A Fairfax circuit judge has awarded a favorable judgment to a group of 11 Anglican churches that were taken to court last fall after breaking away from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia in late 2006.
In an 83-page opinion released late last night, Judge Randy Bellows ruled that Virginia”s Civil War-era “division statute” granting property to departing congregations applies to the Northern Virginia congregations, which are now part of the Nigerian-administered Convocation of Anglicans in North America.
“The court finds that a division has occurred in the diocese,” the judge wrote. “Over 7 percent of the churches in the diocese, 11 percent of its baptized membership and 18 percent of the diocesan average attendance of 32,000 [per Sunday] have left in the past two years.”
It’s nice to see such straightforward interpretation of statute. As this is a property dispute, it seems to me that the constitutionality of the law will be upheld, but I’d ben interested in comments from lawyers on the issue.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html
You can read more of the background story of how these Churches had worked out a method of amicable separation with the Diocese before the 815 lawyers intervened at http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html
While this is great news for the Virginia parishes it grieves me that so much of God’s resources is being spent on lawyers. It is my prayer that Bp. Lee will return to the more Christian process that was in place when the leaders at 815 determined that Christian charity should be replaced by a secular legal process.
It is my prayer that once the present unpleasantness is past us that we might find ways Episcopalians and continuing Anglicans to work together on Christian projects even though we will be members of different churches.
Because I only post very irregularly I want to ask posters here to remain charitable to those who oppose us. The glee and joy that our opponents showed over the “unusual” recent events in San Joaquin is not the kind of response I hope we have to this preliminary victory.
Somehow, someway we all need to find a graceful way forward, a way that glorifies Christ and sends a message to the wider community about how Christians, even those who significantly disagree, can interact and amicably separate.
So, yes, this is a wonderful decision, but one which will likely be appealed and litigated endlessly wasting even more of God’s precious resources.
And if Bp. Lee is listening, please do the right thing and go back to the process that you so smartly instituted and end this ugly display.
There are excesses on both sides, but lately, the depositions of godly, loving Bp. Cox has displayed an ugliness that we should not show to the world.
Hopefully, the next time a bishop resigns, the HOB will do the proper thing and simply accept the resignation and avoid the rest.
I don’t know who said this (it certainly wasn’t me) but it fits:
“There is never a right way to do a wrong thing.”
Peace be upon all of us. Remember we are to pray, not denigrate, our enemies. Now I’ll resume my lurking.
Jim (#3),
Couldn’t agree with you more. When we try to make God’s victories our own, they have a nasty habit of ceasing to be His. Praying for a change of heart on the other side seems much more the way of humility and perhaps it takes a result like this to do it.
More questions for the lawyers. I perhaps watch too many TV law dramas. Is it the case that the facts, as ascertained by this court, are not subject to appeal? These facts are that a division has occurred, both in the diocese and in ECUSA and the international communion. Are further proceedings in this case now bound by these findings of fact, or is the whole thing from start to finish subject to appeal? Are these findings of fact something that can be incorporated in lawsuits in other states which favor the local congregation or use “neutral principles” in property cases?
Agreed and agreed with #3 also.
As I said over at Stand Firm, it was a bizarre strategy to argue there was no division when Katherine Jefferts Schori used the very word in a speech a year ago. (Now we don’t call it division, just the “current unpleasantness.”) It is foolish for Bill Clinton to argue the definition of “is.” It seems very foolish for David Booth Beers to argue the definition of “division.” Division unlike pornography (I know it when I see it) can be objectively measured, which is precisely what the judge did:
[blockquote]The Court finds that, under 57-9(A}, a division has occurred within the Diocese. Over 7% of the churches in the Diocese, 11% of its baptized membership and 18% of the diocesan average Sunday attendance of 32,000 have left the Diocese in the past two years.[/blockquote]
And I agree with Jim that it is sad that the diocese of Virginia/Episcopal is wasting resources. People, who bequeathed property to the diocese but weren’t specific enough in their stipulations on how to use that property, must be horrified that the property is being sold off to pay the lawyers bills.
