Thanks! Wow -- almost the polar opposite of my Province's Canons, which quite explicitly prohibit the Bishop, Diocese or Province from ownership of a parish's property, except for the amount of a loan to the parish. But then, one might guess that our Canon was written after, and i response to, the Dennis Canon...
You're quite right. The Denis Canon was pushed through the first Gen. Convention following the big split in 1979 (due to the BCP re-write & women's ord.). Whole parishes left ECUSA (with their churches & wallets) & caused the revisionists to realize that they couldn't continue to pursue their progressive agenda into the future without the risk of further lossses of membership, money, & assets. Some "clever Dick" (presumably named "Denis") correctly judged the situation & this Canon was crafted as a means to extort compliance with future "innovations" by holding church properties & assets hostage. The underlying message to the Denis Canon is, "Leave if you want to, but leave everything you or your parents or your grandparents worked so hard to build." Something akin to having a black sheep relative come along to throw you out of the family home with just the shirt on your back.
This extortive Canon has worked very well for the past two decades & is, in fact, the only thing that has kept ECUSA from utter dissolution immediately following the consecration of Vicky Gene. It's my opinion that this consecration would not have even take place had the Denis Canon not existed as ECUSA's insurance policy.
There is however, a possible loophole, but it has not been brought to the test in the courts. It has been suggested that this Canon was not properly adopted over the course of TWO General Conventions. If this could be proven in court, a Judge would have to rule that it created an invalid & unenforceable contract. Personally, I don't understand why dissenting parishes & dioceses haven't (or cannot) bring some sort of a Class Action lawsuit in the federal court over this Canon. To my mind, it makes more sense than battling this out in the individual state courts where there are widely varying definitions of what constitutes a valid contract. Perhaps there is good reason why a Class Action suit is not possible, but I've never seen this option even discussed or offered as a possibility.
If this Canon could be invalidated, this whole situation with ECUSA would resolve itself post haste.