A Virginia Judge ordered seven congregations that separated from the Episcopal Church to return all property to the local diocese by April 30; the property included anything from valuable land to sacred chalices. This had been a closely watched case that eventually reached the Virginia Supreme Court. According to Judge Bellows ruling back in January of 2007, the Congregations had the right to leave the Diocese of Virginia, but were not entitled to the Episcopal Church property.
The conservative congregations must return an estimated $40 million worth of property, according to The Washington Post, including several large historic churches. They must also return chalices, prayer books, crosses and some of the money they had on hand before they separated from the Episcopal Church. The breakaway congregations were also ordered to reframe from using the names "Episcopal" and "Episcopalian" when referring to their names. Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston stated, "We hope that this will mark the end of this lengthy litigation." Jim Oaks, a spokesman for the breakaway church is extremely furious with the ruling. Oakes speaks on behalf of the churches by stating, that the congregations are "prayerfully considering their legal options." Oakes said they are particularly upset at Judge Bellows' order to turn over donations given to the congregations before they left the Episcopal Church.
The congregation decided to depart from the denomination back in 2006 and 2007, due to the frustration of the Episcopal Church's liberal theology, which includes consecrating gay and lesbian priests as bishops. The congregations are now part of the rival Anglican Church in North America.
Although I can understand the congregation’s decisions to leave the Episcopal Church, I still honestly believe the Judge Bellows ruling was fair game. The congregations had the right to leave, but it is absurd for them to take the property that belongs to the denominations after they have officially separated themselves. The decision for the church to reframe from using the names "Episcopal" and "Episcopalian" is a little much. I compared this situation to marriage, after you have been apart of something or someone for a substantial amount of time, I think you should be entitled to a name. I also believe that asking for money the congregation had on hand is being a little greedy, but for the most part I believe the ruling was fair and the congregations should defiantly return the property back to the Episcopal churches, especially since the property holds high monetary value.
10 comments:
Christiana, this post really got me. While I was familiar with the Episcopal Church split, I was not aware that the property and things the breakaway church has to return amounted to nearly $40 million. If this ruling is at all like a divorce from a marriage, then at least there should have been an equitable settlement or split of property. Why would the "breakaway congregation" have to return donations given BEFORE they left the Episcopal Church? That seems grossly unfair and wrong. Why bother keeping the name? It's the "money" that matters - afterall this is America. Based on this post, I feel the ruling was wrong. Seems we have not heard the last of this case as the litigants prepare to make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. This will be one case to follow. Thanks for the post.
This case is like many cases we have discussed in class.Overall, there aren't any actions in this case that would have a drastic effect on religion and law but the way the court ruled is a bit unfair. I don't believe that the congregation should have returned all of the donations, they should have been able to keep the money they had raised themselves,even after they left.Also, the episcopal church had no patent on the name so the congregations should have been allowed to name their churches however they want. Because the Government has no say in resolving religious ideological differences, it should at least make sure that it fairly judges in situations which arise as a result of conflict. This ruling, in my opinion, wasn't as fair.
I definitely agree with what Christina said. People are free to breakaway from churches. They were not being forced to stay. I think the judge ruled fairly, because the church did not have the right to take those properties from the church they were separating from. I also agree that it is too controlling for the church to tell those who broke away that they could not use the name Episcopalian. The breakaway church should also, like the judge said, return the collections that were obtained before the churches split. I think it is crossing the line if the church was required to return money that they collected after they split. I do agree 100% that the breakaway church should have to return all property they took, because they had no right to it.
This actually happened in Georgia as well, in both McDonough and Savannah. I believe one church was Presbyterian and one was Episcopalian. Both cases reached the Georgia Supreme Court and the court ruled in favor of the denominations. Interestingly, one of the cases resulted in a 9-0 ruling, while another had a split decision. This could mean that the justice's decision was impacted by the denomination and/or the denomination's procedures, which would make for very intriguing opinions to read.
I agree with the Episcopal Church as well. I think that if the rival churches were to separate from the Episcopal Church then they should return their property to them. I think once the conservative church decided to break away from the liberal reigns of the Episcopalian Church they should have left the grounds that were owned by the Episcopalian Churches. The reason why they had the facility was for the sole reason that they were affiliated with the Episcopalian Church. Once they decided to break those ties, they lost their privilege to use the space. In addition, it is not unfair that the Episcopalian Church required them to give the money that they acquired through donations. This money was given to the Episcopalian Church, not the breakaway group. I also agree with Anne that we might see this case coming up in the Supreme Court, as the conservative church will most likely file an appeal in response to the Virginia Supreme Court decision.
I believe this case highlights the tension inherent in the law that seeks to ensure the free exercise of religion for both individuals and institutions. To respond to Aanal, this case has broad implications for the understanding of religion in America. Like the current debates over birth control and the Catholic Church, there exists strong disagreement about where the locus of religious authorities lies. Do we side with the Catholic Church and provide an exemption, or side with female Catholic practitioners who overwhelmingly use contraception? Does the breakaway church (the non- or counter-institutional group) get to continue to use the label Episcopalian because that;s how they chose to define themselves, or does the institutional Episcopal Church retain total control over who can identify as Episcopalian? How we answer this question does have significant implications for how we understand the category religion and the relationship of an individual to the institution.
I find the court’s ruling in this case was perfectly reasonable, and I think a lot of the perceived issues surrounding the ruling arise simply because the two parties are religious institutions. There are no First Amendment issues at stake here. If the two parties where rival businesses, this case would seem a lot less complicated. The decision regarding the use of the name’s “Episcopalian,” and “Episcopal” is understandable if you consider what that name represents. Just like any brand name, it is tied to a product or image. For the breakaway churches to retain the name Episcopalian, while not upholding the Episcopalian Church’s stated beliefs is, in effect, false advertising. As far as the donations received prior to the separation, I believe, the ruling was again perfectly justifiable. The donations were to the Episcopalian Church, and its overall mission, not that particular congregation. I disagree with Anne, and do not see the Supreme Court getting involved; there simply isn’t anything at stake, constitutionally.
I agree with Kyle; I think this has significant implications for religion and law, and is the result of a long line of historical legal cases. What is most interesting to me involves the legal allowance of the church to maintain all land of the diocese. Also, the fact that the law intervened here with matters of the church. It further illustrates the inherent entanglement of church/state relations.
I agree that Judge Bellows ruled fairly. Anyone is allowed to leave any congregation at anytime. The church that broke away should return everything they took from the original congregation. Judge Bellows also ruled that the break away congregation should not being able to use the names “Episcopal” or “Episcopalian” is going a bit overboard. If the church that broke away is still practicing a similar form of the religion, then they should be able to use the name. This does not really seem like an issue until the Judge Bellows said they could not use the names. Now it seems like violation of the first amendment. The break away congregation should be able to call their new church whatever they want.
In response to Anna G., the money collected before the split was probably required to be turned over to the denomination on the grounds that it was collected as a donation to the Episcopalian Church, not the revival Anglican Church of North America.Also, in a breakaway situation such as this, it almost seems fundamental to start up on your own, without any ties to the entity you're breaking from. For instance, the Quakers don't look to receive funds or support (that I know of) from more liberal denominations of Christianity.
Post a Comment