SECESSIONISTS RAISING ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR SCHISMATIC PARISHES

The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina has ANNOUNCED it is raising one millions dollars to support the eight congregations that are leaving the Episcopal Church properties, that is, the local churches that the SC Supreme Court has said belong to the Episcopal diocese. The announcement says $250,000 has already been raised. Each congregation is to receive $10,000 initially with more to come by grants. No mention was made of the negotiations to buy St. Matthew's of Ft. Motte or the rectory of St. David's, of Cheraw, so one can only wonder how much diocesan money will be funneled into these. 

On another note, the diocese has deleted from its WEBPAGE the September 21 newsletter. This was the one that spilled the beans on the supposedly confidential negotiations to buy the church in Ft. Motte and the rectory in Cheraw. Too late now.

To say this schism has been expensive would be an understatement. I estimate the legal fees alone in the last decade to be around $10m.

The fact that the secessionists are resolved to contribute a million dollars to keep eight congregations from going back to the Episcopal Church should bring home to the Episcopal side the seriousness of the negotiations now going on between themselves and the schismatics. The depth of the schismatics' animosity toward the Episcopal Church is profound. Compromise will not come easily to say the least. (In the joint statement of Sept. 26, the Anglicans gave up nothing they actually had.)

One more point---officers of the Anglican diocese of SC persist in pretending that their group is the historic diocese. The federal court ruled in 2019 that the Episcopal diocese is the only heir of the historic diocese and that the Anglican diocese formed after the schism of 2012. The judge even issued an Injunction to enforce a ban on the schismatics from claiming to be the historic diocese. Moreover, the breakaways have been held in contempt of court TWICE for violating the injunction. Yet, we see remarks as the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis: "For generations, the people of this Diocese have given generously..." Of course, there is a blogger, another officer of the ADOSC, who often posts "the historic Anglican diocese" and "the brand new Episcopal diocese." I doubt that the secessionists want to be held in contempt of court a third time. 

 

EPISCOPAL LAWYERS FILE REPLY TO OLD ST. ANDREW'S AND HOLY CROSS (STATEBURG)

On today, September 29, 2022, the attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church filed in the South Carolina Supreme Court "Reply to Returns to Motion for Relief from Judgment."

On August 17, 2022, the SCSC issued a judgment holding that Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross, of Stateburg, were owners of their properties because they had formed trusts after 2006 when state law changed to allow unilateral revocation of trusts. The Episcopal side's lawyers then filed a request with the SCSC to vacate the judgment or to hold a new hearing on the issue. OSA and HC then filed a response to the Episcopal side's request. Today's paper is the reply of the Episcopal lawyers to the two congregations' arguments.

Here is what I see as the main points in today's paper:

---In the first place, OSA and HC have not proven they formed trusts after 2006.

---The Aug. 17 ruling of the SCSC was improper for two big reasons.

1) The SCSC majority (Beatty, Pleicones, Hearn) opinion of 2017 held that 29 parishes (including OSA and HC) made irrevocable trusts for TEC and its diocese. This decision became the law of the land.

2) The issue of revocation was not part of the trial court record and was not considered by the circuit court for its 2020 order.

Therefore, the present SCSC should not rule on the issue of revocation without due process in court.

The TEC/EDOSC lawyers ended by asking the SCSC to vacate its judgment on OSA and HC or to hold a hearing to allow for due process of the issue.

What will the SCSC do next? God only knows. So far, the court has issued three different, and contradictory, rulings on the church case. They have made an embarrassing mess of it all and they still have not closed the door. 

On Aug. 2, 2017, the court said the Episcopal Church owned 29 of the 36 parishes in question. Then, on April 20, 2022, the court said, oh no, TEC actually owns 14 of the 36. And then, on Aug. 17, 2022, the justices said, no no, TEC really owns 8 of the 36. This chaos is the result of the SCSC trying to be both an appeals court and a trial court and not doing either well.

 

SEPARATISTS SEEKING TO BUY EPISCOPAL PROPERTY

The release yesterday of the agreements between the bishops of the Episcopal and Anglican dioceses covered a great deal, but not all aspects of negotiations going on between the two sides.

According to the September 21, 2022 newsletter of the Anglican diocese of SC, talks are going on concerning two properties owned by the Episcopal diocese.

In one instance, apparently the present congregation of St. Matthew's, in Ft. Motte, is negotiating with Bishop Woodliff-Stanley to buy the parish property from the Episcopal diocese. A prayer request:

"The Rev. Janet Echols (St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte) - For a fruitful face to face meeting with Bp Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, particularly regarding purchase of the parish property."

