As stated in the Attorney General’s motion to intervene, “As a matter of federal constitutional law, the Episcopal Church is simply wrong. The Constitution does not require that local church property disputes be resolved by deferring to national and regional church leaders.”
“The Attorney General’s brief validates the position of our parishes and directly refutes arguments that were made by the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia following the November trial,” said Jim Oakes, vice chairman ADV. “Virginia has a long and rich history of deferring to congregational control of property. The Division Statute itself clearly states that majority rule should be the deciding factor in determining the ownership of church property when a group of congregations has divided from its former denomination. In his brief, the Attorney General ratified the authority of the Division Statute and noted that the interpretation of the Statute by ADV lawyers is ”˜both textually and historically accurate.’”
Laundry emergency time at 815 2nd Ave.
I can’t get the links to work. Keep getting an error message.
The Attorney General despite stating that “the Episcopal Church is simply wrong” does not take into account pluriform truth. Because of pluriform truth TEC can never be wrong. He needs to engage into process or a little dialogue and he will have a better understanding.
This is not the end, but it is the beginning of the end.
Or at least the end of the beginning…
What effect will this have upon the credibility of the leadership of the Diocese of Virginia?
First, that leadership permitted the progressive-revisionists to alienate the orthodox Episcopalians in the diocese, then the diocese negotiated with its orthodox Episcopalians in seeming good faith, then the diocese reneged on those negotiations in bad faith, then the diocese sued the orthodox Episcopalians in further bad faith, then the diocese spent large amounts of money on legal proceedings that should have been spent on missions and other ministries, and now the chief legal officer of the state in which the diocese is suing the orthodox Episcopalians says that the diocese doesn’t have ‘a leg to stand on.’
Something that they should have known from ‘the git go.’
Its time to ‘clean house’ at the diocese’s upcoming convention.
AnglicanFirst: Will that mean “cleaning house from top to bottom? One can hope.
I am not a lawyer, of course, but… while this is a substantial blow against TEC’s case, I don’t know that it’s fatal. My recollection is that the constitutionality argument was only one of the ones that TEC advanced in support of their case, so even if the judge chooses to agree with this opinion it doesn’t affect the other arguments that TEC has made. And unless I’m mistaken, it is still up to the judge to decide whether or not he agrees with the Attorney-General.
So yes, it is a setback, certainly. And it may well be that TEC will eventually lose the case. But it isn’t over yet.
Hopper–
It would be virtually unheard of for a judge to deny a Motion to Intervene filed by an Attorney General of that State. I used to be an Assistant Attorney General in my state, and I practiced law in this area. It doesn’t mean he’ll agree with what the AG says about the law at the end of the day (though it is now more likely), but he’s definitely going to grant their motion to intervene.
It’s nice to have at least one friend in Richmond…
I think it should be noted that as the attorney for the state, the Attorney General has a duty to defend the constitutionality of the laws of the Commonwealth.
(Contrary to the mud that #6 is trying to toss…)
#13
Correct. The constitutionality of a state statute was in question. It was the AG’s job to defend it. People MAY be reading too much into the significance of his defense of the statute. The judge is going to have to wrestle with the =meaning= of the statute’s language as it applies to this case. The wording is vague enough to keep the legal meters running for a long time.
w.w.
Second to #13: I assume that Virginia law, like Texas law, obliges the AG to defend its state officials, including the acts of its legislature. It would be major news if the AG had [b]not[/b] filed a brief against TEC and the Diocese on this issue, because that would render him subject to removal from office for not doing his job. The fact that he has performed a routine duty is not major news. For the same reason, this inevitable occurrence is not “a substantial blow against the diocese’s case.”
