While other agenda items were marked as amended, concurred or had check marks besides it, the Dennis Canon was not marked off.
At this stage, the documentary evidence supporting passage of the Dennis Canon, Resolution D-24, came to an end. No records of the House of Bishops, save for those appended to House of Deputies’ Committee Reports have survived, nor have the minutes or the messages to the House of Bishops from the Deputies confirming its action been retained in the archival record.
A final examination of the remaining documents for the Convention in the Archives, however, unearthed the missing 10th day summary in the “print shop” binder””a record of all items sent for duplication. On page 10, the summary reports resolution D-24 as amended was adopted by the Deputies, and message 204 memoralizing this action was sent to the House of Bishops””-however no copy of this message has survived either, and is known only by reference.
Given that the summary of legislation was produced on the same day as the actions it describes took place, it is reasonable to assume that it is a true and correct record of events. While this indirect evidence exists of passage of the Dennis Canon, no direct evidence has survived.
Wicks Stephens, chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network, said the “absence of usually present documentation is troubling and indeed suspicious.”
While acknowledging that the documentary evidence in the Archives could be used to argue the Dennis Canon passed Convention, it also “suggests that it may not have been. In that event one can argue that the court should put the burden of proving its valid establishment on the party asserting its validity ”“ TEC. At that point, how will TEC meet such a burden unless they can find the rest of the record?” he said.
How is a canon approved and then enacted?
At level of the Federal Government, a law is passed by both Houses of Congress, with interaction between the Houses on the exact content of the law, and then the ‘yet to be enacted’ law is sent to the President for his signature. If he signs the ‘yet to be enacted’ law, it becomes a law This is all overseen by speific persons in each House and at the Presidential level.
Isn’t there supposed to be some sort of oversight at national conventions that tracks the whole process and then makes some sort of entry of a new canon into some sort of record of approved canons?
If no, then the whole business of bring new canons into existance seems very ‘slipshod.’ This alone, can seriously damage how ECUSA canons are viewed by civil courts.
Forgive my sarcasm, but is this a case of whose ox is being gored?
Well it does seem that the 1979 Journal, which is the official record, should clear this up. Maybe someone who has access to the official Journal and records can confirm that the Dennis Cannon, resolution D-24, properly passed both Houses?
Given her scrupulous attention to detail, I’m absolutely certain that the Presiding Bishop will want to nullify the canon and call for a new vote.
Here is the entry from the journal on the digital archives of the episcopal church (it passed both houses):
Resolution Number: 1979-D024
Title: Amend Canon I.6 [Of Business Methods in Church Affairs] and Canon II.7 [Of Church Property]
Legislative Action Taken: Concurred As Amended
Final Text:
Resolved, That Title I, Canon 6 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church, be amended to add a Section 4 as follows:
Sec. 4. All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission on Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons ; and be it further
Resolved, That Title I, Canon 6 be amended to add a Section 5 as follows:
Sec. 5. The several Dioceses may, at their election, further confirm the trust declared under the foregoing Section 4 by appropriate action, but no such action shall be necessary for the existence and validity of the trust ; and be it further
Resolved, That Title II, Canon 7 be amended to add a new Section 3 as follows:
Sec. 3. Any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel shall be subject to the trust declared with respect to real and personal property held by any Parish, Mission, or Congregation, as set forth in Section 4 of Title I, Canon 6 ; and be it further
Resolved, That this resolution shall be effective upon enactment
Citation: General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of…The Episcopal Church, Denver, 1979 (New York: General Convention, 1980), p. D-154.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Author:
Originating House: House of Bishops
Originating Committee: Committee on Canons
House of Bishops
Original Text of Resolution:
(D024)
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That Title I, Canon 6 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church, be amended to add a Section 4 as follows:
Sec. 4. All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission on Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons; and be it further
Resolved, That Title I, Canon 6 be amended to add a Section 5 as follows:
Sec. 5. The several Dioceses may, at their election, further confirm the trust declared under the foregoing Section 4 by appropriate action, but no such action shall be necessary for the existence and validity of the trust; and be it further
Resolved, That Title II, Canon 7 be amended by adding a new Section 3, reading as follows:
Sec. 3. Any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel shall be subject to the trust declared with respect to real and personal property held by any Parish, Mission, or Congregation, as set forth in Section 4 of Title I, Canon 6.
The Bishop of Kentucky moved that the Resolution be amended to make the Resolution effective upon enactment.
The motion was seconded by the Bishop of Arizona.
Motion carried
Resolution adopted with amendment
(Communicated to the House of Deputies in HB Messages # 75 & 76)
House of Deputies
The Committee on Canons presented its Report #32 on Resolution D-24, and recommended concurrence with House of Bishops Messages #75 and #76.
Motion carried
The House concurred
Resolution Concurred by Both Houses, September 19.
Abstract: The 66th General Convention amends Canons Title I.6 and Title II.7 to declare that all real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese in which it is located.
Notes: Resolution 1979-D024 was presented and considered in two parts in the orginating House. The first two resolve clauses were adopted and sent to the House of Deputies as HB Message #76, and the third resolve clause was adopted separately and sent to the House of Deputies as HB Message #75.
Since the motions orginated in the House of Bishops once they adopted them and sent them to the House of Deputies and they concurred, there would be no need to send that back to the House of Bishops, as Conger suggest in his article is “missing.”
To me this apears to be a non issue and here is why:
Does the existance or non existance of the dennis canon make TECUSA more or less orthodox? Does the existance or non existance make the CANA / Network people more or less bound to continue on their path? I would suggest the answer is no.
