(Press release)
Statement in Response to Second Lawsuit Filed
By The Episcopal Diocese of San Diego Against St. John’s Anglican Church
Fallbrook, Calif. ”“ June 19, 2007 ”“ Having lost a lawsuit filed against St. John’s Anglican Church and its volunteer board members last year, we are deeply disappointed that the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego and its Bishop, James R. Mathes, have been caught up in the national tidal wave of lawsuits being filed by The Episcopal Church against local church congregations that have realigned with other Provinces of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, and instead have filed another senseless and intolerant lawsuit against St. John’s in an attempt to confiscate all of its church property, including the sanctuary, Bibles, hymnals and office files.
The diocese had filed suit against Father Donald Kroeger, nine church volunteers, and St. John’s in late 2006 in an attempt to wrestle away its property. The San Diego Superior Court rejected this claim, and entered judgment in favor of the St. John’s defendants.
“It is absolutely stunning that the Court ruled in our favor in November 2006, and now James Mathes is leading the charge to sue us again trying to confiscate our property,” said Father Donald Kroeger, head priest and rector of St. John’s Anglican Church. “We had hoped the diocese would respect the decision of the Court and the biblical prohibitions about suing other believers, but apparently we were mistaken.”
Since ending its affiliation with The Episcopal Church in July 2006 to remain steadfast and loyal in their commitment to the Holy Scripture and the historic teachings of Christianity, St. John’s membership and ministries have flourished.
St. John’s will continue to worship at its present location and facilities in Fallbrook.
Judgement or grace?
Forgive us…. as we forgive those……
Does the bishop not know those words?
DonGander
I still ask a very important question. Where is the $ coming from to support these harassement suits? Going to try and raise the assesments?. I don’t think that is going to work.
Can it be that these are the death throes of a dying Church? I have to ask our reappraiser friends: If you knew that this would happen back in 2003, would you have gone ahead with VGR?
This bishop must look at himself in the mirror and see one miserable fellow who wants to bring the whole world down to his sick, sad level. This is just next to impossible to understand.
Br. Michael.
Yes absolutely I would go ahead. One thing I think many reasserters and reappraisers share the belief that we should do the right thing no matter what the cost. We just disagree on what the right thing is. 🙂
The press release doesn’t give much specifics. Is this an appeal to the earlier loss or a new lawsuit. And if new, on what grounds?
#5 You are wrong…Some believe we should do the scriptural thing whether in our human minds it seems right or not. Others like the Presiding Bishop and this Bishop think they should do the right thing as decided by themselves. How could you ignore the scripture from Prov that says “There is a way that seems right to man but in the end it leads to death.” That sums up the decision to elect Bishop Robinson…it will lead to the demise of The Episcopal Church…You cannot interpret an entity that has attacked itself with lawsuits as anything but a suicidal entity. “Reappraisers” have attempted to exalt themselves above the Lord by deciding what is best; “Reasserters” have submitted to the Lord and trust that He is above us.
Anyway, it is impossible to ignore the Bibles absolute admonition against lawsuits against the Body of Christ.
“Second Lawsuit Filed Afainst St. John’s Anglican Church by Diocese of San Diego”
What stinkers!
Remember how Bp. Mathes got elected by offering himself as a reconciler?
Remember also how he got elected because his tolerant orthodox predecessor had allowed many reappraising clergy into the diocese?
The New Diocese of San Diego: In Service of Process. Not Irenic, Just Ironic.
It’s time to hit them with a harassment lawsuit. File it against the diocese, the standing committee, the bishop – collectively and individually. Get a lawyer to find out if they can include RICO charges or any other offense which can bring about treble damages. This harassment has got to stop. I say use a sledgehammer and squash the roaches. Overkill but it will get rid of them once and for all.
Could #9 “hyacinth” be Father Jake using a different name and pretending to be a reasserter? I have never seen a post from an actual reasserter use such violent and vulgar language. But the progressive Father Jakes makes these sort of comments regularly.
#10…I agree…could be we are infiltrated…
“I say use a sledgehammer and squash the roaches. Overkill but it will get rid of them once and for all.”
That’s not our way. We don’t resist overreach with overkill.
This is harassment. And if it’s not technically double jeopardy, it’s certainly the moral equivalent of it. Even by secular standards, this is appalling.
I hope the diocese is forced to pay at least St. John’s legal costs.
