatchiks controlling the TEO who have shown their main reason to attempt to control these properties is to sell them off allowing them to continue their corruption of the Gospel and lead others away from Christian orthodoxy.
The TEO must die an ugly death so that others will not follow in its footsteps.
Ross #30,
Several of your points indeed are strong ones, and I’m sure we’ll see them argued in the upcoming appeal. True, the state legislature came up with a statute that specifically addressed =church= property disputes. It had to. Essentially, the statute amounted to a sub-section of corporate law. It used a “neutral principle” already in practice in other contexts — majority vote of those eligible to vote — to make a determination.
Judge Bellows saw no violation of religious freedom. Neither do I.
w.w.
Jon (#29),
Sorry to be slow in responding, but yes, you caught my drift and interpreted me correctly. But I have to add that Irenaeus (#31) could very well be right. It’s entirely possible that +Lee was threatened and in effect coerced the way Irenaeus imagines, but personally, I doubt it. And that’s for two or three main reasons.
1. Remember, ++KJS had just assumed the reins as PB, and my guess is that +Lee was willing to give her a chance to do her job and not raise a huge institutional ruckus right at the start of her tenure in office. +Lee is a gentleman, and a firm supporter of WO, and I imagine he may have, among other things, wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt and extend her grace as she was starting out.
2. I think he was happy to have someone he could pass the buck to. By capitulating to the PB’s wishes, if not threats, +Lee could shirk the responsibility for making the hard call he really didn’t want to make in the first place. Personally, I think this is fairly likely, and if I’m right about this guess (and that’s all it is), that would represent one of the worst mistakes on +Lee’s part. Like his namesake, St. Peter, who denied the Lord three times under pressure, my hunch is that +Peter Lee’s spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak.
3. Finally, having watched +Lee in action for two decades, I’ve been impressed over and over by his uncanny political instincts (in the best sense). That is, he has a remarkably good “sixth sense” in terms of his ability to read the mood of a group and which way the wind is blowing. But I think it failed him when it came to the churches that were departing. That is, I think +Lee was simply unable to conceive that the conservative congregations would vote so overwhelmingly to leave TEC. My hunch is that he supported the protocol so firmly for so long because he misjudged the amazingly high level of support that the orthodox clergy had mustered (humanly speaking) for abandoning the sinking Titanic that is TEC. In other words, I suspect that for +Peter Lee it was simply unthinkable that those churches would actually be able to get such a decisive super-majority of the parishioners to vote for leaving, when some of them were packed with so many people who were deeply devoted to the Episcopal Church. And that’s actually quite understandable. It was truly an astounding phenomenon, that I would attribute ultimately to the Lord’s sovereign work and not merely to the great leadership skills of John Yates+, Martyn Minns+, or John Guernsey+ etc.
In the end, I can only speculate, like everyone else, until +Lee chooses to write his memoirs or go on record in an interview and thus divulge how his thinking evolved during this confusing time. But my sense, after watching the guy in action for two decades, is that all three of the factors I’ve just postulated may have played a part in his eventual decision to abandon the protocol. And if I’m right, that means that +Lee was already hesitating and starting to have second thoughts about the protocol as the date of the congregational votes neared, and he suddenly started to realize that maybe, just maybe, the evangelical priests were going to pull off the unthinkable stunt of persuading their highly traditional parishes to take a truly radical and bold step like leaving TEC when there was as yet no clear and appealing alternative for them to go to. And if he was starting to waffle inwardly as that unwelcome realization was dawning on him, then it wouldn’t have taken a whole lot of OVERT pressure from David Beers, when he paid his visit to Mayo House in Richmond just before the congregational votes. Whatever else you say about him, +Lee is a smart man, and he catches onto hints quite well.
So there you have it, that’s my educated guess about how it may have played out behind the scenes. But it’s entirely possible that we may never know what really happened. And in the end, in one sense, it probably doesn’t matter. The facts are what they are. In the end, Bishop Lee did revoke and scrap the protocol that he’d worked so long and hard to oversee the development of. And he has to take the blame for it.
It doesn’t give me pleasure to say that. Rather, I mourn the sad ending to what should have been a great episcopate that might have gone down in the history books as one of the most impressive displays of sound administration leading to steady growth in the whole history of TEC. But alas, somehow the combination of very difficult, trying circumstances (an unprecedented challenge in fact) and his own personal weaknesses conspired to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, when +Lee was on the verge of retiring. Too bad. I lament the tragedy of it all.
“How are the mighty fallen!”
And once again, I’ll repeat that therein is a sobering lesson to us all. It’s not how you start the race that counts, it’s how you finish it.
David Handy+
Many thanks, NRA and Irenaeus. Very thoughtful replies.
