I'm very surprised that there wasn't a Scout or DavidH or JSchwartz type in that congregation to stir up one of those "loyal" Episcopalian groups to obstruct this very Christian process.
If there were a peaceful settlement between the CANA parishes and the Diocese of VA, it would involve a similar financial settlement. How much are those properties worth? What would be a reasonable settlement figure?
I'm impressed that a bishop who had all the legal levers in his hand to take the "easy way" out chose the hard way. The way the author described New Jersey law its clear that had the Presiding Bishop been Bishop of New Jersey it would have been a case of "here's you hat, what's your hurry" to the congregation.
This is, of course, an excellent result for all sides, or at least it seems to be from everything I've seen on this. There is no reason why there might not be other parishes where a similar result could be achieved under similar circumstances:
1. the departing group appeared to have a good sense of their legal position and raised the possibility of purchase respectfully.
2. the departing group offered to leave the property if that was the wish of the Bishop, but requested that their offer be considered.
3. there was no assertion by the departing group that they had some kind of right to take or to keep the property.
4. there was no unauthorized occupation of the property by departees.
5. there is no indication in any of the documents I've seen on this that there were continuing Episcopalian worshippers who desired to use the facilities (I'll put to one side for the moment Carolyn's comment).
6. there was, apparently, a long- standing cordial relationship between the rector and the diocesan bishop.
This leads to the Sesame Street question: How Is One Thing Not Like Another?
Where these circumstances exist, I would think a Diocesan Bishop could freely consider a reasonable arrangement. If I were on his standing committee, I could approve this deal in a minute, based on what I know about it now.
Another key aspect of this situation is that the arrangement was not opposed by the National church. I tend to side with those who believe these issues should largely be decided at the Diocesan level, but I think this case disproves the very popular notion that 815 is on some kind of blindly enraged mission to forbid any of these kinds of arrangements.
So, three huzzahs for Saint George's and the Bishop.
Now, back to Carolyn's unfortunate comment. I don't know DavidH or JSchwartz personally, but I can say categorically that none of us has ever been in a situation where we "stirred up one of those loyal Episcopalian Groups to obstruct the sale . . ." etc. I can say this with some certainty because I don't think any such thing ever happened anywhere in the United States. It certainly hasn't happened in the parishes I know best. We have a situation where some parishioners left to affiliate with a newly formed denomination. Some stayed and continued as Episcopalians. Full stop. It is between these two groups that the courts in Virginia and elsewhere are now forced to sort out who has the better claim to property.
PS: re the inquiry from Anon 2049 - Valuation is a tricky thing. The logical date to pin a value to these properties is as of the date of the occupation - late 2006. I would think that a figure in a few tens of millions of dollars range would probably cover it. Of course, the problem in the CANA/Diocese of Virginia situation is that some of these parishes are quite old and have a central place in the history of the Diocese of Virginia. When one gets into these non-monetary aspects of value, things get even trickier. Sometimes you get into one of those "priceless" situations that they talk about in the credit card adverts.
815 may be losing its appetite for more litigation or the Bishop of NJ may have politely noted that the PB really has no authority in his diocese.
Perhaps if Bishop Lee had gathered the fortitude to oppose Bishop Schori, we would have by now completed a peaceful settlement to the ongoing altercation.
While I still hope that negotiations will break out, there are several bars to that in the VA situation including ego, the unwillingness to justify the many $$ spent on litigation, and the very high cost of real estate in the area.
Anon 2011, of course the answer is "No". One couldn't conclude that. My suggestions about settlements go back quite some time. Of course, what is reasonable, fair and mutually beneficial will vary from parish to parish, diocese to diocese. The St. George's situation wouldn't work at, say, Truro. But, of course I favor reasonable settlement of these disputes.
I think it could work - if it is on our heart to seek it, not because we have all the answers or in the rightness of our cause (whatever side we may find ourselves) but because we serve a God who is amazing in His creativity and remarkable in His mercy.
Clearly the goal of the DofV and 815 in the case of TFC is to retain only the historic church, sell off SouthGate to commercial development, and raze and sell off the property that the Main Sancturary is on. There should be enough of a remnant to maintain some symbolic level of a parish for the Historic Church.
Steven: I would think another comparison would be to the way the Diocese of Virginia worked with the Rector and leadership at All Saints Woodbridge. In this New Jersey example, it sounds like the departing group approached the Bishop respectfully (no letters from the vestry calling on him to repent, no bans on his presence on the property, for example), made no claim to be able to occupy the premises by force of numbers alone, offered to vacate if the Bishop so directed, did not file legal claims in the secular courts seeking title to the property, and took no actions to terminate or exclude Episcopal worship. In other words, an environment that made constructive dialogue a very real possibility. I see some differences between their situation in New Jersey and the ones I saw in Virginia. We can have different views on which approach is the more intelligent and reasonable, but we can't get in a time machine and start over. A reasonable settlement in Virginia will carry with it the history of how events unfolded here.
