This new program of legal mayhem began with the filing of this suit against the parish of St. Francis Anglican Church in Turlock. St. Francis is a duly constituted member of the only true Diocese of San Joaquin, and wants nothing to do with the non-Diocese. But the non-Diocese wants to claim its property and assets — its bank accounts, its prayer books and altar furnishings, and the building which it owns, and in which it worships.
How can this be? Well might you ask. For in the make-believe world of Bishop Lamb, the Presiding Bishop and President Anderson, St. Francis still “belongs” in some fashion to ECUSA — in their eyes, it never left. And so they want to “embrace” it in their loving grasp, and to take all of its property and assets. Never mind that although there are some Episcopalian parishioners in Turlock, who are worshipping for the time being in other premises, they by themselves would not be enough to maintain and insure the property, and pay for a full-time rector. If the Anglican parishioners choose not to return to the fold and support their church, well, the Episcopal remnant will just run through the parish bank accounts until the property can be sold to someone else (but certainly not to the Anglicans, because they are in “competition”, and the Presiding Bishop is dead-set against helping “competitors”), and then that money can be used to prop up the non-Diocese. What a wonderful and Christian-like plan!
And now, as I have reported, the non-Diocese has embarked on a program to sue all of the individually incorporated parishes in the Anglican Diocese, using the St. Francis complaint as a template. A second such lawsuit has now been filed against St. Michael’s in Ridgecrest, and still others are in the works. Each of the lawsuits seeks a “declaration” from the court where it has been filed that the parish corporation’s assets are held in trust for ECUSA and Bishop Lamb’s group, and so cannot be controlled or used by the people who are the current vestry members and clergy. (The latter have been “deposed”, don’t you remember? So they cannot function in an Episcopal church, and must be made to hand their churches over to those who will “loyally guard and preserve the Parish Premises and Parish Assets for the mission of the Church, . . . adhere to the Church and Diocesan Canons and . . . protect and serve loyal Episcopalians in the Parish”, to quote from paragraph 80 of the complaint.)
Other lawsuits against the remaining incorporated parishes in the Diocese of San Joaquin are surely coming….
I wish there were some way in which I could state my true feelings about this malicious lawsuit, but this blog isn’t the proper medium by which to do so. Perhaps my use of the word ‘malicious’ is sufficient.
I suppose that if one accepts, as does Mr. Haley, that Dioceses can withdraw intact from the Church and that the mechanisms for doing so are clear and were followed scrupulously in these cases, it would seem a bit cheeky for the national church and its “replacement” diocese to pursue the departees. My surmise, however, is that the motivation behind these suits is a different premise: that there is not clear device by which a Diocese can extract itself intact with property in tow. If, for the sake of discussion, that premise proves correct, this sort of lawsuit is a sad necessity and a very appropriate measure.