In any case, the thrust of the TEC/DioVA case is not so much that the statute is unconstitutional as that it is inapplicable to this particular case. As the AG brief correctly states, the state isn’t required by the US Constitution to give deference to denominational leaders. However, Virginia (like most other states, and unlike California) historically [b]has[/b] given such deference to hierarchical denominations. The statute carves out a narrow exception for situations where a denomination has divided, so that it is difficult to determine which set of people are now the legitimate denominational authorities. In such cases, the legislature wants the congregational membership and not the courts to decide the question. If the statute had meant to allow individual congregations to ignore the internal rules and theological convictions of their denomination and pull out at their sole discretion, it could have said so. It didn’t, perhaps because imposing a congregational polity on non-congregational denominations probably [b]would[/b] be unconstitutional.
That paints the CANA churches into a corner. They must argue that TEC has actually divided, not just that they have left it. So long as the central Instruments of Communion recognize TEC (including the DioVA) as part of the Communion and do not recognize the CCP (including the Convocation of Virginia), it is hard to make the argument that there has been a denominational division. The only way they can logically pursue it is by saying that the “denomination” is Anglicanism, not TEC, and that Anglicanism has divided. In other words, they have to declare that their sponsoring provinces are no longer part of the same communion as TEC (and, by extension, Canterbury). That may be a move that Rwanda, Nigeria, and Southern Cone are now willing to make, but I wonder if Uganda and Kenya (to say nothing of the rest of the Global South) are willing to hoist the rebel flag over Virginia right now. It would obviously be a benefit to the CANA churches if GAFCON could function as the constitutional convention for a new confederacy.
A prayer for Judge Bellows and others.
Interesting that neither here nor on Stand Firm have any of the numerous commenters picked up on the fact that the Chief Deputy AG is a former member of a mission of one of the breakaway congregations and attempted to use his former position in the legislature to amend the division statute against hierarchical churches.
I’m not aware of any Va law that requires the AG to intervene in civil disputes between private litigants.
In short, there might be more than meets the eye to the AG’s “duty.”
It’s just one more piece in the puzzle. This may all be decided by mid-January (except for the appeals) or it may proceed to the next issue depending on the judge’s ruling.
While property is important, the departing churches have already achieved their major goal which was to remove their families from TEC.
#17 —
In many states, there is a requirement (either by statute or court rule) that party in a civil action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute give notice to the state AG, so that the AG’s office has an opportunity to intervene (and, presumably, defend the statute).
Otherwise, private parties could have an effect on the consitutionality of the state law without the State having an opportunity to weigh in).
OUCH!!!!!!!!!
THIS WILL LEAVE AN ENTAIL-REVEALING GASH!
(That’s “entrail”).
19, if you read the AG’s motion, it is notable that Va has no such statute or rule.
#15 Dale,
But don’t you think the withdrawal and pending withdrawals of dioceses from TEC demonstrate that indeed there is a division in the =denomination=?
The withdrawal of parishes from dioceses loyal to the denomination is a natural and expected development in the division.
The Va. statute was simply ahead of the times in providing a “neutral principle” solution to resolving property issues arising from a division. Too bad it wasn’t worded more precisely.
w.w.
If the members of a congregation decided to leave their denomination (say the Methodist Church) as individuals and join another (say a Presbyterian Church), that would clearly not be a division. There would not be two groups both claiming to be the legitimate continuation of Methodism, but one group of Methodists and another of Presbyterian former Methodists. Nor would there be a division if a group of individuals left the Methodists and formed an entirely new denomination. Methodism would not have divided, just gotten smaller. The same would follow if an individual charge (parish) decided to leave its annual conference (diocese) to join another denomination. That isn’t a division, just a departure. In Virginia, as in every other state until the 1920s and the majority still, it is the denominational authorities in a hierarchical church and not the local congregations, that determine how to handle property when there is a departure.
There would only be a division if both the old and new groups called themselves “The Methodist Church” and each claimed to be the legitimate successor to the undivided church. That is precisely what happened about the time the Virginia Division Statute was adopted. Both the Northern Methodist Church and the Southern Methodist Church asserted themselves to be the continuation of The Methodist Church (similarly with the Northern and Southern Presbyterians and Baptists). The legislature decided that congregations, rather than courts, were the appropriate parties to determine which church was the legitimate successor (knowing full well that the southern branches could win congregational votes, but not necessarily court cases).
