That's My Church!

It's Show Me The Offeratory! time: Episcopal diocese sues breakaways for property.

The suits were filed in the circuit courts of the churches' respective counties, which include Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Northumberland and Prince William, diocesan Secretary Patrick Getlein said.

At stake is millions of dollars in real estate, including an estimated $27 million to $37 million at Truro and the Falls Church, two of Virginia's largest and most historic churches.

Through litigation, the diocese also seeks:

• A declaration that the congregations have made improper claims regarding Episcopal Church property.

• A court order upholding "the trust, proprietary and contract rights" of the diocese.

• A court order requiring a full accounting of "the use of all real and personal property" by the congregations.

Spirits appear to remain high at the besieged garrisons:

Mr. Pierobon, who attends the Falls Church, reaffirmed Truro and Falls Church's confidence in their legal position.

Both Truro and Falls Church own the deeds to their respective properties, he said.

I talked to one of the wardens over at Falls Church not too long after the secession vote was taken and he said pretty much the same thing. What was especially clear from my talk with him was that this process wasn't dreamed up over night - these congregations have been planning out their strategies and considering all the ramifications (including the legal ones) for a loooong time.

This is going to be a very interesting legal case. On the one hand, as the article notes, Truro and Falls Church (which are the big fish the Diocese is really after) own the deeds to their property, both churches predating the formation of the Diocese. I have no earthly idea whether the Church's trust interest in these properties was ever commited to writing, or whether it was simply implied. If the latter, then I think the secessionists are in a better position, because (so I'm told) Virginia is not overly fond of implied trusts. On the other hand, this is an internal Church matter and the courts are loathe to get involved in such disputes (so I'm also told).

Alas, county courts 'round here do not provide electronic access to filings, so unless I bestir myself to go down to the respective courthouses (fat chance), I will only be able to read up on the progress of the various cases second hand.

UPDATE: Oh, and speaking of the importance of Law & Order to the Diocese, riddle me this. Here is the text of the "local option" resolution passed at the recent Diocesan Council:

Whereas, the 210th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia recommended that the congregations and regions of the Diocese of Virginia be urged to use the Report of the Diocese of Virginia's Commission on Reconciliation as a vehicle to further theological conversation; and

Whereas, the 211th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirmed that the Lambeth Conference and Windsor Report have called us to acknowledge and respond with compassion and understanding to the pain and suffering of those who, because of their sexual orientation, endure marginalization and rejection in the church and in the world; thereofre be it

Resolved, that the 212th Annual Council recommends the Bishop appoint a commission to discern a possible "emerging consensus" regarding the permitting of "local option" for the blessing of same sex unions, with the Commission reporting to the 213th Annual Council.

What? This was called for by the Windsor Report? Let's go to the text:

We believe that to proceed unilaterally with the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time goes against the formally expressed opinions of the Instrument of Unity and therefore constitutes action in breach of the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion have received it, and of bonds of affection in the life of the Communion, especially the principle of interdependence. For the sake of our common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates' Pastoral Letter of May, 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions. The primates stated then:

"The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorization of such rites.

This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations. As recognized in the book True Union, it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."

While we recognize that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorized such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints on the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.

(Paras. 143-144, emphasis added.)

Well, Bishop Lee has stated that the Virginia was a Windsor-compliant diocese, but it looks as if the Council delegates (which include a great many clergy) are urging him to jump, or at least dance mighty close to the edge. And they have the effrontery to suggest that such action is called for by the Windsor Report itself, even though that report makes a specific distinction between pastoral compasion and messing about with the liturgy. Will he do it? Well, he seems to have been completely overcome by the palantir gaze of Her High Priestessness the Presiding Bishop and it doesn't take much thought to figure out her position. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if he went along and appointed the commission asked for.

BTW, my spies tell me that this resolution was proposed originally by delegates to the Council from St. Anne's, Reston. I know this church: it's one of the more hard-core loony left congregations in the area. Of course, anybody can propose a resolution about anything they want at Council (and believe me, they do). What I still can't fathom is that this one was approved. Evidently, the PB's arm has grown long, indeed.

There is a growing sense that the more liberal members of the ECUSA have decided they want it to be chucked out of the Communion. This is exactly the way to go about making that happen.