The Washington Times Latest Report on the Virginia Parish Property Suit

Mr. Mullin had just testified that he had never said the Episcopal Church could divide when Mr. Coffee produced a 1983 book by Mr. Mullin using the word “division” in regards to the denomination. Mr. Mullin, who appeared obviously rattled, said he would not use the word now.”

PWNED!!!

Sarah,

Fluent?  Your being awfully gracious.  I don’t think they even addressed the issues raised by the CANA congregations.  It was all about the constitutions and canons and that was pretty much it.

We shall see how the judge rules.

I wouldn’t read a lot of negativity into the shortness of the case for the Diocese/ECUSA.  Actually, it is consistent with the Diocese/ECUSA’s strategy.  It was CANA that wanted the witnesses and the judge allowed it. 

Peace,

The fact that TEC would muzzle +Lee tells the weakness of their case from a factual standpoint and the damage control mode they were in.  In direct testimony +Lee was not questioned about the Protocol, his discussions with TFC’s rector (Yates+), or his discussions with ++Schori after her investiture.  If he had he would have been subject to withering cross-examination.  This means that testimony about the Protocol negotiations and agreement presented by the CANA parishes probably remains unrefuted.  This appears to have been a bad trial for TEC, which now must hope that the judge either ignores the plain language of the division statute or rules in favor of the parishes but then finds the statute unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.  (As I noted before, I think this is what will happen.)  Even if TEC prevails as a matter of law its leaders have been exposed as untrustworthy and litigation-obsessed.

Mr. Mullin had just testified that he had never said the Episcopal Church could divide when Mr. Coffee produced a 1983 book by Mr. Mullin using the word “division” in regards to the denomination. Mr. Mullin, who appeared obviously rattled, said he would not use the word now.”

OOPS.

herr schnarchmeister

Under cross-examination, he was asked to point out where in the Episcopal Church’s canons it says a parish cannot disaffiliate. Mr. Beers would only repeat that a parish is a creation of the parent diocese and that if its members decide to leave the denomination, they cannot take the parish with them.

OK, Beers cannot possibly be that unprepared or uninformed, so for som reason he must be prepared to loose that portion of the case.  Either he thinks his constitutional grounds are very strong, or he knows he’s going to loose this portion of the case and wants to move directly to the appeal where he can narrow the issues.

RSB

Brother Sinner writes:

Actually, it is consistent with the Diocese/ECUSA’s strategy.  It was CANA that wanted the witnesses and the judge allowed it.

Let me ask a question to clarify - are you saying that CANA wanted to call Peter Lee as a hostile witness (as they did with KJS) and the DioVa pre-empted that by calling him as one of its witnesses?  Then the DioVa counsel went with a perfunctory and limited direct, so there was nothing to cross-examine him on?

As much as I would like to have seen whether he would have confirmed under oath that was forced by KJS to bring the lawsuits - which may very well have come out had he not testified on such a limited basis - it’s just as well, as far as I am concerned, that Peter Lee wasn’t forced to undergo such painful testimony, especially considering his bypass surgeries last year.  KJS is the Evil One, not poor Bishop Lee so much.

I’d like to know just what KJS has on Bishop Lee that he seems to have become her pliable puppet.  Not that I ever tried, because I’m just a peon, but he used to have much more brass than that and it was always hard to push him around.  It’s as if he’s had a complete personality transplant. 

What up with this?!!!

While in the direct, +Lee was kept very limited so that limited the cross examination, his deposition transcript was admitted into evidence, and I am sure that the CANA attorneys covered the protocol, etc in his deposition.  It is my understanding that TEC/DioVA didn’t want to go and rehash the testimony that had been given on deposition.

I do not know the answer to this question, nor if it would have any bearing as precedent in this case, but my question is this:  When the parishes (or dioceses) which eventually formed the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1870 left the Protestant Episcopal Church (as it then was known), did they take their properties with them, and if so, on what basis?  Historians?
RNW+

William Sulik:
Sort of.  However, I was meaning to comment more on consistency with strategy than trial tactics.

