NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. ”“ January 5, 2009 ”“ The California Supreme Court today ruled in Episcopal Church Cases that church property disputes must be resolved by “neutral principles of law,” not by civil courts merely deferring to the decrees of church “hierarchies.” This ruling has wide and favorable impact for churches throughout California that seek to change their denominational affiliation.
While adopting this “non-religious” method of resolving property disputes between churches, the Court seemed to defer to the Episcopal Church’s alleged “trust canon,” which purports to create a trust interest in church property owned by local congregations. The Court made its ruling despite the fact that St. James Anglican Church, Newport Beach, purchased and maintained its property with its own funds and has held clear record title to its property for over fifty years.
In recent years, religious denominations as diverse as the Eastern Orthodox, Baptist and Pentecostal “Assemblies of God” have attempted to confiscate the property of congregations that wish to change their spiritual affiliation. Today’s ruling falls far short of the endorsement of such tactics that the Episcopal Church ”“ and other denominational hierarchies that submitted briefs in support of it ”“ had sought. Many local churches in California will be able to exercise their religious freedom to change their affiliation without having to forfeit their property as a result.
Nor is the saga over for St. James Anglican Church. “While we are surprised that the Court seemed to give some credence to the Episcopal Church’s purported rule confiscating local church property, the battle is far from over,” lead attorney Eric C. Sohlgren said. “The matter will now return to the Orange County Superior Court for further proceedings, and we look forward to presenting evidence and additional legal arguments that St. James Church should prevail under neutral principles of law.”
The leadership of the Newport Beach congregation is also evaluating a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and is meeting to discuss other possible steps. Today’s ruling also affects All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood, whose cases were put on hold pending the outcome of the St. James case. Together with St. James Church, these congregations never agreed to relinquish their property to the Episcopal Church upon changing their affiliation, and have consistently maintained that they have the right to use and possess the property which they have owned and maintained for decades.
[blockquote]The California Supreme Court today ruled in Episcopal Church Cases that church property disputes must be resolved by “neutral principles of law,†not by civil courts merely deferring to the decrees of church “hierarchies.â€[/blockquote]
…except, of course, that the “neutral principle of law” the Court decided trumped all others is a decree of the church hierarchy, the validity of which is beyond dispute because it’s a decree of the church hierarchy.
If the grip of the Anglican parishes on reality is as tenuous as this extraordinary Press Release suggests it is, it is no wonder that they lost. This is a bizarre spin on a crushing defeat. Can those who wrote it really believe that “This ruling has wide and favorable impact for churches throughout California that seek to change their denominational affiliation.”?
Just a process comment:
Kendall and Elves,
Is there any way to consolidate the comments when there are multiple stories posted on exactly the same subject? As it is, I (like others interested in this developing event) am having to scan the comments in half-a-dozen or more places in order to keep up with the discussion. A number of people are asking questions in later threads that were answered hours earlier in threads that have dropped far down the page. Valuable points are being made that many people who are interested in the subject are never going to see because they don’t look at that particular thread.
It is probably too late to clean up this discussion, but it is something to bear in mind for future breaking news.
Respectfully,
Dale
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the press release is emphasizing that “neutral principles” has meant different things to different people.
The point is to emphasize that the “principles of government” approach is officially no longer the law in California. Now the fight will be about just how California courts are to apply “neutral principles,” and the question will be whether there’s any room left by this opinion for anything other than automatic judicial rubber-stamping of denominational trust clauses.
The parishes seem to think so, while I expect TEC and other quasi-hierarchical religious groups think not.
And a question to ask yourself…how does that result (automatic rubber-stamping) really differ from “principle of government,” under which the civil court just enforces whatever decision the church hierarchy makes?
#3 Dale:
You can always follow the Recent Comments page, which will show you every comment posted on every top-level article. Of course, that’s a lot to keep up with, but at least you won’t miss anything.