SIX YEARS

Today is September 11, 2019. We all know what 9-11 means. Everyone who was alive on September 11, 2001, will never forget that day. At the time I was assistant head of the South Carolina Room of the Charleston County Library, on Calhoun Street, in downtown Charleston. What I recall now the most was the eerie quiet of the day. Few patrons aimlessly roamed the library as the staff congregated around the television in the lounge whispering words here and there. I left when the first tower collapsed. I moped about for hours until my wife joined me and we walked the few blocks to St. Luke and St. Paul, on Coming St., for a 5 p.m. service. As I recall, the dean, William McKeachie read the Great Litany with the large congregation assembled.

I will remember 9-11 today in my own quiet way. My local church is having a memorial service, and I know many other churches are offering the same. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives on that day of madness, and the world changed in ways we are still trying to assess. I encourage you to keep in mind and heart the memory of that day eighteen years ago.  

This just happens to be the day I started this blog six years ago (no connection to 9-11-01). My goals then were to impart information about the ongoing schism in the old Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina and to keep people posted on my progress in compiling a scholarly history of the schism. I finished writing the book four years later. It was published in August of 2017. Not one word of that book has been disputed by anyone. All of the criticism has been stylistic. I would like to think that many years from now people will know in detail what happened in the schism.

I have spent a great deal of time and effort on maintaining this blog and have enjoyed doing so. In the six years, I have posted app. 550 entries (535 still up). In all, there have been over 658,000 "hits" on my blog, half of those coming in the last year and a half. My blog was slow to start, but when it caught on, hundreds of people began checked in on it every day. I believe they were looking for information and opinion on what was happening in the schism.

This is borne out by the numbers of hits blog entries received. Here are the 15 most popular entries, from most popular down:

1- Chronology. 13,576 hits.  This is a detailed time line of events of the schism. I try to keep this up-to-date. 

2- Cert Denied.  12,770 hits.  6-11-18.  On the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of cert to DSC's appeal of the SCSC decision.

3- The Beginning of the End.  7,218 hits.  8-26-17.  On the effects of the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017.

4- A Remarkable Bishop, A Remarkable Three and a Half Years.  5,490 hits.  9-1-16.  A tribute to Bishop Charles vonRosenberg.

5- Breaking News, SC Supreme Court Renders Decision.  3,091 hits.  8-2-17.

6- Sources.  2,517 hits.  A bibliography of the sources relevant to the history o the schism.

7- Spin Cycle.  2,119 hits.  8-1-18.  On Bishop Lawrence's Last Hurrah tour.

8- Post and Courier Confused.  1,827 hits.  My criticism of the P & C editorial on the schism.

9- Going Out.  1,714 hits.  On Bishop Lawrence's address to the diocesan convention.

10- The Confederacy and the Independent Diocese.  1,677 hits.  7-10-15.  On the historical parallels of the two.

11- Announcement of Chuck Murphy's death.  1,611 hits. 

12- The Latest Membership Statistics.  1,597 hits. 10-9-17.

13- My Letter to the Post and Courier.  1,522 hits.  11-20-17.

14- The Documents of the Episcopal Church's June 2015 Offer of Compromise Settlement.  1,395 hits.  8-17-18.  Documents disproving DSC's claims the offer was illegitimate.

15- Reality Setting In.  1,266 hits.  10-8-17.  On the effects of the SCSC decision.

The "Letters to this Editor" feature proved to be remarkably popular with blog readers. For these, the gold medal goes to the Rev. Rob Donehue, 2,793 hits (7-2-18). The silver goes to Wayne Helmly, 2,307 hits (9-10-18). The bronze goes to "anonymous," 1,213 (6-30-18). All of the letters were widely read. I always encourage people to send letters to the editor, and, if appropriate, I will post with or without name attached.

On several occasions, my blog entries became news themselves as they were picked up by national outlets. Early this year, this blog broke the news that St. Philip's Church, in Charleston, was billing the (Episcopal) Church Insurance Company of Vermont for coverage of legal expenses. Soon thereafter, the Episcopal Church diocese took legal action against CIC-V. We are now awaiting negotiations between the Church lawyers and CIC-V (postponed from last week). I cannot take the credit for discovering St. Philip's action. The tip came from a reader who simply read the church's annual report online and alerted me.

On another occasion, this blog revealed that, in December of 2017, the independent Diocese of South Carolina circulated a private "Template" to local congregations guiding them on their relocations as the 29 parishes returned to TEC. Again, I cannot take credit for discovering this secret document. More than one reader alerted me to it.

On yet another occasion, Bishop Zavala, of Chile, visited the independent diocese in May of 2015 and indicated he had the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I contacted the office of the ABC about this and was informed that the ABC had not sanctioned Zavala's visit and remarks.

I get many emails from readers and I appreciate each and every one. This blog is really a community effort and would not be the same without incoming information from people all over the place, some from outside SC. Thank goodness for the several indispensable lawyers (not involved in the litigation) who very generously guide this layman on legal matters. I would be lost in the legal weeds without them.



Finally, here are some reflections on looking back over the six years of this blog. I ask myself today, what has impressed me the most about what has happened in the last six years, or how do I see things differently now than I did six years ago? 


--- Six years ago, I did not think the non-resolution of the schism would go on so long. The schism occurred seven year ago next month and yet it remains unresolved. There is no closure even after many millions of dollars have been spent on legal fees. 


--- I under-estimated the depth of the determination of the DSC leadership to fight the legal war to the last-ditch, bitter end. In Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, the secessionist officers honorably accepted the decisions of the state supreme courts and ended their legal wars. In both cases the state supreme courts refused to accept appeals of the lower courts that had ruled for TEC. In South Carolina, the state supreme court accepted the appeal and ruled in favor of TEC yet the breakaways refused to accept the supreme court decision. They insisted it did not say what it said. They are fighting its implementation now in circuit court.

The officers of DSC have had several opportunities to bring peaceful closure to the schism and have rejected every one. In June of 2015, TEC offered a very generous settlement of swapping diocese for the 36 parishes. DSC officers flatly refused the offer. There was a period of "mediation" from October of 2017 to January of 2018. It went absolutely nowhere as DSC rejected TEC's request for a protocol of visits to the 29 parishes. As far as anyone knows, DSC has rejected every offer of settlement while making no offer of its own.

One should bear in mind that the original goal of the reactionary "Anglican Realignment" movement in the 1990's was the destruction, or severe diminution, of the Episcopal Church because of its "liberal" policies. I think this helps us understand what has happened in South Carolina in the seven years and why DSC seems committed to a total war against the Episcopal Church.


--- I am disappointed in the courts. The circuit court of Judge Diane Goodstein rendered a decision so over-the-top that the state supreme court ridiculed it out of the room upon arrival. The circuit court of Judge Edgar Dickson has been sitting on the SCSC decision for twenty months. His assigned task was to implement the SCSC decision. He has not done so. Instead, he has ordered "mediation" which I, for one, see as inappropriate and redundant. 

The federal courts have been scarcely better. For years, Judge Weston Houck refused to proceed with the case before him even though the U.S. Appeals Court twice ordered adjudication. Judge Richard Gergel now has the case and has done nothing on it, at least that we know about, in the last eight months. Justice delayed is justice denied. 


--- My theory of the causes of the schism has been borne out by the events of the past six years. The schism was a counter-revolution against the TEC reforms of equality for and inclusion of homosexuals and women in the life of the church. In 2015, DSC institutionalized homophobia in its "Statement of Faith" which was required by oath across the board in the diocese. DSC also joined the Anglican Church in North America which, in addition to opposing human rights for homosexuals, excluded women from places of authority. ACNA is a strict patriarchy in which power rests with the all-male bishops. Since the schism, DSC has affirmed its commitment to homophobia and sexism.


--- Lastly, I have been most impressed by the devotion of the long-suffering Episcopalians of lower South Carolina. Thousands of them were forced out of their beloved church homes by the intolerant reactionaries. These intrepid people sought refuge wherever they could find it, bar-be-que restaurants, funeral homes, old schools, boat docks, borrowed churches, old offices, living rooms, you name it. Innocent victims of the schism, they refused to become victims of history. They refused to be vanquished. They refused to abandon human rights. They refused to give up the faith. They are my heroes of this story and I am greatly inspired by their courage and resolve. They must know that there will be resolution of the legal issues one day. In many cases, they will return to the churches that the state supreme court has said belong to them. There will be closure even if it is farther off than we first thought. It will happen. After all of this sad mess is over, they can look back in honor and say they fought the good fight for God, their fellow human beings, and the Episcopal Church. 

THE LATEST MEMBERSHIP STATISTICS

The Episcopal Church recently released their new membership statistics for last year, 2018. Find it here . The overall news is that TEC membership continues its long-term decline, down to 1,835,931 "active baptized members" in the year 2018 (1,676,349 in the domestic dioceses). This means that TEC is about half as large in terms of membership as it was at its height a half century ago, in 1967.

For the Church diocese in eastern South Carolina, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, the story is the opposite. TECSC has seen constant and significant growth since the schism of 2012. Here are the official statistics of TECSC's "active baptized members":

2013 --- 5,781

2104 --- 6,387 (+ 5%)

2015 --- 6,706 (+5% 2014-15; +16% 2013-15)

2016 --- 7,053 (+5% 2015-16; +22% 2013-16)

2017 --- 7,309 (+4% 2016-17; +26 % 2013-17)

2018 --- 7,587 (+4% 2017-18; +31% 2013-18)

In summary, TECSC has grown in membership every year since the schism. As of last year, it was about a third larger than it was at the time of the schism, five years before. Thus, TECSC has seen significant growth in the post-schism period even while the national church has lost members every year.

The membership statistics of the schismatic diocese, the Diocese of South Carolina, tell an opposite story. The latest official figures of DSC are from 2016. Since then, the diocese has refused to post its membership statistics, thus we have no information on 2017, 2018, or 2019. Here is what we do know about DSC's membership from the posted data. These figures are for the 50 local churches that adhered to DSC in the schism of 2012. ("Communicant" is defined as a parishioner who attends church at least once a year):

2011 --- 21,993 communicants

2013 --- 17,798 communicants (-19% 2011-13)

2014 --- 16,351 communicants (-8% 2013-14; -26% 2011-14)

2015 --- 15,556 communicants (-6% 2014-15; -29% 2011-15)

2016 --- 14,694 communicants (-6% 2015-16; -33% 2011-16)

In summary, DSC lost communicants every year since the schism. As of 2016, the diocese was a third smaller than it had been five years earlier, before the schism. Thus, DSC has seen significant, relentless, decline in the post-schism period.

When Mark Lawrence was consecrated bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, in 2008, DSC as a whole listed 27,670 communicants. Eight years later, the entity called DSC listed 14,694 communicants. This was a decline of 47%. In his first eight years as bishop, Lawrence presided over a diocese that lost nearly half its communicants. In practical terms, this drastic decline meant fewer people paying proportionately more to support the diocese at the same time as paying two sets of lawyers, one for the parish and one for the diocese. As communicant numbers declined, expenses soared.

As I showed in my blog posting of February 16, 2019, the five schisms in the Episcopal Church (2007-2012) have resulted in significant, even startling, losses of membership in the departing entities. Find the posting here . The schismatic dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and South Carolina have seen serious and continuous declines in communicant numbers since their schisms. 

In South Carolina, some of the individual parishes lost large numbers of communicants between 2011 (the last year before the schism) and 2016 (the most recent year of statistics):    St. Helena's, of Beaufort, -49% (1,737 to 880);   St. Michael's, of Charleston, -50% (1,847 to 919);   St. Philip's, of Charleston, -60% (2,677 to 1,069);   Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant, -65% (925 to 328);   Old Saint Andrew's, of West Ashley, -54% (962 to 446);   Holy Comforter, of Sumter, -65% (525 to 183). These numbers came from the official data provided by DSC.

In conclusion, the totality of the membership statistics suggests:

1. The schism in South Carolina was not overwhelmingly popular, as DSC claimed and continues to assert.

2. Members fled, and are still fleeing from DSC churches. New members are moving into TECSC churches.

3. DSC is in relentless annual decline. It has lost significant numbers every year since the schism. TECSC is in annual growth.

4. The social goals of the leaders of the schism in SC were to declare homosexuality sin and to keep women submissive to men. These have not resonated with the public in SC.

5. The schismatics' claim that "liberal" religion, i.e. horizontal, would decline by its own nature while "conservative" religion, i.e. vertical, would naturally grow has been disproven by the post-schism membership statistics. Data show that the reactionary counter-revolution against TEC in South Carolina and the other four schisms has failed to gain popular support.

In my history of the schism in SC, I emphasized that the schism was from the top down. It was a revolt of the diocesan leadership against the Episcopal Church directly resulting from the leadership's opposition to TEC's reforms of equality for and inclusion of homosexuals and women into the life of the church. The schism in SC was not the result of a popular uprising of the people in the pews. The post-schism membership statistics bear out my theory of the schism. If it had been a populist revolt, the membership figures would be in the reverse. All of this suggests our conclusion should be that the leadership of DSC bears the primary responsibility for the clearly declining state of the schismatic diocese.

