tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post2572775491674652530..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: The Dog in the Manger (IV): Bishop Seabury Church, GrotonA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-48616925075462200962012-08-31T09:09:19.467-07:002012-08-31T09:09:19.467-07:00Katherine Jefferts-Schori to Bishop Seabury Church...Katherine Jefferts-Schori to Bishop Seabury Church (and dozens others): "You didn't build that!"The Reformed Reinhardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117578058106157744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-43860143572282980832012-08-25T08:34:25.716-07:002012-08-25T08:34:25.716-07:00So one more state supreme court (Indiana) rules w...So one more state supreme court (Indiana) rules with some sanity and knowledge of law. Definitely a good thing..... especially in the view of this Hoosier. <br /><br />SC Blu Cat LadyAlexihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222877183938209659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-47197860830263817082012-08-25T07:11:15.338-07:002012-08-25T07:11:15.338-07:00Mr Haley, I certainly hope you'll look into th...Mr Haley, I certainly hope you'll look into this further, since this is one of the more interesting developments in the continuing Anglican movement. Having been at the trial earlier this week, I would say that the court indicated no plans, and no interest, in holding a supervised election, while the ACA has indicated no plans in reopening the parish (I've specifically asked the "Presiding Bishop" of that two-car funeral about this and gotten an unresponsive reply). Only continuing public discussion is going to help -- we need yours.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-20753509912403402632012-08-24T13:09:24.068-07:002012-08-24T13:09:24.068-07:00John, I appreciate your interest in the questions ...John, I appreciate your interest in the questions posed by the St. Mary's case, but they have their own complexities, and to address them adequately, I would have to do an entirely other post (which I may well do, as we find out more about what is actually happening there).<br /><br />Suffice it at this point to say that because there is no claim of a trust imposed on the St. Mary property in favor of ACA should the parish decide to leave, the issue instead is entirely one of corporate governance. And there are two sides to that issue -- the ecclesiastical power to license and depose priests, and the State's civil laws regarding the governance of religious corporations.<br /><br />Under State law, a majority of the voting members of the parish have the power to elect board (vestry) members. The rector chooses the Senior Warden from among the directors so elected by the members. So while the ACA may designate the rector, and the rector the Senior Warden, it is the members who ultimately decide who serves on the vestry (and they also are the ones who decide on any permanent -- as opposed to interim -- rector). <br /><br />The dispute at St. Mary's involves just who is the actual majority, and who is the minority, of the members voting to determine whether the parish joins the Ordinariate or not. Fr. Kelley's side is claiming a "2/3 vote" of the membership to join, but the ACA side is saying that the vote was by absentee ballot, and hence illegal. These are questions that must be resolved in court by proper application of the parish's by-laws in effect at the time the dispute arose. The court will, if necessary, hold a supervised election in order to ensure that the voting is fair and the outcome the result of a true majority.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-51396239124233657352012-08-24T09:12:41.752-07:002012-08-24T09:12:41.752-07:00Actually, Mr Haley, it seems to me that the ACA...Actually, Mr Haley, it seems to me that the ACA's attorneys have come up with (or at least thoroughly habilitated) a strategy that makes the Dennis Canon look like something clumsy and obsolete. Consider that the Dennis Canon refers exclusively to property. The argument that the court must defer to ecclesiastical authority in any ecclesiastical matter is much, much more powerful. Not only can the ecclesiastical authority govern liturgy and clergy conduct, but it can clearly govern the use of parish property, and since many parish officers and employees are appointed by the rector, the ecclesiastical authority can interfere in all of those matters without accountability to the courts. What is happening in the St Mary of the Angels case is that the ecclesiastical authority, without the need to refer to property ownership, first replaces the rector. Then, because senior warden is appointed by the rector, it replaces him. Then it makes an ecclesiastical decision to excommunicate other parishioners on the vestry. Then it acts <i>uncanonically</i> to appoint its own vestry members -- but the ACA attorneys argue that the court may not interfere with ecclesiastical actions even to the extent of asking whether they are uncanonical, because that question must be reserved for canonical authority. Complaints about canonical authority must go directly to canonical authority, the court can't intervene!<br /><br />Obviously if a denomination wishes to close a parish and sell the property, this doctrine permits it to happen irrespective of the Dennis Canon or other provisions of the articles of incorporation.<br /><br />I'm not sure if there's a way around this, but the logical extension is that if the ecclesiastical authority says the penalty for heresy is burning at the stake, and the ecclesiastical trial convicts you in whatever fraudulent way, it can burn you at the stake, and the courts can't intervene. <br /><br />How say you?John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-53915759033299011822012-08-23T15:36:45.405-07:002012-08-23T15:36:45.405-07:00Amen!Amen!The Reformed Reinhardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117578058106157744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-37209453849960040822012-08-23T12:20:49.602-07:002012-08-23T12:20:49.602-07:00It looks like that knowledge of the law is not req...It looks like that knowledge of the law is not required in order to become a judge.<br /><br />David Katzakian<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02588652491531473411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71670721443546446732012-08-23T12:06:41.512-07:002012-08-23T12:06:41.512-07:00But hasn't the court ruled that nevertheless, ...But hasn't the court ruled that nevertheless, this is an ecclesiastical matter, and the ACA is indeed entitled to determine who is on the vestry and whether elections are valid? It's true that the ACA argued that the issue was control of the property rather than ownership outright, but isn't control for all intents and purposes the same as ownership? The court ruled it can't intervene, for instance, in whether the ACA replaces vestry members in violation of its own canons. Thus the ACA can install a vestry that will for all intents and purposes give the ACA all the privileges of ownership, including, I would assume, the ability to dissolve the corporation and sell the property.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-74287172679780907532012-08-23T11:39:43.318-07:002012-08-23T11:39:43.318-07:00Except, John, that the ACA does not have any equiv...Except, John, that the ACA does not have any equivalent of the Dennis Canon. Under their denominational rules, the parish owns its property free and clear of trust, and so the majority should decide its fate. What has happened is that a small minority is trying to take over the property and thwart the majority's intent to join the Anglican Ordinariate.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-6335012334249443632012-08-23T11:20:22.123-07:002012-08-23T11:20:22.123-07:00So what is your reading of the St Mary of the Ange...So what is your reading of the St Mary of the Angels Hollywood situation? It appears that continuing Anglicans have exactly the same problems as TEC.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.com