Matt Kennedy on Why It’s A Good Thing For Traditional Episcopalians To Fight For Their Property

Amen!

Not to mention if you are going to loose everything anyway and betting everything on a chance of winning…

Hi AndrewA,
Could you be less concise, please? I do value brevity, but find this is too terse for my simple mind. Would you please write four sentences to explain what you mean in that one sentence?

I liked Fr. Matt’s point that giving away resources and property would empower the spread of false teachings.

Personally, I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who contributed a dime for “The Episcopal Church.”  People contribute for their parish, and for good works of the church- soup kitchens, hurricane relief, hospitals, schools and food for far away places, missionary work, seminaries. 
I can’t imagine how they are going to sell ersatz-San Jaoquin and ersatz-Pittsburgh on lawsuit tithes, but apparently that is the plan.  At this rate, dioceses will start taking up special collections to support lawsuits in Nigeria and Uganda against the Primates, or one to force ++Rowan to back off this “un-Anglican moratorium” on gay marriage.
From here on out, any congregation with sense will form a separate not-for-profit corporation, buy the building and the assets and lease it to the parish.  That way, Dennis canon or no, the diocese or national church has no claim on anything.  You take your vote on leaving TEC 30 days before the lease runs out.

tjmcmahon,
As I remember this kind of suggestion from a few past threads here on SFiF, it seems that many dioceses have C&C;that only allow sale of property with Council or Standing Committee permission.  Sometimes there’s a difference between incorporated and unincorporated congregations.  Otherwise, sounds like a protectective plan.

remaining,
Having observed the capriciousness of several rectors and bishops over the years, a certain amount of financial oversight is a good thing in most dioceses.  My point was really that diocesan structures vary from place to place, the example I gave was tangential to the point, I suppose. Having observed how TEC bishops treat the Word of God with disdain, one can only imagine what they might do if they had complete control over the total assets of a diocese.

tjmcmahon,
When I said “sounds like a protective plan”, I was agreeing with YOU. 
Indeed, those C&C;‘s were supposed to apply to exactly the capricious amongst us.
In these days of more real division (as compared to whim)as evidenced in all the mainlines, would you not agree that capriciousness has been exacerbated by Fear?
What a terrible mess; now we argue about what Godly Stewardship really means in action.

sorry remaining,
I wasn’t meaning to sound disagreeable- just trying to clarify my earlier remark.
Personally, I think stewardship is simple enough, if one remembers that the church building, chalice, paten, vestments, linens, thurible and the paper clips belong to our Lord Jesus Christ.
You are certainly right with your remark “What a terrible mess”. 
I surely would not want to be one of these bishops on Judgment Day, when called upon to explain why I threw a group of Christians out of His Church.

From all I’ve read, TEC should have RICO charges laid against it. The entire situation should be looked at by a law firm that investigates such things. I’m going to make some calls tomorrow.

Mari, do let me know how that call with the lawyers goes.  Here I thought Matt said “Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?”  And now you want RICO charges against TEC?  For evicting squatters from its own property?

Classy move.  Very Christian all around.

Seems like all modern schismatics have the same plan.  Whenever something happens that doesn’t go your way in the greater church community, accuse the “instigators” of being “schismatic,” nevermind it’s only these squeaky wheels that have any intention of leaving.  Then, when all else fails, jump ship and try to grab and steal as much church property as you can on the way out.

You folks signed on with TEC.  You presumably read the constitutions of your parish, diocese, and TEC when you joined.  It’s too late in the day now to claim that you can take what was built within TEC by millions of saints over countless generations and that now “it’s MINE, MINE, MINE to take with me.”

Leave if you must, but please spare the drama and whinging.  Start your own church, join another, whatever floats your boat, but if you’re operating outside church polity, you start from scratch.

Resistence is vital. Do not be like the Jews in WWII and go meekly to the persecutors. Deny the revisionists your assets, and some of theirs, to persecute those behind you, or those that are weaker. If you do not fight for what is yours then the heretics not only have your assets, but they have preserved theirs for another persecution. It is your Christian duty

Matt’s church did the right thing by fighting. So did the Northern Virginia churches. Plano was clearly wise in settling with the Diocese of Dallas while it could.

For others, the best strategic decision may be to walk after weighing the opportunity cost associated with property litigation. That cost can be unacceptably high depending on a number of local factors, state law, the level of parish unanimity and the location of a church.  A church building occupied by a less than unanimmous parish, located in a non-growth area, may not be worth the fight. In such case, it may be better stewardship to take the opportunity to move to a prime location.

Shipoffools, let me ask you this:  Let’s say that you and your wife or husband….assuming that you have one….bought a home in a housing tract, and supposing you were required to join the homeowners’ association, and supposing that association were to inform you after you had paid for your home, that they in fact had a “fiduciary interest” in your home, and you couldn’t sell it without their written permission.  How would you feel? 

Would you take them to court and sue them, or would you cave in to them?  I am going to make this as clear as I can, and say this:  Those people BOUGHT the properties on which their churches were built….with NO help from TEC, or they were deeded the land and built their churches….again with NO help from TEC.  They paid the insurance premiums with NO help from TEC.  They maintained and repaired their property with NO help from TEC. 

So HOW, pray tell, can TEC claim to have a “fiduciary interest” in properties they NEVER bought, for which they have NO REGISTERED DEEDS, which properties they NEVER maintained, and which they value as merely FINANCIAL ASSETS over which they intend to maintain control?

And yes, I DO think it’s time to file RICO charges!

I also think that the leaders of The Episcopal Church will have a LOT to answer for on Judgment Day….and I would not care to be in their shoes!

shipoffools,

I’d point you to the same logical fallacy I point most revisionists to on the issue of property, but I suspect you can find a definition for petitio principii at Google just as well as anyone can.

