Yesterday’s ruling regarding the break-away Episcopal parish of St James in Newport Beach, Calif., is an interesting one — and one, unfortunately, ill-served by the AP wire story that went out about it. Better details are available from the LA Times and OC Register (free registration required).
Basically, the legal action came down to two questions:
- To what degree could St James withdraw from Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles without retribution? The parish had spoken out openly and defiantly against the diocese and the national church regarding the General Convention and the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. They had also placed themselves under the authority of a Ugandan bishop, rather than the local diocese. They then characterized actions by the diocese to take over the parish property (from buildings to hymnals) as harassment and retribution.
The judge agreed, claiming that the St James parish had a First Amendment right to speak and worship openly without legal retribution. Which nobody questioned, to be honest, but whether they could do so in defiance of church canons, without any resulting action, seems quite a different matter. The judge declined to rule on the canons — again, there’s propriety in that, but to then characterize the matter as a First Amendment issue seems dubious, and, ultimately, unnecessary, as the real crux was the next question:
- Who owned the property? The judge ruled that the property was legally held by the parish, not by the diocese. While there may be canons that indicate otherwise, the legal property ownership seems to have been clearly on St James’ side.
This is an area where the national Episcopal church and various dioceses have had varying approaches over time. In this case, the facts seem to support the ruling of the court. In other dioceses, this is not the case (in Colorado, for example, the actual property of parishes is clearly deeded to the dioceses), so the extension of this ruling elsewhere is questionable.
So what does this mean? Not a whole lot, actually, though it’s getting a lot of national attention. St James hasn’t been intimidated back into the fold (nor do I think that the diocese was particularly after that in this case). The diocese has rightfully been told that canon law is of secondary value compared to the names actually written on the deed, which most denominations and organizations within them are already well aware.
The question of “who owns the property” is one I feel mixed about, for obvious reasons, as to whether it’s more desirable to have the diocese owning things or the individual parishes. It’s clearly something that can be abused as a club by dioceses (“Toe the line or we kick you out”), regardless of the ideologies involved (and this particular issue has had cases of parishes on both sides of the divide complaining about such heavy-handed tactics by their bishops). On the other hand, it’s also one of the few areas where the hierarchy actually has any legal force outside of the canons. Even the financial picture gets muddled. Obviously individual parishes in the normal course of things are, as individuals, paying their own way. On the other hand, dioceses provide startup costs of parishes, they often act as guarantor on loans taken out by parishes, and they provide other services and personnel to parishes as well.
In various court cases, the courts have generally ruled based on the names on the deed, regardless of whose provided what money or what the canons say. If it’s the diocese, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the parishioners who’ve been paying the mortgage. If it’s the parish, it doesn’t matter whether the diocese helped secure the loan, or whether the bishop consecrated the building.
A somewhat interesting story nonetheless, as part of the ongoing drama within the Episcopal church, but not the sexed-up “Huge turning point!” that the news media wants it to be.
(Obligatory disclosure: Rev. Praveen Bunyan, pastor at St James, is husband of a previous deacon/priest who served at my parish, Veena.)