That is what we had - remember, Bishop Lee created the Special Committee and he worked closely with the leadership of the congregations preparing to vote. It was very similar and went on for a year in preparation for the vote (2005-2006). This was the spirit in which we moved forward (outlined in the way the Reconciliation Commission also worked (2005) - a commission that led Bishop Lee to create the Special Committee), of which the All Saints Dale City was the prototype. The change happened a month before the vote when Bishop Schori took over 815 (Nov 2006). The votes took place, for the most part, in Dec. 2006 and recorded. The Standstill Agreement was put in place to follow the same pattern as the negotiations/resolution of the All Saints property. It was suddenly abandoned a month later in Jan. 2007 and Bishop Schori (not Bishop Lee) filed the first lawsuit. Now we see in the NJ case that she has changed her position and this is very helpful and very hopeful.
The matter before us is to encourage and pray for the leaders who are taking steps to discuss how we might also move forward in resolution. Which is why it was very wise for the Resolutions Committee to put forward the resolution calling the diocese to pray. The CANA Congregations join the diocese in that commitment to pray - and that is a good start forward.
I know for myself, the challenge is an issue of forgiveness. There's been much pain and disappointment and miscommunication and grief. The place we can take this is to the cross, where there is true equality.
Hard as it may be to believe, I don't carry around depo transcripts with me, but perhaps she was referring to filing an opposition to the CANA parishes' petitions and to seeking a declaration that would clarify the Diocese's rights. At that point, I'm quite sure the Diocese would have taken those actions regardless of what Mrs. Schori purported to do. Just to illustrate how little leeway the Diocese had once the departing groups went to court, I rather think the Diocese would have done exactly what it did even if 815 had told them not to.
BB - You're right to emphasize that those of us who were cast out of our home need to focus on forgiveness for the occupations of the buildings and the banishment of Episcopalians. However, the "win-win" we're all looking for will swing primarily on the practicalities of making sure the properties are preserved for Episcopal worship and use. That may be, at least temporarily, some condominium use of some of the properties or a lease of the properties to departing groups on a transitional basis, with provision for access by Episcopal clergy and worshippers.
"That may be, at least temporarily, some condominium use of some of the properties or a lease of the properties to departing groups on a transitional basis, with provision for access by Episcopal clergy and worshippers."
Translation: The Episcopal congregations cannot possibly support the properties, so we hope that someone would maintain them until a buyer can be found...
Step One: The properties are formally titled to the Diocese of Virginia - not the congregations. Those properties which the Diocese believes they can support on their own with the existing congregations the CANA congregations will be asked to vacate - details subject to negotiation. In cases like TFC, a joint use agreement could be worked out. In the case of properties where there is no viable EPISCOPAL congregation the property will still be titled to the Diocese but the CANA congregations remain in place taking care of all maintenance and taxes with periodic diocesean oversite. The CANA congregations must give the diocese a 2 year notice if they intend to vacate the property - so as not to drop an economic bomb on the financially strapped diocese. At that point the diocese will assume all financial responsibility for the property.
Comment: So far, everyone is saying,"What's in it for CANA?". We might as well just stay in court because the outcome would be nearly the same. CANA is taking a big hit by saying, OK the trials end now and, by the way, here's the title...but...
Step Two: If the diocese does not request CANA vacate the property within 10 years and/or is unable to uphold its financial obligations on the properties it has formally asked to retake day-to-day control of, in lieu of being sold it will FIRST be offered to CANA SOLELY at the cost of said obligations, the diocese will agree to turn the properties over to CANA in full. If the diocese has just run up the bills or not done the maintenance, CANA can decline. The diocese could take out a mortgage on the property, but CANA wouldn't have to assume it.
So if the diocese opts for the "throw the bums out" strategy the titles would be worded so that they would be first offered to CANA prior to being sold. Don't know if that's legal, but that's for the lawyers to work on. The diocese can be prideful and try to absorb the financial costs, which in the case of TFC are substantial, but eventually it will bleed the diocese dry. Not to mention what a poorly maintained property in the middle of a city might do to the diocese's reputation. For better or worse, the two sides would be tied together for a decade.
Interestingly, this could put the diocese in the position of having to decide where it stands vis-a-vis TEC innovations. If I thought the bishop of VA were actually going to stand up to the direction of the GC and TEC I might....might be persuaded to return...which would mean an assertive diocese could win back members from CANA. Of course, I'm also a Cub fan...so, maybe next year.
