Breakaway Anglican Churches Ordered To Return Property To Episcopal Church By April 30

By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

(RNS) A Virginia judge has ordered seven congregations that broke from the Episcopal Church to return all property to the local diocese -- from valuable land to sacred chalices -- by April 30.

The Diocese of Virginia had wanted the properties returned by March 30, a week before Easter. But Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows agreed to give the breakaway congregations more time.

In a closely watched case that reached the Virginia Supreme Court, Bellows ruled in January that congregations had the right to leave the Diocese of Virginia, but not to take church property with them.

The conservative congregations must return an estimated $40 million worth of property, according to The Washington Post, including several large, historic churches. They must also return chalices, prayer books, crosses and some of the money they had on hand before they left the Episcopal Church.

Bellows also ordered the breakaway congregations not to use the name "Episcopal" or "Episcopalian" in their names.

"We hope that this will mark the end of this lengthy litigation," said Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston.

Frustrated with the Episcopal Church's liberal theology, which includes consecrating gay and lesbian priests as bishops, the congregations voted to leave the denomination in 2006 and 2007. They are now part of the rival Anglican Church in North America.

Jim Oakes, a spokesman for the breakaway congregations, said they are "prayerfully considering their legal options."

Oakes said they are particularly upset at Bellows' order to turn over donations given to the congregations before they left the Episcopal Church.

Comments

[jcshiloh]

02:36 AM on 03/08/2012

As the world turns, we see the World's Church in action.

[Cranmer1549]

12:41 PM on 03/06/2012

Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey - good bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[ChrisHuriwai]

02:01 AM on 03/06/2012

And so they should. It's all very well and good for them to leave the Church, but when they leave the Church they should do so with what they had when they entered...nothing. Really what this shows is the conservative wing of the church's complete lack of integrity in that they will gladly condemn the Church and even leave it, but they have no issue holding onto the property, money and assets of the church...not surprising at all really...

[jcd8822]

12:40 AM on 03/06/2012

Good ruling. They are turning their backs on their church so they should leave with nothing. They need to change their name to CBC.....Conservative Breakaway Church..

[trythetruthtoday]

09:51 PM on 03/05/2012

Let the Episc. church have its property back, it will do them no good.
After those bldgs sit empty for a while, the value will go down, then you can buy them for pennies on the dollar.

[Tsvi1]

10:01 PM on 03/05/2012

Doesn't matter, at least then they would be legally purchasing them. Stealing is wrong, or haven't they heard?

[Grada3784]

09:19 AM on 03/06/2012

who ever said conservatives had to follow the 10 Commandments? All they do is post them on court walls.

Besides, there are gays about. They must keep their priorities in order; gays will be marrying in the next state over.

[psnyder325]

06:03 PM on 03/05/2012

This was the exact right call. These right wing "Episcopalians," with whom I've had some experience, stole that property outright. They had no right to it, as the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church. They certainly had the right to "vote with their feet," but not to steal property which, properly, belonged to the Mother Church, the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is one of the few that has at least bothered to come into the 20th C., if not yet the 21st.

[CoronaDischarge]

04:41 PM on 03/05/2012

Separation of Church and State, ... until it's time to recover property.

[psnyder325]

06:04 PM on 03/05/2012

Property is a "state" function....just like the roads that lead to the church. The Episcopalians were well within their rights. These people stole millions from them. Should'a gone to jail. Instead, these thieves are simply being asked to return the property they stole. If any other group had stolen $40M in property (other than, of course, the government, corporations and bankers) they would have been arrested.

[infopro]

09:50 AM on 03/06/2012

Actually, I think CD's comment was about the breakaway folks' own claims of separation of church/state, until it becomes in their interest to have there *not* be separation.

[F7]

02:30 PM on 03/05/2012

Oakes said they are particularly upset at Bellows' order to turn over donations given to the congregations before they left the Episcopal Church.

Hmmm, might that be because the Politicians, PACS, and SuperPACS probably won't refund their contributions?

[YeOldeSnark]

11:57 AM on 03/05/2012

The Episcopal Church, like all religions Christian and non-Christian, is a tax dodge. Time to end it.

[infopro]

01:08 PM on 03/05/2012

Anybody remember the basic rule from school about what you should think upon being presented with a sweeping all-or-nothing true/false question? ;)

[lateralus1983]

10:47 PM on 03/06/2012

Just like any rule there are exceptions, and religions is most certianly that exception.

[psnyder325]

06:05 PM on 03/05/2012

Amen, bruthuh! You're already fanned by me.

[DevonTexas]

10:36 AM on 03/05/2012

good decision.

[AxelDC]

09:08 AM on 03/05/2012

Amazing the lengths people will go to defend their bigotry.

[iLdoRight]

08:47 AM on 03/05/2012

Should they also give back all the false doctrine ans misinformation the church infected their minds with?

[Sumz54]

06:42 AM on 03/05/2012

I don't get it... how is this a Supreme Court matter?? Why would the Diocese of Virginia ask for court involvement on this when all churches are so adamant on having control over their own affairs? How can the Supreme Court make a ruling that is effectively creating church law - shouldn't this be decided BY the church/congregation? Why wouldn't this just be a civil matter? ie taking of property? How could the church think they could legally stop a congregation from leaving? If anything why wouldn't they take it higher in the church and excommunicate? Why would the congregation think they could steal property (although this part is less surprising because people do this kind of crap all the time)? Basically... why is the government/Supreme Court involved in any of this save for the stealing property bit... this whole story makes very little sense to me. I think the Supreme Court should have refused to rule saying they have to preserve separation of church and state (and by god we do!!) - the property issue should've been taken care of in civil court.

