In a ruling written by Justice Ming W. Chin, the state high court said the property of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach is owned by the national church, not the congregation. The congregation split away after the national church ordained a gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire, in 2003.
“When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it,” Chin wrote for the court.
The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles applauded the ruling even as he held out an olive branch to St. James and other parishes sued by his office.
Bishop Bruno speaks of “reconciliation,” and I ask WHY? Why should those who were deserted by TEC want to reconcile with them when they broke with 2000 years of Church teaching about the authority of Holy Scripture?
Why should they want to reconcile with them when their own bishops….and specifically their own Presiding Bishop…..openly question the divinity of Jesus Christ in saying that there is more than ONE way to God than through Him?
Why should they want to reconcile with them when they openly support the ordination and consecration of a known non-celibate priest who deserted his wife and daughters…..even in a supposedly “amicable” divorce in order to cohabit with and ultimately “marry” a non-celibate man?
Why should they want to reconcile with bishops who feel free to violate their vows of ordination and consecration, and who openly violate their own Church’s canons to pursue godly and faithful bishops?
If anyone can think of a good reason to do any of this, I’d sure like to see it!
Could Dale Rye and Senior Priest please repost their comments, we had a logistical problem.
“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison” might be a good reason…
Cennydd, I can’t think of a single reason why anyone who believes that TEC is composed of heretics and apostates might choose to belong to that body. However, I don’t think that anyone (certainly not Bp. Bruno or the California Supreme Court) has suggested that Episcopalians cannot leave. The court decision just says that the membership of a parish in the Episcopal Church cannot unilaterally transfer its property to a parish in another religious body, once they have agreed to be bound (as a corporate body, not as individuals) by the TEC rules.
I merely read the Bishop’s comments as suggesting that the parish members might want to reconsider their decision to leave in light of the new circumstance that they will have to leave their buildings behind. Reconciliation might seem more attractive now. I doubt that his plea will be heeded if their secession was as strongly motivated as you suggest.
Hopefully the Virginia Supreme Court will be paying attention to this decision.
RE: “Hopefully the Virginia Supreme Court will be paying attention to this decision.”
Oh. Wait. I’m so confused.
I thought that the Virginia issue was Entirely Separate from other state issues. All the states are separate and distinct. No state’s ruling will apply to other states. Each state applies their own property laws.
I prefer Matt Kennedy’s superb stealing of the ENS headline: “Court ruling clears way for property-litigation appeal.”
; > )
RE: “All the states are separate and distinct. No state’s ruling will apply to other states. Each state applies their own property laws. ”
Although a state’s court ruling does not “apply” to another state, the significance of the California ruling, should it stand, is that it becomes part of and strengthens arguments from precedence in other pending property dispute cases. The Virginia ruling is unique. It may or may not stand up under appeal but I suspect, if it is appealed by TEC all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that TEC’s argument from TEC Canons, to which seceding parishes previously acceded, (the basis for the California and other rulings in favor of TEC) might well prevail (assuming the Justices agreed to hear the case). If the California Supreme Court decision is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, I would bet the higher court would decline to hear the case. I guess time will tell.
Well, the irritating fact is that California is changing its law. They can do this. It is irritating, but short of armed insurrection they can get away with it.
RE: “Well, the irritating fact is that California is changing its law.”
Changing its law? How so? Could you say more, please?
Thanks.
Sure. The law is what the court say it is. If the California courts are saying that “neutral principals of law” are now replaced they can do that.
Lay people don’t understand that, but it is true.
GoSane, I doubt that this is ever going to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. They only grant review to a tiny proportion of the cases where someone seeks to appeal. The Court has historically been particularly hesitant to intervene in issues of uniquely local significance, like family law… and state land title disputes. They have been quite happy for decades letting the “neutral principles” and “principles of governance” states each decide these cases according to their own lights unless the states were foolish enough to try and adjudicate doctrinal disputes. The Court can have no possible interest in getting entangled in establishing a uniform federal rule for settling church schisms when the state courts are perfectly capable of adopting rules that will apply uniformly within their own jurisdictions. The fact that different states may have different rules is just one of the costs of living in a federal republic.
California isn’t exactly changing its law. This issue has been addressed in recent years by a number of trial and intermediate appellate courts that have not reached compatible decisions. The State Supreme Court has allowed this disparity to continue for quite some time by refusing to review the lower court decisions. Finally, the need to provide guidance to the increasing number of trial courts hearing these cases forced their hand. The law is only changing in the areas of the state where parishes were winning these suits, but not in the areas where they were losing.
Actually it is much more serious…the legislative branch on California and the will of the voters are being corrupted and undermined by a small pocket of lawyers appointed as judges. I am not irritated I am terrified that the will of the people since 1776 may be headed toward the dustbin if history. The short name for this is tyranny and it is happening in California right now.
