Back in 2003, when Gene Robinson, an openly gay man in a partnered relationship, was consecrated a bishop, many conservative Episcopal congregations considered departing. Soon after this consecration, five congregations in the diocese of Ohio left the Episcopal church. I don’t have the exact dates, but I recall these parishes leaving around 2004. I always wondered what happened between the Ohio diocese (which encompasses most of Ohio north of Columbus) and these parishes, because they represented about 20% of the diocese of Ohio’s average Sunday attendance, and they seemed to have left without much publicity. Apparently the Diocese of Ohio was willing to let these parishes go amicably (although if you look at current diocesan statistics, they are obviously still included in the stats). But not anymore.
It now seems that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts-Schori is pressuring the Ohio diocese to sue these parishes, four years after the fact. This comes after a defeat for Schori and TEC in Virginia. The Episcopal Church has apparently spent over 4 million dollars pursuing breakaway parishes in that state. The major legal issues TEC faces in pursuing breakaway parishes seem to be whether the Episcopal church is a hierarchical church and whether a true split has occurred in the Episcopal church. If the latter is true, then Virginia law allows the parish to depart with property. It seems as if the Virginia court assumes that there is a split happening in the Episcopal church, and it may well be right, since there are quite a few parishes, and even a diocese, departing.
The important question, though, is why would the leaders of the Episcopal church, the center of love, inclusion, and tolerance, spend millions of dollars to sue parishes that apparently amicably departed four years ago at the discretion of the bishop of Ohio? Well, I may have an idea. I have found that some who throw around the words “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “tolerance” are often some of the most non-diverse, exclusive, and intolerant folks around, especially if you don’t happen to agree with them on their pet issues. Those who for years complained they were oppressed by powerful church leaders are now in charge and wielding similar oppressive power like there is no tomorrow. Looking back, conservatives in the Episcopal church have been pretty darn tolerant of divergent views compared to those now in power.
I am relieved that I am no longer fighting from the inside in these debates (when I became Catholic I was glad to leave the strife behind, even though I sympathized with the conservative side). In some ways, I now sympathize with the National Episcopal church wanting to keep its property. However, unlike in the Catholic Church, where parishes are clearly owned by the bishop, I think there really is a question of to whom these properties belong. Personally, I have always thought that departing parishes should just leave the buildings behind so there is no question of scandal, and it seems to me that both sides in this debate are causing plenty of scandal, to the detriment of the gospel message (although I am not sure this message is really that clear in many TEC parishes). On the other hand, I can sympathize with those who say, “we have paid for the building, kept it up, and grown a thriving parish in spite of our bishop and diocese.”
Now I am more than aware that the Catholic Church has had (and currently has) leaders who lacked a good sense of faith and morals, and thus acted primarily out of power, but two wrongs do not make a right. In a modern age where information reaches the whole world in minutes over the internet, I don’t think an increase in expensive litigation is going to further the mission of the Episcopal Church, but then again, I am not exactly sure what the mission of TEC is these days.
April 8, 2008 at 10:47 am |
“For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.” Mt 6:21
“What’s in ‘your’ wallet?” Barbarian, channel 6
April 8, 2008 at 11:14 am |
You said at the end that you don’t know what the mission of the Episcopal Church is nowadays. Isn’t it obvious? The Episcopal Church is now all about putting trends over Tradition, liberalism over Love of God, heresy over Truth, and glorifying itself, not the Lord Jesus.
April 8, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
” I have found that some who throw around the words “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “tolerance” are often some of the most non-diverse, exclusive, and intolerant folks around”
Unfortunatley, me too.
April 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
The carcass has golden bones.
Follow the money – the endowment money.
What is left to fight for but the good real estate and perhaps Billions (as dad might say “That is with a capital “B”, son!”) of dollars in endowment money.
Prime real estate, cash and the name The Episcopal Church™… We don’t take TEC seriously anymore, but most of the mainstream press doesn’t know or care what is going on – it still has the luster of prestige, and so it is still a brand name worth having, and a treasure chest worth fighting over. Some of the endowments – which date back a century to robber barons. Let’s say that one of the wealthy Piskies of the Robber Baron era left $1M in a bequest to his beloved Church… in 1898. If it was invested well with $1K added a year until today…. Anyone able to do the math in their head?
$97,698,542,341. That is 97 BILLION, son.
It may be more, it is probably less, but old money sitting around in the right investment breeds better than rabits.
Understand that is how a church with under 2M members and hemmoraging fast can have the following reported: $151,986,107 proposed budget for the 2007-2009 triennium at the end of its meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, on January 12.
(cf. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_70841_ENG_HTM.htm)
Where in the hell do people think all that money is coming from for just the NATIONAL church – that is the national budget, not diocesan, not parochial. Maybe they are collecting 58¢ a week from 1.77M members and doing so religiously… I doubt it.