In another example, apparently the congregation that vacated St. David's, in Cheraw, is trying to buy the rectory of the parish from the Episcopal diocese:

"The Rev. Jason Varnadore (St. David's, Cheraw) - That they are able to arrive at acceptable terms for the purchase of the parish rectory."

St. David's has returned to Episcopal services while the departed congregation is worshiping in a borrowed church.

This is all the information presently publicly available on possible sales of parish properties to the secessionists elements. 

When contacted about the remarks in the ADOSC newsletter, the Episcopal diocesan office would neither confirm nor deny these reports.

Of the eight parishes to be returned to the Episcopal diocese, three are still outstanding on details of transition:

St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

St. James, James Island

Good Shepherd, Charleston

Good Shepherd has a petition before the SC Supreme Court for reconsideration of its case. The SCSC has assigned the parish to the Episcopal diocese.

Bottom line, apparently there are negotiations going between the two sides for the Episcopal diocese to sell some properties to the schismatic side. In time, the details of these will become known. As one knows, a great deal of detail was not revealed in yesterday's announcement of certain agreements between the two dioceses.

A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR,

28 SEPTEMBER 2022

It should come as no surprise that people are reacting to yesterday's blockbuster announcement of a deal between the two bishops. I would say the overall tenor of what I am hearing is fatigue-drenched shock and war-weary disappointment. The Hundred Years' War of the Middle Ages was perhaps the longest war on record, but the schism in South Carolina seems that long to the people caught up in it. Yet, one can only wonder if peace at any price is worthy of the conflict. 

At any rate, here is one of the printable communications I have received since yesterday's announcement:

Hello Dr. Caldwell:

I am amused at the subject line, as my father was pastor of Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church when I was born. But, anyway...

I moved to Raleigh, NC, from Virginia where I had lived all of my life, way back in 1997. I didn't really start to pay much attention to churches, though, until 2004 when I agreed to help an unchurched family member find a spiritual home.

In the course of attending many churches with this person (sometimes as many as three in a weekend) I learned many of their stories. I started to notice a pattern. It usually started with one or more unhappy families at one church---usually a personality conflict with someone in leadership. When the malcontents found a sympathetic clergy willing to help them split, a new church was born. Importantly, so was a new fixed-rate 30-year mortgage.

I've watched the lifecycle of these churches over the past 18 years. Memberships shrink, charismatic clergy leave or retire, some members drift back to the "home" church. But you can see that their fate is sealed when that 30-year mortgage is coming due. There will be a flurry of fundraising, more publicity, clergy turnover gets shorter, and a lot of appeals to nostalgia rain down on past members who are hoped to return.

Ultimately, you know when the battle is lost. The church sign changes. Maybe it's a new denomination or a new name in a foreign language. Sometimes the church of a different denomination next door takes over the property and may even allow the previous tenants to remain for some time after the sale. In the worst case, the building and cemetery  are abandoned. That's all that remains thirty years after the schism, a forgotten memorial to some righteous cause lost to memory.

The ADOSC may thrive, and they may have a good run, but that thirty-year clock is ticking. Maybe the mortgage is paid, but the people have moved on. The same be true of the EDOSC as well. Any church, any denomination, any faith tradition is ever only one generation (+10 years) away from extinction. If faith, hope, and love will carry through to that day, time can only tell.

Very truly yours,

Israel J. Pattison

THE PRICE OF PEACE

Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, released a STATEMENT today summarizing some of the agreements she has made with Bishop Chip Edgar, of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. The two sides have declared peace, sort of, but at what price?

Let's look at the gains and losses of the two sides as outlined in today's statement. Here are my initial observations about today's announcement.

WHAT ADOSC GETS:

---all rights to the diocesan headquarters building on Coming Street (EDOSC surrenders any claim to the place).

---EDOSC grants quit claim deeds to "several" missions that remained in ADOSC but did not join the lawsuit. There were about a dozen of these in all. (EDOSC vacates the Dennis Canon for these).

---the three parishes with petitions before the SC Supreme Court can continue their actions against the Episcopal diocese; as well, the ADOSC can continue its betterments suit against the Episcopal diocese.

---right to make joint decisions on placement of the diocesan archives. (All records of the Episcopal diocese from 1785 to 11:59 a.m., Oct. 15, 2012, should be sole property of the Episcopal diocese, as per the federal court ruling of 2019). The ADOSC did not exist before Oct. 15, 2012. They have no right to make decisions about the historical records.