You want this to be true:

You folks signed on with TEC.  You presumably read the constitutions of your parish, diocese, and TEC when you joined.  It’s too late in the day now to claim that you can take what was built within TEC by millions of saints over countless generations and that now “it’s MINE, MINE, MINE to take with me.”

...when in fact this is precisely the issue being debated and contested. TEC says it owns all parish property, but A) the question has hardly been settled, as developments in Virginia (where TEC is getting its butt kicked), San Joaquin, and Fort Worth prove, and B) it would appear that no one can come up with any incontrovertible proof that the Dennis Canon - on which TEC’s property claims rest - was actually passed.

So while you could be of great help by showing us all exactly how it is that TEC owns parish property, skipping that inconvenient debate and assuming it as a given in TEC’s favor makes you look, at best, embarrassingly uninformed.

Cennydd, I’m going to ignore your irrelevant example (other than to say I would READ a homeowner’s association agreement before signing, and a independent human person is not the same as a constituent church parish) and just suggest that you dust off your copy of your church constitutions.  They govern.

As to your second point (WE bought it, WE did), that’s the “MINE MINE ME ME” argument.  Fail.  It’s contrary to church law, and it’s flat-out wrong.  Most of these church BUILDINGS have been around longer much longer than the schismatic’s have been members—or have been alive—and more to the point they are part and parcel of the Episcopal church.  It’s bigger than them.

If some Roman Catholic parish decided to leave RCC because the Pope won’t budge on ordaining women, do you think for one second that RCC would let them leave and keep the church building and financials?  Do you think they should?  Or to turn it around, suppose they wanted full schism because they believed Vatican II was heresy? (Same result.)

And before someone brings it up, Virginia is an odd duckling because they have the unusual and suspect “congregant’s rights” statute that does not exist in NY or virtually all states.  Virtually all states will go by the church’s organic law, just as they would with property of any corporation.

Greg, I see I was already too late with the above paragraph.  I’d be interested to know your legal qualifications.  By the way the answer to your question very easily found if you follow my advise of READING the documents.  Canon I.7.3 of TEC:
Sec. 3. No Vestry, Trustee, or other Body, authorized by Civil or Canon law to hold, manage, or administer real property for any Parish, Mission, Congregation, or Institution, shall encumber or alienate the same or any part thereof without the written consent of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of which the Parish, Mission, Congregation, or Institution is a part, except under such regulations as may be prescribed by Canon of the Diocese.

And every Vestry is required to include a “supremacy clause” in its own constitution to its diocese and TEC.  So there you go.

shipoffools, your choice of the description, “instigator” was especially apt, because TEC has been the instigator of all of what you are now attempting to blame the victims of it’s corruption on.

Other churches have had RICO charges filed against them, and perhaps that is what is merited in this case, though I’m not a lawyer. I have been activist for civil rights for more than 20 years, and from what I’ve read over the past months here, I do believe there is merit to an investigation under RICO. Forcing open the books of TEC, and laying bare the truth about what the current leadership has been doing, might be what is needed. I’ve spent some time this evening making notes of instances I’ve read about so I could lay out a brief over view.

As to your weak excuses, the people who signed on to TEC did not sign on to support their faith being tossed in the rubbish bin, and replaced with corrupt and sinful practices. The entire thing has the stench of a group of con artists who conduct a hostile takeover, and then defraud innocent victims.

shipoffools,

State trust laws trump TEC canons. Any fool knows that.

In any case, as long as we’re reading documents, read Matt’s post in which he cites the protocol between his parish and the bishop by which they were to leave with their property.

You can file RICO charges against a ham sandwich.  Making them stick is another matter.  No court in this nation would adjudicate religious orthodoxy, and I’m astonished that anyone would suggest it.

You’ll have your precious Orthodoxy if you can keep it (have fun uniting, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals), but your witness to the world and the stones you are throwing at fellow Christians will bear only bitter fruit until you find a place of unity and reconciliation.

shipoffools,

If this were an open and shut case - much as you wish it were - we wouldn’t have the CANA breakaways mopping up the courtroom floor with DioVA and TEC, now would we? TEC canons - much as you wish they could - do not by default supersede state property law, where there are things called deeds, with names on them and everything. Extremely few of those have “TEC” anywhere on them.

Ahhhh yes, I love the smell of troll in the evening. Bored with the details are we shipoffools? Of course you are correct because your cause is the one currently in control of TEC, and therefore without fault. What about those churches that were in fact built by the current constituency? I see no provision for that in the current policies being enforced by 815 - do you? Of course not. The argument is specious, as is the one which says,

It’s too late in the day now to claim that you can take what was built within TEC by millions of saints over countless generations

Not all properties in dispute are the result of “millions of saints” nor were there “countless generations” involved unless one is too lazy to take stock of the actual generations. Dunning others with ridiculous claims of millions or billions, and countless generations gives lie to your assertion out of sheer weight of hyperbole. And an appeal to church polity. I mean really now. After all the dancing about the canons, after all the half-truths and prevarications, the outright deception, the bribery, and the abuses of power, the effrontery of claiming polity as high ground from within TEC descends to a such an incredible level of absurdity as to bring involuntary mirth at such cupidity. My dear shippy, you have my truly ardent prayers for you and yours this Christmas season. This bitter tirade casts a dull pall over the festive season. God rest ye merry.

It gets very tiresome having laypeople give lessons on trusts, estates, and real property.  Since we’re all so pedagogical, did you come up with an answer to the RCC hypo yet?

To recap:
1. VA doesn’t apply outside VA.  NY does NOT have an “interfere-with-church-polity” statute.
2. Dallas settled, so what?  The diocese there decided to take cash and let the building go with the schismatics, and that’s somehow an admission of weakness?
3. The deed is in the name of the parish.  But the parish itself is governed by church canons, based on its own constitution.  Any unauthorized change to its own constitution would be voidable if not void ab initio.  Canon I.7.3 gives the Diocese the right to enjoin any unauthorized sales, and other canons allow the inhibition of schismatics at the parish level.