A prayer.
Related to this is news that some might have missed. At Anglican Mainstream, there was a [url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/04/03/good-news-is-no-news-in-nnewi/ ]report from Nigeria/url] (some but not all members of the ADV or Anglican District of Virginia are associated with Nigeria):
[blockquote]One last thing that they announced was that the Church of Nigeria now has sufficient funds in its endowment fund that they no longer need any of the dioceses to pay any assessments. The Primate announced that the Province has enough income from the endowment to cover all of its operations. [b]Each diocese is now encouraged to use the funds that they formerly passed along to the Province to plant more churches and create more new dioceses.[/b] No surprise there![/blockquote]
(They also announced that all the Nigerian bishops expenses for GAFCon have been taken care of, but I would encourage people to go to www. GAFCon.org and contribute to the expenses of other countries.)
And this from the [url=http://www.anglicandistrictofvirginia.org/ ]ADV website[/url], itself:
[blockquote] The Anglican District of Virginia Continues to Grow…When the Anglican District of Virginia began in December 2006, it began with 14 congregations, then grew to 18 congregations, and in March 2008 includes 21 congregations. The growth has not stopped. It continues. While the number of congregations has grown, the number of members has grown as well, but we are seeing new growth take place in the Anglican District of Virginia. [/blockquote]
In particular, they talk about a innovative program where small church starts, usually meeting in homes, are encouraged to grow and are visited by clergy at least once a month and help them to transition to real parish status. Bp Minns has been saying all along that, yes, the court proceedings are important, but there are things that are more important, still – to preach the gospel and bring the good news to the people. Amen.
Schori and her bunch plain got whupped on this one.
I agree with Jim #3. I also pray Bishop Lee can see that the fruit of the Schori/Beers strategy is the financial crippling of his own diocese. I call on him and +Johnston to tell 815, at long last, to get lost and let Virginians settle this matter honorably amongst themselves.
In my reading of the opinion, it doesn’t give the parishes title to the property or recognize that the parishes own the property. It is a very narrow decision that states that the property law section 57-9 applies in these cases. Further arguments will be forthcoming on the constitutionality of this statute and then on the ownership of the properties in question.
While this ruling makes it more likely that ADV will retain the properties, it is not a full victory for ADV.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil #10: The DioVA website indicates they will contest the constitutionality of the law itself. A great opening round for ADV, but I suspect it will take years to dispose completely of the matter.
Are there any “fence-sitting” congregations in DioVa that might be encouraged by this ruling (or any subsequent pro-ADV rulings) to form a “second wave”?
The Diocese won’t give up yet, not at least until after the May 28 arguments on the constitutionality of the division statute and the court’s opinion based on those arguments. However, the chance that a Circuit Court judge will invalidate a statute of the Commonwealth on federal constitutional grounds is not good, especially given that the Commonwealth’s Attorney General has filed an amicus brief in support of the division statute. Let’s see what +Lee’s office says assuming the constitutional argument is lost also. The Diocese will have spent upwards of $2 million on lawyers’ bills with nothing to show for it.
The Washington Times article over-reaches. The judge did not award property and assets of any kind to either side. That question is still to be litigated. However, this judgement gives ADV a definite edge, and they will be joined by Virginia’s attorney general in defending the constitutionality of 59-A.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Philip Snyder (#11)–The parishes will have clean title to their properties by virtue of their local court filings under the division statute procedures, now that the court has ruled that the division statute applies. No specific judgment awarding title therefore is necessary. Of course, this assumes that the parishes also win the constitutional argument still outstanding, and that they prevail on the Diocese’s challenge that the congregational votes were done inappropriately. SiFC
My understanding is the same as Steven’s #16. I’d be surprised if the statute would be ruled constitutional, so that leaves the question of whether its procedures were properly followed. It seems, with it already established that 57-9 applies, the remedy for improperly voting would be to go back and re-do the vote properly. I’m comfortable with the outcome of that one.
Is that correct?
