In the early 1980s, a decision was made to carve a new Diocese ”“ the Diocese of Fort Worth ”“ from the old Diocese of Dallas. It would include Tarrant County and 23 other western and neighboring counties.
At this same time, there were discussions on how to retitle the property within the new diocese. Prior to this time the property had been held in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas or his successor in office. This was traditional in most dioceses of the Episcopal Church and had served well for literally decades. In these new times, however, there were occasions when our bishop would be away from the diocese for extended periods. Therefore, real estate closings had to be continued until such time as the bishop was back in residence. Today fax machines, e-mails and FedEx would help us keep things going but those were not universally available, if at all, in the early 1980s.
A new plan was adopted to retitle the real property of the diocese in the name of a corporation which would be called “Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.”
Wow! What an ethical quagmire.
I hardly see it that way, Brian. The diocese Bishop is loyal to the Anglican tradition, the corportion appears to be of the same mind as the Bishop. It would appear that, should the DioFW resolve to remain within the Anglican tradition, the property will follow.
It should be noted that traditional Anglicanism tends to follow the admonitions of Paul, and will thus likely allow dissenting parishes to depart for the sandy soil of TEC without prejudice. Would that other nominally Christian bodies acted similarly.
“What an ethical quagmire”
Lots of ethics. No quagmire, but instead a dry path out of the Slough of Despond.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6900/#129982
As another Stand Firm commenter noted, “a diocese in disagreement with 815 couldn’t ask for much more.”
Very well thought out. “Property held by the Corporation for the use of a Parish, Mission or Diocesan School belongs beneficially to such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School only. No adverse claim to such beneficial interest by the Corporation, by the Diocese, or by The Episcopal Church of the United States of America is acknowledged, but rather is expressly denied.” Legal title is in the corporation for the use of the particular parish, etc. Mr. Beers, et al, should repair to the law library.
Sounds like 815 can kiss Fort Worth goodbye. It’s a shame other dioceses didn’t have the foresight that Fort Worth had.
the snarkster
I’m having a Ross Perot “Giant Sucking Sound” moment. Anybody else?
It’s a shame other dioceses didn’t have the foresight that Fort Worth had.
Again we see the orthodox double standard at work. “How can a Christian Church sue?,” but I am afraid that the legal scrambling will be of little help to Fort Worth. +Iker will be deposed and the property will be fought over just like in every other Diocese. No matter how “iron clad” legal duplicity looks, there’s always someone wanting to sue and put your idea to the test. No doubt TEC will be that someone.
#7: Or so you hope and pray…
The ethical issue is that they knew when they did it that the Dennis Canon was in effect. So they intentionally tried to break that canon and secure the property for their own interests. It may work from a legal standpoint, but it is the same type of ethical abuse that that Bishop who incorporated the name PECUSA tried to do. Justify it all you want, but if you do, don’t criticize TEC for their ethics.
Certainly ethically straightforward: property belongs to them as bought and paid for it. At least to this non-lawyer. Very American of them and a quarter of a century ago, at that!
Never trust law from a God-fearing people – Spark on DFW:CC
Rolling Eyes
I’m actually relatively disinterested from a practical standpoint. The only hope I do have is that we retain the historic parishes like in VA. and GA. Otherwise I think if TEC can live with itself and the departing churches who try to take the property can live with themselves then so be it.
dwstroudmd
As a lawyer I can tell you that there is rarely, if ever, any relation between law and ethics;-)
“The ethical issue is that they knew when they did it that the Dennis Canon was in effect. So they intentionally tried to break that canon and secure the property for their own interests. It may work from a legal standpoint, but it is the same type of ethical abuse that that Bishop who incorporated the name PECUSA tried to do.”
I congratulate the Diocese of Fort Worth, and its bishops, Davies, Pope and Iker for their foresight and Catholic mind in realizing that WO (= women’s ordination) would inevitably, in the fullness of time and of iniquity, be followed on the same grounds by SS (= sanctified sodomy), and so, like good and farsighted shepherds, preparing in advance for the day when their flock under their apostolic guidance would come to an awareness of their predicament as orthodox believers yoked to an apostate “church,” and so be able to “shake the dust from their feet” and leave, taking their properties with them and thus outsmarting the thieves and robbers at 815 and their local accomplices. I salute you all, and hope that you will boldly fare forth from the House of Bondage, carrying not the spoils of Egypt, but your own goods with you — and may you be an example and a pole star to the good folk of Quincy and San Joaquin!
