The case in Fairfax County Circuit Court is over whether the conservative congregations, which left the national church over disputes related to the interpretation of Scripture and the acceptance of homosexuality, can keep the land and buildings. After voting to leave in 2006 and 2007, the congregations filed court papers saying they had — under a Civil War-era Virginia law — legally “divided” from the national church and thus were keeping the property.
But the Episcopal Church and the Virginia Diocese, its local branch, argue that there has been no legal “division” — rather that a minority of dissidents opted to leave, and therefore have no rights to the land or buildings. Church lawyers also say it would be unconstitutional for the state to determine when a hierarchical church — such as the Episcopal Church — has had a fundamental division, that such a judgment is a religious matter. Meddling would be a violation of church-state separation, diocesan lawyers say.
It appears that the 815 party line (reflected in this article) is to trash the ethics of William Mims, the Deputy AG, who attends an Anglican church and previously sponsored, when he was in the state legislature, an unsuccessful bill that would have allowed disaffiliating congregations to retain their property by simple vote to depart a denomination. However, there is no indication that Mims was involved in planning and authoring the AG’s motion, and he very well may have recused himself assuming there would have been an ethical conflict. The 815 party line further ignores the fact that the AG, as the Commonwealth’s chief lawyer, has an obligation to defend the Commonwealth’s laws when they are challenged:
No matter what the Post does to muddy the water, there is now a big shark swimming that the little 815 fishies hoped would never show.
“there is no indication that Mims was involved in planning and authoring the AG’s motion, and he very well may have recused himself assuming there would have been an ethical conflict”
Complete speculation.
There was absolutely no need for the AG to get involved here. The state has no interest at all in which private religious group winds up controlling a few pieces of property.
DavidH–Complete speculation apparently has not stopped some from inpugning the ethics of an individual where there is no record of his involvement in this matter. I think the onus of proof is on those taking the low road here. Even if he did have a role, it likely did not infuence the AG’s decision. In my comment above, I linked to the AG’s website, which states clearly that one of the purposes of the AG’s office is to defend the Commonwealth’s laws from constitutional challenge. Defense of the 57-9 provision from TEC’s and the Diocese’s constitutional challenge is the only purpose of the AG’s motion to intervene; the AG is not intervening to take a position on the underlying factual issue, i.e., whether there is a division and if the CANA parishes meet the 57-9 criteria. The AG’s filings are utterly pellucid in this regard.
David H.,
The Commonwealth of Virginia has a very big stake in the constitutionality of its property laws. There are thousands of Church properties in Virginia and many are in denominations which are going through or soon will great upheavals.