BTW, CANA could have called +Lee.  They included the Diocese/TECUSA witness list by reference in their own list.  That is why they were able to use the PB’s depo the way they did.  Seemingly, to great effect. 

Peace,

P.S. Wouldn’t you agree that the young associate that found the ‘division’ quote in the Mullin book well deserves their holiday bonus?
P.P.S. Take anything I say with a big grain of salt - I don’t do trial work.

I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t the fact that TEC has no published lien against the properties in question go a long way toward sinking their case? Whether the division statute is or is not constitutional would seem to be only one avenue of discussion. I would think that CANA has a good case even if that law is thrown out.

Additionally, I’m not sure that TEC can prove that it is a heirarchical church, such as the RCC. TEC was pretty democratic until a few years ago when GenCon started to flex its muscle. My understanding is the the RCC really does have its name on the property deeds. That also means that the diocese and higher levels are responsible for civil damages such as when a parish priest messes up. Watch how fast TEC would suddenly become non-heirarchical were the same sort of sex abuse charges to emerge at local levels.

I’d love to see this question debated. I’m not sure TEC is heirarchical in a legal sense. In fact, I’m not sure that the national church even exists in any greater sense than the AC does.

Good point rwightman+; it seems that would be relevant to precedence-setting.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

I can’t recall the details of the REC split, but I think at least one church left PECUSA, Christ Church, Chicago, and that the Bishop of Illinois, acting upon legal advice, refused to attempt to take court action to try to stop it.

I can’t recall the details…

But Dr. Tighe, you should recall all these details that happened when you were just a lad!

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

Capn Jack,

I don’t think that it’s terribly disputed that TEC is hierarchical in a sense.  The problem with the hierarchical vs. congregational (polity) analysis used by some states is that many religious institutions, TEC being one of them in part, has what I would call a “blended polity.”  Thus, for purposes of resolving property disputes, pigeonholing a church as one or other can be rather misleading - which is why I think a neutral principles of property law approach is best.

TEC dioceses have been structured in different ways.  Fort Worth appears to be a corporation that owns all the parishes.  Some California dioceses were or are corporation soles in the name of the Bishop, but I don’t know whether that includes parish property or not.  I believe some states, parishes are chartereed under statutes specifically pertaining to TEC - they have almost no hope of ever leaving TEC. 

The RC Church is a hierarchical church, unquestionably, but the way in which it holds property differs from State to State.  Many diocese are corporation soles in the name of the bishop and his successors or the diocese, such as Washington (private act of Congress), Baltimore (act of state legislature), and so forth. Usually, the corporation sole owns all or most of the parish properties outright.  Some states like New York or Minnesota require parishes to have trustees, so the parishes have them, but the trusteeships are structured in a way that makes it virtually impossible for the parishes to defy the bishop.  I think the Diocese of Arlington was, at least until recently, a strange one.  No corporation sole, but all legal title in parish property was held in the name of the bishop and his successors, with equitable title residing in the parishes.  These structures are all a consequence of the 19th century trusteeship controversy that caused lots of chaos.  The Catholic bishops pretty much stamped lay trusteeism out as a power that could defy episcopal authority, but there are still cases out there that pop up, including that of St. Stanislaus Church, St. Louis.

Obviously, holding all parish titles in corporation soles or in the name of bishops has caused huge problems in the bankruptcies we’ve seen. 

This controversy has gotten me interested in these sorts of issues.  It’s very complicated.

Does Virginia procedure follow the federal rule in limiting cross-examination to matters covered in direct?

murbles,

yes!!!  The only that could be covered in cross is what was covered in the extent of the direct.

I’ve put up the Opening Statement at the Trial at BabyBlue here.  I’m still working on the formating of the statement, but I think it’s readable.  It was an amazing opening statement.

bb

Baby Blue has the ADV parishes’ opening statement up on her web site.

Under cross-examination, he was asked to point out where in the Episcopal Church’s canons it says a parish cannot disaffiliate. Mr. Beers would only repeat that a parish is a creation of the parent diocese and that if its members decide to leave the denomination, they cannot take the parish with them.

