More on St. James Kansas City

It appears that some people are confused about why I have posted the story about St. James in Kansas City, MO. Some of the comments have gone into so many details that the main point needs to be brought out and placed on center stage. Thanks to a very fine piece by the archbishop of the United Episcopal Church, North America (UECNA) the main point has been made abundantly clear. Writing on May 7th, Archbishop Stephen C. Reber, in a piece called PARISH OWNERSHIP-A MUST, wrote:

The following is just a brief summary of the UECNA's position. As a Church of the Continuum there are three major points that are essential, indeed sacred and special.

I. The use of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

II. An all-Male Clergy

III. Ownership-control of the local parish buildings and property by the local Vestry.

To break any of these essential points is to break them all. To pick or choose or disregard any of these points for any reason is to forever separate oneself from both actual or spiritual association of the Articles of St. Louis and all that they stand for. There is no reason or justification ever to pick and choose, or to compromise on these points.

Those persons or organizations deliberately dishonoring these points give evidence to their outright dishonesty, self-aggrandizement and/or outright fraud.

Archbishop Reber got to the one point that matters most. The Episcopal Church (TEC) has used financial matters, especially ownership of church property, as a weapon to use against people who have sought to be true to their convictions, and their consciences. They have used the Denis Canon, which made the Diocese the owner of all church property.* Even before that canon (1979), it was clear that they were going to claim the property of parishes trying to break away as the Continuing Anglican Churches were forming their Constitution in 1977. The use of financial pressure to establish and propagate apostasy and heresy was something that the framers of the Affirmation of St. Louis understood, and so they made it impossible for this tactic to reappear in the Continuing Churches. So, one of the Articles of the Affirmation says, ""Financial Affairs: The right of congregations to control of their temporalities should be firmly and constitutionally recognized and protected."

When and how the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite (HCC/AR) became a separate jurisdiction is beside the point for purposes of this post. What matters is that their Constitution embodied the principle quioted above from the Affirmation of St. Louis, as Fr. John Hollister reported to us in a comment.

"Constitution Part II
". . .
"ARTICLE XI -- OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION AND CANONS
"All words and provisions of this Constitution and Canons shall be interpreted strictly in accordance with their plain literal and grammatical meaning at the time of writing.
". . .
"ARTICLE XXI -- OF THE TEMPORAL AFFAIRS AND POSSESSIONS OF CONGREGATIONS
"The right of Congregations to control of their temporalities, and to freedom from claims of any Diocesan or Provincial or Synodical Trust or implied Trust asserted by the adherence of such Congregation to the Communion of this Church, or by its adherence to the Constitution or Canons of any Diocese, Province, or Synod shall be forever recognized and protected.

"No person or ecclesial body in this Church shall ever resort to any civil court for the purpose of depriving any congregation departing from this church of any property or right pertaining to it."

This, then, became part of their Canon Law.

The two bishops, Rt. Rev. James McNeley and Leo Michael, by trying to take over the parish property, violated this part of their Constitution, and by resorting to civil law, violated it further.

Furthermore, they disobeyed the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul, the word of God in holy Scripture:

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."

I Corinthians 6: 1-8.

By filing the lawsuit against St. James, these two bishops renounce the Affirmation of St. Louis, violate the Canon Law of their jurisdiction, and disobey Scripture.

Little details about who struck John are not the issue that matters most. Imitating the worst behavior of Katherine Jefferts-Schori and her thugs is the issue. Blowing the whistle on bad behavior by churches that claim to descend from the original Denver Consecrations of 1978, and that claim to adhere to the principles of the Affirmation of St. Louis, is necessary no matter how unpleasant. Otherwise, the little fixes that spoil the vines get to set precedents, both in courts of law, and in the human imagination. The plague can spread to others.

For the good of all, I ask these two bishops to drop their suit. If they win they lose, and everybody loses with them. And, besides that, their actions constitute sin from which they need to repent for the sake of their own souls.

* Oddly enough it is the very success of the Denis Canon in courts of law that presents TEC with a problem now, as they try to sue the entire Diocese of San Joaquin for realigning with the Province of the Southern Cone.

Howe to be One of the Good Ole' Boys

Following my post of September 24, and still with all due respect for the work Bishop John Howe did in his days as national director of NOEL, I am posting yet another of the ECUSAn bishop of Central Florida's public statements. I am posting it because it demonstrates the problem facing any ECUSAn parish whose people want to leave that heretical sect. Since this blog is international, it may come as news to some readers that, for the last few decades, parish properties, as such, have not existed in the Episcopal Church. Except for California, where, long ago, now retired Archbishop Robert Morse won a lawsuit to keep church property for the local congregation in Berkeley where he had served as parish priest, the church properties are owned by each diocese, a rule protected by legal precedent. Furthermore, the Episcopal Church managed to have the Canon Law amended so that each diocese holds these properties in trust for the national "church" headquartered in New York. With the exception of California, and a few rare cases regarding very unusual land grants, the courts have always ruled in favor of the diocesan ownership. This may be good news for bishops such as Bps. Iker and Ackerman, and all "Common Cause" bishops, if they pull their dioceses from the denomination, since the courts may consider national ownership to be in conflict with the "local" or diocesan ownership that has been upheld by precedent. Whether or not to contest in court such a congregation's wishes to withdraw, however, is the call of each diocesan Ordinary. But, for ECUSAns, or may I say, for Episcopalians in Central Florida who wish to convert to real Anglicanism, or something a little closer to it than ECUSAn heresy, the Evangelical, Charismatic John Howe stands as much in the way as do the bishops who support Same Sex Blessing, or, for that matter, "a woman's right to choose" to murder her baby.

The religion business makes strange bed fellows.

Bp. Howe's dictatorial statement, to those whose money, time and energy have been keeping church properties in good repair:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
There has been a great deal of conversation over the past few years about whether or not those who wish to leave The Episcopal Church might "negotiate" with the Diocese of Central Florida to purchase church properties and affiliate with some other Province of the Anglican Communion. It is time to end these discussions. The simple answer is: No. The Windsor Report and the several Communiques from the Primates of the Communion have said that the incursions by foreign Bishops and Archbishops are illegitimate. The Presiding Bishop has said that The Episcopal Church will not allow the purchase of any property by any group that seeks to affiliate with an offshore Province. I will not permit the passage of any Resolution by the Diocesan Board, the Standing Committee or the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Central Florida that seeks to alter the accession clause in our Constitution to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, or that seeks to transfer any property held by parishes in trust for the Diocese of Central Florida and The Episcopal Church. If you must leave, for conscience sake, I will do all in my power to make your leaving amicable. But when you make the decision to leave you immediately cease being a member of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Central Florida. You immediately cease having any say in decisions regarding any congregation of the Diocese or its property. Please be aware of this in any plans you might be making.

Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Compare this to the very important line in our own document, The Affirmation of St. Louis: "The right of congregations to control of their temporalities should be firmly and constitutionally recognized and protected." Is it hard to see which is ethical, and which is tyranny?