According to the lawsuit against Trinity, the property in Bristol is held in trust for the diocese and does not belong to the parish. When Trinity chose to align itself with the Anglican convocation, the lawsuit says, its members lost their rights to control the property.
Trinity parishioners and Helmandollar, who was removed from ministry by Connecticut Bishop Andrew Smith in June, insist they have the right to continue worshiping at the Bristol church.
Attorney Howard M. Wood III, who is representing Trinity, said the national church’s decision to intervene in this case is “consistent with the national [church’s] policy of looking over the shoulder of local counsel to insure that the national’s policy of no compromise and no selling the buildings to churches … is followed through.”
He also accused the national church of using the “strategy of intimidation and punishment of local church leaders” by canceling their liability insurance and suing them personally.
“It is the massive resources of the national church and the liberal diocese against the small weekly offerings of the local church, with the result that the reason the local church was consecrated – the ministry of the Gospel – suffers,” Wood said.
Isn’t this the church where only two geriatric parishoners wanted to stay in TEC? The only sane thing to do here is make a settlement that allows the actual congregation to have the building. But no, vengeance must be had so on with a suit to capture the property for a totally unviable remnant.
This is also a colonial parish that predates the existence of both the diocese of CT and the Episcopal Church, and holds the original titles to all its property.
“consistent with the national [church’s] policy of looking over the shoulder of local counsel to insure that the national’s policy of no compromise and no selling the buildings to churches … is followed through.”
Did I miss this resolution at General Convention? It seems that the GCC is replaced by the 815 Edict Church. Polity to the trash heap.
Where are the paladins of precious polity? We have no pope in Anglicanism, I have oft heard said. Yet, the presiding bishop can tell individual dioceses how they can dispose of property? She can say that one can sell an empty church to the Methodists but not to the Nigerians. Again, what GC resolution said that? Brian from T19, DC, Susan Russell? Anyone? No? What hypocrites.
The presiding bishop and her chancellor are consciously behaving in a contradictory manner when she involves the national church in diocesan matters of property.
Prior to the American Revolution, Anglican churches in the American colonies were under the diocesan care of the Church of England.
After the American Revolution, the various Anglican parishes in the United States formed a confederation of episcopally governed dioceses that met nationally as an Episcopalian General Convention.
The decisions of the General Convention were made by popular vote in a congregational manner. That is, the representatives of the Episcopalian dioceses met congregationally and not synodically. This split between episcopal “rule’ at the diocesan level and congregational “populism” at the national level, has persisted in ECUSA.
In fact, from the very beginning of ECUSA there has been a contradiction between local diocesan ‘rule’ and national congregational ‘rule.’
To further complicate this situation, a challenged Denis Canon, an episcopal (small ‘e’) canon was passed and possibly not enacted, which supposedly gave the congregational ‘rule’ of ECUSA authority over the property of episcopally governed dioceses.
The final complexity of this situation is that the congregational rule of the General Convention has been invoked to give the bishop that presides over that convention, the presiding bishop, the authority to act with episcopal (small ‘e’) authority over the dioceses of ECUSA when matters of diocesan church property are at issue.
Why does St Paul admonishes Christians not to litigate against one another?
I’ve come to the conclusion that it is because such are the ways of the Prince of this world.
[blockquote]”All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in [b]trust for this Church[/b] [i.e., the Episcopal Church in the United States] [b]and the Diocese[/b] thereof in which such Parish, Mission or 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 eixsting 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.”[/blockquote]
The Dennis canon states that the property is held in trust for the national church AND the diocese. If there is a dispute between the two, who wins? If the diocese of California wants to sell one of its churches to make it a gay bathhouse and the national church disagrees…
George Conger wrote an [url=http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1991]article[/url] looking at whether the Dennis Canon was actually passed by both houses in 1979:
[blockquote]
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, told TLC 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.[/blockquote]
No worries, robroy. The documentation showing passage of the Dennis Canon is almost finished. Just a few more weeks in the accelerated aging machine.
Why does no one mention whose name is on the deed? Since the news releases are coming from the diocese and 815 I assume the parish is the grantee on the deed. So start with the deed. Overcoming the claims of ownership reflected on the recorded deed should be a daunting burden. Conversely, if the parish is not the record owner, they should fold their hand now, rather than try some doomed lawsuit to establish a trust.
Just my opinion, which probably has no correspondence to the law of Connecticut.
Cousin Vinnie,
As I mentioned, this is a colonial parish, and, yes, they have all the original titles, deeds, etc., going back to their pre-ECUSA/TEC colonial existence. In fact, none of the paperwork shows any indication that they ever left the Church of England and joined the Episcopal Church.
There is also a practical lesson in here that it is usually unwise to have your liability insurance through the denomination. This is true whether orthodox or not. If 815 ever decides it does not like you (Bennison is a lesson here; not to defend what he did 30 years ago, we all know it is but a pretext to get rid of him for his recent fiscal improprieties), you won’t be covered. It is largely unregulated and they can do what they like.
Thank you William Witt. I can still hope the ecusa might get its tail in a buzzsaw. Apparently there are now 25 parishes leaving instead of the last count of 9 (They were taken to court by the ecusa and 7 of them won the first round.) I wonder where the PB is digging up the money for these actions. The priests better watch their retirement funds and health care money with great care.