Of Interest:
Canon 8. Of Property
Section a) Any Congregation or other institution holding or intending to hold title to real property shall be incorporated. Its form of incorporation shall be in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in harmony with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and of this Diocese, and the directions of Diocesan Convention.
Section b) All property, real and personal, held by or for the benefit of any Congregation of this Diocese is held in trust for the Diocese and The Episcopal Church. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.
Well, I think we all know why these kinds of canonical changes are being proposed. One thing I have been trying to grasp, since I’m too young to remember: why didn’t issues like this get settled in the 1970s? Didn’t the same sorts of things come up then?
I would guess that, since there was no case of the leadership of a diocese supporting withdrawal from the national church in the late 1970s, no one imagined the current situation.
One should always follow the money. TEC wants to “own” the property but not have it in the TEC name. Why? This way TEC “owns” the property but is NOT liable for its upkeep. These costs are left for the lucky laity to pay and NOT own the property. Oh, when will they ever learn? Statmann
The Dennis canon of 1979 was passed because it was feared that congregations would leave because of the 1979 BCP.
Mel Brooks, prophet:
[b]Hedley Lamarr:[/b] There might be legal precedent! Of course, landsnatching…
[flipping through a law book]
[b]Hedley Lamarr:[/b] land, land…”Land: see Snatch.” Ah, Hailie vs. United States. Hailie: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!
Pb, actually the Dennis Canon was never passed…
TEC should strongly consider a “Junction” of NW PA with what will be the TEC remnant of Pittsburgh after October 4th. NW PA has lost about 23 percent of its members since 1996 and its Plate & Pledge increase has not even covered inflation. In 2006 there were 33 out of 35 churches in the diocese that had Plate & Pledge less than $150,000. Also in 2006, there were 101 burials but only 84 infant baptisms. It would make more sense to me to consider these data and spend less effort regarding who owns buildings which may soon be empty. Statmann
You can smell the fear.
Hey, it’s only a canon. We havve seen demonstrated over and over again what that means. No big deal. Just ask Schori, Beers, and the HOB. Canons are merely to be mis-interpreted as needed. And the courts do look at how businesses implement their policies and the consistency or inconsistency of the same in usage. Therein lies the rub for the Demolition Derby Squad: PB, “legal team”, and the second bench HOB and third bench GC-ites : how have you played the game by what rules?
Not to mention that doing this proves the failure of the never documented passage of the Denis grab-it-all-attempt to solve the problem. Not that facts are important to the DDS from top to bottom rung.
Several points of misinformation. George Conger analyzed whether the Denis Canon was passed and though some of the documents are missing, those that are do point to it passing (e.g., one annotation refers to the passage). Also, it does not need a second reading as some (myself included) have thought. It was not passed becuase of the 79 prayerbook but rather a supreme court ruling and one of the justices explained what needed to be done.
The main reason that the TEO wants the property but does not want the property is not upkeep but liability. With all the “free thinkers” (I would say p#rv&rt;$ but that would get me in trouble), this is a wise move.
See, my interpretation of this canon is that all property belongs to the congregation and that neither the diocese nor the national church (or any of its legal names) has any interest in it or claim to it.
(/sarcasm).
If dioceses want to hold title to the property, then they need to hold title to the property and deal with whatever responsibilities ensue with holding title to the property. Congregations can still be incorporated, but they will not hold title to the property.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
No new plant should agree to this. If necessary rent the property or better yet start an Anglican parish not a TEC one.
If TEC wants to own the property then let them and let them pay for it.