WHAT EDOSC GETS:

---Camp St. Christopher and the bishop's residence on Smith St. (There was no question about ownership of these as per both the SC Supreme Court and the federal court).

---rental property at 129 Coming St. and a lot in Santee, both owned by the Episcopal dicoese( ditto above).

---end of the ADOSC appeal of Judge Gergel's order of 2019 in the U.S. Court of Appeals (there was virtually no chance this appeal would have succeeded since Gergel had written his order to be appeal-proof and the SCSC had ruled repeatedly in support of EDOSC as the sole heir of the historic diocese).

MYSTERY:

The most mysterious bullet point in today's statement referred to "additional financial assets" and that each side had made concessions. This is a huge deal. We must know more about this since it could involve many millions of dollars in pre-schism diocesan assets. Exactly what has the Episcopal diocese given up and gained?

So, to summarize:

The breakaways walk away with the diocesan headquarters, "several" additional missions, and the right to pursue their ongoing litigation in state courts. 

The Episcopal diocese winds up with the Camp and the bishop's residence which they had anyway, two properties the diocese owned anyway, and the end of the federal case which the diocese was almost certainly going to win anyway.

The biggest disappointment of the day is that the schism and the legal war are ongoing. 

So, I ask you dear reader who came out on top in this deal? I think it is clear. The Episcopal diocese is paying a price for peace. From my viewpoint, the Episcopal diocese gave up clearly more than the secessionist side did. Whether this was the right or wrong thing to do should remain the opinion of you, the observer. At best I can say I have a lot of questions about all of this. 

Hopefully we will have more details of the bishops' "settlement" in the coming days. I shall return with commentary.

Disclaimer---I am an independent commentator not connected with any diocese in lower South Carolina.

 

TWO DIOCESES ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT ON DIOCESAN PROPERTIES

26 September 2022. 3:00 p.m.     

A few moments ago, the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina issued a press release stating that it had reached a final settlement with the separatist Anglican Diocese of South Carolina on disposal of diocesan properties but not on all issues outstanding between the two dioceses. Find it HERE . The two sides released no details but said more information on this would be released later this week.

Today's announcement raises far more questions than it answers. 

Here are a few questions that come to my mind right off:

---What does the term "properties" mean? For instance does this include financial assets, paraphernalia, and archives? As a student of the schism, I for one would be strongly opposed to allowing the schismatics to keep any of the archives, records, and other such material of the pre-schism diocese. Everything that belonged to the Episcopal diocese before Oct. 15, 2012 should now belong to the Episcopal diocese. 

---There were about a dozen local churches that went along with the schismatics but did not enter into the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church. What is to happen to them? Is the Episcopal Church and its diocese going to surrender any claim to them in spite of the Dennis Canon?

---What does this mean for the federal case? The breakaways have appealed Judge Gergel's Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals. That order recognized the Episcopal diocese as the only heir of the pre-schism diocese. Will the Anglican lawyers now withdraw their appeal?

---What does this mean for the case that is still wide open in the SC Supreme Court? The press release said it did not affect the three parishes in question (Old St. Andrew's, Holy Cross of Stateburg, and Good Shepherd). But, what about the rest of the case that is before the SCSC? It has been partially remitted to the circuit court.

---The Anglican side entered a betterments lawsuit in circuit court. Have they withdrawn this? On the other hand, is the Episcopal diocese going to ignore the unreimbursed use of its diocesan properties for the ten years of the schism, let alone the failure to keep up the properties? A decade's use of Camp St. Christopher and the bishop's residence would amount to millions of dollars.

---Will there be a special master to manage the transfers of the properties from one side to the other?

---Exactly who were the people who were in on this deal?

Finally, one wonders why the two sides released the announcement today when they could have waited a few more days and release it with the details. I suppose we have no choice but to wait until we are informed of more. Let us hope they are more forthcoming next time.

 

NOTES,  22 SEPTEMBER 2022

Best wishes to you, blog reader. I am writing this on Thursday, the 22nd of September, 2022. There is no big news to relate so I am just touching bases to let you know I am here and keeping vigilant on happenings relating to the schism. In case you have forgotten, we will be marking ten years of schism next month. Who would have thought ten years ago that we would still be in the midst of conflict all these years later? Oh well, best not to think about that today. We will get back to that sad topic soon enough.

