Attorneys for Christ Church Savannah have filed documents asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in litigation they contend deprived them of the Johnson Square church property.
The 45-page document filed Thursday afternoon asks the high court to determine the law on local church property, which it contends has been inconsistently treated in five different jurisdictions considering the issue.
The supreme court may accept or reject the request for review.
I wish there were more inconsistency in fact. If there are 5 cases the score is 4-1. Visitors will come to the historic building on Johnson Square looking for the church home of Wesley, Whitfield, Low, and Bland Tucker. They will not read the court order.
The Georgia court decision seemed devoid of federal issues. “Uncertainty”, whether real or perceived, is not generally sufficient a sufficient ground for Supreme Court intervention, something that is entirely discretionary with that Court. It is certainly possible that these types of cases can present federal constitutional issues of the kind that would interest the Supreme Court (for example, the Virginia case, had that State’s peculiar “Division Statute” been applied to award the property to the occupying dissidents would have indeed presented tangible Constitutional issues), but this sure doesn’t look like that on the surface. I may evolve my thinking a bit after I take more time to read the petition, but this at first glance seems like an almost futile act.
If it is true that the breakaway group is balking on their compliance with court order to cease use of the name and titles of the Church they left, they are indeed risking contempt citations.
Woo hoo!!!! I’m so proud of these guys for appealing — way to go, you wonderful Anglicans!!!!! Go all the way and get it all nailed down, one way or the other, as to whether this legalized theft will take place or not. Best to know for sure and not have regrets later on. And thank you, thank you, thank you!
Signed,
An Episcopalian and Fellow Gospel Believer
As usual, the Savannah Morning News has written an article containing a number of factual errors. It’s too late at night for me to feel like listing all of them, but I will note that the faithful Anglicans left the Johnson Square building in a massive column led by a kilted piper to the welcoming arms of Independent Presbyterian on December 11. SMN reported that event, so I would have hoped it would have gotten that fact correct, at least.
The issues of the name and personal property were never addressed by Judge Karpf in his initial order, so for the plaintiffs to have filed a motion for contempt is rather disingenuous.
As for the Constitutional issues involved in this case, may I refer T19 readers to Anglican Curmudgeon’s wonderful explication at http://www.accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/03/christ-church-savannah-bishop-seabury.html .
Finally, please note that the plaintiffs personally/I would say vindictively sued the Christ Church Anglican rector and the wonderful, honorable people who served as the vestry in 2007. There is no justification for such a cruel action, except as Rev Kendall Harmon noted in his recent speech to the vestry of Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, that TEC is pursuing a vicious, scorched-earth policy of seeking to eradicate every possible Anglican Communion competitor from North America.
(And thank you, Sarah, for your prayers!)
I am glad they appealed, forlorn hope though it may be. I still cannot get my mind around the court rulings which have found that the people whose names were registered as owners of property are having that property taken away by court order. As the original Virginia ruling pointed out, when umbrella organizations actually own the property they are listed as such on legal records (Catholic dioceses and Mormon groups do this routinely, as do others).
When TEC and its diocese take financial and legal responsibility for all things that happen in its parishes, for example, sexual offenses, then I will begin to believe that they are the actual owners.
I do not like what is happening but the justification for the action is the decision by ten out of eleven judges. Ownership is a legal concept and one can not be vindictive in recovering one’s property which was wrongfully take.