[blockquote]The only hope I do have is that we retain the historic parishes like in VA. and GA. [/blockquote]
Kind of ironic, I’d say, that a denomination that has so little interest in the historic faith would be so determined to take over historic parishes that were founded in historic faith. Makes you wonder what their motive is since it sure as hell ain’t the advancement of the faith once delivered.
the snarkster
[i] This is NOT a thread on WO issues. Please don’t swerve it to another topic. [/i]
– Elf Lady
and so be able to “shake the dust from their feet†and leave, taking their properties with them
Ummm…do you understand what “shake the dust from their feet” means?
Of course, Brian (#16), that they may leave the sectaries of TEC, in the sense of “leaving the dead to bury the dead.”
Brian,
The ethical problem starts with the passage of the Dennis Canon. The commissars at 815 knew at the time that their theological innovations would cause orthodox Christians to leave ECUSA. In order to obtain property that did not belong to ECUSA, they passed the Dennis Canon, claiming a unilateral implied trust that had never been agreed to by the other parties involved.
The legislative history of the Dennis Canon itself is murky. In one of the many lawsuits in the offing the legislative history will likely be clarified. However, the fact remains that ECUSA got along fine for 200 years without the necessity for the Denis Canon. Only when the
theology changed did the Dennis canon become necessary.
It is hardly unethical to defend ones property from being taken by people who have dramatically changed the historical belief system of the Church.
More good news, at least for some — and perhaps (who knows?) in time for Fort Worth:
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/10/full-corporate-sacramental-union.html
I must confess that it’s hard for me to understand the Dennis Canon, especially as an instrument that would prevent a diocese from leaving TEC (through a democratic process) with its real property. It just seems absurd, given the largely confederate nature of TEC.
It seems even more absurd in light of TEC’s self-identity as an autonomous protestant denomination (rather than a constituent of a catholic communion, with all that that would normally imply).
Is there anything remotely analogous? Has a presbytery ever attempted to leave the PCUSA, or has the PCUSA claimed ownership of the assets of all presbyteries? (I ask out of ignorance)
Anyone can file a lawsuit and demand millions of dollars or property or just about anything. All one needs to file is the filing fee. But it’s quite another thing to WIN a lawsuit.
Of course 815 (tapping its enormous endowments) will sue, as often and as widely as possible. They are like any other huge corporation, they have the money to pay lawyers. They are very aware that only the largest parishes and dioceses have enough $$$ to fight back. And the clergy and laity who would like to leave TEC are also very aware of that fact. That need for funds is a major reason that most of the churches/clergy who have left TEC are enormous and have lots of money. Note I’m not saying ALL of them, but check the record and you’ll see that something like 98% of the folks who have left belong to such congregations.
Are the Primates listening? Do they care? Millions of loyal Anglicans in small congregations are wondering! SOS to the Primates: orthodox believers beseech you to very publicly and swiftly kick TEC out of the ACC, and set up a Province in North America as a shelter for those who want to remain Anglicans! SOS!!!
No ethical quagmire here! Looks like the folks that paid for the property will get to keep the property should they decide to depart. Statutes of limitations should have all run.
BillS
I believe that the difference there is what is done “in the open” versus what is done “not in plain sight.” Now it is arguable that TEC should have paid more attention to local Diocesan machinations, but I would argue that unless it is an open action of Diocesan Convention, then it is being done in a less than ethical manner. As for property rights, that’s more a legal issue and theology lies in the purview of those so inclined.
Little Cabbage (great name!)
Are the Primates listening? Do they care? Millions of loyal Anglicans in small congregations are wondering! SOS to the Primates: orthodox believers beseech you to very publicly and swiftly kick TEC out of the ACC, and set up a Province in North America as a shelter for those who want to remain Anglicans! SOS!!!
Two things:
1. It only matters what ONE Primate does and that is the Archbishop of Canterbury (for reasons why visit here: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6875/#129209)
2. Even if the ABC does kick out TEC and establishes a new Anglican Province, it won’t resolve any property disputes.
Brian: 1. So you think the ABC will ‘kick out’ the majority of Primates to save TEC? LOL! I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you….
2. The property issues would then be resolved because: 1. When the Primates act and TEC is kicked out, having decided to ‘walk apart’, the property issues will be solved in favor of loyal ANGLICANS, as the only branch of the Anglican Communion in the USA.
Oh Little Cabbage, so wrong;-)
1. It remains to be seen what the ABC will do. But all indications are that he will not do anything, leaving the Primates with a choice to leave if they are so inclined. Then it will be their choice.
2. You’re not too familiar with US property law. The issues are the rights of TEC. They are an independent Province and their rights remain the same regardless of their external affiliations.
