Here’s the beginning of proposed resolution 4 from the Diocese of Northern California:
TITLE: Affirmation of Real and Personal Property Status
RESOLVED: That this 97th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California urges every Parish, Mission and Congregation in the Diocese of Northern California to examine the title documents for all real property held in their respective Parishes, Missions and Congregations, and where necessary take such steps to incorporate the provisions of Title I, Canon 7, Section 4 of the Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church into said title documents affirmatively stating that “all real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California.
You can read all the proposed resolutions here.
No, just deed the property over to 815 so that it owns it outright. Then 815 can lease it back to who ever it wants to.
The catch-22, of course, is that this is an admission that they don’t own it currently.
FISCAL IMPACT OF THE RESOLUTION
There is no expected fiscal impact on the Diocese.
Then what is the point? This resolution has obvious fiscal motivation. Maybe Orwell made an allegory about the Anglican Church.
dennis/catch-22, that’s what I was thinking as soon as I read this: that this resolution documents, at the very least, that the diocese does not think it is clear who owns the property. This will be a benefit to those parishes seeking to retain their buildings. And this may even be of some small help to parishes outside California as well, because it refers to the same canonical language, especially where this goes to jury trial: “Look! Even the Episcopal Church acknowledges they don’t yet hold title to the parish’s property, please don’t do the dirty work for them and rip their parents’ and grandparents’ hard work, even their graves, away from them just because they wanted to stay consistent to what their families and faith always believed.”
The counter arguments are well known, but this shows there are possibilities–what should not be a possiblity, though, is remaining a passive enabler and in any way identify with and support the false religion of 815.
#2 and #4, that sound you just heard was David Beers throwing his Blackberry on the sidewalk after reading this proposed resolution.
“All your base are belong to us.”
I can imagine that conversation
“You want us to deed the property over to you so that we can continue to pay for everything and you get to keep it all?
Yeah……. sure……. great idea…. let me get back to you later…..”
For an organization whose legal arguments lay solely on a trust relationship, they seem to have forgotten that trust by its very nature implies a fidiciary relationship. Where’s the full disclosure that under California law, they own their property and agreeing to this little caveat will likely take away that right? How unethically, uninclusive of them.
[blockquote] [b] “Show us your deeds!” [/b] [/blockquote]
Free passes to the Laffin’ Place all around for the elves.
In the interest of truth—which I think all of us believe is at a premium as a scarce commodity at the moment—the headline should read “Eight People in Northern California say…” The Diocese has not passed this yet, so it is not correct to imply that they have. Since I assume the eight co-sponsors are the members of the Standing Committee, it certainly seems likely to pass, but again, the headline anticipates the reality.
It is not helping the situation for people on either side to overstate what is actually happening in the interest of providing proof that there is an overarching “revisionist” or “fundamentalist” conspiracy at work. Making misstatements of this character damage the speaker’s credibility and make it that much harder to persuade the intended audience that they can safely rely on him or her in more important matters.
I hope that any parish that uses the suggest language also changes the language to make it clear that along with the trust ownership, the Diocese also has the ultimate liability. When a parish is sued in the future for slip and fall, sexual harassment, pedophilia, or whatever, the diocese can pay the legal bills and the judgment, just like the Catholics.
“Did you ever swear to the Civil Servant Loyalty Oath of 1936?” (Judgment at Nuremberg).
“Sure, absolutely, I’ll get the Vestry and the Trusties together right away and sign away our deed.” These people would give Hugo Chavez a run for his money. What a bunch of despots!
#3, the statement about no financial impact is actually quite innocent. In our diocese we discovered that we were passing resolutions that placed immediate financial responsibilities upon the diocese that the Diocesan Council would then have to find the budgetary means to fund. All resolutions, irrespective of their relative merits or lack thereof, are required to disclose to those voting the expense that may be incurred.
If this resolution is passed it will have no impact upon the 2008 budget.
You will get little argument from me that language the church can be used -what shall we say?- creatively. But the statement about the fiscal impact of this resolution is not among the instances I would cite.
BillS (#11), spot on.
This resolution was proposed because the Southern California Churches who left the Diocese of Los Angeles have had their appeal from the reversal of their victory in the lower courts accepted by the California Supreme Court. If the CA Supreme Court reverses the reversal that leaves the CA TEC dioceses in a very bad position. This is merely a CYA resolution. Also, since the language is explicitly an “urging” rather than requiring, few congregations who own their own property will want to go through the congregational debate in order to make such a change in deeds possible.
