Posted on 02/10/2007 11:58:58 AM PST by XR7
It's true of course the court will have nothing to say about "theology" but neither will it care much about Canon Law, which is the basis for the diocesan claim on the property. As I understand it churches in ECUSA hold their property "in trust" for the larger church, but that is subject to civil law regarding trusts. In at least some states such trusts are unilaterally revocable. Parishes in California have already begun this process and so far the California courts have said the canon law is not enforceable as it does not conform to civil law and trusts are governed by civil law. Obviously state laws will differ and the way Virginia courts see it is yet to be determined.
That has not been clearly resolved yet. First there is Virginia law, which conflicts with the Episcopal church's much more recent (ca 1980) Dennis Canon which essentially said that from that time forward the congregation holds the property "in trust for" the diocese. And there is a question as to whether that Canon was properly ratified.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Isn't God great? He works even through evil done by men to achieve His good, and takes His time to set things right. That this submission by essentially white, southern churches to African bishops should take place is just amazing, amazing grace.
bump for publicity
Not only are homosexuals in leadership roles but the leadership is now saying that "Christ is not the only way to salvation". Wow! Sounds like ancient sinful biblical churches are alive and well.
Sorry -- missed your ping when I encountered the article...
...and have less facial hair.
The important part is that the Diocese apparently engaged in negotiations, offered a settlement, and then withdrew it and put the knife in.
The theology is just the reason for the "divorce", not the basis of whether there will be an automatic settlement according to a formula. In the "no-fault" atmosphere of today's courts regarding morality, fault probably won't be useful as a basis for recompense. On the other hand, the members of those churches were the ones who paid the monies to support those buildings, often for many generations of families, so they can't be expected to walk away with nothing.
That's a false statement as to these parishes. You may be confusing the Virginia cases with Florida, where the property was titled in the Bishop, and most of the faithful had to walk away. Here, the property is titled in the local parish, and the bishop is trying to argue a theory of an imposed trust.
There is also a theological error in your statement. In Anglican theology, as in Reformed, (see Art 19), the church is the people, not the property. So the technical argument is over ownership of real estate, not the Church.
Due to Virginia law, I am optimistic about the outcomes there. They (the Anglicans) are not being as aggressive in their litigation strategy as I would have been.
The diocese bishop can sell the church properties, and donate the money to sponsor Gay Pride parades
One good reason for conservative Christians to NOT have their church owning valuable assets, because these assets can be taken over by whatever group decides to take over your church. The more assets, the more tempting the takeover target
Ideally, your church building should be leased, so that if the tithing congregation leaves, it ALL goes. It gives the membership much more leverage against the leadership as well
The day after its Dec. 17 vote to join the Anglican group, the trustees of St. Stephen's (Anglican) filed a petition in the Northumberland County Circuit Court to declare them the owners of the church's property.
Their claim was made under a Virginia law that allows a judge to award church property to the majority of members voting in a church division. St. Stephen's members voted 99-33 to leave the Episcopal fold.
In their petition, the Anglicans said that none of the deeds to church property had been granted to the Episcopal Church and that neither the church nor the Virginia diocese had contributed to the purchase, building or maintenance of church property.
In response, the Virginia Diocese said it owns the property, not the current trustees of St. Stephen's.
"Principles of charitable trust law preclude the current membership of St. Stephen's Church from diverting that property to another mission of their choosing," the diocese said.
I guess we'll see. Pretty sad though when Christians start suing each other.
let the renting of cloth and the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence...
The Episcopal Church hasn't had a leader of Christ, since Dennis Bennett in 1960. The old saying is, Henry VIII began the church with a divorce and now we have it today. Or, 'no one has been saved in that Church, since Henry.'
"Church of What's Happening Now'
I haven't seen that in years. Was it from Flip Wilson?
An article, "At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian", in the December 25, 2006 NY Times, claims that Bishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria (with whom some Episcopal parishes are aligning) advocates a bill in Nigeria that would not only punish homosexuality by five years in prison, would also punish public expressions of homosexuality by five years in prison. The bill, according to the article, would also prohibit homosexuals meeting in public, as at a restaurant. Can anyone shed light on this? As an American and an Episcopalian, this concerns me -- I believe in the divinity of Christ, but I also cherish our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.
That is my understanding as well that the issue of which entity actually owns the property has never actually been litigated.
LOL! Who would Jesus sue?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.