How could you ignore the scripture from Prov that says “There is a way that seems right to man but in the end it leads to death.†That sums up the decision to elect Bishop Robinson…it will lead to the demise of The Episcopal Church…You cannot interpret an entity that has attacked itself with lawsuits as anything but a suicidal entity. “Reappraisers†have attempted to exalt themselves above the Lord by deciding what is best; “Reasserters†have submitted to the Lord and trust that He is above us.
Anyway, it is impossible to ignore the Bibles absolute admonition against lawsuits against the Body of Christ.
The same way that the reasserters ignore the 7th and 10th Commandments and Jesus’ admonition “He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.””
It’s time to hit them with a harassment lawsuit. File it against the diocese, the standing committee, the bishop – collectively and individually. Get a lawyer to find out if they can include RICO charges or any other offense which can bring about treble damages. This harassment has got to stop. I say use a sledgehammer and squash the roaches. Overkill but it will get rid of them once and for all.
The roach analogy is apt because even a nuclear detonation will not stop this train. I have been saying it for some time now – ++Katharine will not allow one piece of property to go without a fight to the death. This is your future.
Actually, the diocese filed suits against =three= churches:
We’ll have to wait and see what the suits actually say. But it appears that property as such is not the issue this time around. The diocese lost. Rather, it seems that governance of the parish is. If the diocese can take over the leadership (administration) of a church, it can get at the property from inside. However, if I recall correctly, Bp. Mathes already lost on this issue in the Fallbrook case when he tried to replace the leadership. I don’t see what new point he is making. We need to see the filings.
But might this be a Beers strategy to get a basis for appeal to the federal courts: e.g. do “hierarchical” denominations have a constitutionally protected right to govern their own affairs, including how they order and relate to their member churches?
Just wondering….
w.w.
The diocese wants the Bibles??!! Whatever for? Kindling for burning the orthodox at the stake?
My kneejerk reaction from across the pond… let at least one party in this dispute try to live by 1 Cor 6. Just so that it’s clear who the good guys are.
RE: “The roach analogy is apt because even a nuclear detonation will not stop this train. I have been saying it for some time now – ++Katharine will not allow one piece of property to go without a fight to the death.”
I’ve been saying it too — it’s all about the brand and image and the brand signifier for the Episcopal church is not the people but the buildings. The other side, [us], I hope will also fight to the death. It’s important.
It’ll be good to have a secular court bring an even playing field to the fight, and issue judgements with justice and honor, and I say that not knowing how these battles will shake out, but suspecting that there will be wins and losses for both sides.
At the end of the day, decades from now, we’ll have some good clarity, and the two sides will be nicely divided out.
RE: “RE: “This is your future.”
Looking forward to it. Bring it on. ; > )
Agreed Sarah
It’ll be good to have a secular court bring an even playing field to the fight, and issue judgments with justice and honor, and I say that not knowing how these battles will shake out, but suspecting that there will be wins and losses for both sides.
however, not sure the legal system will provide either honor or justice. Perhaps the best we can hope for is impartiality.
So do the courts in California enter into church spats? I thought most courts, at least in Texas, do not decide doctrinal or disciplinary matters for churches. The courts may decide who owns real or personal property. Anyone from California know what their courts do out there?
I can’t find any mention of it on the diocesan web site – maybe they’re embarassed. Kendall, please put this on the HoB/D list serve, very interested in what sort of reaction it will get there.
dejavu and john4women,
I’ve been on this site for quite some time. The passion of my postings varies with the issue. Clearly, you do not taken notice of my postings as your observations are groundless, and maked with paranoia. You would do well to read my other postings before making innuendos about my orthodoxy. I suspect you may have found some of New Testament references regarding white washed sepulcres and those of the the synagogue of Satan equally violent and vulgar. There are times when we must be gentle as doves. There are others when we must be wise as serpents. This is such a moment. Fr. Jake? ROTFLOL! I think my hip is out of place once again!
A note to Fr. Kroeger: don’t be surprised that a “Christian” bishop who has no respect for the clear meaning of Holy Scripture also has no respect for the findings and judgements of a court of law.
“equally violent and vulgar”
My standard overall observation of the orthodox in TEC is that while Scripture dies admonish us to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves, It seems that they are harmless as doves but as dumb as an ox.
There is a time to protect the sheep and if that is to be done in secular courts – have at it. One way or another throw out the money-changers.
