One of the most interesting points was that both sets of lawyers argued that under either legal principle, those being principle of government which would favor a hierarchical denomination and neutral principles which would favor the individual church, their side should prevail. I must admit that between the legal argument and the interruptions (I could not completely shut the world out) I had trouble following why the denomination should win under neutral principles. It may also have something to do with the weakness of the argument because it was clear that at least a couple of justices had trouble buying it. What was more interesting, and has a certain degree of logic, was the individual church’s argument that they still win under principle of government. The argument was that the actual church government was not the Episcopal Church but the Worldwide Anglican Communion which they have not left but are still under its governance. This clearly is not an argument that can be used by a church trying to leave with contested property from the PC(USA).
A point where the denomination’s lawyers did better than the congregations’ lawyer was regarding the law in other states. When the justices asked what the status is in other states (I think this was a “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”) the congregations’ lawyer answered “mixed.” The denomination’s lawyers answered that other states have favored principle of government. (It is my understanding that there are few similar cases which have made it all the way to the state supreme courts in this current round but that the government principle has been favored so far.)
Steve is a Presbyterian, so where are the Episcopal/Anglican takes on this key stage in the legal battle?
And which former TEC church pledged to be “forever bound” by the canons of TEC when it was incorporated?
David Handy+
Well, I commented on Mr. Salyards’ blog with my thoughts.
As to the “forever bound” language, that comes from the application to join the Diocese of Los Angeles signed by (at least) St. James in 1947. Here’s the relevant chunk of the Diocese’s Supreme Court brief (no endorsement of the insinuations…just quoting):
[blockquote]St. James’ was founded as an Episcopal “mission” in 1946, for the purpose of establishing a place of worship for faithful Episcopalians. In 1947, the mission petitioned the Diocese for
recognition as a parish, promising that it would “be forever held under, and conform to and be bound by, the Ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Los Angeles, . . . the Constitution and canons of the [Episcopal] Church . . . , and the Constitution and canons of the Diocese of Los Angeles.”
In reliance on this promise, the Diocese established the parish and deeded the parish’s first real property to it for “less than $100.” [/blockquote]
There’s a live dispute, especially in light of the [i]Barker[/i] case, which made a big deal about the language in the Canons at the time of admission into TEC, as to what exactly that promise means, particularly because of the departure the Canon apparently makes from standard principles of trust law. Is a congregation agreeing to always submit to whatever the national church might decide to enact? What about, say, a religious practice that’s antithetical to the denomination’s founding theological principles? And will civil courts (at least those choosing the “hierarchical deference”/”principle of government” approach) always enforce whatever the denomination enacts, regardless of whether it conflicts with state law? Anyway, food for thought there.
Oh, I also posted a link to the archived webcast of the argument. You can watch it at [url=http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/1008A.asx]http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/1008A.asx[/url].