[blockquote] Let’s see what +Lee’s office says assuming the constitutional argument is lost also. The Diocese will have spent upwards of $2 million on lawyers’ bills with nothing to show for it.[/blockquote]
And after 815 intervened to stop all negotiations, no less. So what do you think? Will 815 pick up the check? No, I don’t think so, either.
carl
Katherine, a trial court is the tryar of fact either by a judge or jury. If the trial is a bench trial then the judge determines the facts. In general the finding of facts is not reviewable by an appellate court. An appellate court will review the trial court judge’s application of law to the facts.
There are some exceptions, for example were the findings of fact clearly in error. If so then the appellate court may second guess the findings, but more likely it will send the case back for a re-trial on the facts.
But, in general, an appellate court does not retry the facts.
I concur with the comments above hoping for eventual reconciliation. We have many brothers and sisters in Christ remaining in the DioVa and it is my hope that we can work together in ministry rather than facing against one another in court.
Together we are saddened that such great resources were wasted at the behest of 815. I know that there will be a desire at 815 to use this as a proxy war on the orthodox Anglicans. As Christians and Virginians, I hope we will all say enough is enough.
Grace and peace,
wm.
Phil Snyder, while the Anglican District of Virginia has won the first major battle of the religious civil war that we’re involved in…..and it’s a great victory, by the way…..there will be an appeal, and we can expect more litigation in the months ahead. The war isn’t over yet, but it’s one battle closer to being won; I am confident of that.
I’m very happy for the folks in VA.
This is a decades-long process of course, and just the first round over the coming years. But it’s nice to see.
I would urge folks to temper their enthusiasm a bit. Under current VA law the CANA parishes are indeed well-positioned. But the question that DioVA and ECUSA will raise re: the constitutionality of the church division statute may very well wind up at the Supreme Court (years down the road), and certainly will go through at least a couple of rounds in federal court before its all over. The question is: is this statute part of the state’s domain over real estate law? Or, as written, does the criteria requiring a majority vote of the congregation overstep from real estate into ecclesiastical law and thereby violate the first amendment? (As currently interpreted). In this case the court could find the VA statute unconstitutional… either placing everything under the jurisdiction of the canons of the national church or setting up a new “test” counter to the VA statute, both potentially reversing the decision.
Unfortunately, the courts have not been terribly friendly in establishment cases and it is quite possible (if not likely) that the VA statute will not hold in federal court. If I were a betting man, I’d put money on the court not looking favorably on the aspect of the statute that determines what is a division, and whether the state has the jurisdiction to make such a judgment in real estate law. If the VA statute goes, so goes the CANA churches’ case.
I am understanding correctly that this Virginia law has never been appealed to a federal court at any time in history?
[blockquote]However, it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as [i]anything but a division of the first magnitude,[/i] especially given the involvement of numerous churches in states across the country, the participation of hundreds of church leaders, both lay and pastoral, who have found themselves “taking sides” against their brethren, the determination by thousands of church members in Virginia and elsewhere to “walk apart” in the language of the Church, the creation of new and substantial religious entities, such as CANA, with their own structures and disciplines, the rapidity with which the ECUSA’s problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world, and, perhaps most importantly, [i]the creation of a level of distress among many church members so profound and wrenching as to lead them to cast votes in an attempt to disaffiliate from a church which has been their home and heritage throughout their lives, and often back for generations.[/i][/blockquote]
-From the Conclusion, Pg. 83, of the Judgment. (Italics mine.)
“A division of the first magnitude”…that sums up the whole sorry mess we find ourselves in as Brother and Sister Christians in this heritage we call Anglicanism.
How did we get to the place where we can’t work out our differences as such within the Body of Christ and not have to resort to secular courts? There are not any winners here; we have failed in our Maundy Thursday Mandatum “to love one another as I have loved you.”
I am grieved.
Watch as 815 and Peter Lee insert the “reconciliation” word more frequently from now on. What a mess these children brought on themselves. There isn’t a hose strong enough to blast the mud off of their faces.