I don't really think that is going to happen, but I am talking possibilities, not probabilities.
Finally: Everyone pays their own lawyers.
As a CANA member, I really find this offer irksome, but I am willing to give the diocese a chance to "make it work" before asserting what I think are our own just claims. Here's my cloak and my staff and I'll walk another mile...if you please.
As for requests for rent, I think that would be unacceptable as most of these congregations would not want one dime going to the national church - whose actions were at the root of this.
This is not meant to be THE solution. Like I said, I'm just throwing it on the table as a starting point. So, please lets skip an ad hominem attacks.
BabyBlue is surprisingly graceful in her editorial oversight here. Reading the world as it comes through these comments, I am never able to understand Scout and others who steadfastly insist on a history that never was and never will be.
BabyBlue's account of the Standstill Agreement of 2005, and of Bishops Lee and Schiori is fair and true. The ongoing effort to rewrite that history, as if the now-CANA congregations fired the first shot, is historical revisionism of the worst sort. Bishop Lee saw what was coming, and in his own frail, but forward-looking looking ability, made promises about what would happen in the Diocese of Virginia when he authorized the Special Committee to create the conditions for a peaceful division. When Schiori, the "new sheriff" (in his own words) came to town, he stumbled with tragic moral and ecclesiastical cowardice-- and the rest is our sad story.
Why is it, Scout, that you refuse to own that history? I'm not angry at you; I just wonder why you don't own up to what happened? It seems we could have more honest and hopeful dialogue if you would do so.
Always hobbits - please understand that the DioVA has a story to tell and a position to defend. Mere facts will not be allowed to stand in the way of the official position.
AH - I don't think I have been particularly focussed, at least not in this thread on BB's version of history. I believe her to be a very sincere person who has lately put her shoulder to an admirable effort to promote some kind of settlement as an alternative to continued litigation that costs both sides a great deal. I share her view that a non-litigation solution is preferable to continued money going out of the churches into law firms. we're still looking at years of litigation if this thing wends its ways through all possible levels of judicial process.
Anything I have said in this thread I think is factually accurate re distinctions between the situation in NJ and the situation in Virginia. I haven't heard anyone dispute that those distinctions are factually correct, although I suppose folks could quibble about how big a difference any one or all of them are and how much it matters. But it certainly is true that the New Jersey parish did not attempt to occupy the premises, did not exclude Episcopalian worship, and offered to leave.
I have also acknowledge that (in my possibly misguided opinion) that the Bishop and the Diocese did send signals that made the situation worse rather than better in the 2003-2006 period. So, if that's the point you're making, I'm on board. I would have preferred that the Bishop send very clear signals to rebellious clergy that they were free to leave, but that they were not free to stay and foment schism. If he had done that, we would have some lovely new CANA churches gracing our landscape now and none of the turmoil of exiled congregations and wasteful legal fees.
I do think that there is a counter-factual propaganda effort in circulation that likes to ignore the reality that the CANA congregations went to court first. This meme paints the CANA petitions and seeking, in response to that filing, a declaration clarifying property rights. I would have deemed it shameful for a Diocese and its Bishop not to oppose such a tactic. But therein lies the divide between me and others who come to this site to exchange views.
I keep repeating over and over and over again - the Congregations filed petitions recording their votes. The Standstill Agreement, which was drawn up by the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, recognized that that filing was not hostile. This must be the reason why the Diocese of Virginia has not put the Standstill Agreement on their legal webpage - it contradicts the story they keep telling the laity.
How many times do I need to repeat this?
The filing after the votes was not considered hostile by the Diocese of Virginia - and do you know why? Because the second part of that petition was NOT FILED! We did not request transfer of the property - how many times do I need to repeat that?
The years of conversation and negotiation had led all parties to think we were now going into the property settlement stage as first demonstrated in the All Saints Dale City case. We had all ready been discussing the numbers that we would pay for the properties (so why would we lay claim when we thought we would pay millions?). This must be why the Standstill is not on the diocesan website, it contradicts the official diocesan story and that, my friends, is a big problem.
Yes, it painful to realize that Bishop Schori, upon taking over 815, intervened and railroaded years of work right off the tracks. And yes, it was Bishop Schori who filed the first lawsuit (possibly because she was not convinced the diocese would do so - and so the lawsuit could be extended to the diocese as well). To this day the Diocese and 815 operate separate legal counsels so it is not inconceivable that at some point the diocese could choose to go in a different direction than 815.
As we have seen in NJ and SC and even Dallas, 815 has backed off threatening dioceses when they turn to resolution instead of litigation to settle their differences.
