tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post3241118753309581849..comments2024-03-22T15:15:09.943-04:00Comments on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log: Details of Commonwealth Court RulingLionel Deimelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-48280972973060099672011-02-05T14:58:54.625-05:002011-02-05T14:58:54.625-05:00Dear Lionel,
We move in different circles!
Methu...Dear Lionel,<br /><br />We move in different circles!<br /><br /><i>Methuselah</i>Bruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-70290597809091470932011-02-05T10:31:47.735-05:002011-02-05T10:31:47.735-05:00Bruce,
When you get a chance, I want you to intro...Bruce,<br /><br />When you get a chance, I want you to introduce me to some of your dear friends who have shared ministry with us for the past 150 years. All my friends are younger.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-34392675172391896892011-02-05T08:43:21.861-05:002011-02-05T08:43:21.861-05:00Hi Gary,
It is I think settled that Parishes can ...Hi Gary,<br /><br />It is I think settled that Parishes can own property. Real estate may be titled, for example, to "The Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of St. Andrew's Church." The legal and canonical question centers on whether the officers of the parish can escape the fiduciary duties imposed by the canons of the diocese and of the Episcopal Church. My view and the view expressed in the Stipulation is that they cannot. The canons of the diocese, in conformity with the canons of the Episcopal Church, require that real property may not be encumbered or sold by parish officers without the consent of the Board of Trustees of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. If a congregation--an organized group of people who formerly were members of a parish of the Episcopal Church, but who are no longer such--wishes to own or use properties titled in the name of a parish of the Episcopal Church, or titled in the name of the Trustees of the Episcopal Diocese, then they must negotiate an agreement to the satisfaction of the Trustees of the diocese for the sale/transfer of assets and for the release of the diocese's trust interest. The process would essentially be the same if the building were vacant and those who were in negotiation with the diocese were, say, the local YMCA. The substance of the process is of course somewhat different. The members of the negotiating congregations are our dear friends who for 150 years have shared life, ministry, and mission with us, and we would acknowledge in the present moment the grace of their ministries and of the substantial spiritual and material investment they have made over many years to create and enhance the true "value" of these places of ministry. We must of course be careful to follow both civil law and canonical requirements in our actions. But I do continue to pray that there will be as well a deeper spirit of Christian charity and true generosity. Although my friends in the Anglican Diocese are understandably hurt by the situation with St. Philip's, and while I personally disagree with some elements of our diocese's approach, I do believe that we can rejoice that, despite some predictions, it does appear to be the case that mutually satisfactory resolutions can be found. Neither "side" perhaps getting all that it wants, but both sides getting what they need, and all of us able to move forward with some sense of grace and health.<br /><br />Blessings--Bruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-4951097171084500002011-02-04T16:00:59.683-05:002011-02-04T16:00:59.683-05:00Bruce: You will need to explain what assets you b...Bruce: You will need to explain what assets you believe are property of individual parishes rather than the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. You assume that a parish is a separate legal entity which has any right to own property that is somehow distinguished from property held in trust by the diocese. Your use of quotation marks on the use of the word "returned" indicates that you believe that such property can exist. If a parish vestry unilaterally attempts to transfer property from the diocese into the parish's name, it is not just a violation of fiduciary duty but also amounts to theft. <br /><br />The suggestion that the stipulated process is only a precedent for certain property is nonsense. Duncan signed the stipulation in the first place because he was informed by his counsel that he could not win. His subsequent attempts to weasel his way around the express terms of that stipulation are a contemptible effort to rationalize theft. The Commonwealth Court is exactly right when it states that the terms of the stipulation are not susceptible of any other meaning. It is not easy to get a re-hearing en banc by the Commonwealth Court and Duncan is highly unlikely to get one. Few appellants bother, but rather submit petitions for review to the State Supreme Court. In this case, Duncan's legal arguments are so poor that it would not be out of the question for a court to direct the Duncan group to pay the attorneys fees of the Episcopal Diocese.