Intercessor
13, I agree. It is judicial tyranny. The point is you can nothing about it.
[blockquote] California isn’t exactly changing its law. This issue has been addressed in recent years by a number of trial and intermediate appellate courts that have not reached compatible decisions. The State Supreme Court has allowed this disparity to continue for quite some time by refusing to review the lower court decisions. Finally, the need to provide guidance to the increasing number of trial courts hearing these cases forced their hand. The law is only changing in the areas of the state where parishes were winning these suits, but not in the areas where they were losing. [/blockquote]
Good statement from Dale Raye. It’s well known to lawyers, but to you lay people it means that he law isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
The law is only what a court decides to enforce.
If the national church owns the property, then some enterprising lawyers need to look for all the little old ladies that may have slipped and injured themselves on parish property since the Dennis Canon was adopted. That way they can have a class action lawsuit and sue the pants off of 815.
TEC may have the property. But it is having Jesus that is far more important. The laws are the laws of this world. Now the congregation has the opportunity to reach the millions of unchurched Californians eager to hear the gospel.
Intercessor [#13] writes: “the legislative branch on California and the will of the voters are being corrupted and undermined by a small pocket of lawyers appointed as judges.”
Not at all. The legislature enacted the relevant statutory language; the court simply gave that language its plain meaning, namely giving religious bodies an alternative way of creating a trust:
Slip op. at 24 (italicized emphasis by the court; bold-faced emphasis added).
Dale,
Are there any implications for churches that were able to leave with their property in earlier cases? For example, can the United Methodist Church reopen the case against St. Luke’s of Fresno (which was able to leave with its property under an appeals court ruling in Fresno in 2004 — one of those decisions the Calif. Supreme Court in effect let stand by refusing to hear an appeal)?
(As you can see, I know only enough about the law to know I need to try to avoid getting entangled with lawyers and courts….)
w.w.
#18- Baloney….
Intercessor
Those who wish to leave the Episcopal Church should have no desire to take property with them. Their position of principle has nothing to do with temporal property. They should just leave. There are sufficient numbers in most dioceses that, in a few years, they can build their own churches.
Intercessor [#20], I’m really impressed by your firm grasp of legal argument.
Br Michael and all of the conservatives who cry “judicial activism” are simply incorrect. The CA SC is interpreting the law as it exists. If the legislature wants to do something about it, they can.
This decision clarifies the State’s interpretation of existing law. Now ++Katharine should either evict all of the occupiers from the former San Joaquin Diocese or, better yet, rent the property to them in order to cover the past legal expenses of gaining back what was illegally taken from TEC.
Hopper [#23], the California Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of TEC. The court’s opinion was clear and straightforward, holding in essence that the statutory language mdash; enacted by the legislature — leaves no room for disagreement. The one justice who dissented in part differed only on one essentially-academic point.
If you think that constitutes “no adequate defense” to the St. James position, I’d be interested to see a precis of your legal credentials, or other reason why you think people should listen to you. Your and Intercessor’s argument seems to boil down to “We are the right-thinking folks, and we say the court’s reasoning is baloney, therefore it is.” Unless I missed the memo anointing y’all as supreme dictators, that’s not a view that thoughtful people will take seriously.
Hopper, I apologize; I should have read your ‘dictionary’ post more carefully (hey, it was nearly 2 am ….)
So here’s what the churches in question should do now:
Walk away.
There will b other people, other churches, who will rent or even allow the use of properties in which to worship. Those churches are churches, regardless of the heirarchy’s claim that “only people can leave.”
It’s patent absurdity. The people are the church, not buildings.
Let TEC have empty buildings. Let them have decimated congregations to support them. Let them have unprepared people ill-suited to administer them – or slough the workload onto people and make them overworked and underpaid.
This battle is lost. Shake the dust off of one’s feet and move on. In other places the battle is won. For this place – these are things.
Take what is yours, that no court may take away. Your songs of praise. Your worship. Your fidelity to the revealed word of God.
I had no place to go twenty years ago. And in that time I have found and made for myself another home in which I am content, satisfied, and happy. You, however, are not alone. You have each other.
You are being driven out; and this is an opportunity for you to serve as witness to what TEC – or rather, their leaders – is becoming.
This publicity is only good news for the re-appraising choir. In all other respects, and you play your cards right, it is a P.R. nightmare for TEC.
Polish the brass, vacuum the carpets, scrub the sinks and then lock the doors, and silently hand the keys over, and proudly walk away singing – and not looking back. In so doing, you will deprive them of any triumph, and any satisfaction in silencing you, or making you kneel at their feet.
And take everything that isn’t nailed down with you……including the Sunday School crayons!