But then, the last church property case which the courts in Pennsylvania got right was more than twenty-five years ago: Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, 489 A.2d 1317, 1318 (Pa. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 887 (1985). Since then it's all been downhill for parishes (and now Dioceses). The result has been monuments to the ego and folly of bishops, such as the still-empty Church of St. James the Less. No doubt more will now come into being.
There is nothing more to be said -- see this page for links to posts describing how everything got to this point.
Can they still appeal to the federal courts? Especially given the very different ruling by the Carolina court?
ReplyDeleteNot very likely, Mark, for the reasons elaborated in this comment at SF. Matters of contract interpretation in the state courts do not raise any federal issues for the US Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteMr. Haley, does this mean that the dissenters in Pitt lose only their diocesan property or that AND the parish property? What happens from here if there's no appeal? I've read and posted over at SF, but am still confused. Dave
ReplyDeletePilgrim, it is not so simple as all that. The matter is governed by the properties that were identified in the post-judgment proceedings, pursuant to how the Court (Judge James) interpreted the original 2005 stipulation. As I understand it, there are at least fifteen or so individual parish properties which do not fall within the boundaries of that stipulation, and which are hence not subject to Judge James's turnover order. I am trying to prepare a post to offer more guidance on this -- and maybe the Diocese office will issue, in due course, its own clarification of what happens now. Be patient, and do not rush to any conclusions: no existing ACNA congregation can be evicted from their buildings without an application first being made to Judge James, and his subsequent approval of that application. So any such congregation will have plenty of advance notice before they could be forced to leave their properties.
ReplyDeleteMr. Haley, it was the "Stip" that did it, wasn't it? Regardless of what the law was, or is, the Pittsburghers lost in Commonwealth Court because their attorneys stipulated that the property would never leave the Episcopal Church--which the state high court said was rightly interpreted as TEC?
ReplyDeleteCorrect, hoofin -- the Stipulation ending the case in October 2005 was interpreted by the trial court (Judge James) against the Anglican Diocese in 2009, and then his reading of it was affirmed by the Commonwealth (appeals) court last February. The PA Supreme Court did not affirm that ruling; it just exercised its discretion not to review it for error.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me this was a very foolish stipulation for the former Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburg to make.
ReplyDeleteOr was there some good reason - which I failed to notice - for that action?