<br /><br />Why then is Duncan continuing to stretch this out? Does he think that he will be rescued from the cross of his own making, at the very last moment? Hardly. Duncan probably wants to delay the end of the dispute for his own very mundane, megalomaniacal reasons. The longer that his separate diocese battles, the more that it appears to be an equal of an Episcopal diocese. The protracted dispute gives Duncan the opportunity to prolong the illusion that his diocese is legitimate and worthy of greater acceptance. It keeps Duncan and his self-made diocese in the news, rather than just fading away into obscurity.<br /><br />Despite Piskie's comment, the ECUSA is doing an admirable job to clean up the mess which Duncan created. Just like any other denomination, unneeded real property will be listed for sale. The secessionist priests and vicars resigned and are gone. Any members who want to return will be welcomed back. I do agree with Bruce on one point. I am also pleased that a peaceful and apparently fair resolution has been negotiated with one former parish. Hopefully more will be forthcoming.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09134776231352756335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-5410629899909148792011-02-04T08:22:11.722-05:002011-02-04T08:22:11.722-05:00Just a note to Dallas Bob: the ruling of the Court...Just a note to Dallas Bob: the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas to enforce the Stipulation that in 2005 settled the lawsuit brought by Calvary Church against the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, now affirmed by the Commonwealth Court, addressed only those assets covered by "Paragraph One" of the Stipulation--assets "of the diocese," and not those "of individual parishes" (except in the case where parish property was titled in the name of the Trustees of the diocese.) These assets were "returned" to the Episcopal Diocese by the Anglican Diocese when directed to do so by the court, and our Episcopal Diocese has thus had control of them for some time. <br /><br />Lionel is correct that the announcement of the negotiated settlement with the congregation of St. Philip's in Moon Township has taken place in accordance with "Paragraph Two" of the Stipulation, having to do with parishes. This paragraph outlines very generally a process to be undertaken when a congregation wishes to depart from the (Episcopal) diocese. As I understand it, there is no provision for any "general settlement." Each congregation will need to enter into conversation with the diocese in an effort to find a mutually satisfactory resolution. <br /><br />I am personally delighted that such a successful, mutually satisfactory resolution was found in the conversation with the St. Philip's congregation, and I pray it will be the first of many.<br /><br />Bruce RobisonBruce Robisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193701138386039942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-21370928478073423212011-02-02T20:54:41.535-05:002011-02-02T20:54:41.535-05:00The stipulation is indeed still in effect. The Boa...The stipulation is indeed still in effect. The Board of Trustees of the Episcopal diocese owns properties other than that of St. Philip’s, but it does not own all parish property. The stipulation says that congregations wishing to leave the diocese—presumably all those now in the Anglican diocese—must follow the negotiation path set out in the stipulation to establish final ownership. It may take a long time to work out all the agreements.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-58519030737300285882011-02-02T20:02:20.055-05:002011-02-02T20:02:20.055-05:00So is the stipulation still in effect? Are there ...So is the stipulation still in effect? Are there any churches where the property is actually in the parish or vestry's name rather than the diocese? Or does it all go to TEC now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-16931265183148277302011-02-02T15:27:01.605-05:002011-02-02T15:27:01.605-05:00What a mess! If all the churches are "return...What a mess! If all the churches are "returned" to the diocese, what happens to the priests/vicars/deacons, not to mention the members? Selling some properties to the Duncan bunch would help the diocesan budget. But which? Are there members who would willingly return to TEC and try to keep the parish going? Interesting.PseudoPiskiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12070541512355253553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-12547812228199415092011-02-02T14:43:35.959-05:002011-02-02T14:43:35.959-05:00Excellent news! What is next and how long will ad...Excellent news! What is next and how long will additional appeals take before the property is returned to the real Episcopal Church? Anyone have a realistic guess?Dallas Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03636139367169016741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-85754306548224123232011-02-02T13:11:43.247-05:002011-02-02T13:11:43.247-05:00It is amazing and sad that the appellants thought ...It is amazing and sad that the appellants thought that the decision might be otherwise.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09134776231352756335noreply@blogger.com