As for legal happenings, we are waiting on two issues with the South Carolina Supreme Court. The first is the reply of the Episcopal lawyers to the responses of Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross (Stateburg). On 17 August, the SCSC issued an order recognizing local ownership of the properties of these two parishes. The Episcopal side then asked the SCSC for reversal of this or a rehearing. The two responded by filing papers against this with the SCSC; and now the Episcopal side is preparing a reply to these responses. They lawyers have until Friday, 30 September to file their reply, so I doubt we hear anything from the SCSC before then. 

The second issue is the response of SCSC to Church of the Good Shepherd's petition for rehearing with the court. In the order of 17 August, the SCSC recognized Episcopal ownership of this parish. Subsequently, GS asked the court for reconsideration. We are now awaiting the court's decision on this.

Meanwhile, eight parishes are in transition back to the Episcopal diocese as per the SCSC order of 17 August (7 if one wants to hold Good Shepherd aside until the SCSC rules on its petition for rehearing). 

Three of the eight have already made the move back to the Episcopal Church and appear to be thriving. The first back was St. John's, of Johns Island, Charleston.

St. John's.

The second parish to return home was St. David's, of Cheraw. Last Sunday, the congregation met in the main sanctuary after meeting in the chapel for several weeks. It was a joyous homecoming for the long-suffering Episcopalians of that area.

St. David's.

The third parish to return to the Episcopal diocese was Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant. Last Sunday was the first for the Episcopalians returning home there.

Christ Church.

Two others among the eight have announced dates for transition. The present occupants of Holy Trinity, of Charleston, posted 11 September as their last service on the property and 18 September as their first service at their new meeting location, at Porter-Gaud School. 

The occupants of St. Bartholomew's, of Hartsville, have announced that their last service in the church will be on 23 October and their first in an as yet an undisclosed location, on 30 October.

This leaves three of the eight that have not posted dates for transitions:

St. Matthew's, of Ft. Motte

St. James, of James Island, Charleston

Good Shepherd, Charleston.

On top of all the problems of the schism, churches in South Carolina, and everywhere else, are struggling to bounce back from the closures of the covid pandemic. Many congregations have been slow to return and rebuild. Resources are being strained. 

In some places, such as in my county, some churches are finding it impossible to keep on maintaining their expensive facilities. Two congregations that used to be among the largest and strongest of the county are abandoning their too-large properties. The First Baptist Church of Jacksonville AL was the largest and most prominent in the town covering a block.

A few weeks ago, the congregation sold their property for $6m to the adjacent Jacksonville State University. The people are going to meet at a mission church they established a few years ago on the southwest part of the town as they talk about ways to build a smaller facility out on the edge of town.

In nearby Anniston AL, the First Presbyterian Church is up for sale, assessed at $3m.

Built in 1964, it stands as a significant example of modern church architecture. It would be a shame to demolish this beauty. Unfortunately, the membership has declined too far to maintain the place properly. This congregation too wants to build a new, smaller facility.

So, perhaps your congregation is also struggling to build back to its pre-schism level. if so, you are not alone. Many congregations these days are being seriously challenged to get people back into the buildings and also to keep the buildings, or if not, decide what to do next. In a way, all churches are victims of covid too.

As people in South Carolina have learned the hard way, a building does not a church make. Church is the people. Countless Episcopalians learned this reality when they had to leave their church homes as the schism hit. Now, lots of "Anglicans" are leaving their church homes for the wilderness. They two will learn what "church" means. 

So, despite the odds, we all go on doing the best we can to serve God and our fellow human beings, buildings or no buildings. Peace. 

NOTES,  15 SEPTEMBER 2022

Greetings, blog reader, on September 15, 2022. This is a convenient moment to stop and take an assessment of the schism. With all that is going on with the courts, it is easy to get confused. If you are having trouble keeping the various legal maneuverings straight, you are not alone. I myself struggle with this. So, let's try to summarize the legal status of the schism:

1. The main source of chaos at the moment is the South Carolina Supreme Court. Matters here just seem to get murkier by the day. 

The basic dispute now is over the fates of three parishes: Old Saint Andrew's, Holy Cross (Stateburg), and Good Shepherd. 

In its most recent order, the SCSC assigned OSA and HC to the local occupants and assigned GS to the Episcopal Church. However, the SCSC did not issue a remit order to the lower court to implement this. Therefore, the Episcopal lawyers are asking the SCSC to reverse their decision on OSA and HC or to hold a new rehearing. Meanwhile, the lawyers for the present occupants of Good Shepherd are asking the court to reverse itself concerning that parish. Thus, the SCSC has three petitions before them, two from TEC and one from the secessionists. The TEC lawyers have until Sept. 30 to submit that last papers to the court on this matter.