BB - let's test your theory. Read the CANA petitions that were filed (or any one of them - I think they are identical or nearly identical) and then tell me where title would be now if the Diocese had not filed oppositions. My view is that non-opposition would have resulted under the Division Statute in title conclusively having passed to the departing factions. Do you think otherwise? If the diocese had not filed oppositions in early 2007, under what legal theory could either the Diocese or the individual Episcopal parishes have in later years (let's say this year or next, for an example) have asserted a right to possession, use or enjoyment of the properties? I sure can't think of any. Under your theory thus far, I think you believe that there would have been a piece of paper at the courthouse with a vote recorded on it and it would have had no effect on legal title. I do not think that is a realistic assessment of the effect of an unanswered petition of the sort that the CANA groups filed.
I am telling you the truth, Scout. That's why the Standstill makes it clear that the filing of our votes - the only thing that was filed with the court - was not hostile. We did NOT REQUEST TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY - PERIOD.
I don't know what the counsel for Bishop Schori told the leadership of the Diocese days before we were to attend Bishop Lee's first Property Committee (what he jokingly referred to as the "Get on With It" committee) - I was not in the room. I was in the room when we made it abundantly clear that we were not asserting rights or requesting transfer of the property or any of those things - we could have, but we did not - because we thought we were going to give millions and millions of dollars to the diocese for the property.
The Diocese of Virginia did behave in a similar fashion as did the Diocese of New Jersey. There was virtually three years of work that was undone when Bishop Schori intervened in January 2007. Bishop Schori filed the first lawsuit - I know because my name was on it.
So, back to my question: Read the court filings of the CANA groups and then tell us what you think the legal effect would have been if the Diocese had not opposed the court filings of the CANA groups that were submitted the week after the December 2006 votes? Would there today be a tenable legal position that title rested with the Episcopal parishes and/or the Diocese? The petitions go far beyond a mere one-page statement saying "A vote of members was taken and the result was [insert result]". The standstill agreement (DavidH has done an adequate job of addressing its history and I have not heard anyone challenge his facts about it so I need not repeat that discussion), whatever their impact, did not require the Diocese not to respond to court filings that sought to invoke the Division Statute to seize property.
We have gone down a bit of a rabbit trail with the commentary here. The language of the Standstill Agreement makes clear that the Diocese knew that the 57-9 petitions could be determinative of property ownership:
"Upon the Diocese's request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese's request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC's alleged interest in the property."
Thus, examining the language of TFC's petition accomplishes no more than to ascertain that TFC filed what the Diocese gave its consent to filing. Indeed, as I understand, TFC and the other parishes -- consistent with the Standstill Agreement -- did not oppose intervention in the proceedings by the Diocese. This must be why the link to the Diocese's Motion to Intervene on its Property Dispute page carries the following notation:
"This motion was filed against Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands, (COSO) the only one of the 11 congregations not to consent to the Diocese and the Episcopal Church defending their interests in the case. COSO eventually dropped its opposition, and the motion was removed from the docket."
I know it gives some folks here the hives, but I keep coming back to the Standstill Agreement, a document by which the Diocese and TEC expressly committed to seek to negotiate in good faith, and then walked away from without even taking the first step in negotiation. It is troubling for Diocesan representatives, given the Standstill Agreement and the sworn deposition testimony of both Bishop Lee and Bishop Schori, to now take to the airwaves and claim that the CANA congregations sued and that the Diocese's legal actions are merely defensive.
I like RWK's allusion to arguing about Munich on D-Day. That strikes me as about right.
I'll leave this thread by saying that I think there can be a settlement on the Diocese of Virginia issues and that that settlement is preferable for all parties, almost regardless of its content, to litigating in the trial court into the summer and in the appellate courts for the next two or three years. I just hope that the Diocese does hold fast for some kind of lease to the departees or some other form of retention of ownership rights to the Diocese that permits continued Episcopal use (perhaps on a shared basis) of at least the historic church at Truro. I have no doubt that The Falls Church will be returned to Episcopal worship.
30 comments:
I'm very surprised that there wasn't a Scout or DavidH or JSchwartz type in that congregation to stir up one of those "loyal" Episcopalian groups to obstruct this very Christian process.
If there were a peaceful settlement between the CANA parishes and the Diocese of VA, it would involve a similar financial settlement. How much are those properties worth? What would be a reasonable settlement figure?
I'm impressed that a bishop who had all the legal levers in his hand to take the "easy way" out chose the hard way. The way the author described New Jersey law its clear that had the Presiding Bishop been Bishop of New Jersey it would have been a case of "here's you hat, what's your hurry" to the congregation.
This is, of course, an excellent result for all sides, or at least it seems to be from everything I've seen on this. There is no reason why there might not be other parishes where a similar result could be achieved under similar circumstances:
1. the departing group appeared to have a good sense of their legal position and raised the possibility of purchase respectfully.
