The Diocese of Virginia is gratified by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling that the 57-9 “Division Statute” was incorrectly applied by the Fairfax County Circuit Court. The statute has forced faithful Episcopalians to worship elsewhere for over three years. The Supreme Court has sent the matter back to the lower court for further proceedings. The Diocese will demonstrate that the property is held in trust for all 80,000 Episcopalians who worship in Virginia.
This is a puff piece by the Diocese and does not necessarily represent reality. See the Anglican Curmudgeon for a better analysis http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/
This reversal was not unexpected. Actually there were many favorable points made in their judgment to strengthen ADV arguments, even though it ended up being sent back to the lower court. It’s a long game of shoots and ladders.
http://www.churchoftheword.net
Somebody really needs to hook onto Mr. Burt’s comments. If the only problem is that loyal TECsters can’t worship in their home churches, I bet Truro and Falls Church would let them do a service. #2 Glendermott–I read fn #12 as the SCt. possibly trying to lean the case toward ADV/CANA. What do you think?
One of the casualties of all this litigation is going to be the destruction over time of all connectional denominations. In the old days it used to be seen as a strength because it prevented cults from taking over individual churches and implementing non-Christian doctrine. The denomination could discipline or control wayward congregations or pastors.
Now it’s increasingly viewed as allowing non-Christians to take over entire denominations and forcing orthodox Christians out. I believe the next 20-30 years will see the death of hierarchical and connectional churches in favor of “community” and “non-denominational” churches. That brings a whole set of new issues, of course.
David Keller (#3),
I agree that footnote 12 does TEND to favor the departing churches, but the unfortunate thing is that this case will now drag on for a couple more years in the legal system. A huge waste of time and especially money for everyone involved.
As for the triumphant, gloating note at the diocesan website, I found it very distasteful and misleading. For +Shannon Johnston to claim that VA is merely standing by its legacy is brazenly false, when it has abandoned its historic commitment to orthodox, evangelical Christianity. And the insinuation by Henry Burt at the end that loyal Episcopalians are being denied a chance to worship in their beloved former church homes is a notorious red herring that would only fool people unfamiliar with the case.
David Handy+
So, the case goes back to Bellows at the Circuit Court where he can now rule on who owns the property based on neutral property principles. I guess TEC/DioVA will appeal his decision for the ADV parishes to the Supreme Court of VA, yet again.
Nos. 3 and 5: Episcopalian services for those who elected to stay with the Diocese have not been allowed for the past three years in the church premises at the Falls Church. The irony was that those who felt compelled to leave stayed. Those who felt they should stay had to leave. The Epsicopalians have had to worship in rented space across the street. If the “red herring” point is that the forced exile is not directly germane to the legal issues considerd by the Supreme Court, I suppose you are correct. However, it would be a great wrong for the Diocese, through its spokesman, not to express concern about it. Perhaps now that the peculiar Virginia Division Statute is off the table and the matter is back to be decided as it would be in any other jurisdiction, all parties will see some merit in being more flexible about an intelligent settlement.
David Handy and NoVa–This is why we have mediation. All of these issues could be resolved by the parties.
If ECUSA and the Diocese of Virginia finally prevail in their lawsuits and then find that they can’t find or recruit enough congregational strength to filnancially support the churches that they taken from the orthodox Anglicans now occupying them,
will they then sell these churches? And to whom?
Will they follow the ‘burnt earth’ example of what the Episcopal Diocese of Central NY did to the orhtodox Anglicans in Binghampton, NY? Spitefully sell the church property to non-Christians.
As a matter of interest, I would like to know how much influence Ms Schori and company had on the detestable behavior of the Diocese of Central NY.
#7 & 8,
Certainly, a mediated settlement would still be desirable, but so far it’s been the Diocese of VA and especially the hardline administration at 815 that have balked and refused since the former Protocol was voided unilaterally from their side.
As much as I was disappointed by this rather surprising and strangely reasoned decision by the state high court, and as much as I detest the idea of the case dragging on a lot longer, at enormous expense to both sides, I think I can see a silver lining in this thing. If the departing churches had been granted the property on the basis of that unique Civil War era statute 57-9(A), it would have had virtually no impact on other cases around the country. But now, if the CANA churches end up winning, albeit after another long and terribly costly legal battle, then it will most definitely help set a legal precedent for other states. And that’s entirely possible.
But uncertain. And in the meantime, the legal limbo and the outrageous amounts of money being spent on lawyers simply because TEC is a bad loser and is trying to intimidate other conservative congregations from following the example of these brave VA churches, well, these things are having a negative, demoralizing effect on everybody.
David Handy+
Really? You told your parishioners they could expect to lose?