It seems to me the follow-up question would be: “So Mr. Beers, what is the basis for this assertion that you are making?”
Couldn’t you show that the emperor has no clothes?

What a fantastic opening statement by Steffen Johnson, counsel for Truro and Falls Church. This is a must read, he really nailed it.
Thank you Baby Blue for posting!

Sarah

Please include me on your E-Mails as I have a number of people at Pohick Church that are interested in what’s Happening

Thanks
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Here is Colorado its established precedent from the Mote Case (spelling?)(remember Saint Mary’s?), that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchal church.  If a parish were to attempt to leave with property, it has a real uphill struggle against that case. 

Ironies in that case abound.  Apparently, the diocese had been willing to settle with St. Mary’s, but St. Mary’s brought suit.  Upon winning the case, the diocese then sold the property to the parish.  The ironies abound in this whole wacky thing.  Here we have a church that is voting on doctrine, and asserting its hierarchal.  The virtigo brings bile to my mouth.  KJS and DBB do have dizzying intellects (iocane…I’d bet my life on it). 

Nevertheless, this concept that TEC is a blended polity is very interesting.  Of course it is, given the role of vestries and even diocesan conventions.  I suppose we’ll see in the Springs if the Mote precedent is a slam dunk, or not.

Brother Sinner,

Yes, whoever found that is deserving of the bonus. 

( Of course, I’m not paying ) 

I just did some quick checking and wonder if the quotation came from Robert Bruce Mullin, “Biblical Critics and the Battle Over Slavery,” Journal of Presbyterian History 61 (Summer 1983): 210-226.  He also published Out of Step High Church Theology and Social Thought in Evangelical America that year (1983) Yale University Press, 646 pages.  However, I think you are more likely to find a discussion of division in that essay.

[Also, I don’t do any trial work either. ]

I wish you and yours a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Capn Jack, apparently only you and I need to worry about having our names on recorded deeds of real property.  TEC can just assert ownership.

If the parish is named on the deed as owner, that moves the inquiry back one level:  Who is the parish?  Who has authority to speak for it or bind it to contracts?  TEC will probably argue the parish is the six elderly folks in tweed jackets who refused to leave TEC.

In our neck of the woods (and I do not think that we are all that different from other dioceses), a congregation may start with diocesan input (thought, personnel, money) but the parish—the people—have to apply to the diocese to be recognized first as an organized mission and then, upon meeting other criteria, to be admitted as a parish.  In the earlier days of the diocese, a group of interested people might form a congregation and ask to be supplied with a priest—the people themselves undertaking the initiative.

Even with diocesan planning and initiative, it seems that the process for applying for mission and parish status implies that the congregation itself has a voice in its affiliation.  It is conceivable that a congregation might begin under the auspices of an Episcopal diocese, but then decide to become independent or Presbyterian.  That is not likely—but it is within the realm of possibility.  A parish is in some sense a creature of the diocese, since it has to organized according to certain standards and it has to be recognized by the the diocese—but the diocese is recognizing the desire of the congregation, not creating it wholesale (as if it could say, “Let there be St. Swithin’s in the Swamp,” and a congregation springs into existence).

Thus, why cannot a parish, with due consideration, decide that it does not want to be affiliated with a given diocese?

I suggest an asterisk be added to all Episcopal Church signs so that all persons considering forming a new congregation will be instantly alerted to what they are getting into. The sign would read:

The Episcopal Church welcomes you! *
*But once received you may not leave.

Ahhh… Now I see. Hotel California has become Hotel Nevada. And Colorado. and Texas. And Michigan. And Virginia. And…

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

“I suggest an asterisk be added to all Episcopal Church signs so that all persons considering forming a new congregation will be instantly alerted to what they are getting into. The sign would read:

The Episcopal Church welcomes you! *
*But once received you may not leave. ”

Here, here. I am reminded of the verse of the Eagle’s song in Hotel California….  “You can check out anytime you like ... (i.e., orthodox churchman)...  but you can never leave (with the property that is).

msc