If being recognized as THE Anglican branch in the US was NOT important for legal (property) reasons, TEC would have openly left already. Instead, they use weasel words and ignore the many breaches of trust with the Primates (e.g., the SSBs that continue unabated). 815 will do whatever it can to be able to tell a Judge “we are the Anglicans in this country, those folks who left us for alternate Anglican oversight should not be able to take the property they paid for with them”.
It is crucial for the many property disputes ahead; that’s the only reason 815 is choosing to twist this way and that, instead of forthrightly proclaiming that they are ‘doing something new’ and leaving the ACC. As always with 815, follow the money….
Brian T19: Please knock off the snide put-downs, they do not help your argument. As for my knowledge of US property law, let’s just say that you know not with whom you blog, and leave it at that.
My #27 post stands. Like many reasserters, I agree with +Gene Robinson and find it, well, ‘disingenuous’ that TEC and its HOB doesn’t simply proclaim openly that they disagree with the vast majority of the ACC and are doing something ‘new’, are proud of it and will not stop even though their actions have torn the Communion asunder. But TEC doesn’t dare be honest in that way, because it will deeply imperil their position before the Courts. To hang on to the property, they must convince judges that the only ‘recognized’ Anglican presence in the US is TEC. If 815 gives up that position, they strengthen the argument of those under alternative oversight to the property of those congregations who have sought refuge with overseas Anglican primates.
ZLittle Cabbage
I was trying to refrain, but alas…
I may not know with whom I blog, but I do know US property law and whether TEC is in or out of the Anglican Communion is completely irrelevant. The relevant issues are the Canons, the relationship of the parish (or Diocese) to TEC and whether TEC is seen as a hierarchical Church (which has nothing to do with its link to the Anglican Communion).
It’s one thing to offer an opinion on how a court may rule. Indeed, what Fort Worth has done is somewhat novel and may actually work. It is quite another to make a misstatement of fact. There is no court in any State which will base any decision on whether TEC is a part of the Anglican Communion. That is a simple legal fact not open for debate.
Let’s just agree to disagree. It’ll all come out in the courts, especially California. 815 is worried (for good cause). That is the reason behind all the twisted words, rather than forthright, honest, bold words to all the world.
No. 12 – that would probably be news to your state’s bar association.
That is a simple legal fact not open for debate.
There is no such thing. That is a simple empirical fact not open for debate.
And you’re wrong to boot. The preamble to ECUSA’s constitution states that ECUSA is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. A well-crafted argument raising this issue will result in a legal debate, aka legal argument, which a court will decide. Debating things that are not subject to debate is what it means to be a constituent member of the bar.
BfT19,
YOu will not be surprised that I have long known the separation of ethics from the legal profession. In fact, I regard the phrase “legal ethics” as oxymoronic. You undoubtedly know that old law school statement of justice: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, so, on balance, justice is done. However, your reliance on being done in the light of day versus what you allege as machination smacks of moral judgement not law or ethics. Are you feeling a bit, shall we say, troubled by conscience or anything? :>)
Brian,
One thing that you and I agree on, is your comment in #12. One of my favorite sayings, applicable to all of the various property disputes now and to come, is that there is not justice in the courthouse, only resolution. We will get a decision. Whether it is justice is a matter of opinion depending upon whether one won or lost.
This seems to me to simply make the court case take longer. I can’t imagine Ft Worth being able to take their property with them, but that remains to be seen. It seems to me like the corporation owning property itself to be a violation of national canon. Wait and see we will.
A soon as The Unmentionable Subject was brought up by You Know Who, the Elf-lady came zooming forth to remind us that The Unmentionable Subject is indeed unmentionable. The 815 party is prevailing easily simply because the soi disant Reasserter remnant refuses to get down to causes and conditions and will only discuss symptoms and side-effects. But The Unmentionable Subject is brought up, the “reasserters” quickly show how little they have to reassert. Without a doubt, the Cabal at 815 smile with delight on the editorial policies of “reasserter” blogs.
#36 et al,
Perhaps a nearly no holds barred thread on the Unmentionable Subject that could be archived and linked to when needed?
Just thinking out loud for a moment…
BTW, I think the prevailing party is so doing because of skillful political machinations much more than the supposed results of the unmentionable subject.
OK, I’m waiting for the flames…
#37, we’ve allowed plenty of rock’em – sock’em threads on WO over the years. And recently Stand Firm kept a long-running thread with hundreds of comments going precisely to allow the kind of steam escape valve you propose. Here are those links:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3753
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3813
There are about 650 comments between those two threads.
