Judge Ortbal further rejected the evidence of other court decisions as having proven that the Episcopal Church was “hierarchical as a matter of law.”
The national church had cited “numerous cases” which they “assert mandate acceptance of their position in this case and granting of their motion for summary judgment. The court has reviewed the cases, but does not find it is bound by them,” the judge said.
He further stated that he found the “cases distinguishable on different levels and does not find them conclusively persuasive as to the record before it. For example, the vast majority of the cases involve disputes between local parishes and dioceses and/or the national church. These cases appear very fact driven and many involved concessions or stipulations as to matters which are disputed on this record. Many involve specific religious corporation and/or other state statutes not applicable in the present case.”
The plain fact is that whether TEC is hierarchical has been assumed rather than proven in fact. This court is determined to do its job and, not assume, but hear evidence and make an actual determination of fact.
It may be virtually impossible for a lower state court to determine, as a matter of law, that a particular denominational is or is not a hierarchical church in a summary judgement context, unless there is prior binding case law on the point. Lest folks get too excited about this, however, the effect of a denial of summary judgement is simply to toss the issue into an evidentiary context that requires testimony and other evidence to be submitted. It not infrequently happens that one loses a summary judgment motion and yet prevails on the merits. In some jurisdictions, however, it is established law that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical, previous court decisions having decided the matter long ago.
Judge Ortbal does not seem to be inclined to allow TEC to use his court to establish that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchal church.
I am not sure what #2 is going on about. As I read this report, TEC and its allies attempted to win a preliminary point of law, and failed. So the matter goes to trial.
No. 3, they can establish that the Church is hierarchical, but to do so, the Judge is saying that it cannot be simply because they say so at the beginning of the case. The point cannot be established purely as a matter of secular law. The church will have to provide testimony on the point. I guess that’s what I was “going on about” in No. 2. Sorry if that was unclear, No. 4.
Will this be a jury trial or a trial before the judge alone?
The judge made it clear that the ‘expert testimony’ provided by TEC was properly in question and made dubious by other materials provided. Hence there could be no summary judgment in TEC’s favor, as requested by TEC. He has also read deeply into previous rulings and sees how they must be read with discrimination and care. This sounds like a Judge who sees that a rough-and-ready distinction between ‘hierarchical’ and ‘congregational’ has now about worn out its usefulness. If there is no ‘national church heirarchy’ one must further wonder who is giving authority who such an entity to go to court and seek summary judgments and pay, in this case, the legal costs of Quincy counsel?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It seems to me that the judge is aware that he cannot take it upon himself or his court to, as an outside entity, establish that a church is a hierarchical church when in fact the national church in question (the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States) does not seem to have a history of being hierarchical in national structure. This lack of supremacy of the national church seems to be indicated by the fact that the national church does not hold the deeds to all church property and that it has to rely on the already established structure of the diocese (even a newly created one) to plead the case for the national church.
Thanks NoVA, I understand now.
Excellent points #8. It may be that judges are becoming more aware that they must understand the individual church bodies in all their peculiarities.