This whole concept that TEC is run by heretical conspirators is simply a bitter, narrow-minded schismatic minority’s lament that it did not get its own way.  There is room for you in TEC if you would stay and open your heart.

Sorry I didn’t squeeze this into my last post, but masternav, you have a depressingly small view of the Christian church.  Most Christians I know can see beyond the stain-glass windows of their own worship-house.

People, keep dreaming on RICO.

19:  “Other churches have had RICO charges filed against them”.  Who?  When?  Why?

Greg, 17: “no one can come up with any incontrovertible proof that the Dennis Canon - on which TEC’s property claims rest - was actually passed”

Well, George Conger (not exactly TEC’s favorite reporter) investigated the facts thoroughly and was satisfied.  And those challenging the Canon have yet to convince any court, while numerous courts have applied the Canon to one degree or another.  Nor are the claims of non-passage particularly forceful or persuasive.  Most simply say that it’s uncertain whether the Dennis Canon passed.  Also, Lunceford’s book claims that new evidence was discovered in late 2005 about the supposed non-passage of the Dennis Canon, a weak claim at best.  In short, you also are glossing over some facts.  My two cents worth is that the breakaway folks would be better off arguing the merits of how property ownership is determined than challenging the Dennis Canon’s passage.

Ship of Fools (what an appropriate nom-de-plum) in #24, casting aspersions, gives a perfect example of projection when he or she so perfectly describes TEC: “bitter, narrow-minded schismatic minority” (BNSM)
then goes on brilliantly to do the same in #25: “Most Christians I know can see beyond the stain-glass windows of their own worship-house.”  This is so true of the majority of Christians who are aligned body, soul and Spirit to Jesus Christ, thus are One the present true global Church and to the Church of all the ages and the saints and martyrs who have gone before them. 
Again, not so with TEC who have cut themselves off from Christ and from The Church…a simultaneous action of apostasy, heresy and schism.
So, shipoffools, your remarks are quite pertinent and revelatory of your position, your own faction or cult group’s position as rebels against the witness of the Holy Spirit of Truth.

DavidH

“Well, George Conger (not exactly TEC’s favorite reporter) investigated the facts thoroughly and was satisfied.”

Actually that’s not quite true. He found the documentation missing.

Resist because you can and it sends a message that resistance is not futile.  The EC still has not answered where the money is coming from that is financing these lawsuits.  What person wants to support Lawsuits against other faithful Episcopal Christian who for faith and conscience can no longer remain part of the EC.

While the EC is rich it is not infinite in its wealth.  Resist and refuse to fund these lawsuits.  It is a faithful protest that stands in contrast to the message that the worst is over and that is only a small vocal minority causing this problem.  The intentional deception now being pronounced by the leadership of the EC flies in the face of the facts.

Resist because you can and it sends a message that such is not futile…..

Setting aside the fact that property ownership will be adjudicated state by state by objective, honorable secular authorities—which is all I want, let the chips fall where they may state by state—the real issue is of course the numerous times that shipoffools states something like this in his comments: “Classy move.  Very Christian all around.”

Yawn.

I am indifferent to shipoffools conception of what “Christian” is—we obviously don’t share the same definitions about such things anyway.  I would expect for shipoffools to proclaim “Christian” things that are not [see TEC sexuality debate] and for him to proclaim “nonChristian” things that are.

Half of the content of his comments do just that, and it’s only natural that they should.

#26 DavidH… Agreed that the better argument for
those leaving is how property owmership is determined.  Va simply does not allow for trusts in favor of regious corporations, expressed or implied.  In CA, as general rule, all trusts are revocable by the trustors unless the documents creating them state they are not.  But, in this state, the 3rd and 4th district courts of appeals have disagreed on some important issues and raised important questions:  In CA, is its corporate code controlling for religious institutions or was it
simply convenience?  Also, asserted above is the issue of whose name is on the deed as controlling for ownership.  That too, I don’t believe has been settled.  That is why, in CA, the CA Supreme Court will hear the St James case.  Again, I think it was Jones v. Wolf that noted that a state appealate court had erred when it had not considered a general church’s constitution canons etc. when making a decision re property.  Maybe DavidH can chime in here.  Decisions will be on a state by state basis following theories from trust law, corporations law (religious or naught) property law, or, for religious corporations, hierarchical preference vs neutral principles theory. This is not going to be easy or pleasant for any of the litigants.  But, IMHO, if Matt+ feels he is right and he has received the bums rush from his diocese (or the church authorities that Paul would have us approach), given that they surely have a vested interest and are, in fact, in Matt’s view, the perpetrators of the misdeeds, then, with him I say, “Take ‘em to court”  because, in the US, our courts are the best chance we have for a neutral and fair hearing.

Matt+, 28, I respectfully think your post is not quite true.  People can go read what Conger wrote and decide for themselves.

Sure David, I suppose we will have to disagree. But my statement above was factual. He could not locate the official documentation wrt the Dennis canon. His personal opinion is a matter of speculation because he does not express it in that piece…but I think there is good reason to suppose he is neutral on the matter.  Here is his final 3 para:

Given that the summary of legislation was produced on the same day as the actions it describes took place, it is reasonable to assume that it is a true and correct record of events. While this indirect evidence exists of passage of the Dennis Canon, no direct evidence has survived.

Wicks Stephens, chancellor of the Anglican Communion Network, said the “absence of usually present documentation is troubling and indeed suspicious.”

While acknowledging that the documentary evidence in the Archives could be used to argue the Dennis Canon passed Convention, it also “suggests that it may not have been. In that event one can argue that the court should put the burden of proving its valid establishment on the party asserting its validity – TEC. At that point, how will TEC meet such a burden unless they can find the rest of the record?” he said.

I just love being a tiresome layperson!  I think I shall add that to my signature block:

Fidela
Tiresome Layperson

“Shipoffools.”  That pretty much says it all.  Self-described.  Seems like an apt moniker for TEC.

