Posted on 12/13/2006 12:54:09 PM PST by sionnsar
This morning, I hit a coffee-spewing moment. CaNN owe me a new computer monitor. :-)
OK, this is definitely an in-joke. If you’re not North American Anglican, just grin and bear it and I’ll post something that makes more sense soon….
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Oh! The humanity!
1. It does seem that the legal issue of property ownership will end up in the courts...the California court just upheld an earlier decision. One would assume that state courts would be the venue, and thus laws, and their application may well differ from state to state. Since TEC is attempting to intervene on the side of the liberal bishops and dioceses, is there any possible way they can/will try to get this into the federal system?
2. It appears that TEC and Katie are attempting to assert a revised doctrine that TEC is in fact a hierarchal system, with final authority resting in her and the GC, rather than in the various dioceses. However, isn't this a risky strategy for them, because if they prevail, then one could make the argument that the the "hierarchy" goes all the way to the Anglican Communion, and if TEC is now in broken comunion with the rest of the world's Anglicans, well, then...
3. With some parishes who have voted to break away from TEC offering to buy their property from the diocese, doesn't that in fact create a bad precedent for those other parishes who feel that they do in fact own their property and the diocese has no claim on it? Are we hurting ourselves here?
4. Much has been written about the multimillion dollar value of the property of the two northern Va parishes. I believe someone wrote that the Truro parish was worth $27 million, and that if the parishes were to be forced to buy it back from the diocese, it would thus greatly enrich TEC. However, it seems to me that the question of value is really subject to a great deal of interpetation and negotiation. To wit: Value is composed of the land and the buildings. I assume that the parish is zoned only for a church, i.e. it couldn't be sold, subdivided and have an office building or mall put on the spot, and the buildings are probably protected as well, as historical structures. Thus, that value doesn't exist. So, maybe the parish offers the diocese a few million as a sop, but if refused, I'd rather see them use the $27 million to buy and build a new church, and stick the diocese with an "unusable for an other purpose" property..which will require lots of $$ to maintain, and will lack the main component of a viable parish; to wit, parishioners.
5. Does anyone possibly think that TEC will attempt to oppose the new Bishop elect of South Carolina? Could they in fact be that dense?
Took me a moment to realize that was the Hindenburg burning in the background.
And now YOU owe ME a new monitor!
Forwarded this to one of my Catholic friends; I can guarantee it will be all over the RC diocese here in 30 minutes!
Yup. Nicely photoshopped!
The fake one looks more professional than the real one.
The federal courts would have to apply state real estate and trust law.
The federal constitutional issues are fairly well settled at this point, and any changes by the SCOTUS would probably not be favorable to the orthodox.
Start with Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979)(neutral principles of law), Lucas v. Hope, 515 F.2d 234 (5th Cir 1975) (state courts proper forum), Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440(1969) and Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976)(courts can't decided which group is holding to the true or historic doctrine).
thanks..
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.