2. the departing group offered to leave the property if that was the wish of the Bishop, but requested that their offer be considered.
3. there was no assertion by the departing group that they had some kind of right to take or to keep the property.
4. there was no unauthorized occupation of the property by departees.
5. there is no indication in any of the documents I've seen on this that there were continuing Episcopalian worshippers who desired to use the facilities (I'll put to one side for the moment Carolyn's comment).
6. there was, apparently, a long- standing cordial relationship between the rector and the diocesan bishop.
This leads to the Sesame Street question: How Is One Thing Not Like Another?
Where these circumstances exist, I would think a Diocesan Bishop could freely consider a reasonable arrangement. If I were on his standing committee, I could approve this deal in a minute, based on what I know about it now.
Another key aspect of this situation is that the arrangement was not opposed by the National church. I tend to side with those who believe these issues should largely be decided at the Diocesan level, but I think this case disproves the very popular notion that 815 is on some kind of blindly enraged mission to forbid any of these kinds of arrangements.
So, three huzzahs for Saint George's and the Bishop.
Now, back to Carolyn's unfortunate comment. I don't know DavidH or JSchwartz personally, but I can say categorically that none of us has ever been in a situation where we "stirred up one of those loyal Episcopalian Groups to obstruct the sale . . ." etc. I can say this with some certainty because I don't think any such thing ever happened anywhere in the United States. It certainly hasn't happened in the parishes I know best. We have a situation where some parishioners left to affiliate with a newly formed denomination. Some stayed and continued as Episcopalians. Full stop. It is between these two groups that the courts in Virginia and elsewhere are now forced to sort out who has the better claim to property.
Scout
PS: re the inquiry from Anon 2049 - Valuation is a tricky thing. The logical date to pin a value to these properties is as of the date of the occupation - late 2006. I would think that a figure in a few tens of millions of dollars range would probably cover it. Of course, the problem in the CANA/Diocese of Virginia situation is that some of these parishes are quite old and have a central place in the history of the Diocese of Virginia. When one gets into these non-monetary aspects of value, things get even trickier. Sometimes you get into one of those "priceless" situations that they talk about in the credit card adverts.
Scout
Could one arrive at the conclusion that Scout does not seek a mutual resolution that would benefit all parties - could this be true?
815 may be losing its appetite for more litigation or the Bishop of NJ may have politely noted that the PB really has no authority in his diocese.
Perhaps if Bishop Lee had gathered the fortitude to oppose Bishop Schori, we would have by now completed a peaceful settlement to the ongoing altercation.
While I still hope that negotiations will break out, there are several bars to that in the VA situation including ego, the unwillingness to justify the many $$ spent on litigation, and the very high cost of real estate in the area.
RalphM
Anon 2011, of course the answer is "No". One couldn't conclude that. My suggestions about settlements go back quite some time. Of course, what is reasonable, fair and mutually beneficial will vary from parish to parish, diocese to diocese. The St. George's situation wouldn't work at, say, Truro. But, of course I favor reasonable settlement of these disputes.
Scout
I think it could work - if it is on our heart to seek it, not because we have all the answers or in the rightness of our cause (whatever side we may find ourselves) but because we serve a God who is amazing in His creativity and remarkable in His mercy.
bb
Scout - I did not say that you or the others ever stirred up the opposition group. As DavidH would say, "misdirection".
Sorry - I interpreted "stir up" to mean "stir up"
Scout
Clearly the goal of the DofV and 815 in the case of TFC is to retain only the historic church, sell off SouthGate to commercial development, and raze and sell off the property that the Main Sancturary is on. There should be enough of a remnant to maintain some symbolic level of a parish for the Historic Church.
- John
Sorry - I meant "type" to mean "type".
It basically sounds like NJ had an unwritten version of the Standstill Agreement, but unlike in VA the DioNJ didn't walk away and file lawsuits.
Steven: I would think another comparison would be to the way the Diocese of Virginia worked with the Rector and leadership at All Saints Woodbridge. In this New Jersey example, it sounds like the departing group approached the Bishop respectfully (no letters from the vestry calling on him to repent, no bans on his presence on the property, for example), made no claim to be able to occupy the premises by force of numbers alone, offered to vacate if the Bishop so directed, did not file legal claims in the secular courts seeking title to the property, and took no actions to terminate or exclude Episcopal worship. In other words, an environment that made constructive dialogue a very real possibility. I see some differences between their situation in New Jersey and the ones I saw in Virginia. We can have different views on which approach is the more intelligent and reasonable, but we can't get in a time machine and start over. A reasonable settlement in Virginia will carry with it the history of how events unfolded here.
