Comments: news from South Carolina

It would seem that 'All Saint Parish Waccamaw Inc' is, indeed, an incorporated business entity, and therefore not strictly accountable to TEC's governance. One hopes that the Episcopal Church will take proper steps to ensure that all other individual parish structures within TEC are safe from the possible depradation of other African and South American Provincial Churches which have established their hegemony over congregations in the U.S.A. One wonders what would happen if the boot were to be on the other foot?

This judicial outcome, though disturbing for TEC, seems to be a 'one-off', and provided TEC takes steps to secure its interest in other parochial and diocesan structures, there should not be too great a dispruption to the ongoing legislative procedures in other parishes and dioceses.

We are still praying for justice to be done, and that could still bring surprises!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 10:10am BST

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruling appears to be based on a flawed reading of the 1979 US Supreme Court Jones v Wolf judgment. In the comments on the Episcopal Café piece that you link, John B Chilton quotes the advice of the US Supreme Court in Jones v Wolf, that "At any time before the dispute erupts, the parties can ensure, if they so desire, that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church will retain the church property. They can modify the deeds or the corporate charter to include a right of reversion or trust in favor of the general church. Alternatively, the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church. The burden involved in taking such steps will be minimal. And the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form". This is exactly what the Episcopal Church did when it enacted the Dennis canon in the same year that Jones v Wolf was handed down. The SC Supreme Court chose to ignore this informing their decision, valid grounds for appealing the case to the US Supreme Court.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 10:12am BST

On another aspect of this, "Pere Sud", posting on Mark Harris's "Professor Mullin on the Polity of The Episcopal Church" thread, states "I was on the SC Standing Committee many years ago now when +Salmon gave every deed back to the vestries of the parishes in SC. So, every parish now simply need to amend their by laws and articles of incorporation in the manner prescribed by the SC Supreme Court and they, too, shall be able to exit with their property. +Salmon was very wise, and I would not be surprised if he anticipated this day and set the mechanisms in motion all those years ago".

In light of the SC Supreme Court ruling, if the court intended to invalidate the Dennis canon - and there is no clear indication that this is what they intended - this has the potential to completely alter the ground rules in South Carolina. Assuming that what Pere Sud claims is true, Salmon's action must postdate the Dennis canon by some years, since he was elected bishop of SC in 1989. Any amendment contrary to the corporate interests of TEC subsequent to that date would be of very questionable legality, regardless of the SC ruling (check the quote from the US Supreme Court Jones v Wolf ruling in my post above).

It will be interesting to see if the "return of the deeds" forms a part of the diocese of SC's strategy in the coming days. A question that I posted a couple of days ago to T19, asking politely if Pere Sud's claim was correct, was promptly deleted. I would be curious to know why. Seems Bishop Salmon's action may be a sensitive issue in the diocese of SC.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 10:41am BST

"There are a couple of reasons that this decision is unique. First, the parish in question, like a few others on the East Coast, predates the foundation of the Episcopal Church in 1789 so it has been argued that the Episcopal Church is more a creation of the parish than the parish of the Episcopal Church."

While I understand the thinking here, I am bothered that a parish can agree to be part of a diocese and national church, and partake of all that means--visits from the bishop for confirmations, financial support when necessary, etc.--and then, at will, decide that the canons and rules it agreed to when it became part of the diocese (whether the parish preceded the diocese and church or not) no longer apply to it.

Analogy: My existence as a human being precedes my decision to move to Pennsylvania. Am I then to be permitted to ignore the laws of PA?

"Second, the Supreme Court has decided to decide based primarily on neutral principles of law rather than by being guided by deference to denominations being allowed to create their own internal governance structures…"

This one I don't get at all. What happened to the First Amendment?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 11:25am BST

It's back to the Old Anglican School again...

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 1:22pm BST

Simon quotes from the commenter at T19 as linked to by Episcopal Cafe. For me this was the nub of that comment:

"the decision simply assumes (without considering the matter) that South Carolina can switch from being a ‘deference’ state to a ‘neutral principles’ state without thereby interfering with anybody’s established property rights."

Posted by John B. Chilton at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 4:22pm BST

I think the point that Lapinbazarre and FRS missed is that the SC Supreme court found that, rather like a court in FW recently found that the dioceses form the national church, not the other way round, so too individual church's properties are vested in the individual congregations who built and maintain them, not in the diocese (on behalf of the national church).

TEC is not a heirarchical church. This was even made clear by DioSC around 1900 when it lodged a document stating that the building belonged to the local church, not the diocese. Whether a church is congregational or heirarchical is, surely, a matter of fact - not something that a self-proclaimed "center" can assert.

If a national church is congregational, rather than heirarchical, then the non-interference method, upholding the 1st amendment, is to use neutral principles of law, rather than enforcing (alleged but non-documented) rules that a national organization has made without the local congregation's consent. How could the "Dennis Canon" be applied without the consent of the local congregation?.

ps If I move to Pennsylvania and bring my property with me, or acquire some while I live there, Pennsylvania state will not suddenly claim that it owns the property if I decide to leave! (unless I vested it in the state for the benefit of others). I can sell it, or continue use it myself.

Posted by davidwh at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 5:02pm BST

Many Church of England buildings pre-date the creation of Anglicanism. Presumably Roman Catholics will now want them back.

Posted by Fr David at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 5:03pm BST

In my comment above, the phrase after the colon should be in quotes -- it's from Dale Rye. (I made the mistake of thinking italics would show in the comments.)

SS adds: quotes now added, sorry we don't allow italics...