Sometimes one can gain great insight on an issue by looking at it ‘upside down.’ To that purpose, I am going to pretend I am a huge supporter of TEC as it currently stands, except for the lawsuits (I am not).

If I were a huge supporter of TEC, I would urgently request them to cease all lawsuits immeditately, and to negotiate equitable property settlements wherever possible, with utmost Christian charity but also with a keen sense of what is best for TEC. After successful negotiations, TEC should then very publicly say to any departing parish or diocese: “Go with God.”

This is not only the right and Christian thing to do, it would also be brilliant from a public relations standpoint. As it is (and not to be too secular about it), the Episcopal Church is absolutely “killing its brand.” Thank God (literally) that the new churches are called ‘Anglican.’ That small difference is actually more important, ultimately, than all the property battles.

Shipoffools, I believe I have proven my point.  However, I must disagree with you on salient point:  You mentioned that vestries must include an accession clause in their “constitutions.”  I served on a vestry for over fifteen years, and never have I seen anything like what you describe.  No mention was ever made of this to any new members by anyone on the vestry, and certainly not by the rectors.  However, now that our local mission church has come under the Anglican Church of North America after being part of the Province of the Southern Cone, it no longer will make any difference.  Read our provisional Constitution and Canons, and you’ll find that parishes own their own property without any claim by a “national Church.”

We have NO accession clause in our by laws or constitution.

I understand that in recent years the bishop of the California diocese was trying to strong arm individual parishes to vote to add an accession clause. Not all did so.

Shippy, you said:

Sorry I didn’t squeeze this into my last post, but masternav, you have a depressingly small view of the Christian church.  Most Christians I know can see beyond the stain-glass windows of their own worship-house.

Actually, I have a very broad view of Christianity having served in several denominations and nondenominational ministries over the last 40 years. I have served in innercity ministries, I have sat by the beds of more gay friends than I care to remember, ministering to them during the ravages of AIDS, I have held the hands of rape victims as they have been counselled and dealt with the results of their rape. I friends still who serve in mission positions and some who have died to deliver the Gospel to those who desparately need the hope that our Lord offers, I have served or worshipped from my Lutheran roots through Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, Charismatic Catholic, Episcopal, Anglo-Catholic, Messianic Jewish, as the Lord calls - so I go. It is those in TEC, now presiding over one of the smallest remaining “classical” mainstream denominations that are narrowing the beliefs and trappig themselves behind the stained glass properties while diluting the actual professed beliefs of those they purportedly shepherd. For me especially as a “not-cradle” Anglican nee Episcopalian, I find it curious that the fundamental aspects of what was Episcopal belief has changed so radically over the last 20 or 30 years.

One of the most recurring comments I hear from the older Episcopal members in neighboring churches, is how much this isn’t the Episcopal church they remember. And they notice the increasing decline in membership, the shifting focus on the numbers reporting to disguise the decline, or at least distract from it - the smaller numbers of children and youth - who are the future of the church in any denomination. From any perspective, the decline is the strongest indicator of how far the Episcopal church has disconnected itself from its constituency. If you look at where the population has gone - it has not been to the Unitarian Universalist churches - they haven’t grown at anything like the rate of decline in the mainline denominations. Yet this is where the progressive leadership of the Episcopal church want to prophetically take the church.

Ultimately shippy, the skin I have in this game - is what I choose to have, not what I <bold> must </bold> have. I didn’t choose to have a leadership role in my Anglican church, its where God lead me to serve. So unlike you I simply don’t have the same vehement clutching at silly notions of property ownership, the same pleading of “generations” of Episcopals - who if resurrected this instant, would more than likely question why the the church is in the state it is, not loudly proclaim the “rightness” of it all. No, I think that perhaps you are thumping your pots loudly in the wrong kitchen, and do not really desire to change anything here. You want what you want, you will do anything you can to ensure that you get it, even while you decry that very same behavior elsewhere. There is a word that describes that behavior which escapes me at the moment, or perhaps courtesy and good taste, let alone Christian love, require me to treat you better than you treat others. Come and serve with me, walk in my shoes for a while.

shipoffools (#11, 18, 21, 24 & 25),

You said in # 11:  “Then, when all else fails, jump ship and try to grab and steal as much church property as you can on the way out.”  I think we could get a pretty good debate going here about who, if anyone, is stealing.  Quite a strong word, steal, Shipoffools, very judgmental.

You also said in # 11:  “You folks signed on with TEC.”  That is an interesting claim you make when many of the parishes which are defendants in law suits filed by TEC existed before there was any such entity as TEC.  To have signed on with an entity which did not exist would have required an interesting bit of prescience, don’t you think?

You said in # 18:  “And every Vestry is required to include a “supremacy clause” in its own constitution to its diocese and TEC.”  I have served on the vestry, as treasurer, junior warden, senior warden in several parishes, in several dioceses in several states.  None of those parishes, not one, had a “supremacy clause”.  Perhaps that is not the only mistake we made.

You said in # 21: “ You can file RICO charges against a ham sandwich.  Making them stick is another matter.  No court in this nation would adjudicate religious orthodoxy…”.  I have found identifying the implied nexus between “RICO charges” and “orthodoxy” a bit of a challenge.  If you are a lawyer, perhaps you would be willing to file a RICO charge against a ham sandwich.  Where I live you would not have much company, as there are some rules, lawyers here call it Rule 11, which might cause you a bit of heart burn if you did.  Do you always express yourself with such hyperbole; do I see a pattern here?

You said in # 24:  “This whole concept that TEC is run by heretical conspirators is simply a bitter, narrow-minded schismatic minority’s lament that it did not get its own way.”  Your generosity in your judgments of me and other orthodox Anglicans is overwhelming.  I would like to return the compliment by saying some nice things about you here, but I don’t have the time for the research, which I am confident would be quite fruitful.