Are there other bishops watching this as their upcoming fate?
I sincerely hope and pray that this is the beginning of a new Anglican province in North America that believes God is who he says he is. And that it will be recognized by the rest of the Anglican communion worldwide. And that our old local parish will be a part of this. If so, we will come back . . .. There is a difference in believing in God and believing God. TEC may believe in God, but do not evidently believe God is who he says He is, nor do they fear Him. Christ is not just a way, one of many. He is God.
This is indeed excellent news. How delightful to have a jurist who isn’t given over to fanciful misreadings of plain English (mentioning no names, I will add).
To all those that are finding the dark cloud in this brilliant silver lining, consider that a ruling to the contrary would have meant the war was, for all intents and purposes, over. Also consider the millions that TEC will spend on the next phase, millions that could have been spent its diseased message, and rejoice.
[blockquote]Watch as 815 and Peter Lee insert the “reconciliation†word more frequently from now on. What a mess these children brought on themselves. There isn’t a hose strong enough to blast the mud off of their faces. [/blockquote]
Refresh my memory…didn’t DioVA mortgage some properties recently to scare up enough funds to pay their lawyers? Or was it a loan against the properties they’re trying to snatch? What happens to those loans and such now?
I am sure that most people have seen the game show “Deal or No Deal” at least once. I have watched it once or twice and the part that has always interested me is how the banker calls and makes an offer based on the probablity of what dollar amounts are remaining in the unopened cases.
What I hope is that this court decision is sort of like Peter Lee and KJS just having chosen the $1 million, $750K and $500K cases to have been opened, and they might just be willing to negotiate a fair deal now.
I think that we should disregard any initial bluster from TEC, and wait until cooler minds prevail. Because if this case stands, and given KJS’s botching of the San Joaquin situation coupled with California’s possible re-embrace of neutral principles, TEC could be in for a few years of serious legal setbacks. And it is my belief that repeated legal setbacks will reignite the dispute between the liberal extremists represented by Jefferts-Schori/Sauls/Bruno and the liberal institutionalists represented by Peter Lee among others.
What I am saying is that if Lee was pressured into suing (and it appears that he was) this court decision may give him more “hand” in his argument to KJS that a negotiated settlement is in the Diocese of Virginia’s best interests. We shall see.
As of Noon EST, there is not a peep about this story on the ENS-Pravda Website. Just lots of guest commentary from gurus on how to sink the ship.
re #23, Jerod,
If the courts are reluctant to insert themselves into issues of church canons, then why is it not a simple case of the entity whose name is on the property deed prevails? It sounds like the plaintiffs want it both ways – don’t interfere with our church law but enforce its provisions via the civil courts.
Jeffersonian–The Diocese has taken out a $2 million line of credit and intends to pay that back not out of its present revenue stream but by selling off unimproved landholdings. Reports are that the Diocese has utilized more than half of the available line. I am hoping that at some point, just as Zimbabwe appears to have finally reached the limits of tolerance with Mugabe, the good remaining Episcopalians of Virginia will pull the plug on +Lee’s ATM and tell 815 to play holy war on its own dime.
JamesW, keep your “legal scholar” hat on and help me on these questions. do you have any thoughts as to the Constitutionality of the Statute? Does any other state have anything close to similar?
Other question: an impartial third party — the judge — has reviewed the situation and declared that, in his legal opinion, a “division” has occured within the US Episcopal Church. So regardless of the eventual determiniation of the Constitutionality of the Statute, might this have meaning for CANA, AMiA, “The Network,” etc. and their standing with the wider Communion?
Hell hath no fury like THIS Presiding “Bishop” scorned. Look out faithful Christians everywhere. The beatings WILL continue until morale improves.
God Bless The Faithful Witnesses To God’s Word In The Anglican Diocese of Virginia!!!
Thank you Steven #33. I remembered the $2/$1 million figure, but I couldn’t remember what they collateralized the loans with. If the constitutional issue goes against them, DioVA might well have just piddled away two mil in property for nothing. I’m thinking the PB might not be on +Lee’s Christmas card list this year.