I have long since given up trying to understand the SCSC, let alone predict, what they are going to do. The justices waded into the quagmire of trying to rule on church matters, despite the First Amendment, and now they are caught stuck in the mud. It seems the more they struggle to get out, the deeper they get in.

2. Meanwhile, there remains the question of the fates of the dozen or so local churches that went along with the secessionists but did not enter the lawsuit against TEC. It will be up to the diocesan authorities and their attorneys as to what they plan to do about these churches. I suppose we will have to wait and see if they initiate efforts to recover these properties.

3. As for the entity of the old diocese, the secessionists' appeal of the federal district court's order is still active. The district judge in Charleston, Richard Gergel, found all in favor of the Episcopal diocese and even issued an Injunction against the breakaways to prevent them from claiming to be in any way the heir of the pre-schism diocese. This is now before the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. If the SCSC ever finishes the church case, the appeals court will take up the appeal. Every expectation is for the appeals court to deny the appeal. If so, this will finish the matter of which side owns the historic diocese.

4. The circuit court still has before it the suit of the secessionists for betterments. This seeks compensation from the Episcopal side for improvements made in the returned properties since the schism began. To my knowledge, nothing has happened on this since it was filed. Perhaps the circuit judge is awaiting the final judgment of the SCSC (he should not hold his breath).

So, although we are inching towards a legal settlement, it is still off on the horizon.

However, while final settlement in the legal war is still far off, transitions are underway concerning some properties. The SCSC, and the federal court too, ruled that the Episcopal diocese was the only heir of the pre-schism diocese. This means that all properties and assets of the decision before the break on Oct. 15, 2012 belong to the Episcopal diocese. 

By far the most valuable property seized by the secessionists in 2012 was Camp St. Christopher with its vast ocean-front expanse. The breakaways have agreed to return this property. October 1, 2022 is the date set for the official transfer of the Camp to the Episcopal diocese. 

Several parishes have already been transferred, St. John's, of Johns Island, St. David's, of Cheraw, and Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant. Except for the latter, these have been on the whole cordial events. 

Next Sunday, 18 September, will be the first for the restored Episcopal church at Christ Church. 

Last Sunday, 11 September, was the first in which the secessionists of Christ Church met at their new quarters, a school in Mt. Pleasant. Their services were posted on their Facebook page.

The posted videos show that the Rector, Ted Duvall, was more subdued than in his last Sunday in the old property when he seemed bitter and angry at the forces he blamed for his unpleasant predicament. 

Bishop Lawrence was there to teach a class, supposedly about how to discern God's will. Subdued would not be the word for his presentation. Find it HERE . @16 he told a story about an unnamed woman who seemed to credit him for getting her out of a lesbian relationship. She had sent him an email thanking him for standing for "the truth." He said she had been attending "one of the churches that hated my guts, one of the churches that stayed with the Episcopal Church." After her conversion to "the truth," she had switched to one of Lawrence's churches. 

I have several observations about this startling delivery:

1-If there is anyone in the world left who does not believe the schism was about homosexuality, he or she has only to listen to Lawrence's presentation.

2-Lawrence made a very serious indictment of the Episcopal side of "hating his guts." However, he gave no evidence or example. 

For nearly ten years, the Episcopal diocese of SC has consciously avoided casting aspersions on Bishop Lawrence. There is no example in which the diocese made disparaging remarks about him.

Likewise for the local churches, if there is any evidence that they "hated" Lawrence, let us see it. I for one have never seen any; and I should know having published a 350,000 word detailed history of the schism.

3-"Hate" is not the right word to describe the attitude of the Episcopalians in SC toward their former bishop. It seems to me "disappointment" is the proper descriptive term. For sure, the Episcopalians of lower SC were disappointed in Lawrence. They trusted him when he said it was his "intention" to stay in the Episcopal Church. They believed him when he made a solemn vow before God and a thousand people that he would abide by the rules of the Episcopal Church. No, the Episcopalians of lower SC did not, and do not, "hate his guts." They are full of disappointment, but not hate.

4-Even if it were true, and it is not, that his opposition hated him, is not it incumbent upon a Christian leader, or any Christian for that matter, to love his enemies and forgive those who act against him? Should a bishop be expelling such inflammatory language about his critics? I think not.

5-The schism has moved on beyond Bishop Lawrence. He made his choices and he has to live with them, as we all have to live with the choices we make every single day. The new bishop of the secessionist diocese has signaled his desire to wind down the disputes arising from the schism and move toward peace and concord. The Episcopal and Anglican bishops have met several times to talk about a good way forward. In talking with people all these years, this is what I think people want. This schism has been painful to everyone involved. Exhaustion is the most common complaint. A desire for peace and tranquility is paramount. And, is not this the way it should be? 