You said in # 25:  “Most Christians I know can see beyond the stain-glass windows of their own worship-house.”  Actually, counselor, or would-be counselor, as the case may be, it is stained-glass.

In spite of the narrow-mindedness and bitterness which you attribute to me, I wish you well, shipoffools, and trust you enjoy the camaraderie of your chosen shipmates.

God bless.

Of course, the whole argument rests on the ecclesiological presupposition that the “fundamental agency of mission is the local congregation,” which of course has now been enshrined in the provisional constitution of the ACNA.  If one accepts this premise, as Matt most emphatically does, then fighting for “OUR property” (whether the law is on our side or not - because the canons certainly are not) is pretty much a foregone conclusion, if not a moral imperative.

Frankly, the new province’s “agency clause” is a non-starter for me, for it is un-catholic.  The parish is a ministry of the diocese, which is the “fundamental agency of mission” for the church.  (Ironically, I don’t have a problem with the new province’s canon on the local ownership of church property.  I just have a problem with the theological rationale used to justify it.)

From a legal point of view - a church that until 1979 did not claim an interest in property and then all of a sudden arguable claimed all of it in Trust seems a very bad outcome.  RC is different the property was always in its name so I understand.  I could see a good argument that churches built/formed post 1979 would have to live under the Denis Cannon or those that formally adopted or acceded to it - but pre 1979 Parishes - that seems to be the theft if there is any. 
Also from a first Amendment freedom of Religion standpoint - the VA statute makes sense.  The courts should stay out of theological battles and should protect the true owner of the property - that is determined by deed records in almost all instances. 
I think many states should consider adopting neutral principles of law that currently just let an entitly like TEC get away with whatever they say.

Now if TEC was to act in a Christian manner - it would cut deals - either: 10 fair market value or a discounted value for the property; 2)some level of financial support for the diocese for a period of time; 3) enough money to provide for the pastoral care of those who do not want to leave TEC ( or a sharing of the building for a time for one group to go it alone). But to fight for property that TEC cannot maintain for the greater glory of God just to keep it out to the hands of those who would lovingly do so - seems alwfully spiteful.

Matt+, 33, you have your spin zone.  I’ll create mine:

Claims the Dennis Canon failed to pass both Houses of the 1979 General Convention are unfounded.

While the minutes of the House of Deputies and other important papers from the 1979 General Convention have not survived, sufficient documentary evidence exists in the Archives of the Episcopal Church to cast doubt on published claims that the Dennis Canon was overlooked and not brought to a vote in the final hours of the 1979 General Convention.

Doesn’t sound neutral to me.

Matt+, 38, what is the year of the first Good Shepherd bylaws or constitution?  Have they ever had an accession clause?

Also, did Good Shepherd do what the Virginia congregations did—incorporate and let your lawyers write the new governing documents?

Chips@43 wrote:
“Also from a first Amendment freedom of Religion standpoint - the VA statute makes sense. ” 
That depends upon your point of view of freedom of religion, free to organize in a hierarchical manner, free to organize in a congregational one.  What made Va interesting was Judge Bellows take on “church” “branch” and “religious society”

He also said: “The courts should stay out of theological battles…”

They do Cf Presbyterian v. Hull

He also said: “and should protect the true owner of the property - that is determined by deed records in almost all instances.”  Here the relevant portion is “almost all”.  Does the right to freedom of religion  trump property laws and “name on deed” issues?  I suggest its not settled law. 

And then he said: “should consider adopting neutral principles of law that currently just let an entitly like TEC get away with whatever they say.”  This just plain baffled me as, in most instances, I think (and frankly I haven’t thought of an exception?), TEC would argue that hierarchical preference should be the proper theory rather than the neutral principles approach?

EmilyH (#47),

Your pontifications on technical legal issues would be much more credible if you would tell us whether you are an attorney.

God bless.

DavidH,

1873.

there is no accession clause

the rest will be answered shortly

EmilyH, Judge Bellows very correctly pointed out that there was nothing in Virginia law which prevented either the dioceses from holding the property in their own name (as the Roman Catholics do) or having the national level leadership own the property (as the LDS does).

Hierarchal denominations wishing to claim ownership over their individual church buildings can do so in the the Commonwealth of Virgnia by actually owning the buildings, a simple step that DioVA neglected to make.  Furthermore, their excuse for not doing so (insisting that parishes hand over deeds would disrupt the peace of the church) is weak and doesn’t do much to strengthen their claim to be hierarchal. 

Your pontifications on technical legal issues would be much more credible if you would tell us whether you are an attorney.

Equally relevent would be what area of law her practice is in and what states she is licensed to practice in.  However, since nothing has stopped us laymen from pontificating on the topic, I’m not sure why you are singling out her for a credentials check.

I’m not sure why you are singling out her for a credentials check.

I think it has something to do with a Form 990

AndrewA (#50),

You said:  “However, since nothing has stopped us laymen from pontificating on the topic, I’m not sure why you are singling out her for a credentials check.”

Andrew, I am sure you have no idea.

God bless.

Hosea6:6 (#51),

You remember the exchange on that thread long ago.  Wow!

God bless.

Matt+, 49, I think time may have passed this thread by.  But on the off chance you’re still reading it and care to take questions, I’m not sure you answered mine.  You said there is no accession clause.  My question was whether there has ever been one.

AndrewA, 50, actually, until Judge Bellows’ opinions earlier this year, Virginia had spent 34 years using a neutral principles of law method nearly identical to that in Jones v. Wolf to decide church property disputes.  (Virginia adopted neutral principles five years before Jones v. Wolf.)  Judge Bellows ruled that approach is superseded by the statute.  We’ll see if the Supreme Court of Virginia agrees.

“You said there is no accession clause. My question was
whether there has ever been one.”

never

(Virginia adopted neutral principles five years before Jones v. Wolf.) Judge Bellows ruled that approach is superseded by the statute.  We’ll see if the Supreme Court of Virginia agrees.

