The Supreme Court of South Carolina has just delivered a unanimous decision in the oldest still-pending court dispute involving the application of ECUSA’s Dennis Canon to a parish’s property: All Saints Parish Church Waccamaw v. the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina (No. 29724, September 18, 2009). (For some background on the origins of the case, see the discussion toward the bottom of this post.) The opinion presents a clear and thoroughly common-sense refutation of ECUSA’s outlandish claims: that as a hierarchical Church, it has the power (1) to decide which congregation/vestry is the “true” congregation/vestry in a given parish; and (2) to override State law by imposing a trust on all parish property everywhere in its Dioceses without its being the owner of any of that property.
The opinion is so clear and well-written, in fact, that there is scarcely any need to translate the greater part of it for a lay person. So I shall present here, for the edification and benefit of those visitors to this blog who have been following with me the vicissitudes of ECUSA’s Dennis Canon in the various State courts, a lightly annotated version.
jfrank in South Carolina. Was the SC Court decision a total surprise or expected? Or were we surprised because we had developed a defeatist attitude? Regardless, it is a day for celebrating. However, it now forces all of us in Diocese of SC to face new decisions sooner rather than later. Our Churches have been able to function as true churches for Christ without all the high volune discussions about organization, structure and property.
I am very pleased with this result, and hope that the matter is now settled so that money wasted on this lawsuit can be put to better uses. I know folks at both All Saints and the “remnant” group (which has grown). The case was complex and there were some hard feelings on both sides. I hope that both congregations can now move forward.
How does this dismissal of the “Dennis Canon” apply to other churches and to the diocese itself?
Cannot we do both: function as true churches while at the same time defending the faith as it has been handed down to us? Perhaps we need to remember we do not get to chose what our calling will be. Perhaps even the faithful church is also under God’s judgement. It behooves us to live as diligently as we must in order to worship faithfully, serve faithfully and defend faithfully. If that takes all we have, so be it. In addition, I believe there are martyrs in the church today who are defending the faith and we need to address that reverently and respectfully.
One of the things I learned in this article is that much of what happened in this case traces back — surprisingly! — to theologically conservative bishop Ed Salmon. It was under Ed’s administration that the diocese began taking specific steps against the parish:
“… in September 2000, the Diocese recorded a notice in Georgetown County purporting to declare that the congregation held its property, pursuant to the Dennis Canon, in trust for the benefit of the ECUSA and the Diocese….”
And three years later, Ed steps up his attack on the orthodox parish:
“On December 17, 2003, after learning of the proposed amendments, Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese, sent a letter to the congregation’s wardens…. In his letter, Bishop Salmon also declared that the members of the congregation’s vestry had abandoned their offices.”
Intriguingly, Ed’s letter was written BEFORE the congregation or vestry had taken any action to formally distance themselves from the diocese or ECUSA. Certainly they were thinking about the possibility of taking such action. But they had not taken it; and without a doubt the history of events as presented makes it clear that the primary reason they did take it three weeks later is because of Ed’s draconian letter three weeks before.
All this was news to me. Does anyone know whether Ed Salmon has commented on this in the last five years? Does he regret his actions? Is he still a vigorous defender of the Dennis Canon?
Jon #4–One link you are missing: Have you ever heard of Chuck Murphy?
#4… Hi David! Thanks so much for your feedback. I truly want to learn more about the history of what happened with this parish for the last 10 years, so any help you can give me would be gratefully received.
Chuck Murphy was not mentioned anywhere in in the legal opinion or in Anglican Curmudgeon’s annotations. So I did some Googling and it sounds like Chuck Murphy was the rector of the parish all the way up to early in 2000, which was when he was one of the two ECUSA priests consecrated as bishops on 1/29/2000 by two overseas Anglican primates (Moses Tay and Emmanuel Kolini).
Is that right? I remember now the fracas over the “irregular” consecration in Jan 2000 though I had forgetten Murphy’s name.
