Good news for St. James parish in the diocese of Los Angeles: Court Dismisses Diocese of Los Angeles Lawsuit Against Saint James Parish. Summary: parish gets to keep their property, financial records, and consciences.
Seems that their separation from the diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA was entirely within their first amendment rights. The ECUSAn all your base are belong to us defense apparently wasn't persuasive:
“The court finds that plaintiffs have not established a legally cognizable claim supported by competent evidence,” Valesquez wrote. “In support of their claims, plaintiffs rely on legal propositions which are not the law in California.”The diocese argued that the California courts must defer to internal church rules, known as canons, in disputes over church property, although that argument was repudiated by California courts decades ago. The judge also rejected the diocese’s contention that St. James Church property was being held in express trust for the Episcopal Church:
“No evidence has been presented that the parish, its board or its governing documents contain an express commitment to place parish property in trust for the benefit of the [Episcopal] Church, ” Valesquez wrote.
So, we find out a couple of months ago that back in the day, the beauracratic tinker monkeys probably forgot to ratify the Dennis canon in the first place. Now we find out that, at least in California, even if they had, wouldn'ta mattered a lick.
Well, given some of the ACN bishops--among whom is my former Episcopal Church bishop, Peter Beckwith--seem ready to bring it, this may be a quite interesting next several months. Has the Anglican dialogue fad come to an end?
Posted by Clifton at August 15, 2005 09:24 PM | TrackBackI don't know the age of the St. James parish but I'm sure that had an impact. IOW, they probably pre-existed any change in canon law that specifically makes the bishop or even the denomination as a whole the "trustee".
Last I heard the First Amendment of the Constitution still applied to the California, so I don't know where the judge got this, "plaintiffs rely on legal propositions which are not the law in California".
That sword cuts both ways. What if an Orthodox parish in California got invaded by a bunch of pro-homo liberals and decided to "break-away" if the bishop didn't ordain an actively homosexual person.
Ken
Posted by: Ken at August 15, 2005 10:01 PMKen:
I assuredly agree with you that the law of unintended consequences is never dead. I also admit that I have no clue who the canons are set up in the Antiochian Archdioceses re: property.
I do not think, however, that anything analogous to ECUSA will go on among American Orthodox anytime soon. LGBT activists will not be allowed to work within the contraints of the Church, especially if they are clergy. Clergy will be deposed for doing the sorts of things done in ECUSA. Period. Orthodox haven't changed the Liturgy in some fourteen hundred years, so they don't have to worry about "rites for alternative services" which is the back door in ECUSA for legitimizing same sex unions.
Now it may mean that LGBT activists and clergy might find themselves without a church building in which to worship--as St. James might have been--but the difference won't be that Orthodox have come in and changed the doctrine and discipline of the Church. If LGBT activists want to become Orthodox, they know up front what they're getting into.
That's not the case any longer in ECUSA.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at August 16, 2005 08:28 AM