Scout
That is what we had - remember, Bishop Lee created the Special Committee and he worked closely with the leadership of the congregations preparing to vote. It was very similar and went on for a year in preparation for the vote (2005-2006). This was the spirit in which we moved forward (outlined in the way the Reconciliation Commission also worked (2005) - a commission that led Bishop Lee to create the Special Committee), of which the All Saints Dale City was the prototype. The change happened a month before the vote when Bishop Schori took over 815 (Nov 2006). The votes took place, for the most part, in Dec. 2006 and recorded. The Standstill Agreement was put in place to follow the same pattern as the negotiations/resolution of the All Saints property. It was suddenly abandoned a month later in Jan. 2007 and Bishop Schori (not Bishop Lee) filed the first lawsuit. Now we see in the NJ case that she has changed her position and this is very helpful and very hopeful.
The matter before us is to encourage and pray for the leaders who are taking steps to discuss how we might also move forward in resolution. Which is why it was very wise for the Resolutions Committee to put forward the resolution calling the diocese to pray. The CANA Congregations join the diocese in that commitment to pray - and that is a good start forward.
I know for myself, the challenge is an issue of forgiveness. There's been much pain and disappointment and miscommunication and grief. The place we can take this is to the cross, where there is true equality.
bb
It's tough for the TEC partisans to explain away the taped sworn deposition of +Schori saying, in effect, "I ordered them to sue."
Hard as it may be to believe, I don't carry around depo transcripts with me, but perhaps she was referring to filing an opposition to the CANA parishes' petitions and to seeking a declaration that would clarify the Diocese's rights. At that point, I'm quite sure the Diocese would have taken those actions regardless of what Mrs. Schori purported to do. Just to illustrate how little leeway the Diocese had once the departing groups went to court, I rather think the Diocese would have done exactly what it did even if 815 had told them not to.
BB - You're right to emphasize that those of us who were cast out of our home need to focus on forgiveness for the occupations of the buildings and the banishment of Episcopalians. However, the "win-win" we're all looking for will swing primarily on the practicalities of making sure the properties are preserved for Episcopal worship and use. That may be, at least temporarily, some condominium use of some of the properties or a lease of the properties to departing groups on a transitional basis, with provision for access by Episcopal clergy and worshippers.
Scout
"That may be, at least temporarily, some condominium use of some of the properties or a lease of the properties to departing groups on a transitional basis, with provision for access by Episcopal clergy and worshippers."
Translation: The Episcopal congregations cannot possibly support the properties, so we hope that someone would maintain them until a buyer can be found...
RalphM
Just throwing something on the table...
Step One: The properties are formally titled to the Diocese of Virginia - not the congregations. Those properties which the Diocese believes they can support on their own with the existing congregations the CANA congregations will be asked to vacate - details subject to negotiation. In cases like TFC, a joint use agreement could be worked out. In the case of properties where there is no viable EPISCOPAL congregation the property will still be titled to the Diocese but the CANA congregations remain in place taking care of all maintenance and taxes with periodic diocesean oversite. The CANA congregations must give the diocese a 2 year notice if they intend to vacate the property - so as not to drop an economic bomb on the financially strapped diocese. At that point the diocese will assume all financial responsibility for the property.
Comment: So far, everyone is saying,"What's in it for CANA?". We might as well just stay in court because the outcome would be nearly the same. CANA is taking a big hit by saying, OK the trials end now and, by the way, here's the title...but...
Step Two: If the diocese does not request CANA vacate the property within 10 years and/or is unable to uphold its financial obligations on the properties it has formally asked to retake day-to-day control of, in lieu of being sold it will FIRST be offered to CANA SOLELY at the cost of said obligations, the diocese will agree to turn the properties over to CANA in full. If the diocese has just run up the bills or not done the maintenance, CANA can decline. The diocese could take out a mortgage on the property, but CANA wouldn't have to assume it.
So if the diocese opts for the "throw the bums out" strategy the titles would be worded so that they would be first offered to CANA prior to being sold. Don't know if that's legal, but that's for the lawyers to work on. The diocese can be prideful and try to absorb the financial costs, which in the case of TFC are substantial, but eventually it will bleed the diocese dry. Not to mention what a poorly maintained property in the middle of a city might do to the diocese's reputation. For better or worse, the two sides would be tied together for a decade.
Interestingly, this could put the diocese in the position of having to decide where it stands vis-a-vis TEC innovations. If I thought the bishop of VA were actually going to stand up to the direction of the GC and TEC I might....might be persuaded to return...which would mean an assertive diocese could win back members from CANA. Of course, I'm also a Cub fan...so, maybe next year.
I don't really think that is going to happen, but I am talking possibilities, not probabilities.