The schism has happened. There is no indication today the secessionists will reconcile with their former friends. The reality is two dioceses moving separately into the foreseeable future. Should not they go on as good neighbors, if not as friends?

We know the general outline of the post-schism settlement. The Episcopal Church gets the entity of the old diocese and its properties and assets, and a minority of the local churches. The secessionists get most of the local churches including all the big parishes except Grace. We still await the details to be worked out. Nevertheless the schism is slowing edging to a settlement.

In order to be worthy of the name they bear, the two sides should obey the two great commandments, love God and love neighbor. Love is the operative word. 

 

EPISCOPAL LAWYERS PLAN REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS OF OSA AND HOLY CROSS

with addendum

On today, 13 September 2022, the attorneys for the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal diocese of SC signaled their intention of submitting replies to the papers filed yesterday from Old Saint Andrew's and Holy Cross, Stateburg. These two filed "Returns" yesterday opposing the Episcopal lawyers' motions in the South Carolina Supreme Court to reverse or rehear the SCSC decision of 17 August that recognized local ownership of the properties of these two parishes. This revoked the SCSC decisions of Aug. 2, 2017 and April 20, 2022, both of which recognized Episcopal Church ownership of the properties.

In today's filing, the Episcopal lawyers submitted "Motion for Extension of Time to File Replies to Returns to Motion for Relief from Judgment." They asked the court to extend the time allowed for a reply to the returns from 19 September to 30 September. They mention that the opposing lawyers had agreed to the extension. 

The court did not post a response to today's filing on its website, but I expect it will grant the extension soon. If the SCSC does grant the extension, we can expect the Episcopal rejoinder at the end of this month. The court would probably make a ruling on the original Episcopal motions some time soon afterwards.

The question at hand is --- who owns the local properties of OSA and Holy Cross, the Episcopal Church or the present occupants who are affiliated with the Anglican Diocese of SC? The SCSC has already ruled twice for TEC and once against TEC.

_________________________

ADDENDUM. Sept. 14, 2022.

On 14 September 2022, the SCSC granted the Motion for extension of time. The reply from the Episcopal side's lawyers is now due on September 30. They will argue that Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross, Stateburg, should be property of the Episcopal Church.

 

LAWYERS FOR OLD SAINT ANDREW'S CONTEST EPISCOPAL CLAIMS

with addendum

Today, Monday, 12 September 2022, Alan Runyan and Andrew Platte, attorneys for the separatist contingent claiming Old Saint Andrew's, West Ashley, Charleston, filed "Return to Motion for Relief from Judgment" with the South Carolina Supreme Court. This was in opposition to the Episcopal lawyers' petition to the SCSC on September 1, 2022, asking the court to reverse its August 17 ruling granting the local property of OSA to the present occupants. The SCSC had ruled twice (Aug. 2, 2017 and April 20, 2022) that OSA was property of the Episcopal Church. Both of these orders were followed by Remittiturs from the SCSC to the circuit court. 

In today's paper, Runyan and Platte argued that the August 17 order was proper and correctly derived. They asserted the SCSC had issued a response to an appeal, not a declaratory judgment, as the TEC lawyers claimed, even though it had the power and right to issue a declaratory judgment. Furthermore, they tried to sweep away the affidavit in the Episcopal petition as outside the record. They said it was made in 2018 and could have been entered into the circuit court proceedings but had not been.

The obvious problem in today's paper is, if the court had the right to respond to an appeal in August, as the secessionists' lawyers asserted, it also had the same right in April. In April the SCSC declared the local property of OSA to belong to the Episcopal Church. Why should not that order stand (it was remitted to the circuit court)? The August order directly contradicted the finding of April and was not followed by a Remittitur to the lower court.

It was curious that today's paper said nothing about the other parish in contest, Holy Cross, of Stateburg.

We shall see if the Episcopal lawyers file a reply to today's Return.

_______________________

ADDENDUM. Sept. 13, 2022.

The SCSC posted on their website this morning the paper from the other parish in question, Holy Cross, of Stateburg.

Mr. C. Pierce Campbell, attorney for Holy Cross, filed "Return to Motion for Relief from Judgment" with the SCSC on September 12, 2022. He asked the court to deny the Episcopal motion on the basis that it presented no new arguments or evidence that would change the outcome. 

