The third province movement in the United States may have received a severe setback this week after a California court issued a tentative ruling holding that dioceses are creatures of the national Episcopal Church and may not secede.
On May 4, Judge Adolfo Corona of the Fresno Superior Court issued a preliminary opinion, stating that he would likely issue a summary judgment on behalf of the Episcopal Church against Bishop John-David Schofield (pictured) and the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
As a matter of law and fact the judge argued, the Episcopal Church was a “hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church.”
“In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments,” he said. Under this principle, a parish is a subunit of a diocese, which is itself a subunit of the national Episcopal Church, the Judge Corona reasoned.
As the Episcopal Church held that Bishop Schofield had been deposed and that it recognized Bishop Jerry Lamb as Bishop of San Joaquin, the assets and property held by the Anglican diocese should revert to the loyalist group, the judge argued. The actions of the San Joaquin synod to amend its constitution to secede from the Episcopal Church were “ultra vires”, unlawful and void.
Judge Corona scheduled a hearing for May 5 for the parties to respond to his tentative opinion which accepted at face value the opinions of the Episcopal Church’s expert witness as fact, but rejected the diocese’s expert witness testimony as opinion.
More here-
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4420
2 comments:
I've read several accounts of this story, because I thought it had to be mistaken, but apparently this really is the way it happened: the judge issued his ruling, and then heard arguments by each side the following day. I think I like doing it the other way round better.
This is the way it works with a summary judgement. The judge examins all the facts of the case (both sides) and if s/he feels one side will lose, and lose big time, s/he can issue a summary judgment stating that the courts system will award "victory' one one side. That saves a lot of time and money.
The former leadership of the diocese doesn't seem to understand that the courts have established the hierarchical nature of TEC - the former leadership feels as long as they do not accept it, it is not a fact.
A summary judgment does not preclude a trial - just tells everyone who will lose in trial.
The hearing on 5th May was to try to convince the judge he was wrong in making a summary judgment.
I expect the former leadership of DSJ to push this as far as they can. After all, their survival (and the so-called 3rd province) depends upon winning this case.
Post a Comment