St. James’ Senior Pastor, the Rev. Richard Crocker, said, “While it is obviously disappointing, we always felt the court might prefer to wait until the trial proceedings were final. Our battle is far from over. We look forward to having the trial court rule on a written promise from the Episcopal Church in 1991 that they would never lay claim on our property. Our members have engaged in much prayer in order to discern God’s will for our congregation and what His call might be for us. We believe God has asked us to stand steadfast for His Gospel as well as to remain steadfast on this legal battlefield.”
Following is a statement by John Eastman, counsel of record on The Supreme Court petition:
“The Supreme Court normally considers only cases that are final, so it is not surprising that the Court decided to wait until further developments in this case are completed. There are some exceptions to the finality rule that we believe would have permitted review now, but the Court’s decision today does not foreclose review down the road once a full trial of the matter and subsequent appeals in the California Courts have run their course.”
In its June 24, 2009 petition for a writ of certiorari, St. James Church asked The Supreme Court to consider whether the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of a California statute, as giving special power to certain religious denominations to take property they do not own, unconstitutionally establishes certain forms of religion and infringes upon the freedom of local church congregations to exercise their religion without having their property taken by an affiliated denomination.
The Episcopal lawsuits against St. James stemmed from a decision by the members of St. James Church in August 2004 to align themselves with another branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and end the church’s affiliation with the Episcopal Church over core theological differences involving the authority of Holy Scripture and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles sued St. James Church, All Saints Church, Long Beach, CA, and St. David’s Church, No. Hollywood, CA, and over two dozen volunteer board members in September 2004. Subsequently, TEC intervened into the lawsuits against the three local church corporations. Since that time, the case has progressed from the Orange County Superior Court to the California Supreme Court, which decided how such church property disputes would be resolved in California. After a lengthy appeal from an early victory attacking the Episcopal complaints, the case was recently remanded to the Orange County Superior Court for St. James to answer, engage in discovery, and trial.
Eric C. Sohlgren, lead counsel for St. James in the California courts, said, “St. James has followed a steady course since this lawsuit was first filed against them and its church volunteers over five years ago. The reason is that the principles at stake go to the very heart of what Americans hold dear ”“ the right to own property without outside interference and the right to freely exercise one’s religion regardless of belief or faith group. The Episcopal Church hasn’t contributed a dime toward the purchase or maintenance of St. James’ properties or buildings, and they’ve stood on the sidelines while watching the people of St. James carry all of the burdens and benefits of property ownership for decades. In our diverse and freedom-loving land, no one should have their property confiscated over religious belief.”
[Off topic slur deleted by Elf]
Realistically, I think that parishes which depart TEC should expect to lose their properties. When strategy is planned, it should be planned with a view towards new locations. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t put forth good arguments though, but it does mean that the strategy goes like “Fight for the property in court. Plan for the necessity of a new location.”
For others who are not currently looking to leave TEC, this litigation should serve as a warning. Everyone has the responsibility to ask exactly where their pledge is going. I am at a complete loss as to why any orthodox Christian in TEC would ever now give another dime to a TEC parish UNLESS there is a legally secure way to protect that money from being claimed by, or used by, the liberal apparatchiks that run TEC or its liberal dioceses. That means that you need to ask at least two questions:
1) is the money I give used in any way to determine the diocesan tax that must be paid by the parish to the diocese?
2) even if the money given only goes to the parish, is that money being used towards a building which will ultimately be claimed by the Presiding Bishop?
That means that for any new parish building projects (for conservative parishes), the parish itself should never own the property – it should rent it from an independent third-party non-profit property holding company. Direct all building fund capital campaigns to such an independent company. That means that if you parish is carrying a large mortgage, then stop paying it off. Why pay off KJS’s mortgage? It makes no sense. Instead, create an independent company to purchase new land, and use the money you would for the mortgage to pay off THAT mortgage.
We have received the notice NOW. Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us. We’ve been fooled once. Yes, fight this out in court – nothing is ever final until the last appeal is decided (and there is still a very long way to go here in California). But for others still in TEC but not in line with the Ruling Party’s agenda, take note – let this sort of thing guide your financial giving to your parish. Much of what TEC is doing here and elsewhere is made possible by OUR funding, which WE have the POWER to STOP.