[Steveh0607]

08:26 AM on 03/05/2012

This involves property rights. That's why the court became involved.

[Sumz54]

06:50 PM on 03/05/2012

I realize that, and I assume you didn't read my post: "the property issue should've been taken care of in CIVIL court", "why is the government/Supreme Court involved in any of this save for the stealing property bit...". I for one didn't realize that the supreme court became involved in property disputes... I thought its purpose was to rule on constitutional matters. I tried to find another case last night where the Supreme Court made a ruling between two entities where one entity was not governmental and I could not find one. I am obviously not a lawyer though and certainly not an expert on which courts hear which matters... but maybe someone can help me out here: is it not unusual for the supreme court to rule on a case where the government is not one party? Also, is it not unusual for the Supreme Court to hear civil matters such as property disputes?? And your answer still did not explain to me why the court ruled "the congregation can separate from the church". Why would they ever need a ruling to let them do that?

[AxelDC]

09:09 AM on 03/05/2012

If the rebel churches had won, it would give precedence for hostile takeovers of churches.  A group comes in, takes over the congregation, votes to secede, takes church property, then sell it for a profit and move on to another church.

[Sumz54]

03:14 AM on 03/06/2012

Oh, that makes sense, but it seems so clear to me who the property belongs to, it just seems odd that it was a question that made it all the way to the supreme court. (But again, since when does the supreme court get involved in property disputes?) The situation is similar to the following: an employer hires a new employee who goes on to rally standing employees and they decide to quit and start their own business of a similar type... except they decide that they want to take the employer's equipment with them, or even better, decide they want to keep the building they currently work in. They would be laughed out of court if they tried to argue that they had a claim to the employer's property, but it wouldn't even be a question in the case whether or not they had the right to quit (unless they signed a contract but that has no relevance). Is this not the same thing? Why would the ruling in the case in question not be so blatantly obvious/self-evident as to necessitate moving past a lower court UNLESS the question of whether or not they had the right to secede also was of issue in the case. Which brings me back to my question... since when do courts get involved in how churches operate?? I for one would rather they didn't so there is no blurring of the lines between the law and religion.

[StevePD]

04:56 AM on 03/05/2012

I don't know that much about the Episcopalians, but from what I do know they do seem to be a more laid back bunch, with less of an in-your-bedroom attitude. If I had to pick a favorite church, they would be a candidate.

On the actual case itself, I don't see religion as a part of it at all. Whoever owns the property has to be the ones in charge of it.

Of course as has been said repeatedly, religion shouldn't be something that makes someone tax exempt. Giving them that tax exemption should be considered a violation of the first amendment. Religion should be irrelevant to those outside of each one.I don't know that much about the Episcopalians, but from what I do know they do seem to be a more laid back bunch, with less of an in-your-bedroom attitude. If I had to pick a favorite church, they would be a candidate.

On the actual case itself, I don't see religion as a part of it at all. Whoever owns the property has to be the ones in charge of it.

Of course as has been said repeatedly, religion shouldn't be something that makes them tax exempt. Giving them that tax exemption should be considered a violation of the first amendment. Religion should not in any way be of concern to the various levels of government.

[StevePD]

04:56 AM on 03/05/2012

Not sure how that came out double....

[iLdoRight]

08:59 AM on 03/05/2012

If fair was fair and a church is helping keep people out of prison by teaching and encouraging them to live by good moral standards and not killing and stealing that ends up costing a million dollars for the trial process and $80,000 a year for incarceration costs the church should receive from the taxpayers half that sum of money on an estimated basis annually for the service to society they provide and the people in Government who provide a bad example and in doing so encourage citizens to be crooks should pay society and the churches to counter for the added expenses they put on society for the criminal justice system. But really how fair is America ever going to be?

[StevePD]

09:46 AM on 03/05/2012

There is enough of nasty stuff going on within the religious communities themselves, that I don't see any of what you said being a decent argument for their tax exemption. Morals come from people, not religion, and with the wrong group of people, you'll still end up with someone who does bad things.

[Norcal2]

05:27 PM on 03/05/2012

Churches are setting a good moral example for people?

[kerryandjanie]

01:18 AM on 03/05/2012

All religions should be taxed just like everything else/every business you spend your money on has to turn around and pay B & O taxes to the government, just like every home pays property taxes toward schools whether or not the owners have or ever had children. I'd like to see a 7% flat tax on every dime you spend, food, housing, etc and no income taxes, That way the richer you are and the more money you spend, the more taxes you pay, and it won't matter if you are paid under the table because you're not taxed on income but on every cent you spend.

[That One]

08:32 PM on 03/05/2012

What about the mountains of wealth that would accumulate in the hands of the richest from having too much money to spend (and tax at a paltry 7%)?
Add a tax on savings and investment and I'll think about it.

[kerryandjanie]

10:25 PM on 03/05/2012

There already is a tax on savings and investments. You pay taxes on money you earn and money left over that you put in a savings acct or mutual funds draws interest and you have to declare that interest as income and pay taxes on it. I'm far from rich, but I got just over $200 in interest last year and included that with my gross income and paid taxes on it. You certainly wouldn't expect people to pay taxes on the same money in their nest egg/savings acct that they've already paid taxes on once just because they don't spend but save it for an emergency, esp if they're retired.