Now we need to look at Mission. If I am on a mission blessed by God, then God will provide for that mission (that is my faith and provn many times over). When someone comes against me and hurts my provision, it does not stop me from fulfilling my mission, unless I choose to be distracted from my mission. Only God can keep me from doing what He says to do.
If God is truly blessing TECUSA with its mission, then it should be able to complete it’s mission without taking property from anyone else (orthodox churches wishing to depart).
If orthodox churches wishing to depart are on a mission blessed by God, then they should be able to move ahead with their mission regardless of whether the property moves with them or not. The property should not be the defining issue, either way, if they are on their mission.
SO in a parish where there is a true remenant wishing to stay in TECUSA, give them the property. If there is no TECUSA remnant, let them have the property. Most of these buildings are albatrosses anyway. My parish voted unanimously, and if there were two or three who wanted to remain as TECUSA, they couldn’t afford to pay the light and heat bill for one day, so what would they do with a 50,000 Sq Foot building, with no clergy, staff, lights or heat. Even a diocese with its huge budget shortfall couldn’t afford to operate the thing, and with the zoning of the property couldn’t sell it either.
Each side should figure a way to depart in peace, otherwise the baby is going to have trouble in school with only half of its person.
RickW: I think it is an issue.
Some of our churches have endowments which could cover the cost of utilities until TEC sells the buildings to growing non-denominational congregations. I believe it is the duty of the Vestry to do all within its power to be sure that the property of its parish (bricks. morter, vestments, cash, stocks etc.) not be lost to “others”. This may mean not leaving the TEC at this time.
I understand that the prohibition on the passing of an “ex posto facto” law is a constraint placed upon government within the U.S.A.
When a parish/congregation has paid for it’s church campus, paid for it’s maintenance and has monies put aside in trust by it’s congregants, how does a diocese or national church presume to assume ownership of the of the physical assets of a parish/congregation?
Does the “ex posto facto” concept have any relevance when applied to the Dennis canon?
If so, why is the Dennis canon relevant and not considered an “ex posto facto” innovation?
8 Eugene. I understand that this issue is truly deeper than I suggest in my comment. My desire is that we don’t let property and endowments become our God.
It was not without much fear and trembling that we took the actions that we did. It did liberate us when we realized that we could pack up and build another building if necessary and that our mission would not be harmed, set back or impacted in the slightest.
#9 AnglicanFirst:
I am neither a civil lawyer nor a canon lawyer, but I think the idea is that the Denis Canon just makes explicit what had always been implicit in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. That is, by this theory, a parish implicitly agreed that it’s real property was held in trust for the national church at the moment it became a parish of the Episcopal Church and assented to its governing rules.
Whether this theory has legal merit, I’m not qualified to judge.
Reply to Rick, #10.
I agree with you and I also believe that when Anglicanism within North America has rid itself of the secularly-driven behavior of the revisionists/progressives of ECUSA and the ACofC, that a revived orthodox/traditional Anglicanism will grow, even flourish regardless of whether it’s services are conducted in rented halls or in beautiful churches built to honor and worship Jesus and the Father in the Anglican ‘way.’
Reply to Ross, #11.
If an episcopal (small ‘e’) church organization is recognized as the sole owner of all properties, parish or otherwise, under it’s episcopal leadership, then why the need for the Dennis Canon?
Plainsparson, There need to be a concurring resolution. The 1979 journal does not reflect that there ever was one. That I think is the problem. There is no evidence of a concuring resolution. There are assumptions that one was made, but there is no evidence for itl
The key statement may be this from you post:
[blockquote] The Committee on Canons presented its Report #32 on Resolution D-24, and recommended concurrence with House of Bishops Messages #75 and #76.
Motion carried
The House concurred [/blockquote]
But there is no seperate concurring resolution, which appears to be required.
I think that, the bottom line is, whether they wanted to or not, they didn’t jump through all the technical hoops. There does not appear to be the required concurrant resolution.
Right, Br Michael. And since they didn’t properly tie it down, this would make Dennis a loose canon.
How can you preserve the church property and furnishing for future generations of Episcopalians when you turn around and sell the property to non-Episcopalians for night clubs, condominiums, other denominations or to tear down and put up apartments and parking lots. Doesn’t sound like preservation for future generations to me. If they are going to preserve it for future generations then be true to your word preserve it….As long as it stays a part of the Anglican Communion it is being preserved for future generations of Anglicans…of which TEC is part.
To do otherwise would be perpetuating a falsehood. I know no one will agree with me, but at least I got to say it…. (give me a smirky smile as the smiley wouldn’t past) 🙂 But what do I know as I am someone who doesn’t even recognize the church she grew up in and was a member of for 56 years.
Oh no! Conger+ and his tabloid have outsmarted us revisionists! We really hoped no one would catch on. I hope that he doesn’t buy aome land in Montana and then let people know that the Federal Income Tax is illegal. It would be utter chaos!
If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.
Matt 5:40 (the message)
40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (NIV)
It’s not going to be easy, but it is the Gospel
#11 Ross wrote:
“I am neither a civil lawyer nor a canon lawyer, but I think the idea is that the Denis Canon just makes explicit what had always been implicit in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. That is, by this theory, a parish implicitly agreed that it’s real property was held in trust for the national church at the moment it became a parish of the Episcopal Church and assented to its governing rules.”
Read the following, which suggests that this was not assumed – at least in Pennsylvania – until after the First World War (and probably much later). Whether or not you agree with my take on it, it’s still a good story.
http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2007/08/footnote-to-pittsburghs-episcopal.html