Breakaway Anglican Church Takes Property Case to Supreme Court

By Aaron J. Leichman|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

The Anglican church at the center of a nationally publicized church property dispute with The Episcopal Church has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking that it overturn the decision made by the California Supreme Court earlier this year.

In January, the California high court had ruled unanimously that St. James Church in Newport Beach and two other Southern California parishes that left The Episcopal Church cannot retain ownership of their church buildings and property after they pulled out of the 2.1 million-member U.S. church body in 2004.

The court determined 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.

"When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it," Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin wrote for the seven-member court.

The legal team representing St. James, however, insists that no one can unilaterally impose a trust over someone else’s property without their permission under longstanding law. They also argue that preferential treatment for certain denominations violates the U.S. Constitution.

“We will be arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law has violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” commented Dr. John Eastman, a nationally recognized constitutional law scholar who has joined the legal team to pursue the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The California Supreme Court has given a preference to certain kinds of churches that claim to be hierarchical, that other churches and non-religious associations are not entitled to, and that violates the establishment clause. We will also be arguing that denying the local church community their ability to organize and hold title to their own building and conduct their religious services in a manner they see fit, this California decision violates their right to the free exercise of religion,” Eastman added.

According to the legal team, a response from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the St. James petition can be expected as early as October 2009. A decision could be reached as early as mid-2010.

Next Story : New Nixon Tapes Include Phone Call with Billy Graham

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

oldstudent »

Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

the mad flagger returns! lol

Grace and Peace,
jim
pdbrit10 »

Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:51 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I am personally experiencing leaving the denomination. And if you are not entangled in it yourself, I don't think you can see the whole picture. Let me just state this: when our church was formed, it was not formed under the current denomination and there were no property issues. Our denomination merged and became a new one. The bool of order is huge and really hard to understand unless you are an attorney, to some degree. When we joined the denomination, we joined under certain club rules that pertained to the year we joined. Since then, the denomination has re-written that book, has lost it's moral plumb-line, and is spiraling to certain denominational death. We did not sign up to be in the club we are in and as hard as we tried and believe me we did - we got on committees galore, to no avail. So, really the denomination has left the churches not the other way around. This is not what we signed up for. And we are prepared to walk away from the building that only we paid for, that the denomination has never paid even one red cent for, not one brick. There are options for churches to be dismissed. The denominations are basically extorting money from the churches for the sake of self preservation - the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and unfortunately, those trying to get on with the work of Christ, are spending 100's of hours trying to have a building to do it from.
oldstudent »

Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:22 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

No matter the outcome, His name is disgraced because His people are going to the lost and asking for guidance in matters of Church governance which is not a civil matter.

Grace and Peace,
Jim
Alockslee »

Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:16 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ID4234 Â»Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:53 am I'm beginning to understand this. Where it is inappropriate for the state to assert itself and entangle itself in religious affairs, it does so. Where churches try and impact their communities and their governments, that is not allowed.
So we have the state's influence reigning over the church, but the church not influencing positively the government. Just like man. That's exactly the opposite, 180 degrees different, from the founders' intent.
---------------------------------------------------------
In response: ID4334, no offense but you are way off on this. The contract problem is one that requires court intervention as a contract is a civil instrument recognized under the secular civil government. The court is not deciding the issue of the split, it is deciding the issue of whether or not those who left the main or mother church can take the property with them. The split or breakaways never had a problem with the mother church owning the property and never tested ownership prior to the split so now the breakaways want their cake and eat it too.
They knew exactly what they were agreeing to when that congregation joined the mother church and full understood that they would be bound to the contract from the point of agreement (signing). The breakaways certainly benefited while members and never complained during the time up to the split.

The court is not deciding ideology just contractual responsibilities between two parties. It is nothing to do with religious beliefs, the ideology problem caused the split and the property issue isn't part of the ideology it is a purely secular issue. The problem of ideology is something that the court is not involved with and it seems that you didn't understand that.

So, do you understand it better now? Remember this is not a court deciding a religious question, it is a court deciding a contract question dealing with who owns the property and it should side with the mother church as the breakaways left the mother church and since the breakaways chose to leave they don't get to take what they don't own, the property belongs to the mother church.