A quick response to Jerod–this case is in Virginia Courts, not federal courts. It can’t be moved to federal court for any reason that I can think of (I think it fails all of the removal tests). As such, this question won’t get hashed out at all in federal courts unless or until it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. This will get hashed out at the Fairfax County Circuit Court, then go to the Court of Appeals, then to the Virginia Supreme Court and then [b] and only then [/b] would this go to the Supreme Court. So, whether or not this statute would hold in federal courts is probably not something that is going to be at issue for at least several years.
For my two cents, I think those who are discussing money and legal bills have the right idea. There may be a few rounds over whether or not the statute is Constitutional… but this ruling is definitely a good one for those who would like to have the issue resolved through settlement rather than furhter litigation. Whether ECUSA is willing to be reasonable, as many have mentioned, remains to be seen. But, in almost every piece of litigation there is a settlement tipping point. Favorable rulings for one side start to weigh the balance in favor of one side or the other.
DaveJ – Heh, how’s it going? I will take a stab at answering your questions.
Personally, I think that the Virginia statute will be upheld. The default is, of course, to uphold a statute. The question is – does this statute impinge on the Establishment Clause? I don’t really see how. I would see it more as a “neutral principles” approach to things that isn’t even necessarily opposed to the “heirarchical church” theory. The statute does not mandate any theological position, it doesn’t benefit any specific religion or church. Probably its biggest vulnerability would be in how a denominational division is recognized.
I would not be surprised if Peter Lee attempts to negotiate a resolution to avoid another court decision, but, on the other hand, KJS seems pretty determined to fight this out.
I don’t think that the judge’s determination of a split has any affect on the situation with the larger Communion. Most of the Global South already recognize a split. Canterbury will continue to dither along with the the ACO until they have become irrelevant. As TEC becomes more loony and Williams does not respond, an increasing number of “CommCons” will realize that the future of the Communion is not with Williams’ initiatives, but with the Global South initiatives. Eventually, the liberal Western churches will run out of money, the old Communion structures will be taken over by the new Anglican Communion that matured in the Global South context.
Sorry, one quick postscript — because this is a civil appeal, this case would go directly to the Virginia Supreme Court, bypassing the Virginia Court of Appeals. (The bar was a while ago and I don’t practice in Virginia regularly).
[blockquote]Personally, I think that the Virginia statute will be upheld. The default is, of course, to uphold a statute. The question is – does this statute impinge on the Establishment Clause? I don’t really see how. [/blockquote]
IANAL, but I tend to agree. At any rate, it’s a lot less “establishmenty” than asking the courts to enforce the Dennis Canon.
I have to admit, that I would find it INCREDIBLY rich irony to see TEC try to attack the ADV parishes on whether they perfectly followed this clause in 57-9
[i]the members of such congregation over 18 years of age may, by a vote of a [b]majority of the whole number[/b], determine to which branch of the church or society such congregation shall thereafter belong.[/i]
Do you think the TEC lawyers understand what it means in this context?!?!? 🙂
In any case, given my connection to Truro, I am fully confident the parishes in question were scrupulous to follow the letter of the law carefully and could withstand any TEC attack or questioning along this line. But wouldn’t it be incredible to watch TEC even try anything given their stonewalling about this matter in relation to the attempted depositions of +Cox and +Schofield.
In any case, this Truroite is rejoicing today, albeit from far away here in Africa.
It was wonderful to read the ADV press release and the wonderful Christian spirit there, the expressed hope for a return to the negotiating table and a refocus on common mission. As one of Truro’s missionaries, I can only add a loud AMEN.
Well, it’s a setback for our side and no mistake. But, as others have noted, it’s not over yet. I feel fairly confident in predicting that, when all the dust of the various property disputes has settled, both sides will have won some and lost some.
