There is a lot of misinformation being published by the Los Angeles diocesan leadership about the status of St. James the Great as recent[ly] as this past week….
On May 17th, Bishop Bruno without warning or discussion told the parish he sold the building. Not only had he sold it, but there was no plan as to where anyone should go or do. The parish was devastated. To some this was the second time they had lost their building; to most, who were just starting to come back to church or who are unchurched, could not understand how one man could unilaterally make this decision, especially on a church with a 70-year legacy and *the* last church near Lido Isle.
The pastoral care I have had to administer as a result of this decision has been exhausting. I have had parishioners fall into my arms with tears of disbelief. One couple told me they waited 53 years to find a church they could both agree on and finally found it at St. James the Great.
When I asked what was to become of the 150 families Bishop Bruno said they could go to other churches in the area. This, after spending 18 months of their time, talent and treasure to rebuild a viable, *growing *church.
Update: Lawsuit filed to block the sale of St James Newport Beach
A California court has been asked to block the sale of St James Newport Beach by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles to real estate developers.
On 22 June 2015 a coalition of parishioners called the Save the St James the Great coalition filed suit in the Orange County Superior Court against the Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles and real estate developers Legacy Partners Residential. A hearing has been scheduled before the Hon. David McEachen for 9:00 am on 24 June 2015 in the matter: 30-2015-00794789-CU-OR-CJ
Wow. I thought ECUSA was welcoming? Does Bruno need to sell to pay some diocesan litigation bills?
The irony is palpable.
Ironies indeed, David Keller. The Diocese regained control of the property (in my view unjustly) only to treat its own congregants unfairly as well.
I may not be remembering correctly, but I thought that the property was seized from the ACNA parish because an agreement they had with the previous bishop was declared null and void: a bishop isn’t allowed to dispose of property against the Dennis Canon. Wouldn’t that judgment be a strong precedent supporting the threatened lawsuit again Bruno?