Living Church: California Parishes Await High Court Announcement

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce as early as Monday whether it will hear a property-rights case between the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach.

The court’s decision on whether it will hear the case could affect another parish formerly associated with the Episcopal Church: St. Luke’s Anglican Church in La Crescenta.

On Sept. 30, Judge John Shepard Wiley, Jr., of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Fourth Appellate District, ordered St. Luke’s to surrender the church property to the diocese by Oct. 12. The diocese plans to re-establish St. Luke’s-of-the-Mountains Episcopal Church. The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles, will preside at a service of reconciliation at 2 p.m. Oct. 18, the feast day of St. Luke.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Los Angeles

10 comments on “Living Church: California Parishes Await High Court Announcement

  1. A Senior Priest says:

    ‘Service of reconciliation’ LOL hahahahahah jon has such a wry sense of humor. Just have a solemn Te Deum, glory in your triumph and be done with it, thereby avoiding a ton of irony and hypocrisy.

  2. Nikolaus says:

    A “Service of Reconcilliation?” My guess is the reconcilling groups will be (nominal) Christians and Hindu’s. Will the building now house an altar to Shiva or Kali?

  3. TLDillon says:

    I’m not altogether sure that there will be anyone for JJ to reconcile that day. He is operating on the assumption that those at St. Luke’s will stay……NOT! He may very well walk into a very empty building! Unless of course he fills it with his followers of the “Not in my diocese” types.

  4. Br_er Rabbit says:

    Be assured he will have plenty of ringers from outside. Farther north in California, we have seen the resurrection of the Zombie Diocese of San Joaquin. With bad news from the California Supremes, we may see the rising of the Zombie Church of La Crescenta.

  5. William P. Sulik says:

    I would be shocked if the U.S. Supremes took this case. My guess is it will end “cert. denied”

  6. Keith Bramlett says:

    Anytime I see “Episcopal” and “reconciliation” in the same paragraph, I think of Pageantmaster’s quip “Duck- incoming reconciliation!”
    I wonder why they are having the service at 2:00 pm on a Sunday afternoon. It wouldn’t be so they can import “parishoners” from far and wide and not affect the other churches earlier services attendance?

  7. Br_er Rabbit says:

    You nailed it, Keith, that’s the reason!

    Few folk in the Assemblies of God remember why they have two services on Sunday, but an 80-year-old pastor let me know: The evening service was so the attendees wouldn’t be missing from their pews in their home churches.

  8. NoVA Scout says:

    It’s always difficult to handicap these things at the Court. However, my best guess is that they will deny certiorari on this one. I think it more likely that they will hear the Virginia contest, when that one ripens. But there are many variables. I follow the Court fairly closely for my professional activities. Sometimes I think the kind of take a Chinese menu approach intended to keep things interesting. The poor fellows have to ward off boredom, after all.

  9. w.w. says:

    #5 – I agree.

    I would have seen a glimmer of hope if there had been some greater emphasis by St. James’s legal team on the misinterpretation of the USSC’s 1979 guidance in Jones v. Wolf by the California supremes. The CSC clearly chose to defer to the hierarchy but described its decision as based on the “neutral principles” of state property laws, as per Jones v. Wolf. This REALLY confounds Jones v. Wolf, in my lay opinion, and will add further confusion to courts in other states dealing with church property disputes. The USSC in Jones v. Wolf said a court can choose EITHER deference OR neutral principles to judge such disputes. California instead “said” deference=neutral principles. The high court in some way ought to set the record straight.

    w.w

  10. William P. Sulik says:

    #9, insightful comments, as always, ww.

    The Supreme Court did deny the petition for certiorari today although it hasn’t made it to the docket yet.

    Docket:
    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1579.htm

    Today’s Orders (in .pdf):
    http://supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/100509zor.pdf
    The line with the case title may be found on page 12:
    08-1579 Rector et al. v. Episcopal Church et al.
    (and the line indicating denial is on page 68).

    The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away,
    Blessed be the Name of the Lord!