I wish people would quit calling a State-dictated bias towards congregational independence “neutral principles.” They should see it as what it is, a policy intended to make it difficult for other theological convictions to operate.
Dale, thanks for your wisdom, but the only opinion that matters is the one handed down by the courts. Wisdom from any other source is just flatulence.
“the Episcopal Church is simply wrong”
Seems to sum up the last 5 years rather nicely, doesn’t it? Someone should print tee-shirts. 😉
Dale:
Anglicanism’s “via media” has been fractured by unaccountable entities in the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church, including a vacuous House of Bishops. Your complaint belongs on their doorstep. Those of us who wish to remain Anglican in the Episcopal Church were told to shove off. We did so with the nave.
Re #25: Then I suppose the Virginia Attorney General should not eat so many beans.
Dale 24
Your post seems logical but leaves several things out:
1. “There would only be a division if both the old and new groups called themselves “The Methodist Church†and each claimed to be the legitimate successor to the undivided church. ”
>Does this imply that the ‘groups’ have to be bigger than one parish? As stated, your argument would apply to some group saying either “we are the new Episcopal Church” or saying “we are the new Falls Church”. So, which is relevant, or all of these possble levels of division? Specifically, your post doesn’t indicate if the statute requires the new group to claim wholesale or just retail division of a denomination. From what I’ve read of this case, the statute doesn’t either.
2. “…it is the denominational authorities in a hierarchical church …”
>Which authorities are specified in the statute? The local rector/pastor/minister? Whoever says “I’m the Mahdi”? Your statement as posted implies that in time of division, the dividing top guys (of whatever title) are the dispensers of property rights. So, who outranks who in this case: Minns or Lee, Akinola or Schori? Your statement creates a logically endless loop.
#28, Good advice for all of us ‘experts.’
Hopper, I assume you have evidence to support your assertion that Mr. Mims was an active participant in the Attorney General’s decision. Will you kindly share with us your proof that Mr. Mims had not recussed himself from this action?
Hopper, additionally would you please relate the chapter and verse that makes it illegal for Mr. Mims to participate in this decision? Of course, I will not accept your assertion that Mr. Mims participation (if indeed, he did) hurt your feelings. I’m afraid I’m not into feelings.
Hopper, thank you for clearing up any confusion that may have been assumed over Mr. Mims actions regarding the Virginia Attorney General’s actions. I agree with you that Mr. Mims has acted within the law and canons governing public officials in this matter.
The actions Mr. Mims took as an elected official are not germane to this case. Except for the protest based on feelings, which I have previously stated I categorically reject, no one has presented evidence to indicate Mr. Mims acted outside the law in whatever role he did or didn’t play in this matter. I also reject your concern expressed as an ethics issue. Ethical concerns within the context that matters here come into play only when a violation of rules of the court or Bar Association canons are breached. As you have not provided evidence to support an ethical breach, this subject is also closed.
When the Diocese of Virginia abandoned negotiations and filed suit against the orthodox parties upon the insistence of TEC, the Diocese took the matter out of the realm of conflict among Christians and dropped it into the realm of the courts. The Diocese acted unilaterally and owns the consequences. The orthodox parties have consistently and frequently offered to return to negotiations. The Diocese has rejected this olive branch consistently. This series of actions by the Diocese and TEC clearly illustrates the reason the Bible admonishes Christians to settle their differences without bringing the blunt instrument of the law in to settle things. Anyone who has a complaint about how things work within the constraints and opportunities of the legal system should take it up with Peter Lee and Katharine Jefferts Schori and David Booth Beers. They opened the Pandora’s Box of the legal system. And the Church Catholic is bearing the consequences.
Hopper, we seem to be the only ones left here. The truly sad aspect of this whole sordid affair is that TEC can return to the negotiations it walked away from at any point and pursue a Christian resolution. It seems that is not to be. If continues to be TEC’s desire to litigate then I fear Proverbs 29:11 will apply and while we will all be the poorer for it, but TEC poorest of all.