DonGander
Not having actually seen the complaint it’s hard to see exactly how this lawsuit would not be barred at least against St. John’s Anglican due to res judicata (it has been decided.) Perhaps that’s why the link above talks about a fight over the innerworkings of church leadership. I’m still not sure it won’t be thrown out.
I also believe California has penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits. If the court indeed finds the issue is res judicata then it could impose court costs and other sanctions for wasting the court’s time.
I concur w/ W.W. and billqs – it seems very strange to have what looks like a refiling of the same complaint, or at least based on a question that seems to have been resolved the first time. Awaiting more news…
The lawsuit against St. John’s appears to be a follow-on to this news reported earlier this year:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/02/news/sandiego/22_29_302_1_07.txt
The Diocese tried to amend its earlier lawsuit against St. John’s to include new legal claims but that attempt was denied because the judge had decided against the Diocese on the prior complaint. I am not certain of the principle of res judicata under California law, but it would seem that principle bars the new complaint, at least against St. John’s. Res judicata generally prohibits a party from filing suit alleging a new legal claim that arises out of the same factual transaction that was the basis of a prior lawsuit.
Hyacinth –
Please accept my humble apologies… :red:
Hope your hip is back in place…
The suit is focused solely on the property including the bibles, hymnals, sanctuaries, and records of the three San Diego parishes who remain in their owned original buildings after dissafiliating with TEC, St Annes in Jan 06, St Johns in July 06, and Holy Trinity in Sep 06. A quote from B Mathes “For the past year, these parishes purported to leave the Episcopal Church but have continued to occupy church buildings.” It’s like the cable company who you have paid ever since you’ve been in your house one day changing their governing rules and saying we own the property you’ve paid for, maintained, and supported for the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ since our cabling has been connected to your house.
#28. Steven. What about collateral estoppal? Could that apply to/against the diocese?
The press release that w.w. references explains it – this is definitely down from Beers/Sauls and 815 pounding the heirarchical church theory. This theory has previously been rejected by the California courts, so I would guess that this is either pure and simple harassment by Mathes or an attempt to have this issue go up to the USSC. In any case, I hope that St. John’s does hit the diocese with a countersuit alleging a frivolous lawsuit and perhaps throw in the a claim of legal harassment with a view towards interfering with civil rights.
I so look forward to the day when the liberal TEC bishops are judged by the ABC to have departed from the Communion and a new orthodox GC is recognized to be the “real” TEC and these liberal prelates have their heirarchy arguments thrown back in their faces. Then you’d see some real gnashing of teeth, and probably not a few bitter complaints, about how conservatives are so mean and nasty by insisting on a heirarchical arguments. And the folks like Brian and other liberals will be howling about how unfair the heirarchical church theory is.
But what the liberals will be surprised about is that the conservatives won’t be the vengeful ideologues that Mathes, Beers and Schori are.
“The same way that the reasserters ignore the 7th and 10th Commandments and Jesus’ admonition “He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.”â€
Brian, there is no journey here. This congregation is in its house, has never made any plans to move. there is nothing to take, nothing to leave behind other than ties to a denomination that has left the path and moved to a different road. Within this building however, its people continue to worship in the way of their forefathers, those who built the church.
As for Hyacinth’s tirade, I think that we all share the sense of outrage at the new lawsuit, and that is a natural human response. However, being new creatures, governed by a risen Lord, we are encouraged to place all our trust in God. I feel sad that +Mathes and his diocese feel the need to expend more energy and money when they could better serve our risen Lord.
I think (don’t know for sure, but the timing is suspicious) that this might be in part a response to the meeting a few weekends ago at St. James Anglican Newport Beach, where clergy and laity from the southern California area (San Diego, Orange County, etc.) that have left TEC and are now under other Anglican bishops met and started organizing to create a structure that may eventually be the foundation for a new diocese under an orthodox Anglican bishop. As Bishop Mathes said last year when St. Anne’s Oceanside left and no lawsuit was immediately filed by the diocese, “I do not wish you to take inaction as a signal of anything but patience.†(check out
Cousin Vinnie says:
June 20, 2007 at 10:10 pm
-
Brian of Maryland says:
June 20, 2007 at 10:18 pm
-
Branford says:
June 20, 2007 at 10:24 pm
-
Steven in Falls Church says:
June 20, 2007 at 10:34 pm
-
Chris says:
June 20, 2007 at 10:35 pm
-
Jason M. Fitzmaurice says:
June 20, 2007 at 11:13 pm
-
Craig Stephans says:
June 20, 2007 at 11:24 pm
-
Rolling Eyes says:
June 20, 2007 at 11:56 pm
-
Irenaeus says:
June 21, 2007 at 4:46 am
-
Brian from T19 says:
June 21, 2007 at 8:18 am
-
Cennydd says:
June 21, 2007 at 7:15 pm
-
Reactionary says:
June 21, 2007 at 9:20 pm
TEC should publish its numerous lawsuits. They are all public information, but actually accessing them, or knowing about all of them, is difficult. There could be an entire litigation section on TEC’s website. They could call it “Sue the Bastards for Our Vehicle to the Divine.”