Wouldn’t statutory law ALWAYS supersede civil law (unless struck down as unconstitutional)? In my industry any changes to the Underground Damage Prevention Act have huge implications on civil suites, where in Maryland, where the law is extremely vague (and actually contradictory with one county and the rest of the state) many off the wall cases are cited to win the case.

The policy behind the Dennis Canon was implemented over the years in a variety of ways, most effectively through Diocisian requirements that parishes obtain Diocisian approval prior to mortgaging property.  Most orthodox parishes, including my own, acceded to this requirement when they expanded, to avoid making waves or having to disclose to lenders an asserted cloud on title, however flawed.  As a condition for the approval, the parish had to recognize the Diocisian interest in the property.

This is another instance where the institutionalist, “moderate” Bishops had a great influence over the destruction of the church.

H6:6, 56, not if you conclude there is a way to harmonize the statute and the case law.

DavidH, Hosea6:6, and DavidH again,

I don’t think Judge Bellows found that the Virginia division statute and the general approach to church property disputes in Virginia are at odds, or that he had to determine that one superseded the other.  The issue was whether, with the general approach (the details of which, it should be noted, are at least contested) remaining in place, the parishes had complied with the statutory requirements such that the statute and not the general approach applied.

If he had found that for some reason, the statute didn’t apply (because there was no division, or because the parishes failed to follow proper voting procedures, or because the statute was unconstitutional), then the general approach would be followed.

If there were a new, unrelated property dispute today where neither party tries to follow the statute, then the general approach is still alive and would apply.  That approach hasn’t been superseded…it’s just that Judge Bellows found that the statute is the governing law in these circumstances.

1) Dykemann indicates that the Dennis Canon codified what had already been the law and practice in the Episcopal Church. George Conger, like Richard Dague, is misleading folks badly.
2)  Both Episcopal Church teaching and IRS rulings are clear that when we give money to the church we are relinquishing control over that money—and that are not buying material interest in its property. If you teach otherwise, you should be in grave danger with the IRS—because parishioners have taken tax deductions for those gifts.  When I buy stock in a hospital I don’t get to take a tax deduction for that purchase, do I? I believe the leadership of Stand Firm has a responsibility to be clear about this.
3.  If you are going to leave the Episcopal Church, please do so with some integrity. You go with our blessings, but not with our property. Remember, when your new group begins to split there will be dissidents who want to take the property you have built up!

Tom,

Once again, begging the question. You say it’s “our” property - as in TEC’s - we say it belongs to the congregations. You speak of it as if it’s a settled question. If it were a settled question, there would be no lawsuits in Virginia and elsewhere. Furthermore, if TEC’s claim on property was one-tenth as strong as you claim it is, TEC wouldn’t be getting its butt kicked in the Virginia courts.

So make the argument that TEC owns the property because state laws say it does, or because congregations have signed over the deeds, but stop saying “parish property belongs to TEC because TEC own parish property.”

#60
Ref. you final sentence, if parishes or dioceses in the ACNA decide to leave, and that decision is supported by a majority of the voting members, I would tell them to go and prosper.  It’s in the constitution and canons of the ACNA anyway.

The charitable thing for TEC to do would be to meet with parishes wanting to take their properties with them, and settle out of court.  Unfortunately, the Church’s hierarchy has chosen to bring suit against these parishes in an un-Christian manner. 

When parishes express a desire to buy the properties, they are abruptly turned down.  WHY?  When they prove that they have deeds which legally prove that they are the registered owners of the properties and The Episcopal Church’s name DOES NOT APPEAR on the registered deeds, it seems to me that the ownership of those properties is undisputably shown to be the local corporation known as the Rector and Vestry, and NOT the diocese or The Episcopal Church.  Parishes henceforth would do well to incorporate in order to protect themselves. 

Fortunately, the Anglican Church in North America has seen fit to ensure local ownership….even with the remote possibility that some parishes may chose to withdraw and take their properties with them.

when we give money to the church we are relinquishing control over that money—and that are not buying material interest in its property.

No doubt. But ... since the parishes for the most part pay for their own buildings this comment has nothing to say to ownership of the parish’s church.

TBWSantaFe:  Your arguments make little sense.
1. If the Dennis Canon simply restated “what had already been the law and practice in the Episcopal Church” then why was it necessary to pass it?  If law and practice exist and work fine, there is no need to restate the law.  You know and I know that the Dennis Canon was passed because parishes were able to depart with their properties, and TEC wished to close that door in light of expected battles over the new prayer book and womens ordination.
2. The rub, Tom, when you say “when we give money to the church we are relinquishing control over that money—and that are not buying material interest in its property” is who “the church” is.  Most people, when they put money in the church collection plate are giving to their local parish, and not to the diocese or the national church.  If I donate to, for example, the Red Cross for Katrina Hurricane relief, but then I find out that the Red Cross took that money and used it to sue WorldVision in some trumped up lawsuit with the intent of bankrupting WorldVision, it would not be enough for the Red Cross to say “well when you donated the money, you relinquished control.”  There is such a thing as “donor intent”.  Most parishioners ARE giving, but they give to the LOCAL PARISH and not to the national church.  You can’t treat TEC laity with the contempt you do, Tom.  We have minds, when we give money we do so with goals in mind, and we expect that money to be used in furtherance of those goals, not by a bunch of liberal activists to pursue contradictory goals.
3. Tom - the courts will decide whose property it is.  It might end up being awarded to TEC, it might not.  You can claim all property is held by TEC, but that doesn’t make it so.  I can declare myself the duly elected President of the United States, but that doesn’t make it so.  Only the secular courts can authoritatively decide questions of legal ownership of property.  It might end up that in Virginia, parish property goes one way, while in New York another.  Legal trends might change over time.  Since TEC’s heirarchy is unwilling to settle ownership issues out of court via negotiation, litigation will unfortunately remain as one of the leading avenues to determine property ownership of parish properties.  But that is TEC’s fault, not the parishes.

