Virginia’s attorney general is defending the right of 11 conservative Anglican parishes to use the state’s Civil War-era “division statute” to leave the Episcopal Church while retaining millions of dollars in assets and property.
Attorney General Bob McDonnell’s motion to intervene is a significant setback to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia, which have said secular courts have no place in resolving the property dispute ”” the largest in the church’s history.
“the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia, which have said secular courts have no place in resolving the property dispute —” but took the lead in using the courts. Hmmmm.
dwstroudmd, if you’re just going to take Julia Duin’s articles as gospel, you’re never going to know what’s actually going on. That statement is flat out false — read the briefs.
And your party line about TEC and the Diocese taking the lead just doesn’t square with the facts. Go compare dates on when the congregations filed in court and when TEC and the Diocese did.
David H. — Are you oblivious to the difference between recording an action in court records and filing a suit? The eleven churches have not filed suits. They would hold that contradictory to Scripture.
The Diocese consented to the CANA parishes’ 57-9 petitions as part of the Standstill Agreement. See my previous comment on this subject here. The purpose of the Standstill Agreement was to hold off litigation so the parties could attempt to reach an amicable resolution over the disposition of the properties. The Diocese refused to negotiate and then refused to renew the Agreement, filing suit on the very day the Agreement expired. The fact is incontrovertible that TEC and the Diocese are the litigious parties here.
CanaAnglican, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do you think it’s a dog?
Steven, baloney. The Standstill Agreement provided that the congregations could file their 57-9 petitions without violating the agreement. Ask yourself why there had to be an exception for them if they weren’t in fact legal actions.
David H–So you’re saying that in the Standstill Agreement the Diocese consented to being sued? Why would the Diocese do that? And if that’s the case, then why did the Diocese subsequently file a lawsuit against the CANA parishes? I’m afraid you’re making no sense.
Steven, I am making sense; you’re not following the Agreement. Yes, the Diocese consented to being sued. What they got in return were a number of specific provisions about what would happen in the 57-9 cases (those provisions are spelled out in the Agreement — notice, an agreement not to move forward after filing, an agreement not to oppose a stay if needed, etc.). Did the Diocese want to be sued? I’d imagine not, but you can’t stop someone from suing you, and the Agreement was a negotiation, which inherently involves compromise.
There are two sets of litigious parties here. If there weren’t, this wouldn’t be much of a litigation.
“There are two sets of litigious parties here. If there weren’t, this wouldn’t be much of a litigation.” Steven, I believe you waste your effort. This guy spouts nonsense.
David H. Not all “legal actions” are lawsuits. Registering a title deed is a “legal action” Probating a will is a “legal action.” Stop the word games. The facts are pretty clear in the court records and in the Standstill agreement. You can believe what you want about who the defendants are, but thankfully the courts have the matter clear as to who sued whom.
RE: “. . . thankfully the courts have the matter clear as to who sued whom.”
Yes, and thankfully the courts will be clear about who owns the property. And regardless of what happens, DavidH will continue to maintain that TEC owns the property, too. ; > )
Thank God for a secular, objective legal court, rather than the loving, inclusive embrace [like Shelob] of the national church.
There is a big difference in the filing of a lawsuit against a party and the filing of legal documents concerning property. Virginia seems a little peculiar in its property laws than most states which is causing confusiion. From what I have gleaned, The CANA filings were to give the courts and the public at large that there had been a vote and that they were the rigthful owners of the property. That does not initiate litigation. CANA was exercising its rights under the statutes of Virginia concerning property owenership – TEC is disputing both CANA parishes rights to do what they did and the constituitinality of the statutes.
David H. — I am saying the inverse obtains: It does not walk like a duck, it does not quack like a duck, therefore it is not a duck.
Have you ever bought a house? Did an attorney have the deed recorded for you? Who were you suing? Should we regard you as being a “quick to sue type”? Who are you claiming CANA churches sued?
CANA churches have not filed any suit.
I am in a CANA church and all we did was record the results of our vote, as is required of those seeking protection (from predators) under provisions of the division statute in Virginia. The Virginia statute permits a majority of a congregation to adhere to whichever spliting fraction of the church it chooses. Our church chose to go with the group that holds the Scripture as sacred and Christ as our only path to salvation. All of us are sorry that TEC has lost its way and perhaps even its reason for existence, but we can no longer be any part of its heresy.
Was there a division within DioVA? It certainly walks like one and there has certainly been a lot of quacking like one. It seems likely that the judge will conclude there has been a division and that our congregations have a right for the majorities to decide who is to use property that properly belongs to God and is to be used for His work. He could of course decide otherwise and that might be pleasing to you, but it will be a decision in response to a suit of DioVA and TEC not CANA.
