Posted on 05/30/2008 5:42:26 PM PDT by PAR35
The second of the three-phase trial to determine ownership of church properties now occupied by defectors from the Episcopal Church got underway in Fairfax yesterday, this phase centered on the constitutionality of an 1867 Virginia law. At issue is who will eventually own and occupy the properties such as the campus which is home to the historic Falls Church.
...
Judge Bellows had ruled in April that the 1867 law was appropriate to apply in this dispute. That law, written in the wake of many divided congregations split over the Civil War, says that the property goes with defecting congregations.
However, question now goes to whether or not the law is constitutional, or whether it involves an untoward intrusion by the state against exercise of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. © 2008 Falls Church News-Press
(Excerpt) Read more at fcnp.com ...
No. Va. update ping.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
And what does property have to do with the exercise of religion. The congregants wish to continue to practice their religion on their own terms on property that is theirs by right and practice and was bought with their voluntary contributions.
The state has no business interfering in their affairs, and especially in their dispute with their bishop and presiding bishop who are openly defying the doctrine of the church.
And what does property have to do with the exercise of religion. The congregants wish to continue to practice their religion on their own terms on property that is theirs by right and practice and was bought with their voluntary contributions.
The state has no business interfering in their affairs, and especially in their dispute with their bishop and presiding bishop who are openly defying the doctrine of the church.
Since you seem to be arguing both sides, check back in when you decide which side you want to be on.
Property ownership under law is the business of government. How, why, and to whom the congregants worship is church business.
Not at all. The state has a law governing property that says congregants, who occupy, use, and are seated on the property may keep it if they elect to part company with their demonination.
The argument of the Episcopal Church is that this is a religious dispute and canon law, not state law should apply.
The state, if they yield to canon law on this issue are taking sides in this religious dispute.
The court has already ruled in favor of the faithful Christians with regard to ownership under state law. The current round deals with a challenge by the left to the constitutionality of the state law. I expect the parishes to prevail on this issue.
That's not the way the law reads. The law is with respect to denominational splits, not denomination-congregation splits. The court previously ruled that there was a split in the denomination and under the 1867 law, the congregation, now aligned with CANA, rather than ECUSA, keeps the property. The whole point of the law is to determine what happens to property under such circumstances. The Diocese argument is rather awkward. To say the law intrudes upon the church, or denomination in this case, the question must be asked, which denomination? CANA or ECUSA. The Diocese's claim rests upon the notion that they are the sole denomination, something the court has determined is not the case. To say that canon law should decide the matter begs the question, which set of canon law? By allowing the congregation to choose under these circumstances, the 1867 law is minimizing state intrusion into the affairs of the church.
The Diocese of Virginia will not "occupy" properties such as those of Apostles, one of the big three (Truro, Falls Church, and Apostles). Over 97 percent of its congregation voted to leave. If TEC wins, the likely result will be a nice one-time windfall for the Diocese after they sell such property.
The ECUSA showed poor judgment in choosing to make a fight in NVA. They have a strong, well motivated and well funded opponent, with strong law on their side, fighting on home ground.
I hope Bp. Lee comes to regret his two-faced double dealing. (And I’m being kind to him.)
Praying for the traditional Anglican sisters and brothers in Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.