Advertisment
 

Join the Topix community today: 

Sign Up

 | 

Sign In

Episcopal Church

Apr 7, 2008

The Episcopal Property War

Judge Bellows' ruling has a second section that apparently requires more deliberation. Henry Burt, a spokesman for the Episcopal Church's Virginia Diocese, which had sued the 11 churches to maintain the property, admitted that "the finding in the case is initially favorable to the [seceding] congregations," but pointed out the judge has specified that the buildings could not change hands unless the second half of his trial determines that the Virginia law is actually Constitutional. Hearings on that begin May 28. "And we are confident," says Burt, "that the Virginia law creates issues both with the First Amendment and the Constitution's contracts clause." Indeed the Constitutional issue is vital to the national battle. The Episcopal Church claims that the the agreements binding the rebels' property to it are not just contractual but theological. Therefore, Burt says, for any state government to contravene them "is not just messing with a corporate structure, but messing in a clear and fundamental theological belief." If Judge Bellows decides the Virginia law violates Church/State separation it would create a precedent for decisions that would give tremendous authority to Episcopal claims.

Read All 2 Comments

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 2 of 2
from South Florida
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 8, 2008
 
I predict 57-9 will be upheld as constitutional. It does not interfere with Episcopal church polity, worship or doctrine, but is intended to resolve property-title disputes when churches cannot resolve those disputes itself. It is only invoked when the churches request the court's intervention. Since churches hold title to properties, and disputes arise, from time to time, regarding those properties, the court has to find a way to render a fair and just decision, without becoming entangled in theological disputes which would clearly violate the constitutional separation of church and state. 57-9 is intended to accomplish those aims.

If developments are not what the diocese expected, they should remember that they could have negotiated with the CANA parishes, but decided to litigate instead. The results may not be what they expected!

Holly
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 10, 2008
 
I personally find it to be very sad that such churches wanted to break away to begin with over something as silly as gay rights. I don't know for sure if thats what they broke away over or not but I suspect it probably is part of the reason.

If you ask me, gays deserve to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Showing posts 1 - 2 of 2
Type in your comments to post to the forum
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Episcopal Church Discussions
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Gay bishop says banning him from summit is mistake 10 hr motleycrew 32
Rift haunts Anglican meeting Thu Willy 1
Former Bishop of San Joaquin 'withdraws' from L... Thu MiddleWay 1
Banning Of Gay Bishop Appears To Backfire Jul 15 worn out pro... 2
Ariz. Episcopal bishop: Gay's exclusion 'insult' Jul 15 Azakia 76
lost anglicans Jul 15 donald tremblay 2
Gay US bishop fights exclusion from meeting Jul 15 Gary47 14