A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Wednesday ordered leaders of a former Episcopal church in La Crescenta to turn over church property by Oct. 12 to the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, marking the latest wrinkle in a long-running legal dispute.
St. Luke’s Anglican Church and the diocese have been feuding since 2006, when a majority of the parish’s congregants voted to pull out of the diocese and the 2.1-million-member Episcopal Church because of differences over biblical authority and interpretation, including the national church’s decision to consecrate an openly gay bishop.
Let’s see…DioLA spent let’s say $20 on the property and does not have a deed but 300+ faithful are forced to hit the streets although
California is a neutral property state. That is not treasure in heaven.
Intercessor
#1 California is now a defer-to-the-hierarchy state, thanks to the state supreme court’s weirdly worded decision early this year, which reversed years of Calif. court trends to settle church property disputes through application of “neutral principles” of state property laws.
w.w.
Does anyone know the source of the claim that the Episcopal “Church” has 2.1 million members?
Dan, obviously the source for that figure is the Episcopal “Church” itself, since no one else believes it.
And remember, that judge’s decision can be appealed…..and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.
I’m struck by how applicable the following quote is to this situation. It appears in the article preceeding this one (+Okoh quote). Change a few words and it fits perfectly:
“he said unless leaders of the country change their attitude, have the fear of God, shun thuggery, ballot box snatching, political assassinations and treasury looting, that Nigeria would remain backward, “even if it celebrates its 1,000-year anniversary.”
Sorry – I just see parallels…
As I remember, the California “Supremes” said neutral principles but used the other way to actually call the case.
Couldn’t this be appealed based on that and using the SC ruling?
Dan Crawford: See Fast Facts for 2007 on TEC website under Statistics. Statmann
Cennydd (#5),
You’re right. This is just the first step in a long, drawn-out process. I fully expect the decision to be appealed. I sure hope it is. Because justice hasn’t been served yet.
Personally, I hope that even the CA Supreme Court takes careful notice of the recent decision by the SC Supremes in the All Saints, Pawley’s Island case. The SC judges emphatically and unanimously ruled that in any such cases, “neutral principles of law” would be used to decide such church property disputes, rather than defering to the hierarchy in “hierarchical” churches like TEC. Time will tell how influential than particular ruling in SC may prove to be. Or not be. But I’m hopeful.
David Handy+
St. Luke’s recently joined with St. James (Newport Beach) in their petition to the U. S. Supreme Court. They should hear in about a week as to whether that case will be heard or not. Much rides on that decision. Prayers for all involved are urgently requested.
The reasoning behind why St. James and its legal team (led by Eric Sohlgren of Payne and Fears in Irvine, Calif., and constitutional lawyer John Eastman) believe the U.S. Supreme Court ought to hear their case is laid out [url=http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/st-james-churchrsquos-legal-battle,872772.shtml] here [/url]. There’s also a good summary of the legal history leading up to this point.
Note that Sohlgren was able to persuade the California Supremes to =modify= their decision in February, bringing St. James and the diocese back into Orange Co. Superior Court, where new evidence will be presented, and judgment will be made regarding the merits of the case.
As for the U.S. Supremes considering whether to hear the case, Sohlgren and Eastman pose strong logical reasons for their request. But they in effect are asking the USSC to scrap its historic 1979 guidance in Jones v. Wolf. And that is asking a bit much. In Jones v. Wolf, the high court said courts can use EITHER the deference-to-the-hierarchy OR the neutral-principles-of-law approach to resolve church property disputes. Sohlgren and Eastman in effect are seeking to have the deference approach outlawed. Chances of that happening anytime soon seem slim. However, since the California Supremes messed up so badly the interpretation of the neutral principles approach set forth in Jones v. Wolf, going so far as to call their decision in St. James (based on deference) a neutral-principles one — the USSC =MIGHT= want to use this opportunity to take a closer look at the issues.
w.w.
[blockquote]In a statement, Bruno said he planned to install a new pastor at St. Luke’s and to preside over an Oct. 18 “service of [b]reconciliation[/b] and renewal.” [/blockquote]
Reconciling what to what?