Connecticut's Bishop Seabury Church appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

Because of the uncertainty, Bishop Seabury Church claims local churches cannot predict whether courts will recognize them as property owners, and that no local church can affiliate with a denomination without risking the loss of its property.
The church also claims in its petition that the uncertainty forces both churches and denominations to wage costly legal battles over property, and discourages local churches from expanding their buildings. The ruling, the church claims, also discourages local churches from acting in accordance with conscience on whether to remain affiliated with their current denominations.

“God is faithful, and we know the Lord will lead and guide us regardless of where we worship,” said Gauss in a statement. “But we also believe it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide once and for all whether the state courts have to enforce church canons or can decide these cases based on ordinary property and trust law. We believe the First Amendment is on our side.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Connecticut, TEC Departing Parishes

3 comments on “Connecticut's Bishop Seabury Church appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

  1. Brian from T19 says:

    How are they arguing that they have any standing?

  2. David Keller says:

    Brian, The Connnecticut Supreme Court held the Dennis Canon created an express trust in the Church’s property despite the deed which says the church owns the property. The church is appealing an adverse ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court under the First Amendment. I am confused as to why you don’t think they have standing.

  3. NoVA Scout says:

    I would think that a group that is considering joining a denomination and bringing property into the denomination would study the polity of that church rather carefully and, if it is uncertain or unclear whether the property they bring in can be removed later, they would either choose not to join or negotiate for express assurances. But there are no instances in the current round of property disputes where the people who are leaving brought buildings, property and accounts with them and then sought to remove them when they later decided to dis-affiliate. In fact, most of these cases, at least in the Eastern part of the country, are arising in parishes that have been around far longer than the folks who are deciding to leave.