I don’t mean to pile on TBWSantaFe, but I imagine Raymond Dague would prefer not to be called “Richard.”

I don’t mean to pile on TBWSantaFe…

But why not?  It’s so easy.

Tom Woodward says (#60): “Dykemann [sic] indicates that the Dennis Canon codified what had already been the law and practice in the Episcopal Church.”

Here as elsewhere Mr. Woodward is incorrect.  What the authors of the Annotated Constitution and Canons could bring themselves to say was that the Dennis canon was “considered by some to be declaratory of existing law.” They presented no support for the position said to be held “by some.”  Annotated Constitution and Canons, Episcopal Church (1981 edition), vol. 1 at 301.  The concern at 815 was that the Annotated Constitution and Canons indicated just the opposite.  To illustrate, a witness in a Connecticut church property case, former New York appellate judge and Chancellor (to the Presiding Bishop) Hugh Jones, testified that although he viewed the commentary in the Annotated Constitution and Canons as an authoritative work, he “disagreed very strenuously with the suggestion . . . of that text that the Dennis Canon was not declaratory or that it introduced a new concept.”  Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity-St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. v. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut, 620 A. 2d. 1280, 1288 (Conn. 1993).
That Mr. Woodward is wrong about someone’s view does not of course resolve the question whether the Dennis canon was merely a codification.  On that broader question, see my remarks under “The Pre-Dennis Property Canons: Did they already provide for a trust, which the Dennis canon merely codified?” at http://www.stayinanglican.com/stayin_anglican/2008/04/the-pre-dennis.html.

TBW said

3.  If you are going to leave the Episcopal Church, please do so with some integrity. You go with our blessings, but not with our property. Remember, when your new group begins to split there will be dissidents who want to take the property you have built up!

Well, a big part of this dispute is that the people leaving are really holding true what the people throughout the generations believed and wanted preserved.  So, in a sense, the people leaving are really the ones entitled to the property, and the people creating the new “church” should pay.

An unexpected opportunity to celebrate at the altar came up this a.m.  Special prayer intentions were included for Good Shepherd, Binghamton, for Dio CNY and TEC.

Sorry, guys. The accession clause means that real and personal property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church—not some faction that believes the Episcopal Church is untrue to its roots or anything else. Diocesan and congregations’ property is held in trust for a specific institution.
Same thing about ordination and consecration vows: they are to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of The Episcopal Church—the institution. That is what every priest and bishop signed onto—and would not have been ordained or consecrated without making that vow.
When you leave the institution, for whatever highminded purpose, you have left it. You have renounced your vows and you (should) have left the institution’s property with it (remember, you vowed to uphold the Doctrine, Discipline.  .etc. of the Episcopal Church which holds that all property is held in trust for it, not another doctrine, discipline, worship or institution).
What is difficult to understand about this?

Happily, Tom, your saying it makes nothing so.

That’s simply a lie Tom that TEC has been peddling since 1979 and a convenient one at that. One of the benefits of pastoring a historic church is that there is an institutional memory at Good Shepherd that stretches back all the way to 1873. No one has ever given a dime to Good Shepherd with the intention of furthering the ministry of the “Episcopal Church” as such. The money given to Good Shepherd has always been for the purpose of furthering the life and ministry of Good Shepherd. And the same is no doubt true of most every parish. The Church claimed everyone’s property in 1979. Unfortunately, few on the parish level were paying attention. The leaders at Good Shepherd, were scandalized to learn that TEC allegedly passed a canon and ipso facto has claim to our property and assets.

It is stealing Tom and it is stealing based on the lie of an “implied trust”. It is a marvel that Beers et al and, to be honest, those who support their claims can sleep at night while robbing poor people of their church. You should be ashamed of yourself Tom. Stealing a church, which is what the diocese is doing and what you support, is a dirty, low, and disgusting thing unworthy of a Christian much less a minister of the gospel.

I’m surprised this one went under the radar:

If some Roman Catholic parish decided to leave RCC because…

Well, the Roman Catholic Archdioceses do in fact own all the church properties.  Their system is different from TEC.  All the plate & pledge goes to the archdiocese, which then parcels out the money to all the churches, pays all the priests’ salaries, pays for all church & rectory upkeep, repair, insurance, etc. and gives back to the individual parishes monies for “programs.” etc.  There are no “diocesan assessments” because the diocese is due all the money.

So when the RCC closed parishes a few years back, there was never any question that they owned the buildings.

Comparing TEC to RCC doesn’t work in this case.

The Episcopal Church’s ordination and consecration rites would be far more truthful if they would say this:  “Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has received them?”  And also the following:  “I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Instead, clergy are required to pledge their loyalty strictly to The Episcopal Church and none other; even other provinces of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Anglican Communion….unless, of course, those provinces are in bed with Schori and Company.

In short, Matt+, the common laity in The Episcopal Church were hoodwinked!  Bamboozled!  Sucker-punched!  Taken to the cleaners!

