https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Parish the thought

The Episcopal Church has won a legal victory in California.  Though a lower court had originally ruled against the diocese of Los Angeles in a court case regarding some…

The Episcopal Church has won a legal victory in California.  Though a lower court had originally ruled against the diocese of Los Angeles in a court case regarding some break-away parishes retaining ownership of their church property, a state appeals court has reversed that ruling, arguing that the church’s own internal rules and canon law make it clear that church property belongs to the diocese and the national church, not individual parishes.

In Monday’s ruling, however, presiding Justice David G. Sills, who wrote for the panel, made clear that it had confined its decision to the property dispute and not the broader controversy. “Readers will look in vain in this opinion for any indication of what religious controversy may have prompted the disaffiliation,” Sills wrote. ” … That controversy is irrelevant to this action.”

Sills later concluded, “The right of the general church in this case to enforce a trust on the local parish property is clear.”

The dissidents indicated that this was (a) not in keeping with California case law (possibly, though it is how most state laws work in such cases) and (b) very, very, very sad that the Nassssssty Episcopal Church would take other Christians to court over such unGodly things as property matters.

It’s this latter defense that drives me up the freaking wall.  If property weren’t an issue here … then why are they kicking up such a fuss?  Why are they considering where they worship as so important?  If they want to break away, aren’t they better served by leaving it all behind and showing their missionary zeal by starting afresh?

Oh, I forgot, it’s their church. 

I don’t know the particulars for the parishes involved, but I can use my own as at least some guidance.  Yes, our parish was responsible for raising money and buying our church property and constructing it and expanding it and paying the mortgage.  On the face of it, it’s “ours.”

Except, of course, for the canon law that says that we’re holding it in trust for the church and for all Episcopalians who may come to our community to worship. 

And except, of course, even where there was no direct financial aid to the church from the diocese, the diocese was either explicitly or implicitly part of the deal.  If we go under, our debtors will go after the diocese, whether or not they counter-signed our mortgage.  That’s one reason we were able to negotiate a mortgage at the terms we did — it wasn’t just our x-hundred member congregation (“The Grace L. Fergusson Storm Door and Church Co.”) but the entire diocese of Colorado and the Episcopal Church there in the office with us.

Add to that the other assistance the diocese has provided us over the years, whether or not we’ve matched it back, and for us to say that, no, it all belongs to us, not you, so get off our lawn, you darned heretics, is not only itself unChristian, it’s just goofy.

If I decided that I was leaving the Episcopal Church, I’d go.  I wouldn’t take a Prayer Book from the pews with me.  If I and the majority of my parishioners reached the same decision, we’d go, and leave our building behind.  And if that meant we had to build our own church, then that’s what we’d do.  Christ’s disciples didn’t argue with the Pharisees that they should get ownership of the Jewish temples; they went out and built their own communities.  It’s not sexy and it’s not easy and it’s gut-wrenching … but you’d sort of expect such a decision to be that way anyway.

18 view(s)  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *