Update:
There’s a second article now online at Episcopal Life, which goes into more detail about the ruling and the legal strategy that TEC intends to pursue in the second portion of the trial in May.
Update:
There’s a second article now online at Episcopal Life, which goes into more detail about the ruling and the legal strategy that TEC intends to pursue in the second portion of the trial in May.
A month or two back DioVa replaced their communications director – a former Washington Post reporter – with a litigator; it really shows in this press release.
It is still my hope and prayer that DioVa will lay down the sword and live in peace with their Brothers and Sisters in the Anglican Communion.
My head is hurting from all that spin, not that the CANA press release is much better.
The press releases spell out the DioVA/ECUSA case pretty clearly. The CANA parishes’ case rests squarely on that VA statute. Today was a victory for them, but as I mentioned on another thread, I don’t see that statute passing muster under current federal criteria. As the DioVA/ECUSA press releases lay out, they’re going to argue that it’s a violation of free exercise, and the odds look in their favor on that. From there it’s anyone’s guess… but it would seem, without the VA statute, the CANA parishes are in for an uphill climb.
#3, Jerod, I have to disagree. The Virginia statute provides a neutral principles facts and circumstances test. I think that ADV has a pretty good shot. Don’t forget, the burden of proof shifts to 815/EDV with this latest ruling. The Commonwealth is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality and I think the lawyers are going to have to work pretty hard to rebut it.
I am afraid that this was another Battle of Bull Run in Virginia. Whether the division statute is upheld or not will have little affect on the rest of the war in other states.
“The Diocese of Virginia said in a statement posted on its website that “it is simply wrong” to allow those who have left the Episcopal Church to “continue to occupy Episcopal Church property while loyal Episcopalians are forced to worship elsewhere.”
Something is very clearly wrong with this statement. Never during this entire period have I heard of, nor have I experienced, anything which even hints at saying that “loyal Episcopalians” cannot worship at ANY parish or mission which has departed from The Episcopal Church. I have never heard ANYONE say that “loyal Episcopalians” aren’t welcome at an Anglican service. Those who feel that they aren’t welcome at Anglican services have only to ask their leaders why anyone from those Anglican parishes and missions would infer that they aren’t welcome.
It would be interesting to know what those leaders would say to these people.
#4: I certainly hope you are correct, but the problem I see is that its test (argues ECUSA and DioVA) interferes with ECUSA’s hierarchical structure. It’s sticky, no doubt.
“it plainly deprives the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, as well as all hierarchical churches, of their historic constitutional rights to structure their polity free from governmental interference and thus violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced.”
Wow, the irony is a bit thick, when the PB is complaining about government interfering in polity and violating the First Amendment, when 815 is striving to interfere in the polity of the departing congregations and violate their property rights.
Set 1 to CANA.
Judge Bellows reasoning in the definition of “religious society” to encompass the Anglican Communion, is well played. Not only does it get beyond the ECUSA hierarchical church has not officially divided argument, it also show CANA in a positive light of doing the minimum necessary to retain their core values without walking away from as many of their historical roots as possible. He then dismantles ECUSA’s parsing of the meaning of the word “division” and its applicability to the facts before the court. The ruling is devastating to most all of ECUSA’s case, save the Constitutional arguments upon which I’ve opined in the past. (In short, stay in your seats folks, the show isn’t over)
Also, few outside Virginia should see any precedential value at this time. This ruling turns on the language in a very specific Virginia statute.
Peace to ALL,
(P.S. I trust someone has CCed Lambeth Palace)
Judge Bellow’s concluding paragraph reflects the tone of the ruling. Here it is (italics & bold are mine):
[i]”ECUSA/Diocese argue that the historical evidence demonstrates that it is only the “major” or “great” divisions within 19th-century churches that prompted the passage of 57-9, such as those within the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. ECUSA/Diocese argue that the current “dispute” before this Court is not such a “great” division, and, therefore, this is yet another reason why 57-9(A) should not apply. The Court agrees that it was major divisions such as those within the Methodist and Presbyterian churches that prompted the passage of 57-9. [b]However, it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude, 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” [/b]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, [b]and, perhaps most importantly, 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. Whatever may be the precise threshold for a dispute to constitute a division under 57-9(A), what occurred here qualifies.[/b][/i]
No wishy-washy ‘churchspeak’ there from the Harvard educated judge.
Peace to ALL,
#6 – C’mon, you know what they meant.
Betty, yep, that’s exactly what it would be. TEC wants to be able to have the State enforce its polity and discipline. There’s an old model for this. It’s called the Inquisition.
It seems pretty clear that TEC is arguing that their free excercise is dependent upon the state recognizing their hierarchical structure. That sounds like an established church way of thinking to me.
Chris,
I think that is what our founders had in mind when the Constitution of the United States prohibited the “establishment of a religion”.
#’s 12,13: it would good to see you develop those comments just enough to show how the Inquisition was enabled by state enforcement. I don’t have a grasp of the interplay there, and maybe other readers don’t understand late medieval Spain, for example, terribly well either. But it often strikes me as Inquisition-esque the way TEC attempt to get their way.
A bit off-topic, but germane because numerous commenters remark about the implications for ‘other states’ (CA, e.g.?): George Conger posted a day or two ago an excellent, succinct analysis from the CofE newspaper about the 3 competing dioceses of SJ that are now reputedly in place. The article simultaneously says in two paragraphs what many commenters (jamesw comes to mind) have tried elsewhere to explain at length, and also reminds me of the value of clear thinking expressed in English.
Chris Hathaway, If the state recognizes the Episcopal church’s hierarchical structure and in effect enforces it, couldn’t the state then be accused of establishing a religion?
“it plainly deprives the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, as well as all hierarchical churches, of their historic constitutional rights to structure their polity free from governmental interference…”
So why drag your members through the secular courts if you don’t want a secular entity to perform a ruling?
#11 Miserable Sinner, are you telling me that they might say to their people that we Anglican reasserters would attempt to poison their minds against TEC? Or can they stand to hear the truth?
What happened to the ordering of the posts? My second comment is now before my first one and before the one of Betty’s I was answering.
Further to #15:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/san-joaquin-now-has-three-dioceses-cen-40408-p-7/
I probably have missed something, but can the first amendment be used in the case of property? This would appear to have nothing to do with the establishment of a religion? Larry
Too bad there isn’t a provision in the U.S. Constitution covering the establishment of property rights……or am I missing something?
[blockquote]Too bad there isn’t a provision in the U.S. Constitution covering the establishment of property rights……or am I missing something? [/blockquote]
The Fifth Amendment does that, but only between government and the private spheres. It does not preclude land snatching by greed-crazed post-Christian national churches.
Unfortunately, it appears that TEC practices a “religious corporation” version of Eminent Domain.
Brothers and Sisters:
Please be reminded that the New York Court of Appeals has granted leave for an appeal from the Supreme Court (trial) and Appelate Division’s ruling in the Harnish Case from All Saints in Rochester (NY). The holding at the lower courts was in favour of the Diocese, I am sure that the New York Court may have some interesting things to say about the interplay of the 1st Amendment with these property disputes. It will also be interesting to see if other courts begin to rely on some of the reasoning of the VA court around “division” in TEC — despite the fact that the peculiarities of the VA statute.
Islandbear+
Chris Hathaway, I don’t know what happened to the ordering of comments but they really got mixed up, my comments were in answer to your comments (not before).
I am not an attorney but it seems to me that a court could be perceived as establishing a religion if they enforce a hierarchal structure or a relatively new church canon which negates the titled property responsibilities of the individual church.