The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that it has denied a petition to hear an appeal from a breakaway congregation seeking claim to the property of St. Luke's Episcopal Church of La Crescenta, California. The court posted its action, together with dozens of other petitions denied, on its web site.
Meeting in conference on Feb. 26, the high court declined to hear the petition filed by St. Luke's Anglican Church of La Crescenta, whose members voted in 2006 to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Los Angeles.
The property, a landmark stone church complex at 2563 Foothill Blvd., was returned to the Diocese of Los Angeles by court order on Oct. 12, 2009, following the California State Supreme Court's Jan. 5, 2009 ruling affirming that Episcopal Church property is held in trust for the mission of the local diocese and the wider church.
A statement from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the six-county Diocese of Los Angeles, follows here:
"I thank the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court for their clarity in declining to hear an appeal regarding Episcopal Church property in La Crescenta, California, which has served local residents for more than 80 years."
All right! Maybe now the breakaways from the Episcopal Church get it. My plain words to those thinking of departing: I hope that you decide not to leave, but if you do, you cannot take the property with you.
H/T to Jim Naughton at The Lead.
This definitely telegraphs that the SCOTUS is not about to unsettle the well settled principle concerning property held in trust in hierarchical churches, not simply on the basis of hierarchy, but on the neutral principle embodied in the Dennis Canon.
ReplyDeleteWhen it's about the property, that tells you what it's really about, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with church buildings, but if you're following the lead of your Lord and Savior, you don't need a building to do it in. And suing to gain control of it always seemed a bit....well, less than "faithful," to me.
As for Tobias' comment, I'll put on my lawyer hat and note: property law is the most settled and most stable area of law there is. For the simple reason that changes in property law especially real property law, upset a lot of apple carts that may go backwards, as well as forwards, in time (case in point being the owner of these real properties, and how long they've held them under these rules). I'm not really surprised, simply as a lawyer, that the courts are loathe to upset settled property law issues in favor of yet another church fight.
Besides, seems like the right decision, to me.
Seeing Christians in court fighting over property pained me greatly, but the members of parishes and dioceses who chose not to leave TEC have rights, too.
ReplyDeleteRmj, that strikes me as a bit idealistic, that bit about not wanting to worry about having buildings to do the work of the church. It reminds me of an old story from the Desert Fathers, about a young idealistic monk who decided he would emulate his Lord and go out fasting for forty days. After a week he dragged himself back to the cells and knocked furtively at the door. The old monk inside said, "Who is there?" And the young one responded weakly, "It is Brother John." To which the Abba replied, "Oh, no, it couldn't be Brother John. He is a great spiritual athlete, like an angel, and has no need of earthly things..."
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with your point about settled law. What amazes me is the extent to which those who want to abscond with the property of the church don't seem to get how settled this is, and how slim their chances of dispossessing faithful members of the "general church" of the use of the church buildings. I don't think it is "unfaithful" or less than faithful, to want to maintain a church building for the use of the church -- not that the work of God is limited to what goes on in church buildings! But buildings serve their purposes, as homes, hospitals, schools, and so on.
Counting the seconds till "Anglican Curmudgeon" pops up with bells on at Stand Firm to prove yet again that black is white and that this heralds total secessionist victory.
ReplyDeleteLapin, nothing yet? The obviously bad news doesn't seem to appear quickly. I suppose they're still settling on the talking points.
ReplyDeleteThis is good news for those in California.
ReplyDeleteNot so good in Virginia..... the schismatics still possess Church property with the lower court's blessing. Our State Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, but I'm not holding my breath....
Hear it's not going well in South Carolina either...
Please keep us in your prayers. News like this is always a two-edged sword for us....
Rmj, that strikes me as a bit idealistic, that bit about not wanting to worry about having buildings to do the work of the church.
ReplyDeleteOh it is. But it is their "idealism" that's leading to the schism. I don't object, either, to the church acting to preserve its property rights. I'm just bemused that those who want to leave, also want to take it with them.
It isn't about ideals, in other words. It's about power. It's about control. That was my point. (Essentially the point of the lesson from the Desert Fathers, no?) Not that they are "impure" in their ideals or their faith because they want to worship in a building. But the question of faithfulness is a red herring; it's a question of who's in charge, and who gets to claim possession.
I just don't think those leaving get to eat their cake and have it, too.
I think that Virginia & So Carolina are anomalies likely to be ironed out at the Federal level should they become an overriding precedent at state level in either state, Margaret. Currently they are not. We'll see. Nice to talk again, by the way.
ReplyDeletedamn right, you can't take the house with you.
ReplyDeleteOr even the kettle.
Margaret, we'll pray.
ReplyDeleteIt is always a question of power, alas.
ReplyDeletePower. Yes, Paul, alas.
ReplyDelete