NOW, back on topic please. Thanks.
===============
Update:
Just for the record, here are some of the notable discussions of WO on the old T19 site. I’m sure we missed many, but these were several that were easy to find.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18943
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17495
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17475
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=14442
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=14346
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=14274
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=14103
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13706
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10016
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9776
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=3529
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=2602
Mark
Mark
The preamble to ECUSA’s constitution states that ECUSA is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. A well-crafted argument raising this issue will result in a legal debate, aka legal argument, which a court will decide.
Sigh…are there any other lawyers who want to try to explain to these people why they are wrong? Obviously, I’m not getting through
smacks of moral judgement not law or ethics.
Morals are a part of an ethical system.
When I was in law school many years ago, one of my professors, Phil Areeda, used to interrupt students who were pontificating about what would happen and pose the following question: if you were czar of the universe, what would you do? The counterfactual nature of the question was a subtle reminder that they were not in fact the “czar of the universe†(which came as a bit of a surprise to some of these students) and that their opinions were of little interest until they achieved that status.
It is actually quite easy to conceive of a plausible argument for the relevance of the preamble. There is a lot of law on the function of “whereas†clauses in contracts; for one thing, they can be used to stipulate the shared assumptions of the parties on which a contract is based. When those assumptions are no longer true, the contract may become void or voidable under elementary principles of contract law. It is pretty easy to take the argument from here.
Is this a winner? I don’t know. I’ve won cases with worse and lost cases with better. And one thing I’ve learned from many years practicing law is that you never, ever, assume an issue is totally irrelevant. I once had a TRO in place from the chief judge of the federal court in San Francisco for 15 years (!) without a hearing. Any law book in the country will tell you they are only valid for 20 DAYS. But you never know what the answer is until the czar of the bench pronounces it. And then, truly, there is no debate.
Perhaps Lawrence K. Wells or Dr. Tighe could start your own blogs? There you could discuss whatever you want whenever you want.
We will continue to delete off-topic comments per Kendall’s request and comment policy.
–elfgirl
One of the most aggravating things on this site and Stand Firm is that there are a number of posters (you know who you are) who constantly harp on WO. We can be commenting on a thread about the weather and someboby always has to bring up WO. One of the few rules around here is that comments must be on topic for that particular thread. Is that so hard to understand? I’m with the Tasty Elf on this one. [b]If you want to talk about WO, find a thread about WO. Or start your own blog and talk about it all the time. Sheeesh![/b]
the snarkster
Brian,
Property law is a state by state issue not a US one (federal constitutional law might come into play via the first amendment). Whether TEC is a constituent member of Anglican Communion might come into play on the question of hierarchical status – if a diocese remains part of the AC and TEC gets the boot an argument can be made that a hierachical church is facing a schism (what happens when a heretofore hierachical church goes to pieces) – a court could then apply neutral property laws. It would seem to be a fact issue at least in VA (but I think the divisions within TEC are sufficient for VA courts to find for the ADV).
I still think the key is for everyone to make a run for the exits at once and for the Common Cause Bishops to reach an ominibus settement on property with TEC brokered by the +++AC – but that would be too civil and christian for our worthy oponents.
Since the so-called “national church’s interest” in property dates only from the Dennis Canon, and, since that same so-called “n.c.i” was never invoked or sought from either sides in past church property issues in FW (eg. the former “St. Mary’s Episc. Church” in Arlington, TX being allowed to leave the diocese of FW to go to Rome by the then-Bp. Pope…with no reference or comment from 815!), it is a stretch in logic (if not in law) for David Beers to assert TEC ownership of the properties that make up the diocese of Ft. Worth.
Texans might well say to Mr. Beers “come on down and try this thing you think you can do!”
Chips #45. Your observation about property law is ‘a state by state issue’ is spot on. Thus far several, especially California, has used the neutrality principle. Which is why the Dioc of NorthCal (to take the latest instance) is endeavoring to pass a resolution about the Deeds of their congregations. 815 and the revisionist bishops are doing all they can to make a written record they can present to Judges because the laws are so unclear in so many states. 815 is seeking to bolster its present view that TEC is a hierarchical church, a la Rome. (Funny, they don’t hold this view when it comes to disciplining individual bishops for openly disobeying canons on ‘minor’ matters like encouraging the unbaptized to participate in Holy Communion!)
They know the ship is sinking at that they will soon be involved in property lawsuits throughout the country. They think resolutions on Deeds will help their case. If they didn’t think this, they wouldn’t be pushing for them.