Although a Roman Catholic diocese is a “corporation sole” owned by the bishop, so that all the property does ultimately belong to the diocese,  I don’t believe the money works quite the way he says.  My knowledge is partial, but here are some bits and pieces I know.  When I was on the social ministry committee of my parish some years back,  the parish tithed from its collection for social justice issues, and the committee decided each month what to do with that tithe. ( The priest was a member of the committee and probably had a veto power if it came to that, but it never did. )  If all the money had gone to the diocese first,  how could we have tithed from the collection for social ministry?    I also know that when pastors are transferred, someone from the diocese comes and examines the books of each parish.  That wouldn’t be necessary if a lot of money weren’t handled at the local level.    I have had an RC pastor describe to me the financial chaos in a parish he took over, and the steps he had to take, some unpopular, to get things under control.  It was clear that he was directly responsible for the budget of this parish, which was in the million dollar a year range. Remember that the largest Catholic parishes are as large as the smallest Episcopal dioceses, or in that range.  This wasn’t the largest but probably involved several thousand families, a church, a rectory, a school, and several other buildings being used as a soup kitchen and food pantry, etc.    I think the parishes do send a certain percentage of the collection to the diocese, and it also supports the yearly diocesan appeal to run special programs. The diocese does set the salaries for the priests, and those salaries would be paid even if for some reason a parish didn’t come up with enough money to do so.  They would be closed long before that, though!  But the whole thing isn’t managed from the top to the degree that Little Myrmidon describes.
Susan Peterson

Matthew, I notice that your lawyer is Raymond Dague—I don’t believe he has prevailed in a single case involving the kind of theft of church property you are involved in.  The success of his practice is a good indication of how wrong your analysis and his are.

In the diocese of the Rio Grande, our Southern Chancellor provided an opinion on church property to us. When it was discovered that it was almost word for word from Raymond’s book, he was dismissed from our convention and from his post. 

I am glad more have not been taken in by this fanciful thinking.

If I understand correctly, Matt has a choice between definatly loosing all the money of the parish and spending part of the parish’s money on the chance that they might keep it all.  I don’t think anyone is being “taken in”.

Actually Thomas, you are incorrect. He has won every time he’s gone to court here in NYS.

Representing St. Andrew’s in Syracuse, he won the first hearing against the Diocese and the case was headed to a trial in which he was also favored to win. The congregation however experienced internal problems and was unable to continue funding the battle, so they settled.

He did not represent All Saints in Rochester but for a few weeks before they found local representation.

And St. Andrew’s Vestal elected not to take their case to court.

So, in fact, he has not lost yet.

oh, and in this case, no one is being misled. We do not expect to win, but as AndrewA says, when the choice is to have all your property and assets stolen or to defend yourself and possibly it there is really very little choice at all is there.

In the diocese of the Rio Grande, our Southern Chancellor provided an opinion on church property to us. When it was discovered that it was almost word for word from Raymond’s book, he was dismissed from our convention and from his post.

Off topic, I find the above revealing. Dismissal by association rather than by reason of a measured and reasoned evaluation. Part of my job as an attorney is counselor, which means I have to explain just what the law on a given subject is, not what I or my client wish it to be.

Piskie sez: Have you taken your loyalty oath today?

RE: “Matthew, I notice that your lawyer is Raymond Dague—I don’t believe he has prevailed in a single case involving the kind of theft of church property you are involved in.”

So full of anger.  I wonder why?  He can’t hide it either . . .

Dague is a hugely successful lawyer at defending property from the theft of people like Tom Woodward.  Matt’s lucky that Dague took his case in very challenging circumstances.  I expect Matt to lose as well—but having Dague represent him means that he has the slim chance, whereas without Dague he would have none.

It’s a privilege to have the likes of Dague defend one from people like Tom Woodward.

May his practice continue to thrive and may he win many more victories, even though this one appears to be a lost cause.  But still . . . every bit of property he manages to defend from heretics and thieves is a victory.

Matt+  Is Good Shepherd funding its defense with assets whose ownership is part of the contested funds?  If so, what would happen in N.Y. if Good Shepherd loses?  Given human nature, I can see why you, Good Shepherd would not walk away, even if you believed your chances of winning slim to none, if you believed that,  if the diocese, in the end,wins all the assets (real and personal?), its take will be reduced by the cost of your side of the litigation?

Oh, don’t worry yourself about funding EmilyH.

RE: “Oh, don’t worry yourself about funding EmilyH.”

But isn’t it sweet of her to worry?  ; > )

Matt+,  I got your comment as well as Sarah’s but, again I ask, is Good Shepherd using the contested assets to fund its defense?

And why on earth Matt would answer EmilyH’s question, one cannot imagine.

Perhaps she deems herself a person deposing a witness?

I’ll say it, as a Southern female: “Just don’t worry your pretty little head over it, now, honey.”

Thanks Sarah, took the words right out of my mouth.

EmilyH - Were you looking to make a contribution?  If so, I’ll gladly direct you on how to make a donation.  Just think - in time for year end giving tax deductions!

Thanks Jackie…we’d certainly love all the help we can get. EmilyH, you seem to be so concerned for our well being…how much can I count you for?

As my Grandmama from Memphis would have said,“Bless her heart.”

Matt+, regardless of
how things go, I am glad that the judge in Good Shepherd’s case did not render judgment last week and I sincerely hope that he will postpone ruling until after Christmas thus insuring, regardless of his decision, you and your congregation will have this time together in your beloved place of worship.

#91 Matt+  Our posts crossed, but on the $ issue, I think you would be correct in assuming not a lot.

Matt just explained to me the other day what “Bless her heart” means to a Southerner!
Susan Peterson

59, Jeff in VA, while claiming to disagree, you’ve just said the same thing:

I don’t think Judge Bellows found that the Virginia division statute and the general approach to church property disputes in Virginia are at odds, or that he had to determine that one superseded the other.  The issue was whether, with the general approach (the details of which, it should be noted, are at least contested) remaining in place, the parishes had complied with the statutory requirements such that the statute and not the general approach applied.

If the statute replaces the general approach in these circumstances (i.e. when “the parishes ha[ve] complied with the statutory requirements”), then the statute has superseded the general approach in these circumstances.  It does not matter whether Bellows has used that precise word or not.  It is what he has decided.

DavidH,

I think it’s just a semantical issue.  Usually when I’ve heard people talk about something being “superseded,” the implication is that something (a new statute, or a case, or whatever) has come along and entire replaced the old approach, rendering it null and void and without any applicability to anything.

In my mind, that’s different from saying that the general approach is still valid, but just doesn’t apply here because there’s a more specific statute on point that the parishes attempted to invoke by holding votes.