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/Truth is found here
TFR
Alockslee »

Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:45 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Rhi Bran Â»Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:54 pm Actually, certain denominations have a structure in which local congregations agree that the ultimate ownership of property resides with the denomination. This is why a single Catholic bishop can decide to close schools, close parishes, and sell church property. He may or may not seek input, but the decision is his. Other (mainline) denominations have rules that prevent a group from gaining control of a particular church congregation and using the facility for another purpose(as in starting another denomination). Part of this is based upon the fact that those in the past who paid for the structures intended them to serve the denomination to which they belonged. There is no way to go back and ask them how they feel about withdrawing from the denomination. It is interesting that none of these new anglican folk disputed this until the time came that they wanted to withdraw. They did not challenge the policy until it intruded into their plans. Therefore, the challenge is based only upon self interest. The courts should simply rule as to whether or not the parent denomination is applying its own rules in a fair manner. It is not the courts business to determine the fairness of the rules unless there is an overwhelming public interest(such as in the cases where church policy has been used to hide abuse of children).
----------------------------------------------------------
In response: Rhi Bran not bad at all in covering the situation. The court would base their decision upon existing contract law and provided there aren't any problems with the underlying contractual agreements the court would hold the contracts valid and then most likely require adherence to the agreement. It has nothing to do with getting into a church & State argument.

Too many people think that separation of church and state means the churches are somehow outside the law and that is false. Churches have some autonomy as to what is said inside and leeway as to charity work, but the membership that makes up the church and it's immediate governing body are still subject to law. People simply forget you don't get a pass to violate the law just cause you break the law in a church.

On the other hand, contracts are a civil secular instruments and require the civil authorities to determine the validity of as well as what of it if anything can be enforced and that is the court's & sometime an Arbitration judge or panel's job.

http://alockslee.blogspot.com/Fundies fear this blog
TFR
DouBelieve »

Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:26 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Well said Rhi Bran !!
DouBelieve »

Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:23 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I understand this as well, and I disagree. The Law has been taken out of context. This is not a decision between the GVT and a church. It is a decision between 2 churches. The local church should not pursue legal action if they dont want to get the GVT involved. The Local Church invited the State into the issue. I think if you want to keep Church and State separate, then churches should not file legal procedings against other organizations/churches/etc. Short Answer: You DONT sue The Episcopal Church.

As it states above, the parishes AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE MOTHER CHURCH'S RULES, which include specific language about property ownership. When you start a church with a certain denomination, you have signed a contract with that church.

They knew the rules. They cant go against them now.
Rhi Bran »

Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:54 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Actually, certain denominations have a structure in which local congregations agree that the ultimate ownership of property resides with the denomination. This is why a single Catholic bishop can decide to close schools, close parishes, and sell church property. He may or may not seek input, but the decision is his. Other (mainline) denominations have rules that prevent a group from gaining control of a particular church congregation and using the facility for another purpose(as in starting another denomination). Part of this is based upon the fact that those in the past who paid for the structures intended them to serve the denomination to which they belonged. There is no way to go back and ask them how they feel about withdrawing from the denomination. It is interesting that none of these new anglican folk disputed this until the time came that they wanted to withdraw. They did not challenge the policy until it intruded into their plans. Therefore, the challenge is based only upon self interest. The courts should simply rule as to whether or not the parent denomination is applying its own rules in a fair manner. It is not the courts business to determine the fairness of the rules unless there is an overwhelming public interest(such as in the cases where church policy has been used to hide abuse of children).
oldstudent »

Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Scripture forbids believers taking other believers to court, both sides are wrong on this one (1 Corinthians 6).

Grace and Peace,
Jim
ID4234 »

Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:53 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

I'm beginning to understand this. Where it is inappropriate for the state to assert itself and entangle itself in religious affairs, it does so. Where churches try and impact their communities and their governments, that is not allowed.

So we have the state's influence reigning over the church, but the church not influencing positively the government.

Just like man. That's exactly the opposite, 180 degrees different, from the founders' intent.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story