I am not a lawyer of any kind, so what follows here is nothing more than uninformed and idle speculation. But it seems to me that an argument against the constitutionality of the “division statute” could be made something like this: the state may legitimately intervene in a dispute between religious parties when the substance of the dispute is strictly a matter under the state’s authority, for example, who actually owns a particular piece of property. But in such a case, the dispute should be judged on the same secular standards as in any other dispute between parties over a similar matter — i.e, the so-called “neutral principles.” But the statute imposes a particular process to be followed only in the case of religious bodies, and requires the court to find whether a “division” exists in the larger body. Even if the court can make that determination as a matter of fact (as it has done here) it is still treating religious bodies differently than any other type of organization, so the state is not following “neutral principles.” But if the state is willing to abandon neutral principles in the case of disputes between religious parties, it finds itself in a very murky area indeed. A secular court is neither charged with the duty, nor has the competence, to make judgments on matters of religion; so in all such matters it seems that it must defer to the judgment of the religious body in question. But the division statute does not do that, either.
In other words: either “neutral principles” or “defer to the hierarchical church” interpretations of law are plausibly constitutional. But the division statute is neither one nor the other, and therefore cannot stand.
(Of course, neutral principles probably don’t lead to a victory for our side either; but the question at the moment is the division statute.)
So, lawyers… how badly have I flunked the bar? 🙂
Were I part of the TEC/Dio VA legal and management team, I would bluster a bit, then attempt to negotiate a settlement where (a) ADV acknowledges property is owned by the Dio of VA and (b) Dio of VA “sells” the properties to the ADV for some token consideration.
What they need most from this litigation is a bolstering of the “all property is held in trust for the diocese/national church” claim. They don’t need a bunch of soon-to-be empty buildings.
Were I a member of the ADV, I’d be tempted to move on by agreeing to such a settlement. The problem, of course, is that such a settlement, while advantageous to me and mine, would establish a precedent that would undercut the efforts of others to leave TEC with their properties.
I continue to pray for everyone involved that Christ may be glorified and the Gospel go forth unhindered.
Jagkf: Good catch… I didn’t realize it couldn’t be moved to federal court. (This doesn’t mean, however that the state court couldn’t find similarly, of course. Do you know if DioVA and ECUSA can still file to challenge the state statute in federal court?)
Daniel: You are correct in seeing the problem, the greater problem with cases like these, though, is their utter unpredictability! Every time one reaches SCOTUS there is the very real potential (if not likelihood) for another legal caveat or test. The potential problem I see with the division statute is that (and this is conjecture on my part) the courts may read it as a violation of free exercise and declare that church ecclesiastical courts should make the decision. Of course the problem here is that the congregations have disaffiliated from the church. What, then, is the legally (civil) recognized congregation? A continuing group DioVA establishes, or the 90+% who are CANA congregants? It seems the court would be forced to make a decision somewhere. (It is mere speculation on my part that the courts would simply look to the relevant church canons, meaning that, if the state statute was struck down, ECUSA would have the higher ground).
Personally, I think it is an interesting question as to whether the division statute is unconstitutional. Virginia has never been a friendly state to hierarchical churches from 1783 forward. In fact, religions were not permitted to organize in a corporate form until quite recently – after the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional. So maybe the division statute is unconstitutional as well. But, if it is unconstitutional, what does that mean? On the one hand, it might mean that the vote to separate from TEC is void. On the other hand, assuming that the statute IS unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean that the diocese or national church has any property interest in the parishes either. It may be true that, because of the unconstitutional pecularities of Virginia law, a hierarchial church could not have possessed any interest in a congregation that had trustees. But, if the diocese and the national church never possessed any property interest in the parishes, how can they say that they have rights to something they never had? And, if that’s true, how is the division statute itself unconstitutional since all it does is explain how churches or religious societies organized by a board of trustees can legally separate from a state or national body which, by definition, could never have owned any church or religious society in the first place?
And how is the Diocese of Virginia organized under Virginia state law? Was it formed as an unincorporated association? Was it formed by Act of the legislature? What is it now?
