The Anglican Diocese of Niagara and three breakaway parishes must share custody of three Southwestern Ontario churches until the courts ultimately decide who holds the keys to the properties, an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled yesterday.
“I accept that although there are fundamental religious disputes between these parties … there is clearly a dispute over property rights,” Madam Justice Jane Milanetti wrote in her 21-page decision.
She ruled that the three parishes and the diocese share possession of St. George’s Anglican Church in Lowville, St. Hilda’s Anglican Church in Oakville, and the Church of Good Shepherd in St. Catharines. She further ordered that the diocese, which is named in the titles of two of the three properties, “have full access to and use of” the three properties between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. every Sunday, as well as other “feast days” such as Christmas.
The order is meant to be in place until the courts decide who owns the properties. Some lawyers have suggested that could take up to a decade.
So, will we now see a competition develop to see who can get the most people there every Sunday? How long can a shrinking diocese keep importing ‘plants’ from neighbouring parishes to fill the pews?
Finally a little sense. It’s unfortunate that non-christian judges have to teach christians how to share. A little competition is not a bad idea. And if one worldview is superior to the other, it’ll show over time. Bravo!
It seems fair that the diocese would “share” the property until the dispute is settled, until one realizes that it is the people and not the structural entity “Diocese of Niagara” who worship there week in and week out. Further, the diocese has churches in the area already, and has never felt the need to stake a claim in these so called “dissident” parishes until now. It seems clear enough that the courts can settle this legal property issue (one that should never have gone to court in the first place) without disrupting the normal patterns of worship which have been long established by these priests and people. If the court rules for the diocese in the end, then the people will leave. If the court rules for the local congregations, then things stay the same. This ruling brings about a reality that never existed before in these churches.
In my opinion, this sort of judgement only serves to further disrupt the religious freedom of the members of these churches by allowing the diocese to come in weekly with the sort of worship “content” which led to the division in the first place, as they did in February of 2008 when they “shared” the premises the first time.
The court decision places an unfair burden on the shoulders of the orthodox Anglican parishoners.
Having said that, the decision also provides an opportunity for the orthodox Anglicans to bear Christian witness before the diocesan revisionists and the whole community.
How to do that in a manner that will grab the attention of the diocese’s revisionists and the diocese’s pew-sitters will take some local ingenuity and committment to make such witrness.
As a member of the Ontario bar for over 25 years and faithful member of Good Shepherd (St. Catharines), I can say this is a very fair decision.
The law of Ontario is clear: the properties under question belong to the Diocese of Niagara. Simple as that.
Madam Justice Milanetti was a lot more polite in dealing with the “implied trust” argument, first invented I believe by ANiC Chancellor Cheryl Chang, than I would be. It is a worthless argument in law and I hope no Christians have wasted any money in the hope that this utterly unlawful argument would be accepted.
Anglican Christians have been done a favour by Milanetti J.’s discussion of the actual merits of the dispute (not finally decided here). Milanetti J.’s discussion explains what any lawyer in Niagara would have known already: we parishes leaving ACoC have no case whatever in law.
Toral
[blockquote]Archdeacon Michael Patterson, a spokesman for the Niagara diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada, said he was “very pleased” and hoped the resolution would be “acceptable to all.”
But Reverend Charlie Masters, who voted with his parishioners at St. George’s to break away from the church, said parishioners were “saddened and deeply disappointed” by the judge’s decision. [/blockquote]
So we have two parties in dispute. One sees sharing as a way forward, and the other is “saddened and deeply disappointed” that he might have to share. Sometimes I read entries from conservatives claiming that liberals are “forcing their agenda down our throats”, or that they are demanding complete surrender to the liberal agenda. I think this news story describes the reality. Who is more accommodating, more inclusive in this situation? Which approach seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus?
They both get to stay in and use the building. Some sacrifices will be made on both “sides”; both sides will be inconvenienced. Nobody’s being kicked out. Seems fair to me.
7. Connie
It doesn’t seem fair to the parishoners because they believe that they are the legitimate owners of the buildings.
If you bought a car off a dealer and paid it off on time and covered all the maintenance on it for a decade and then because of a dispute on a recall, the dealer took you to court looking to “share” the vehicle based on some fine print in your contract dating from 1873 -and even though the car was in your name- how would you feel?
Solomon’s solution: divide the child. The reaffirmers will now do what reaffirmers have to do.
Except the child (if by which you mean the church) is trying to divide itself.