Thus, on yesterday, 12 September, both OSA and Holy Cross officially asked the state supreme court to dismiss the Episcopal lawyers' motion to reverse and rehear the judgments on these two parishes. 

On Aug. 2, 2017 and on April 20, 2022, the majority of the justices ruled that both parishes were property of the Episcopal Church and remitted the decision to the lower court for implementation. On August 17, the SCSC reversed itself and declared these two parishes owned the local properties outright. However, they have not remitted this to the circuit court.

Now, we wait to see if the Episcopal side will file a reply to these two returns.

 NOTES,  9 SEPTEMBER 2022

Greetings, blog reader, on Friday, September 9, 2022. Just a little note today to connect with you again. There is no news from the courts to relay. We are awaiting responses from the South Carolina Supreme Court to three petitions before them, two from the Episcopal Church asking for reversal or review of the 17 August SCSC order concerning two parishes, the other from the occupants of Good Shepherd asking for reversal or review of the same order concerning that parish (the court assigned it to the Episcopal Church). The responses could come at any time. There is no way to know when that will be.

Of course, England, or Great Britain, or the United Kingdom, is on everyone's mind these days with the death of the Queen and the accession of the new king. This comes just weeks after everyone had focused on England and the Lambeth Conference. Over one hundred American bishops traveled to the gathering at Canterbury, the spiritual center of the Anglican Communion. BTW here is my favorite picture from the Conference. It was printed in The Alabama Episcopalian magazine. 

Here's my "proof" that South Carolina and Alabama are the bookends of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in the middle, is flanked on one end by the bishop of South Carolina, Woodliff-Stanley, and on the other end by the bishop of Alabama, Glenda Curry. Perfect!

It is hard for us to imagine a world without Queen Elizabeth II but time does move on. In remembering her today we Episcopalians should give thanks for her role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, our mother church. She was the epitome of Anglicanism and an example and model for the rest of us. She had lifelong and deep faith that she incorporated in her daily life. Following this guide, she rarely made a wrong step. She did not wear her religion on her sleeve. She did not need to do so. She was the living embodiment of the famous Anglican three-legged stool, faith reason and tradition. She represented our religion at its best to the world. For that, we owe her a huge debt of gratitude.

Looking back now in my old age, I am grateful for the numerous trips I was fortunate enough to make to Great Britain. Early on, even as poor graduate students, my wife and I resolved to visit every English cathedral. We did not quite make it over the years, but we came close and profited from our journeys immeasurably. What we found along the way was not so much great buildings but great people. Everywhere we turned we found nothing but kindness and generosity breaking all the stereotypes commonly held in America about the English, and the Europeans in general for that matter.

Just a few examples. One day on leaving Evening Prayer at a church we struck up a conversation with a man, a perfect stranger. He warmly invited us to visit his home on Christmas. We thanked him profusely but declined. Once we went to tea at Harrods, in London, and struck up a conversation with a woman at the next table, another perfect stranger. She insisted that she show us around London. Again, we thanked her but had to decline. On going into a church service, we usually asked the usher if we could sit in the choir stalls. We were never refused. One Christmas Day we sat very close to the high altar at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. On another time, we were walking around Salisbury cathedral only to learn the diocesan Mothers' Union was holding a big convention there. They insisted we join in for their church service. We did.

We found the Scots to be just as warm and friendly. Once we got on the bus in Edinburgh and did not have the correct change as was required. The driver insisted we get on anyway saying, "Complements of Scotland." The dozen passengers looked at each other and collected the fare among themselves. They paid the driver without a word. Our hearts melted. So much for the reputed Scottish stinginess. On another time, we went to the theater in Edinburgh and innocently asked a couple next to us if the buses would be running after the play ended. They instantly insisted on driving us back to our hotel afterwards. We could not talk them out of it although we did not try hard.

In Wales, we were walking around the Cardiff cathedral when out of the blue the dean appeared and insisted on giving us (poor, ordinary American tourists) a guided tour of the whole place and gave us a prayer book, in Welsh, even teaching us how to pronounce some words. I do not know why, but this sort of thing happened to us all the time all over Britain. We could not have asked for better hospitality.

And so, we should give thanks today for not only for the late queen, but also for the gifts we have been given by our mother country and out mother church. How fortunate we have been and still are. 

CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD ASKS SCSC FOR REHEARING

The Church of the Good Shepherd, in West Ashley, Charleston, has asked the South Carolina Supreme Court for rehearing and reconsideration of its petition before the court. On 1 September 2022, the church's lawyer filed "Petition for Rehearing" with the SCSC holding that the parish's accession language predated 1979. The court has held that a parish's accession to or adoption of the Dennis Canon must have occurred between 1979, the date of the Canon, and 2006. State law changed in 2006 allowing trusts made after that time to be revocable. The lawyer for Good Shepherd declared the parish had adopted its accession language in 1977.

The SCSC has ruled three times that Good Shepherd belongs to the Episcopal Church: 2 August 2017, 20 April 2022, 17 August 2022. The court has never ruled otherwise.

This means there are now three outstanding petitions before the SCSC in the wake of the August 17 order. On September 1, 2022, the Episcopal lawyers filed two papers with the SCSC: Motion for Relief from Judgment and Petition for Rehearing. Both of these asked the court to reverse its order on Old Saint Andrew's and Holy Cross (Stateburg). The Church claimed that both of these adopted to or acceded to the Dennis Cannon between 1979 and 2006. 

As I understand it, the justices of the SCSC can hold another hearing or issue orders on the three petitions now before them. The SCSC has already held two hearings and published three (different and contradictory) decisions on this case. How many more there will be is anyone's guess. The only thing we have really learned from this court is that there is no finality on the issue of the ownership of the local parishes. Curiously enough it was the reverse on the issue of the entity of the pre-schism diocese. On this the court has consistently ruled in favor of the Episcopal diocese. So, finality on the parishes eludes the justices while finality on the diocese was clear. 

One factor to consider suggesting the possibility of another hearing and/or order is that the court has not issued a Remittitur on its August 17 order. This would be a directive to the circuit court to implement the order. The court did publish a Remittitur after their April decision but then revoked part of it when they issued their third order on 17 August.

What happens next with this court? God only knows. 

 

EPISCOPAL CHURCH SEEKS REVERSAL OF SCSC ORDER ON OLD ST. ANDREW'S AND HOLY CROSS (STATEBURG)

On yesterday, September 1, 2022, Episcopal Church lawyers filed two papers with the South Carolina Supreme Court seeking to reverse the court order on two parishes, Old Saint Andrew's, of West Ashley, Charleston, and Holy Cross, of Stateburg. On August 17, 2022, the SCSC issued an order finding that these two parishes owned the local properties because they formed revocable trusts after 2006. State law allowed trusts formed after 2006 to be unilaterally revoked. 

In its first decision, August 2, 2017, the majority of justices ruled that the trusts created under the Dennis Canon were irrevocable. In its second decision, April 20, 2022, the SCSC reaffirmed this point. So, twice the SCSC declared that the trusts were irrevocable and that Old Saint Andrew's and Holy Cross were property of the Episcopal Church.

In its third decision, August 17, 2022, the SCSC ordered that Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross had made trusts only after 2006 and therefore could, and did, revoke the trusts. The court ordered that the local properties belonged to the local parishes. However, the SCSC did not issue a Remittitur to the circuit court to implement this decision leaving the door open for more consideration by the SCSC.

Episcopal lawyers filed two papers yesterday:

1-"Motion for Relief from Judgment." Find it HERE .

2-"Petition for Rehearing." Find it HERE .

In essence, the Church lawyers asked the SCSC either 1-to reverse its ruling on these two parishes, or 2-to reopen the issue and hold a new rehearing. They produced a good deal of evidence yesterday that both parishes had in fact acceded to the Dennis Canon between 1979 (the Canon's creation) and 2006. This would make their accessions to the Dennis Canon irrevocable and the Aug. 17 decision wrongly determined. 

Much of the confusion in the SCSC and its ruling has to do with the strange fact that the high court is acting as two courts, an appellate one, to review Dickson's order, and a trial one to issue new judgments on the same case after the court had already issued a decision (2017) that had become settled law. The clash between these two courses of actions has produced the chaos we have seen in this court over the past five years. Hence, we now have three different and contradictory decisions from SCSC on the same case. However, by not issuing a Remittitur to the circuit court after the Aug. 17 order (as it did after the April 20 decision), the court has left open the possibility of yet another revision. Of course, a Remittitur itself does not mean much with this court. It has issued two of them and then turned around and revoked them. 

Where is all of this going? Will there be a fourth decision? Your guess is as good as mine. I gave up some time ago trying to predict what this state supreme court would do. In my view they have egregiously denied reason, logic, and settled principles of the state justice system. They have made a mess of this case, perhaps the most important one in the history of South Carolina that any of these justices will ever encounter. To say this is disappointing is an understatement.

Find the Episcopal diocese's announcement of today concerning this development HERE .