Cousin Vinnie,
… and … am I the only one really bothered that it’s Beer’s own law firm involved in many of these suits? I can’t imagine a more blatant appearance of conflict of interest. A church employee is involved in filling lawsuits that directly benefit his firm and, with his assumed partner status, furthers a personal financial interest in said fillings. Am I missing something here?
MD Brian
Let me redo that link – sorry –
innocent as doves. (I forgot the closing quotes.)
David–Collateral estoppel serves as a bar to re-litigating specific issues that have already been decided. As I understand, the prior lawsuit against St. John’s involved the Diocese’s attempt to get a court to accept the validity of a “rump” loyalist vestry for the parish hastily put together after the vote to disaffiliate. The court quickly rejected that argument under California corporate law and threw out the lawsuit. The new lawsuit does not re-allege this argument because it raises the hierarchical church argument. Res judicata is a broader principle that blocks a party from essentially getting a second day in court by filing a subsequent lawsuit alleging a new legal argument arising from the same factual transaction underlying the first lawsuit where the relief sought is the same. Here, the Diocese is suing again to get the same relief, i.e., control of the parish, but this time alleging a novel legal argument. I am not a California-licenced attorney so I don’t know the status of the law there, but my hunch is that the court (which is the same venue of the first suit) will take a hard look at the second lawsuit.
Or, as Dennis Miller would say, I may be wrong.
how much longer can +++Rowan maintain his credibility with the Global South if he chooses to remain silent on such idiocy? I think not one day past Sep. 30.
Craig.
I was saying I would do the same thing as far as +Gene is concerned. Despite being a reappraiser I am disgusted by these lawsuits. I am disgusted by much of the extremisim from both sides. There is no reason this cannot be negotiated without resorting to a legal battle. We may not be able to prevent the “divorce” of certain parishes but there is no reason it has to be a nasty divorce. I’ve said from the beginning two reasonable people, one from each side, ought to be able to broker a compromise in one afternoon. The best that can be said for lawsuits is perhaps after one is decided it will give a set of ground rules. Still I mantain that a bad negotiated settlement is better in the long term than a “good” litigated one.
41. Jason, totally agree with you. I think both sides would have a hard time justifying their actions Biblically, but neither want to be the “loser” so they fight. Thanks for your comments. Sorry for jumping on you earlier!
Brian: “++Katharine will not allow one piece of property to go without a fight to the death.”
Brian, perhaps you can shed some light: What does Schori plan to do with all those vacant buildings?
Seems like the dog that chases the car, and finally catches it. Then what???
Cousin Vinnie [#35]: Perhaps ECUSA can devise a suitably smarmy name for its litigation web page, such as “Fiduciary Facts” or “Concrete Stewardship.”
Rolling Eyes (is that Native American?;-))
Brian, perhaps you can shed some light: What does Schori plan to do with all those vacant buildings?
Seems like the dog that chases the car, and finally catches it. Then what???
There are 2 answers. Both seem flip, but I really think that it is as far as the plan has been thought through:
1. Whatever the Church wants or
2. It is irrelevant
Not that I want to change the subject at hand here, but I find it really disgusting that this lawsuit against the parishes includes seizing the Bibles, prayer books, hymnals, parish records, and Sunday School supplies! There is not one single thing “Christian” about this, and for +Mathes’ lawyers to include this in the suit is absolutely unforgivable and unworthy of people in the legal profession. SHAME on them!!
TEC knows it is losing current pledge income. Its main adherents at this point are aging Baby Boomers and homosexuals, groups that are not reproducing their presence in the pews. This means pension shortfalls and reduced living standards for Episcopal clergy and their staff, so TEC needs properties to liquidate as its decline accelerates.