So far, California courts have been unique iand sometimes contradictory in their rulings on property issues, leaving both TEC and the congregations that have or wish to flee for protection to Anglican oversight unsure of the legal landscape. Legal precedent in California does NOT apply in other states in these matters.
Dioc of North Cal already has already seen one historic church (St John’, Petaluma) leave TEC (but stay in its property, at least until a law suit is settled) for an Anglican shelter. Another (St John’s, Marysville) had its rector, assistant, deacon and eight of twelve Vestry and most of the congregation depart (leaving their property behind) to start an Anglican congregation nearby. (St John’s now averages 50 on a Sunday). Several others are ACN.
+Beisner is totally revisionist, and very machiavellian. He’s been part of the diocese for decades, and has read the tea leaves. He and his new chancellor are lining up for the lawsuits ahead.
What surprises me is the apparent failure of other TEC bishops in California to push through similar resolutions and demands. Surely there have been a few in recent years? Anyone have information on that point?
Another point. I understand that something like 35% of the congregations in NorCalif are not self-supporting, they are called ‘missions’. Anyone know if the TEC diocese has an ‘automatic’ ownership of their property?
#17, yes, those congregations are that are missions are not incorporated, and in fact the bishop is by definition the rector of such churches that the property belongs legally to the diocese. I don’t think anyone on any side of the aisle would dispute that. My understanding is that what has been holding sway in California courts has been in whose name are the deeds. As unincorporated entities missions cannot hold title.
Also, I remember that the Diocese of California debated just this same issue in the early ’80s after some congregations in the Bay Area split to form what is now the Continuing jurisdiction of the Province of Christ the King.
I belong to a mission in the DNC, and our title deed is in the name of the Diocese.
I really don’t get this resolution, as it seems to me to be counter the interests of the Diocese. It only “urges” parishes to do something, and we all know that in practical terms that means “we know you will ignore this, but we are trying to make a point.” So what is the point that is being made? That the Diocese is not confident in its legal position vis a vis potentially departing parishes. Why say this so openly?!?!?
They’re doing it openly because they must get it on the record. When they take a congregation to court over the property,they have to be able to show a judge that they consistently asserted/proclaimed/published that the locals only held the property ‘in trust’ or something such for the diocese/TEC. The more they can show a judge, the stronger their case. In this one, they’ll say, “See, Judge, the elected reps all voted for this in Convention, so they all meant to stay in TEC”.
Locally, it will accomplish a number of goals for the revisionists: 1. Revisionist rectors can use the ‘clout’ of a Convention resolution to convince waivering Vestrymembers to vote for it; 2. It will clearly mark which clergy and parishes are solidly in the hands of the revisionists. If the Vestry complies with little or no questioning, mark that group in the revisionist camp. If there is dragging of feet or rejection, well, have the bishop go and preach about the evils of African ‘incursions’. And have the bishop quietly apply pressure to the most vulnerable person in the congregation: the priest in charge. 3. Many parishes will meekly comply, and thereby probably bolster TEC/diocese’s property claims in a future lawsuit; 4. It’s passage serves as a ‘wet blanket’: Many will not understand that this is still ‘voluntary’, and will assume that since it passed, no parish can leave with its property. This will dampen enthusiasm (and there is a good bit) for locals to request alternative oversight; 5. The fact that it will overwhelmingly pass simply demonstrates the near-total control of the revisionists in the diocese, thereby encouraging the orthodox to simply go elsewhere. It’s terribly disheartening for a good Christian person to participate in a Convention in which the bishop, the majority of the clergy and the laypeople are in lock-step on the revisionist agenda.
And +Beisner and Friends know this.
Just adding my two cents’ worth, but I think that the smart thing to do is to do nothing! I would advise the vestries and bishop’s committees to make copies of these proposed resolutions and keep them in a safe place in case they’re needed in court. Just to cover themselves and to show a judge as evidence that they didn’t comply.
Cennydd (#21), I agree; however, please see my #20 post, why this will be very difficult in many of the parishes, which have already been taken over by the revisionists.
Ma chere p’tite chou… one is aware of California’s differences from other states as regards the application of neutral principles of law. And it constantly amazes me that some can say that this or that person is totally revisionist when they give little evidence of it in their acts. All a parish which owns its own property would have to do is for the Vestry to passively decline to act on the request. As regards missions, well their Rector is the Bishop, canonically.
While I agree that this is motivated by Dennis unenforceability concerns, there are other factors. This issue came up 10 years ago, when I was President of the Board of Directors (of the Diocese) because of genuine concerns that no one really knew who owned what. Prudent stewardship dictated that we verify ownership (and proper insurance coverage).