May the truth win the day!
David H. — In #7 you wrote:
“There are two sets of litigious parties here. If there weren’t, this wouldn’t be much of a litigation.”
What you have said is true, but what you have left out is DioVA and TEC are the plaintiffs (they filed the suit) and eleven CANA churches are the respondents (they must defend themselves in court).
Which scripture or doctrine did DioVA and TEC follow in filing this suit? Until TEC intervened there was a reasonable hope of a negotiated settlement. DioVA could have received considerable cash. Now thy may wind up with considerable debt.
Too bad.
3, 9, 11, 12, 13, I have continued this discussion in [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/9203/#comments]another thread[/url].
CanaAnglican, “protection from predators”? That’s just downright funny.
“Which scripture or doctrine did DioVA and TEC follow in filing this suit?” As I have commented before, none. There isn’t any scripture that can be read as favoring calling your lawyer and fighting over property. Note that this is true for CANA just as much (and perhaps more so, given that you claim to place more emphasis on the Bible than TEC) as TEC and the Diocese.
Finally, 3, 9, and 11, yes, I have recorded property documents before. Myself. Doing so doesn’t require 24 lawyers drafting dozens of numbered paragraphs, filing something that is assigned a case number, and seeking a declaration from the court that I am the sole owner of that piece of property. Quack, quack, quack.
14 with finding other people’s posts “funny” you are dismissively trivializing their arguments. That adds nothing to your argument and decreases any likelihood that a third party reader will sympathize with your argument as well.
David H. #14 — Yes, predators. When minorities of 5%, 10%, or even 25% (as was the case for our church) attacks the majority who are trying to follow the statutes of the Commonwealth, it becomes a predator situation. The majority (us) have had to contribute a lot of money to defend ourselves from this suit. We were prepared to pay money for this property in a negotiation agreed to by Bp Lee. (We saw this as a form of predation in itsself.) We know exactly who got up from the negotiation table and rushed to file this suit, and it was not us. Do you understand that we were prepared to pay for the property?
Initally, the predators even named the rectors, vestrymen, and trustees as respondents in their suit against us. That was just plain viscious, and snarling. None of us broke ranks and so far our cause is alive.
By the way you never seem to face the fact that DioVA and TEC are the plaintiffs in this suit. Who filed it cannot be an issue.
I apologise to you if we seem “funny”. All we can do at this point is stand here and defend ourselves from this suit. It seems completely unlikely that we can return to the negotiation table.
Best wishes for your crusade, whatever it is, and whoever it is for.
Re: predators
Let me see if I follow. You vote to disaffiliate / sever ties. You file petitions. You get sued. In other words, you walk into the predator’s den wearing a meat necklace, then complain?
You said the lawsuits are “a predatory situation.” You said negotiations where you’d pay for the property are “a form of predation.” So basically anything short of the Diocese and TEC just giving the property to you makes them predators. Interesting.
You’re right about one thing. Who filed the lawsuits can’t be an issue. 9 were filed by the congregations; 12 by the Diocese and TEC. Still sitting by the river in Egypt? OK, go to the ADV website, Legal Resources, and open up “FAIRFAX COUNTY COURT: Unofficial trial transcript for hearings on 57-9 Litigation November 13, 2007 – Trial Day 1.” Scroll down past the names at the beginning and you’ll find this:
[blockquote]
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 THE BAILIFF: The Circuit Court of Fairfax
3 County now in session. The Honorable Randy I. Bellows
4 presiding. Please be seated and come to order.
5 THE COURT: Swear the court reporter.
6 (The court reporter was sworn.)
7 THE COURT: Good morning. Let’s have
8 counsel of record introduce themselves [b]starting with
9 the plaintiff, Mr. Coffee.
10 MR. COFFEE: Good morning, Your Honor.
11 Gordon Coffee on behalf of the CANA Congregations.[/b]
[/blockquote]
David H # 17 — Please send you correction to the Washington Times. Here is the headline of the site that you are posting under:
“Wash. Times: Law may be with Anglican Parishes Being sued by the Diocese of Virginia”.
Read the headline. The Anglican Parishes are being sued by the Diocese of Virginia.
I see. It appeared in a newspaper (and one with a certain slant). It must be true. Silly me.
The same could be said for CANA’s case re: a legal “division” (and has been said by CANA lawyers)…
The Post, with the opposite bias says the same thing. In fact, all articles I have seen published by non-Episcopal presses have said the same thing. I guess they are just all confused beyond hope of correction.
Are you saying that CANA has a poor case? It does not seem that the AG of VA thinks that. We will have to see what the Judge rules. His is the view that counts at this point.