“We are pleased with this initial victory today,” said Jim Oakes, vice chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia, which includes the 11 congregations. “We have maintained all along that the Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia had no legal right to our property because the Virginia Division Statute says that the majority of the church is entitled to its property when there is a division within the denomination.”
The law, passed in the mid-1800s, stemmed from doctrinal disputes in the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, Judge Bellows wrote.
The law has been little used since then, because the courts are reluctant to wade into religious disputes, said Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
But this case and one before the California Supreme Court regarding the property of three former Episcopal parishes there indicate a new willingness of some courts to review these matters, Mr. Tobias said.
[blockquote]We strongly believe that, while we may have theological disagreements within the Episcopal Church, those disagreements are ours to resolve according to our faith and governance.[/blockquote]
So true, so true!!! But not relevant!
Those theological disagreements have led to a political war involving individual personalities, with attacks and retributions. The leadership of some dioceses and the national church appears to be using time-honored tactics to destroy opposition, rather than work with it.
A dichotomy can be a good thing – in that tension, God can be seen at work. While I know that God is still at work even now, I also see the hand of the Adversary, no doubt sent to test the Episcopal church, its bishops, other clergy, administrators, and laypersons.
It’s not too late for healing to occur, although the wounds are so deep that it may take generations for it to happen.
I’ve heard Don Armentrout, a learned church historian at Sewanee, say that the Episcopal church has been in worse times than this. Certainly, a study of the early church councils shows that on several occasions the Church nearly lost everything in wars of politics and personalities. It will be interesting to see how church historians will judge this present War of Aggression.
However, when things are so bad that people are resorting to civil courts, we can thank God that the Holy Spirit is strong in at least one certain judge in the Commonwealth of Virginia, if not in the leadership of that diocese and 815.
Elves, what’s going on? When I click the comments link, the webpost disappears, and not even the title shows in my browser bar. I looked at this page and wondered, what thread is this, anyway?
“Early last year, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia sued the congregations for the property, arguing that it was held in trust by the congregations for the Episcopal Church”.
…and…”those disagreements are ours to resolve according to our faith and governance”.
So….since Lee and Schori were incapable of resolving those issues in an intelligent and charitable way, they wasted no dollar to run to the secular court to sue the members of their Church. What’s really afoot is that their “faith and governance” didn’t work because all it consists of is deceit, double-talk, and fluff that the average person smells as it really is. The “faith and governance” also consists of intimidation, ignoring, marginalization, and threats. So….please don’t make the “faith and governance what it IS NOT…sacred.
You crossed paths with people more intelligent…the courts…the Virginia Attorney General.
You lose.
And will keep losing.
Get used to it.
OK it’s working now. That was wierd.
It seems outrageous to me that one party of a contract can change the rules and the other must live with it which is precisely what the Dennis canon does. The diocese and national church effectively states give me all your deeds to your parishes. How un-American.
The headline is wrong – sort of. “Virginia Judge Allows Case on Episcopal Property to Proceed.” If Judge Bellows had ruled that no division had taken place, then the suit by Katherine “Sue? It’s what we do” Schori would have been won. So the “going on” means that the litigants must now overcome hurdle number two, showing the law is unconstitutional. The ball is in the litigants court whereas previously it was up to the defendants to show that division did take place. The litigants hardly wanted to proceed. The defendants, the ADV knew that constitutionality would be an issue.
“…is set to argue in late May that the Virginia law on the division of property is unconstitutional, in part because it interferes with church laws governing property ownership.”
Could not the same argument be used by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints regarding polygamy? Could they also argue that state/federal statutes prohibiting polygamy “interferes with church laws” governing matrimony (if such church laws existed?)
And in terms of numbers, the Times got it wrong again. “Several DOZEN?” More like “a hundred,” it seems to me.
Robroy, had 815 won the division issue, it is still likely that ADV prevails ultimately. As I noted on the original thread, in applying neutral principles of law the court would have looked at the name on the deed, which I understand is each of the ADV congregations, and awarded the property accordingly.
Winning on the division issue, if upheld, as seems likely, means that the Dennis Canon issue is irrelevant. The division statute would aparently award title to the congregation even if 815 had been on the deed, once a division and the proper, prerequisite vote had been established.
Ed, the Roman raises the issue of how far First Amendment protection goes. Historically, the protection stops at those areas that have been traditional functions of the state. Hence regulation of marriage, property ownership, health & safety, building codes, etc. are allowed. The response to 815’s constitutional challenge, other than the division statute, might be, “Yes, you are free to organize your church, including property ownership, as you deem appropriate. but you must document that organization in the prescribed manner, i.e. deeds, so that we do not have to engage in internal inquiries.”
The constitutionality of the division statute seems a somewhat closer call, as it could be deemed an internal inquiry into church structure. But I think it is important that the existence of a division can be established without any reference to doctrine, which is a bog the courts try to avoid. So the inquiry seems less intrusive than others that have been allowed, e.g. The Moyer-Bennison case and the RC abuse cases, which have gone deeply into personnel practices, among other issues.
So despite the spin of this article, 815 is on very thin ice. Its actions here and elsewhere (the purported depositions) only reinforce the growing public perception of TEC as mean-spirited, something that cannot help it in court, despite 815’s vigorous attempts to slander the orthodox as narrow-minded bigots. Sadly, 815’s actions will also cast a further stain on Christianity and hurt efforts to spread the Gospel.
[i]”Selfish dictators may owe their behaviour partly to their genes, according to a [url=http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080404/full/news.2008.738.html] study[/url] that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness.”[/i]
Since it’s genetic, perhaps people at 815 will now also sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking redress from anyone who calls them out on their profoundly non-Christian behaviour.
I appreciate your weighing in on this Bill Matz. Any thoughts on the cases in California? Thanks.
The CA parish cases do not involve the VA-specific division issue. The main issue is whether neutral principles of law requires the court to look just to the deeds, as had been case law for 30 years. The SoCal appeals decision went against that rule. I consider it favorable – but not decisive – that the CA Supreme Court accepted the appeal from that appellate ruling.
A CA-specific issue is whether the Diocese’s suits were for the purpose of intimidating debate. I can’t offer any real assessment of the viability of that on appeal, (the trial court ruling was favorable), as it is new in the church setting.
The issues in the Diocese (San Joaquin) case will be different, but with some overlap. The recent TEC bumbling over its own canons make it more likely that San Joaquin will prevail.