NRA… The only thing I’d qualify in your comments is when you say that “in the end, in one sense, it probably doesn’t matter.” It doesn’t matter if we are only thinking about the past. But if Irenaeus is right, then it does matter what happened as far as the future.
If Irenaeus is right, then KJS/Beers will likely be able to terrify any old or reconstituted TEC diocesan leadership into complying. Given that neo-Pittsburgh says that they aren’t currently planning to file lawsuits against the departed orthodox (yes I have healthy skepticism given that they have allocated one-third of their 2009 budget for legal fees), it’s relevant whether I’s theory is correct or not.
My hope is that Irenaeus is mistaken and that your theory is correct. I am no legal expert, but I am guessing that KJS would never be able to succeed in court for suing a bishop for failing to sue. The first amendment is very powerful in this country, and such a tactic by KJS would amount to someone using the courts to punish someone for his religious beliefs. And although KJS has clearly forgotten it, Christianity clearly teaches that filing a lawsuit in a secular court against a fellow Christian to settle a religious dispute is always 100% of the time wrong. A bishop or standing committee whom KJS tried to sue for simply quietly refusing to sue another Christian would (in my very limited judgment) lose hands down.
One small qualification to a comment by Irenaeus. In clarifying the situation for another person on the thread, he says:
Personally I’d amend that to “KJS hasn’t wanted settlements.” Her predecessor (Griswold) did quietly work to enable some very amicable departures during his last couple years — and he was certainly the figurehead for ECUSA. I was a very sharp critic of Griswold during his entire tenure, and especially his behavior during 2003, but I must in admit in fairness that in 2005 and 2006 he behaved far more honorably than KJS has.
#30 ross,
The properties of these congregations are not held by non-profit corporations. Their properties are held by Court appointed Trustees. Until 2005 churches were not allowed to incorporate in Virginia so all church property had to be held by Trustees for the congregation which had been the way it had been since the late 1800’s in virginia. Therefore that is the reason the congregations were able to invoke the division statute because of the unique language that a “a congregation whose property is held by trustees…” The statute was put on the books in 1867 and was enacted 29 times shortly after that. it has not been used or invoked since the late 1800’s. The congregations were following the protocol negotiated between the Diocese of Virginia and members of the more conservative congregations. It was only after PB Schori came on the scene that Bishop Lee did his about face.
CanaAnglican: I am inadequately informed on how Luther handled the Bricks issue to comment. If he had taken his positions with assurances to his audience that if they adhered to his positions, there was a good chance that they could hang on to the physical property, I think the enduring message would have lost some of its power. My point is that I do not dispute for a moment the right of individuals or groups to depart on points of theology, doctrine, interior decor, or weak coffee. But where large principles are involved, the point would have been more clearly and less ambiguously made if the previously Episcopal property had been left with those who did not choose to leave. There may not have been enough of them to support it and it may have ended up back with the CANA congregations eventually. But the whole thing looks a bit too much like a property grab for my tastes.
Jon, DH, et al:
re: the question of how KJS got PJL to capitulate:
She sent Beers down with a messg to PJL that if he did NOT sue the departing churches, she would sue the Diocese.
that’s a fact.
(from one who was around back then)
#40 Waging
With all due respect, you may have been “around,” but if you were not a member of the inner circle of TEC or the diocese, you wouldn’t have heard that from any principal involved (KJS, Beers, Lee, or Lee’s canon lawyer). And if you did not hear it from a principal with your own ears, it’s hearsay. Even if it came from a lawyer member of the Truro-TFC-et al protocol negotiating team.
We all have our opinions and suspicions, of course.
w.w.
NoVa Scout [#]: You mischaracterize the departing congregations’ property as “previously Episcopal property.” As the deeds indicate, the property belonged to the congregations.
#41 ww
suit yourself
I’m not about to reveal my id.
Ah, Iranaeus: I had had the impression that those congregations were Episcopalians and that they had contributed no less than the present occupants to the upkeep and support of that Church. If I was mistaken, I apologize. If, however, you are saying that it is an acceptable principle that at any given moment the political (or doctrinal) will of those sitting in the pews should determine legal ownership, I would be concerned that every parish and congregation is turned into a seething political caldron and that ownership could shift from week to week along voting lines. Spare me. I need a bit more contemplative of an environment for my imperfect, but assiduous, efforts to find my way to God.
NoVa Scout [#44]: Sorry to have broken the bad news so abruptly. But the property belongs to the congregations, as the deeds indicate. The congregations decided by proper means to leave ECUSA. They left not whimsically or impulsively but after much provocation by ECUSA and due deliberation by the congregations. So principle triumphs here, in sharp contrast to what we see when ECUSA’s current rulers “interpret” church canon. Be glad: Soviet-style legality ultimately spares no one.