Posted by John B. Chilton at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 5:52pm BST

I think the one thing that makes this case unique is not that the parish predates the formation of TEC, but rather, that the diocese explicitly renounced all claims to the property in a 1903 quit claim deed. If you read the decision in it's entirety, this is the key event from which the rest flows.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 6:16pm BST

davidwh, the court in Fort Worth has not yet decided the case on merits, and has not so far decided that "dioceses form the Church, and not the other way around." He has stated that there are two diocesan entities (but we knew that); and that Bishop Iker's diocesan entity didn't hire the attorneys for the diocese of the Episcopal Church. However, neither those attorneys or the Episcopal Church claimed that. Bishop Iker hoped to assert that there was only one diocesan entity, or at least only one that might call itself "the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth," and so argue that those attorneys had no standing to represent the diocesan entity on Fort Worth that is part of the Episcopal Church. Indeed, he acknowledged his own ignorance of the polity of the Episcopal Church. Presumably with the Mullins afadavit and with whatever response the Iker entity offers, the judge will feel more informed, and so be able to issue an opinion; but we haven't seen that opinion yet. And since the judge did acknowledge there are two diocesan entities, he didn't decide that the attorneys in question couldn't the entity that had actually hired them.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 7:06pm BST

"...the dioceses form the national church, not the other way round...."

Except that, of course, when a NEW diocese is created--as in, specifically, the instances of Fort Worth and San Joaquin (both formed within the last 50 years), it IS the national church that does the creating, by breaking the new diocese off from an existing one.

In fact, even the diocese of South Carolina was created by the national church...because before the formation of the Episcopal Church after the revolution, there were no dioceses in what were then the colonies.

"TEC is not a heirarchical church. "

Hmmm, let's see. We have local parishes, which are subject to the canons of their dioceses; we have dioceses, which are subject to the canons of the national church. Sounds like a heirarchy to me.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 7:38pm BST

If your assertion about Salmon's return of the deeds is true, it may create problems for Mark Lawrence if he tries to take the diocese out of TEC. If parishes have sole control of their property, they can decide to follow Lawrence to ACNA (or wherever he goes), stay with TEC, or join CANA, AMiA, or any other group, and he may wind up as a bishop without much of a diocese (since one parish has already taken steps to leave).

Ruidh is quite right, that the date of the foundation of All Saints has nothing to do with the outcome of the case. The result would have been the same if the parish had been incorporated as a new parish in 1902.

Posted by Jim Pratt at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 7:58pm BST

The church in question was to be held in perpetuity for the Church of England. As the Church of England only recognises the Episcopal church as its legitimate Anglican successor...this judgement is a travesty and reflescts the conservative natuure of the SC Supreme Court. I hope an appeal is made.

If the Episcopal Church lets this slip, they might as well give up with the Virginia cases

Posted by Robert Ian williams at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 9:08pm BST

Because the three guys with a web page had their lawyer friend pen an uninformed position paper stating that the Episcopal Church (TEC) is not a hierarchical church, I guess the orthodite intention is to now repeat this mantra at every opportunity, in hopes that other less informed folks will assume that it is true, as we see @ davidwh above.

I have read the court's decision in Fort Forth. The judge did not find that the dioceses form the national church. The only finding in which he ruled was concerning two lawyers, and who they do or do not represent, no more, and confusingly, no less.

I think that ruidh has illuminated the crux of this case. Had the diocese not enacted the quick cliam deed, there may well have been a different out come. But as Dale Rye commented @ Episcopal Café, the SCoSC has modernly changed course on something upon which every church in the state has previously relied for a couple of centuries.

Posted by David | Dah•veed at Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 9:08pm BST

David WH appears to think along the same lines as the discussion group featured on the recent *Stand Firm* debate - 'Property Decisions in Fort Worth and South Carolina'. One of the debating participants - Sarah Hey, from Greenville, S.C., -even calls TEC (of which she confesses to being a member) "a corrupt and grossly heretical dnomination", while yet saying that, for the meantime, she will be staying with TEC.

One of the contributing legal advisers, Allan Haley (who blogs under the apt title 'Anglican Curmudgeon') states that the South Carolina Court has opted to make its judgement on behalf of the AMiA parish - on the basis of its policy of the 'Neutral Principles of Law', which requires, in this case, proof that TEC actually holds the title deeds to the property being claimed by the parish. Owing to the fact that title deeds were handed back to the parishes in the Diocese by one-time Bishop Salmon, it would seem that the parish is claiming de facto ownership of its property.

What transpires out of all of this is that parishes claiming title to their own property are acting as independent Congregational churches - which is in direct opposition to the Anglican tradition, of which TEC is a part. Probably nowhere else in the Anglican Communion could such an independent stance be upheld.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 23 September 2009 at 1:30am BST

davidwh may assert what ever he wants, but I want to make it clear for readers of these comments that it is just NOT TRUE that "a court in FW recently found that the dioceses form the national church, not the other way round." davidwh is repeating claims that Iker made about what the court said.

That court's ruling actually said merely that Bishop Gulick's lawyers do not represent Bishop Iker's -- something that Gulick never claimed. The court essentially decided we have two parties who claim to be the real diocese of FW and there will now be hearing after which point the court will rule on which one it thinks is right.


and come to your own conclusions.

Posted by John B. Chilton at Wednesday, 23 September 2009 at 2:59am BST

Thank goodness the Church of England is the Established Church. It is salutary to see where Dis-Establishment would lead.

Posted by Terence Dear at Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 9:03am BST

Well, Terence, if the conservative evos of the CofE are successful in foisting their way, disestablishment is bound to follow.

Posted by Kurt at Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 3:12pm BST

George Conger's SPIN is breath-taking! :-0

Posted by JCF at Friday, 25 September 2009 at 2:10am BST

Can there even be a "neutral" application of civil law that disregards the canon law governing a national denomination and effectively mandates congregational church polity within a particular, secular jurisdiction?

Posted by christopher+ at Sunday, 27 September 2009 at 8:44pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.