Calif. court sides with US church over property

AP via SFGate ^ | 1/5/9

[SmithL]

San Francisco (AP) -- The state's high court has prohibited three Southern California parishes who left the U.S. Episcopal Church over its ordination of gay ministers from retaining ownership of their church buildings and property.

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the property belongs to the Episcopal Church because the parishes agreed to abide by the mother church's rules, which include specific language about property ownership.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

And there you go!

A word to the wise (all): Check your congregation’s constituion to see who gets what.

[MarineBrat]

As a corollary, the Episcopal Church should lose it’s right to the use of the term Christian.

[CA Conservative]

Fortunately, we don’t have that problem. Each congregation is incorporated separately, and all property belongs to the local church. The denominational organization handles licensing and ordination of ministers, coordinating missions and relief efforts, etc. (I attend an Assemblies of God church.)

[rabscuttle385]

Thankfully, I live in Virginia.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

In the LCMess, this has been the case but more and more congregations are changing the dissolution ownership to the national organization.

Pity. They can’t see the forest for the trees.

[absolootezer0]

more appropriate title might be: san fran sides with gays in church battle (captain obvious alert)

[Regulator]

Another victory for the Queer agenda.

Their tactic here is obviously not to gain approval of their "lifestyle", but rather to infiltrate and loot an organization which holds hundreds of millions in property, and does a poor job of keeping out those who would steal it.

It's a win-win for Lambda: they hand themselves the church property once they control the church, and they also put an opposition group out of business.

Just like the leftist tactic with Foundations created by Conservative businessmen. They learned the lesson well.

[Mad Dawg]

I've always thought that unless there was some state law to the contrary that was the inevitable outcome. Of course what's amusing is how the bishops are very lax about the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church right up until it looks like it's gonna cost them some money, and then they are major law and order types.

"I'm a Christian and I believe there is always the possibility of reconciliation," Bruno[Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles] said.

Pants on fire!

[SmithL]

fyi,
Between VA and CA, maybe this will go to SCOTUS.

[sionnsar]

Thanks to rabscuttle385 for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[P-Marlowe]

I suspect that the court did not bother to make a determination as to whether the Episcopal Church had abided by the doctrinal rules in effect at the time the parishes signed off on the property agreement.

The Episcopal Church left the Church and then took the Church's property with it.

I pity these fools when they stand before God. If there are levels of hell, the leaders of US Episcopal Church will abide in the lowest depths.

[xzins]

It’s interesting that the SCOCA let the another church keep its property a few years back based on CA trust law.

Now it says these 3 churches cannot keep their property.

Can you tell the differences between the 2 cases?

[r9etb]

I suspect that the court did not bother to make a determination as to whether the Episcopal Church had abided by the doctrinal rules in effect at the time the parishes signed off on the property agreement.

The US Supreme Court has ruled many times, way back to the 1870s (Watson vs. Jones, 1871) that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the court from basing its rulings on doctrinal matters.

Specifically,

10. In such cases where the right of property in the civil court is dependent on the question of doctrine, discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule, or custom, or church government, and that has been decided by the highest tribunal within the organization to which it has been carried, the civil court will accept that decision as conclusive, and be governed by it in its application to the case before it.

While we can most certainly agree on the doctrinal failings of the Episcopal Church, the law on property is pretty much settled, and has been for a long time.

[enat]

Which of these three statements of trust is of most importance to TEC and the court?

Hint (Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)

A. Dennis Canon

All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in trust for this Church [i.e., the Episcopal Church in the United States] and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons

B. Preamble to Constitution of The Episcopal Church

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution, adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.

C. Dedication of Church building from the Book of Common Prayer

Everliving Father, watchful and caring, our source and our end: All that we are and all that we have is yours. Accept us now, as we dedicate this place to which we come to praise your Name, to ask your forgiveness, to know your healing power, to hear your Word, and to be nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son. Be present always to guide and to judge, to illuminate and to bless your people.

A Warden or other representative of the congregation continues

Lord Jesus Christ, make this a temple of your presence and a house of prayer. Be always near us when we seek you in this place. Draw us to you, when we come alone and when we come with others, to find comfort and wisdom, to be supported and strengthened, to rejoice and give thanks. May it be here, Lord Christ, that we are made one with you and with one another, so that our lives are sustained and sanctified for your service.

The Rector or Minister in charge continues

Holy Spirit, open our eyes, our ears, and our hearts, that we may grow closer to you through joy and through suffering. Be with us in the fullness of your power as new members are added to your household, as we grow in grace through the years, when we are joined in marriage, when we turn to you in sickness or special need, and, at the last, when we are committed into the Father's hands.

The Bishop concludes

Now, O Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, sanctify this place;

[r9etb]

It’s interesting that the SCOCA let the another church keep its property a few years back based on CA trust law. Now it says these 3 churches cannot keep their property. Can you tell the differences between the 2 cases?

If we're recalling the same case, I believe the difference has to do with how the governing documents of the church dealt with property.

In the case you're talking about, I seem to recall that the governing documents of the church were pretty specific that the property belonged to the local congregation. (Exact details are fuzzy, though.)

For the Episcopal Church, the 1979 Dennis Canon formalized something that had already been in practice for a long time: that the parish property was held in trust for the Diocese. I believe this Canon was promulgated in response to a 1976(?) USSC decision concerning the ownership of Church property, in which ownership was held to belong to the hierarchical church, rather than to the congregation.

I've not read the SCOCA decision; however, it may follow the lengthy and closely-reasoned Appeals Court decision, which also ruled in favor of the Episcopal Church last year. The basic decision here seems to be based on a rather common-sense USSC precedent stating that members who agree to abide by the rules of an organization cannot unilaterally decide to ignore those rules with which they disagree.

[r9etb]

Which of these three statements of trust is of most importance to TEC and the court?

I would think that, given your hint, the question applies at least equally well to the congregations who fought (and have now lost) the case....

Where did their treasure lie?

[r9etb]

Between VA and CA, maybe this will go to SCOTUS.

Doubtful. I think that, from a SCOTUS perspective, this issue would be considered long-settled.

Anyway, here is the California Supreme Court Decision.

[r9etb]

And here is the relevant Appeals Court Decision, with which the SCOCA agreed.

[enat]

“I would think that, given your hint, the question applies at least equally well to the congregations who fought (and have now lost) the case....”

Not necessarily. In most cases the congregations that are leaving have given their tithes and offerings to uphold and propagate the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and desire to see the property used in accordance with the dedication vows. To these congregations the building is a consecrated implement of worship and evangelism; not just property or an investment.