That carcass has bones of pure gold, and there will be infighting to control it until the end. They don’t care about members or even parish churches. Honestly, the fewer of them they need to spend money on, the better!
April 8, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
Why are my comments disappearing?
April 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
SS,
I am not sure what is happening. Do you mean on this post? I haven’t seen any of your comments disappear from my end. One or two went into moderation because they contained a few links, which flags them for moderation, but those were approved.
April 8, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
There isn’t another comment holding for moderation on this post?
April 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
SS,
Your comment went directly into the spam catcher, along with a few other comments that were legitimate. I am not sure why. I am going to have to check that folder more often.
April 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm |
It seems to me that if the parishes have a viable legal claim to the parish, then there is nothing particularly wrong or immoral for them to take the property of the parish with them. Of course, there are other considerations, the expense and the bitterness of litigation can tear congregations to shreds. Even if they win the litigation, the congregation itself might not survive the conflict.
Likewise, I don’t doubt that the national church sincerely believes that it is entitled to hold onto local properties, though the legal basis for that belief, at least in Virginia, strikes me as rather flimsy. But, even if the national church is legally entitled to these properties, Schori and her counsel David Booth Beers are very much acting like dogs in the manger. It is highly unlikely, in my view, that the Episcopal Church will be able to salvage most of the congregations – ultimately the property will have to be sold or remain unused. This litigation, in other words, is motivated more by malice, hatred, and spite, than anything else. The best recent example of the dog in the manger attitude was that of Bishop Charles Bennison who spent enormous sums of money to retain St. James the Less, Philadelphia, only to have to close the church once they got it back, since the parish did not attract a viable membership.
The last Episcopal parish in which I was an official member of was quietly considering its options at the time Barbara Harris was made a bishop. When I asked the then-rector about the possibility of the parish leaving the Episcopal Church, he said that he had legal counsel look into it, and the prospects for that parish prevailing in court were slim to none. It never did leave ECUSA despite some ugly conflicts with the diocese, conflicts which the diocese maliciously provoked, and now that parish is sadly being assimilated into the Borg. Too bad, but realistically this development was inevitable.
April 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
“This litigation, in other words, is motivated more by malice, hatred, and spite, than anything else. “
I am largely in agreement, though I think the golden bones of that corpse still is an enticement. From what I know of the Virginia parishes, there is no subgroup of folks who are yearning to stay with the TEC – it would not be decisive in the sense that the congregations would have split allegiance – by and large, they all want to go.
So spite and money aside, this seems to be a bullying tactic that is in play. Make an example of them, and folks realize that the stakes would be to high. As it stands right now, if the TEC got the parishes, they would get empty buildings and the congregations would just move on and rebuild. So I guess the question then is, would TEC be willing to sell them their old parishes back? Where some of them are located is some might prime real estate. To TEC, it might be better to have the assets and sell them!
April 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
Worth mentioning – it really comes down to who owns the parishes. In the Orthodox Church in America, for example, the trusteeship system holds sway in many parishes and it is the parish trustees that control the parish and own the building… If the TEC OH parishes in question are under such sytem, they own it. Of course that doesn’t mean a massively expensive lawsuit could not be threatened… And sometimes the thread of a lawsuit the just and rightful party cannot afford to fight is reason enough to just walk away.
Of course, we as Catholics should consider suing the CofE for all our churches back… And we want reparation for the stolen suppressed monasteries, with interest!
April 9, 2008 at 9:41 pm |
about 85 years ago there was a huge legal battle over parish properity when the Greek Catholics in America split into two jurisdictions (Ukrainian and Ruthenian), thats why so many cities have both a Ukrainian church and a Ruthenian church next door to each other… one side won the properity and the loosers built their own parish next door (as for who won the legal battles, it varied and was 50/50 between the two for the most part, the Ukrainian faction won the Cathedral in Chicago, the Ruthenians then built a new church a block away which remains a parish to this day)
April 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm |
Zan – actually those battles played out for some parishes three times over! First a split between the OCA and the Greek Catholics, than a split in the Catholic Church between the Ukrainians and Ruthenians… And then the Ruthenians and Ukrainians both faced splits again with new Orthodox counterpart churches. The split in the 30s between the Ukies largely dealt with trusteeship and who owned the parishes.
Getting away from trusteeship (the last of it disappearing in the 1970s) was one of the best things we ever did in the Greek Catholic Church. We have done a few smart things!
April 12, 2008 at 10:23 am |
In Virginia, the Falls Church predates the diocese; it’s probably one the oldest (Episcopal) parishes in what is now the US so I imagine there’s symbolism involved with that fight, in addition to the prime real estate, historic building, etc. It’s going to be an ugly fight. How many more Catholic converts do you think think this will cause?