I googled a bit more and found this article (“Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina Backs Chuck Murphy”) at David Virtue’s site:
http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2000-February/001035.html
It sounds like Salmon was very supportive earlier in the year (Virtue’s piece is from Feb 2000). Also sounds like Murphy agreed amicably to step down as rector, etc.
So can you shed any light on why Salmon would have changed his mind in the following six months? Naturally his actions (and those of the diocese under him) — in Sept 2000, the legal actions and appeals afterward made, and the letter to the vestry in Dec 2003 — all make sense if they were moves in a legal strategy anticipating the need to seize the parish property if the parish later felt so appalled by ECUSA’s doctrinal drift that they had to leave. Naturally I understand that much. What surprised me to learn is that Salmon ever took that view — defending the Dennis Canon, advocating the use of civil courts to seize property of orthodox departing parishes, etc. I always had him pegged as a guy who would quietly urge unhappy parishes to stay, and do everything he could pastorally for them, but ultimately wouldn’t use legal machinery to punish them if they left.
Can you shed more light on what happened? Many thanks… J
I don’t know the details, but the case is complex. I believe that All Saints actually brought suit against the diocese. The “loyal remnant” also was somehow involved.
Correct, WestJ. I am still getting the details straight myself, which is why I am grateful to learn more from David Keller or anyone else; but the order of events seems to have been:
Jan 2000: All Saints and its Rector are fully inside ECUSA. The parish will take no formal action of any kind to seperate themselves from the diocese or ECUSA until Jan 2004.
Jan 29, 2000: Rector of All Saints (Chuck Murphy) is consecrated a bishop by two overseas primates. This is outside the normal process of ECUSA and was done so that Murphy could be an orthodox missionary to a church that the two primates viewed as slipping into apostasy.
Feb 2000: Murphy resigns from All Saints as the formal rector and All Saints appoints another. Ed Salmon (bishop of the ECUSA Diocese of SC) states publicly that he is supportive of Murphy.
Sept 2000: Diocese files a notice with the Register of Deeds in Georgetown County, stating the parish proerty belongs to the Diocese and the National Church.
Oct 2000. The Parish files suit to have the statement removed from the deed book and to have the circuit court declare the Parish to be the sole owner of all real and personal property.
Then things escalate with court hearings, appeals and so forth over time. All during this time All Saints does not attempt to leave ECUSA or the diocese as far as I can tell. When they do make that decision, it is weeks after Ed Salmon sends a letter declaring that the vestry has abandoned its offices and so forth.
So it is true that the parish did file suit against the diocese (Oct 2000 but only in response to the legal action the diocese took the month before as a first step in seizing parish property.
This is as best as I understand it.
Again, though, the thing that puzzled me was Bishop Salmon’s role in it. Hearing that he was behind the diocesan actions (Aug 2000 – Dec 2003) was a surprise to me. I had never really heard the step by step details and processed the fact that he was the bishop during this time.
Jon, there is more history in the earlier link at the Curmudgeon’s site, as Kendall noted in his citation to the post. In case you missed it, you can follow the early history of this case by scrolling to the bottom of [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/trigger-happy-church.html]this post[/url]. (The links to Kendall’s old site no longer work, and I am asking the Curmudgeon to update them.)
hello All,
Has anyone else read Nick Ziegler’s most recent book? He was Chancellor of the Diocese of SC at the time All Saints file the lawsuit. The last chapter details from his point of view what happened with the All Saints Waccamaw case. He ought to know as he was Chancellor. I have read it but don’t want to misquote him so I will leave it to you to find copies of his book.
For those that are interested, here is the title:
When Conscience and Power Meet
Author: E. N. “Nick” Ziegler, former Chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina
Chapter 31 is about the Episcopal Church. Nick describes events of the All Saints Waccamaw situation from his perspective as Chancellor. His view as Chancellor is quite interesting. Too many interesting things in this chapter to quote here so best buy a copy and read it for yourself.