Finally: Everyone pays their own lawyers.
As a CANA member, I really find this offer irksome, but I am willing to give the diocese a chance to "make it work" before asserting what I think are our own just claims. Here's my cloak and my staff and I'll walk another mile...if you please.
As for requests for rent, I think that would be unacceptable as most of these congregations would not want one dime going to the national church - whose actions were at the root of this.
This is not meant to be THE solution. Like I said, I'm just throwing it on the table as a starting point. So, please lets skip an ad hominem attacks.
BabyBlue is surprisingly graceful in her editorial oversight here. Reading the world as it comes through these comments, I am never able to understand Scout and others who steadfastly insist on a history that never was and never will be.
BabyBlue's account of the Standstill Agreement of 2005, and of Bishops Lee and Schiori is fair and true. The ongoing effort to rewrite that history, as if the now-CANA congregations fired the first shot, is historical revisionism of the worst sort. Bishop Lee saw what was coming, and in his own frail, but forward-looking looking ability, made promises about what would happen in the Diocese of Virginia when he authorized the Special Committee to create the conditions for a peaceful division. When Schiori, the "new sheriff" (in his own words) came to town, he stumbled with tragic moral and ecclesiastical cowardice-- and the rest is our sad story.
Why is it, Scout, that you refuse to own that history? I'm not angry at you; I just wonder why you don't own up to what happened? It seems we could have more honest and hopeful dialogue if you would do so.
Always hobbits - please understand that the DioVA has a story to tell and a position to defend. Mere facts will not be allowed to stand in the way of the official position.
RalphM
AH - I don't think I have been particularly focussed, at least not in this thread on BB's version of history. I believe her to be a very sincere person who has lately put her shoulder to an admirable effort to promote some kind of settlement as an alternative to continued litigation that costs both sides a great deal. I share her view that a non-litigation solution is preferable to continued money going out of the churches into law firms. we're still looking at years of litigation if this thing wends its ways through all possible levels of judicial process.
Anything I have said in this thread I think is factually accurate re distinctions between the situation in NJ and the situation in Virginia. I haven't heard anyone dispute that those distinctions are factually correct, although I suppose folks could quibble about how big a difference any one or all of them are and how much it matters. But it certainly is true that the New Jersey parish did not attempt to occupy the premises, did not exclude Episcopalian worship, and offered to leave.
I have also acknowledge that (in my possibly misguided opinion) that the Bishop and the Diocese did send signals that made the situation worse rather than better in the 2003-2006 period. So, if that's the point you're making, I'm on board. I would have preferred that the Bishop send very clear signals to rebellious clergy that they were free to leave, but that they were not free to stay and foment schism. If he had done that, we would have some lovely new CANA churches gracing our landscape now and none of the turmoil of exiled congregations and wasteful legal fees.
I do think that there is a counter-factual propaganda effort in circulation that likes to ignore the reality that the CANA congregations went to court first. This meme paints the CANA petitions and seeking, in response to that filing, a declaration clarifying property rights. I would have deemed it shameful for a Diocese and its Bishop not to oppose such a tactic. But therein lies the divide between me and others who come to this site to exchange views.
Scout
I keep repeating over and over and over again - the Congregations filed petitions recording their votes. The Standstill Agreement, which was drawn up by the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, recognized that that filing was not hostile. This must be the reason why the Diocese of Virginia has not put the Standstill Agreement on their legal webpage - it contradicts the story they keep telling the laity.
How many times do I need to repeat this?
The filing after the votes was not considered hostile by the Diocese of Virginia - and do you know why? Because the second part of that petition was NOT FILED! We did not request transfer of the property - how many times do I need to repeat that?
The years of conversation and negotiation had led all parties to think we were now going into the property settlement stage as first demonstrated in the All Saints Dale City case. We had all ready been discussing the numbers that we would pay for the properties (so why would we lay claim when we thought we would pay millions?). This must be why the Standstill is not on the diocesan website, it contradicts the official diocesan story and that, my friends, is a big problem.
Yes, it painful to realize that Bishop Schori, upon taking over 815, intervened and railroaded years of work right off the tracks. And yes, it was Bishop Schori who filed the first lawsuit (possibly because she was not convinced the diocese would do so - and so the lawsuit could be extended to the diocese as well). To this day the Diocese and 815 operate separate legal counsels so it is not inconceivable that at some point the diocese could choose to go in a different direction than 815.