The state is doing what it should by the law – in a dispute between factions of a religious group it should apply neutral principles of property law. I would be very suprised if the 100+ year law is struck down as unconstitutional. This should be a big blow to the take no prisioners approach adopted by 815. Congratulations Northern Virginia. Now we just need the California Supreme Court to apply neutral principles – then perhaps 815 will adopt more Christian attitudes towards negotiations.
I do not see how neutral principles violates any right under the state or federal constitution. I can see how putting a lien on someone else’s property violates due process. VA may stand alone among the states with its division statute and I would not read any precedent for other states here. My guess is that the won/loss numbers will be around 50% The legal fees – priceless.
I’ll put in my two cents worth of ignorance for what it is worth. If this case is appealed to the Supreme Court the Supremes have to agree to hear it. I don’t think they will. This is a narrow law with little national or civil implications other than the matter at hand. Very few states have a similar law. If the State Supreme court upholds the law on appeal it ends there!
I’m taking a long time to read the opinion, but one question that occurs to me is whether the financial interests of the diocese and TEC will now more sharply diverge. This is a significant setback for the diocese, even if it is but the first of several decisions. While TEC’s national church has many potential sources of funding and a national strategy, I have not understood that they have agreed to pick up the diocese’ legal expenses. The news of the credit line the diocese entered into seems to confirm that. If I were at the diocese, I would want to have a very hard talk with the national church about who was paying for litigation going forward. The diocese is not poor, but its assets are not unlimited, either. In fact, the CANA churches may have more deep pockets in their pews than the diocese. Would the national church bail out the diocese if it loses and has nothing to show for the several million dollars it will have wound up spending when it could have settled? When have they bailed out a diocese financially before? On the other hand, there are a lot of developers that would like to get their hands on Shrinemont.
Ross – you make a very creditable argument. I was thinking “neutral principles” in the sense that the state has set out neutral principles that govern church disputes. The liberals are accusing this law as establishing a congregational bias, but that it is not. It is really saying that Virginia respects heirarchical church organization, but if there is a split that is sufficiently severe (as opposed to one or two churches leaving) then neutral principles shall apply. Probably in the end the key test will be whether this law requires the courts to resolve inherently religious questions. I don’t think it does.
I would agree with Dave B. that there is a very good chance that the USSC will not hear an appeal from the Virginia Supreme Court.
I am still reviewing the decision, but one point stood out sharply. Judge Bellows early and prominently cited TEC’s Preamble as evidence that the denomination is more than TEC. Several of us have previously commented that the Preamble might come back to bite TEC, albeit here in a way unique to Virginia. TEC’s constitutional acknowledgement/requirement of Anglican Communion membership, combined with the massive evidence of broken communion may well be sufficiently objective to defeat any consititutional challenge on the basis that no inquiry into doctrine is remotely necessary to prove the existence of a division.
Even in the remote chance that SCOTUS were to overturn the VA division statute, that would just mean remand to VA for a determination without regard to the division statute. And what do you think VA courts, smarting under a reversal by SCOTUS would do? Apply neutral principles of law, look at the deed, and say, “By golly, it looks like the trustees (Truro, etc.) own the property.” So it is difficult to see how TEC could prevail whether or not the division statute is upheld.
Bill – I would agree that this decision portends well for the reasserters. The judge has signalled a dissatisfaction with TEC’s positions so far. But it is still far too early to claim victory. My hope remains that 815 will lose here and that California will reassert “neutral principles” so that 815 will lose here also, and that these dual losses in the headliner lawsuits will cause the more reasonable liberal bishops (institutionalist liberals) to challenge KJS’s litigious strategy.
I have it on good word (from a trusted witness who heard it from a moderate-liberal bishop’s own mouth) that 815 has issued “gentle” threats of legal action against liberal bishops who do not toe her litigious line. This and 815’s current devil-may-care attitude towards canonical procedure and due process is, I believe, creating a climate of fear and unease amongst many bishops (even if no-one is speaking up). If the beast is brought low by spectular and public losses in the courts, I am hopeful that the beast will be cast down and the liberal institutionalists might just accept negotiations or a DAR like solution.