[Sorry Susan Russell – in the narrow context of the topic of this particular thread we view your comment as off-topic. We do not always get it right but we do try. Do please feel free to contact Canon Harmon or us if you feel that your comment deserves a thread of its own – Elf]
James (#2),
Am I reading you correctly in seeing here a suggestion that while continuing to occupy a space for which a mortgage has been obtained, a conservative parish should cease to make payments that it is capable of making? If so, what does one say to the holder of the mortgage, who presumably didn’t anticipate being in the middle of an ecclesiastical battle in the first place?
If the congregation is out of the building then the onus falls on the national church to see that payments are met, but until that point I think there is a parochial obligation not to neglect debts justly owed. This sort of approach (assuming, as I say, I read you correctly), along with suggestions mooted here of deliberately “spending down” endowments so that nothing is left to fall into the hands of heretics don’t inspire me with great enthusiasm (and I say this from a position tentatively inside ACNA).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jeremy: The parish should pay what it is legally obligated to pay. What I mean is that it should not aggressively seek to pay off the mortgage.
I’ll just blog on it myself. Thanks, anyway. In the meantime, will you entertain a “friendly amendment?” There appears to by a typo in the title of this thread … “cotinues” in lieu of “continues.”
[Thank you Susan – Elf]
Mr. Eastman is no doubt correct that the Supreme Court is institutionally disinclined to take cases at this stage of procedural maturity. But he knew that quite some time ago. When one reads all the PR boosterism that surrounded the filing of the petition a few months back, one discerns very little of that realism.
One of my reservations about the way many of the departing factions have conducted themselves is that I think they have tended to sugarcoat the legal obstacles confronting parishes that wish to leave but to keep control of the property. This tendency, it seems to me, is, at least in part, intended to calm the crowd into thinking that departure will involve very little sacrifice and very little change in patterns of worship. Beyond that, it might even influence the choice (or vote, it there is some kind of parish plebiscite) of parishioners if they are concerned that they need to cast their lot with the group that will keep control of the church buildings in which they are comfortable worshipping. I don’t know how this issue was presented at St. James, but I would think the most candid way of presenting this is to tell parishioners that they should assume they will have to move to new facilities, at least for some period of time. If those remaining cannot sustain the upkeep of the facilities over the next few years, an opportunity may present itself to acquire the buildings. Such an analysis has the advantage of being clear and realistic. It was certainly not what those advocating departure told us in our parish.
Subcribe
[i]Please don’t add ‘subscribe’ to T19 threads. If you are interested, either read and comment on them constructively or take a note of the url. They can always be found by scrolling back through the pages. Thanks – Elf [/i]
To follow up on my point #2 and 5. What I am trying to get at in these points is that we as orthodox TEC laity need to be aware IN ADVANCE of where our money is going and how it could be used down the road. Simply blindly giving money to something and then several years down the road complaining about how it is being used (or abused) when we had always had it in our power to ensure that it wouldn’t be spent that way seems dumb. Orthodox laity can no longer simply give money to any TEC sub-unit and then act surprised when the Presiding Bishop eventually lays claim to it. Anything you give to your local TEC sub-unit, you might as well be giving directly to KJS herself. This is a reality that we need to deal with.
I personally refuse now to give any money to a TEC parish or diocese (though I probably WOULD give money to a conservative parish or diocese in South Carolina due to their unique legal situation). I don’t see this as bad or uncharitable – it is simply me making responsible choices given how TEC has made clear it intends to use any money that I give them.
Were I in a parish that had a mortgaged building, I would advocate going to the diocese, expressing our concern about the ownership issues, and tell them that we had no intention of leaving yet, but given the legal realities, we did not wish to pay off the mortgage of Katherine Jefferts-Schori’s building. Then work out a resolution that either permits the buy-out of the building to a independent corporation or begin the process of acquiring a new independently owned building while gradually transferring the responsibility of the older building to the diocese.