As we have seen in NJ and SC and even Dallas, 815 has backed off threatening dioceses when they turn to resolution instead of litigation to settle their differences.
bb
BB - let's test your theory. Read the CANA petitions that were filed (or any one of them - I think they are identical or nearly identical) and then tell me where title would be now if the Diocese had not filed oppositions. My view is that non-opposition would have resulted under the Division Statute in title conclusively having passed to the departing factions. Do you think otherwise? If the diocese had not filed oppositions in early 2007, under what legal theory could either the Diocese or the individual Episcopal parishes have in later years (let's say this year or next, for an example) have asserted a right to possession, use or enjoyment of the properties? I sure can't think of any. Under your theory thus far, I think you believe that there would have been a piece of paper at the courthouse with a vote recorded on it and it would have had no effect on legal title. I do not think that is a realistic assessment of the effect of an unanswered petition of the sort that the CANA groups filed.
Scout
I am telling you the truth, Scout. That's why the Standstill makes it clear that the filing of our votes - the only thing that was filed with the court - was not hostile. We did NOT REQUEST TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY - PERIOD.
I don't know what the counsel for Bishop Schori told the leadership of the Diocese days before we were to attend Bishop Lee's first Property Committee (what he jokingly referred to as the "Get on With It" committee) - I was not in the room. I was in the room when we made it abundantly clear that we were not asserting rights or requesting transfer of the property or any of those things - we could have, but we did not - because we thought we were going to give millions and millions of dollars to the diocese for the property.
The Diocese of Virginia did behave in a similar fashion as did the Diocese of New Jersey. There was virtually three years of work that was undone when Bishop Schori intervened in January 2007. Bishop Schori filed the first lawsuit - I know because my name was on it.
bb
So, back to my question: Read the court filings of the CANA groups and then tell us what you think the legal effect would have been if the Diocese had not opposed the court filings of the CANA groups that were submitted the week after the December 2006 votes? Would there today be a tenable legal position that title rested with the Episcopal parishes and/or the Diocese? The petitions go far beyond a mere one-page statement saying "A vote of members was taken and the result was [insert result]". The standstill agreement (DavidH has done an adequate job of addressing its history and I have not heard anyone challenge his facts about it so I need not repeat that discussion), whatever their impact, did not require the Diocese not to respond to court filings that sought to invoke the Division Statute to seize property.
Scout
Let's change the metaphor here...I mean I enjoy the "dog chasing its tail/you sued, no you sued" debate as much as anyone...but
Agreed Upon Facts:
1. The bishop and dissenters participated in a month's long discernment process that resulted in said agreement/protocol.
2. The standing committee "received it", nothing more.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
Had the committee accepted the protocol, we wouldn't be having this argument because the meaning of filing the votes would have been clear to all.
Had Bishop Lee had the confidence to stand by the protocol, we wouldn't be here.
Maybe CANA shouldn't have filed the votes, but exactly what else was there to do?
This is much like arguing over the Munich Conference of 1938 in the middle of D-Day invasion in 1944.
I'd humbly suggest we deal with the here and now.
We have gone down a bit of a rabbit trail with the commentary here. The language of the Standstill Agreement makes clear that the Diocese knew that the 57-9 petitions could be determinative of property ownership:
"Upon the Diocese's request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese's request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC's alleged interest in the property."
Thus, examining the language of TFC's petition accomplishes no more than to ascertain that TFC filed what the Diocese gave its consent to filing. Indeed, as I understand, TFC and the other parishes -- consistent with the Standstill Agreement -- did not oppose intervention in the proceedings by the Diocese. This must be why the link to the Diocese's Motion to Intervene on its Property Dispute page carries the following notation:
"This motion was filed against Church of Our Saviour, Oatlands, (COSO) the only one of the 11 congregations not to consent to the Diocese and the Episcopal Church defending their interests in the case. COSO eventually dropped its opposition, and the motion was removed from the docket."
http://www.thediocese.net/News/Property_Dispute/#trial
I know it gives some folks here the hives, but I keep coming back to the Standstill Agreement, a document by which the Diocese and TEC expressly committed to seek to negotiate in good faith, and then walked away from without even taking the first step in negotiation. It is troubling for Diocesan representatives, given the Standstill Agreement and the sworn deposition testimony of both Bishop Lee and Bishop Schori, to now take to the airwaves and claim that the CANA congregations sued and that the Diocese's legal actions are merely defensive.
I like RWK's allusion to arguing about Munich on D-Day. That strikes me as about right.
I'll leave this thread by saying that I think there can be a settlement on the Diocese of Virginia issues and that that settlement is preferable for all parties, almost regardless of its content, to litigating in the trial court into the summer and in the appellate courts for the next two or three years. I just hope that the Diocese does hold fast for some kind of lease to the departees or some other form of retention of ownership rights to the Diocese that permits continued Episcopal use (perhaps on a shared basis) of at least the historic church at Truro. I have no doubt that The Falls Church will be returned to Episcopal worship.
Scout
Post a Comment