The Diocese of Virginia will forgo judicial review of the process used by 11 congregations which voted to leave The Episcopal Church in January 2007. Instead it will focus all of its efforts on overturning a Civil War-era state statute known as 57-9.
In a series of motions prior to the one-day trial on Oct. 6, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows already has ruled that 57-9 is both constitutional and applicable in this case. The statute states that in the event of a denominational split, a local congregation can determine what to do with church property.
However, anomalies in the deeds of some parish charters may have implications, most notably in the case of the Falls Church, whose original deed from 1749 confers ownership to all nearby colonial residents. If the court rules against the majority of the congregation at the Falls Church, it would permit the diocese to file additional lawsuits over questions of ownership.
“The court proceedings of the past several months have shown that the division statute, which exists only in Virginia, is uniquely hostile to religious freedom and our faith,†Bishop Lee said.
!!!!!
It seems to me that this constitutionally-sound law (according to the unbiased Judge Bellows) quite effectively promotes religious freedom and is uniquely favorable to our faith. It certainly has boosted my faith.
!!!!!
Seems ironic that TEC leadership is so concerned over bovine flatulence, yet is capable of producing such bovine excrement as contained in that story.
I’m no lawyer, but this seems to say that TEC has decided their only hope is on appeal and they’re willing to lose the present case (quickly) to start that process. They can’t seriously think the judge is going to reverse his existing rulings.
This appears to be a tactical adjustment to get the matter to the higher courts as quickly as possible. I’m a little surprised, because the tally was close in some of the parishes like the Falls Church, not so much on the yes/no vote but on the statutorily significant (in Virginia) measure of whether a majority of the eligible voters had voted to depart. Much depends on an accurate census of eligible voters.
NoVA Scout,
Agreed that TEC/DioVA have decided they would probably lose on the voting issue, so the appeal is the priority now.
Remember that the Judge’s desire was to find if the vote was “fairly taken”. No one really knows what that meant, but one interpretation would be whether a reasonable person would conclude that those with a right and an interest in the outcome had voted by majority to leave TEC.
Also, TEC/DioVA had already, via discovery, had their hands on all the materials relating to the votes. Perhaps they finally recognized a pattern in previous rulings – that the judge would base his ruling on the facts, and that their outlandish interpretation of law and events would not fly any better than in their previous arguments.
I’m no lawyer, but the aspect of the Virginia division law that has always sounded suspect to me is that it treats churches differently than any other kind of corporate body.
A truly “neutral principles” state would resolve a dispute about the ownership of a church in exactly the same way as it would the ownership of an office building. Whose name is on the title? Presumably some incorporated entity, which has bylaws specifying what body gets to make decisions for it (a vestry, a board of directors, whatever). Well, who currently constitutes that body, again according to the bylaws, and what do they say? Problem resolved, time for lunch.
But the Virginia statute specifies that for a church, the decision is to be made by a vote of the congregation, regardless of who governs the church or what the church’s own bylaws may say about how it makes decisions.
Granted, in this particular case, the end result would be the same; presuming it’s the vestry that governs the entity whose name is on the title of the property, the vestry(ies) obviously agreed to realignment before putting the matter to the congregation.
But if I were arguing the case against the division statute, that woudl be my point of attack: that it singles out religious organizations for special treatment and ignores the established bylaws of the church.
I would presume that there are other churches in virginia that would want to join falls church etc if they succeed on appeals. By not fighting on the voting question TEC does not establish a precident for other churches to follow. They can still say “you didn’t do the vote right”
‘A truly “neutral principles†state would resolve a dispute about the ownership of a church in exactly the same way as it would the ownership of an office building.’ — Ross
It does:
If shareholders in a corporation disagree over the use of real property, they take a vote and the majority rules. I do not see much difference in the way this law specifies the outcome. The corporation (local church) owns real property, but the shareholders(members) are in dispute as to how the property shall be used. They take a vote and that settles it. Good law. End of story.
Of course my bias is more than obvious. Still, I do think TEC will have a tough time appealing this decision.
The facts (which cannot be retried) are not in their favor and the judge and VA attorney general both find the law is constitutional following very careful reasoning. The judge is so thorough and accurate in his judgements that he has NEVER been overturned on appeal. The only arguement I can see for TEC, once all the obfuscation is stripped away, is “We claim this law is unconstitutional because it does not support our goal of gaining these proprerties. It abridges our religious freedom. (Please do not notice that the law supports the religious freedom of those %a$#&*@$ we are suing.)” Pretty weak in my view, but it’s about all they have.
Virginia is blessed with a very good law for settling these situations. TEC should have understood it and arranged their affairs more carefully. The ADV churches offered to settle — and pay money to the DioVA — before trial. Too bad TEC overthrew the well-reasoned settlement that the ADV churches and +Lee had arranged. This affair would have been over two years ago, settled in a Christian way with DioVA receiving money rather than spending it on a very expensive suit. Now, one might hope the judge will restore to the ADV churches part of the legal expenses they have borne at the whim of TEC to test this 150-year-old law.
None of this may turn out as I have seen it here, but my hope and prayer is that the Lord’s will be done. That I can live with no matter how it turns out.
Best wishes, — Stan