MEDIATION MEETING POSTPONED

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina's diocesan office informed me today that the first meeting of the mediation has been postponed. On July 23, Judge Edgar Dickson ordered mediation between the independent diocese and the Church diocese. The first meeting had been scheduled for Wednesday, 4 September, in Charleston. Also, the TECSC's lawyers' meeting with the Church Insurance Company of Vermont's officers, in New York, on 5-6 September has been postponed. Presumably, new dates for the meetings will be announced after Hurricane Dorian has passed.

The latest (2 Sept., p.m.) spaghetti models indicate the eye of  Dorian will probably move northeasterly and parallel to the South Carolina coast, and remain in the Atlantic Ocean. However, this is an exceptionally powerful hurricane, and as all of us know, these storms are ultimately unpredictable. Coastal SC (called the Low Country for good reason) is making preparation for the worst, as it should.

I will keep readers posted as I receive new information about legal actions of the schism.

For the moment, let us focus on dealing with the destructive side of Mother Nature. All of our thoughts and prayers should be with the people of the Bahamas and with the people of the coastal southeastern United States who are most likely to be affected negatively by the hurricane. My daughter and son-in-law in Florence SC are hunkered down for the duration (FLO is 70 miles inland from Myrtle Beach). As a native Floridian, I know all too well what tropical cyclones can do. It is best to be prepared.

THE PARISHES AND ACCESSION 

TO THE DENNIS CANON

The fact is that the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled on August 2, 2017, that 28 of the 36 parishes listed as Plaintiffs in the Jan. 4, 2013, DSC suit against the Episcopal Church had acceded to the Dennis Canon and 8 had not acceded to the Dennis Canon. In case anyone missed it here is the last page of the 77-page SCSC decision. The language is precise and concise. Click on image for enlargement.

It is important to note the wording:

the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon

the twenty-eight church organizations which acceded to the Dennis Canon

It could not be any clearer.

In fact, court records show that the Episcopal Church lawyers presented to the SCSC voluminous information about each one of the 36 parishes in regard to accession to the Dennis Canon. The five justices and their clerks pored over this evidence and concluded the above. Four of the five justices (Pleicones, Hearn, Beatty, Kittredge) agreed the 28 had indeed acceded to the Dennis Canon. One of the four (Kittredge) went on to say the 28 parishes had the right to revoke their accessions and they did so as they seceded from the Episcopal Church. The majority (Pleicones, Hearn, Beatty) all said the 28 could not unilaterally revoke their accessions to the Dennis Canon. Under the stipulation of the Dennis Canon, the parish holds the local property in trust for the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese. The parish owns the property as long as it remains in TEC. If a congregation leaves TEC, the beneficiaries of the trust become the property owners. Thus, the SCSC declared the Episcopal Church as owner of the 28 parishes in question.

The major point here is that the SCSC justices reviewed the evidence of the 36 parishes and found 28 acceded to the Dennis Canon. Any assertion now that the 28 parishes did not accede to the Dennis Canon is disingenuous, and could also be seen as insulting to the state supreme court.

The SCSC denied rehearing of the case; and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. This means the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is the final law of the land, or res judicata. 

Last month, Judge Dickson gave tacit recognition of the SCSC decision when he had the two sets of lawyers agree to the first of the three orders on page 77---independence of the 8 parishes. 

In blatant disregard of the SCSC decision, the DSC leaders are telling their people the decision is not the law of the land. They say it is unclear and unenforceable. They are also still promoting the claim that the 28 parishes did not accede to the Dennis Canon. 

Just yesterday, the Rev. Marcus Kaiser, of Holy Comforter in Sumter was cited in a local news outlet:  "The fact that the Church of the Holy Comforter and none of the other parishes agreed to the 1979 trust is a central issue, he said." Find it here .

DSC's opinions and criticisms of the SCSC decision are irrelevant. The law is the law and it does not matter what anyone's opinion is. 

So why are the DSC officers spreading such misleading claims? Here is my opinion. In the first place, it is sow confusion in the circuit court so that the judge will not implement the decision. In the second place, DSC needs more and more money for litigation. If the DSC faithful think this is all over, they will stop contributing to the legal actions. In the third place, the overall strategy of DSC is clear. It is to get this matter back to the state supreme court and get a new decision to overturn the 2017 one. The SCSC now has two new justices leaving only three of those who signed on to the 2017 decision. Of these three, two were on the side of TEC (Hearn, Beatty). It is possible DSC could get the other three present justices to support its positions and award the 28 to DSC.

Back to the point about whether the 28 parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon. The South Carolina Supreme Court said they did. They would not have ruled that if the evidence were not there. The SCSC decision is clear and it is the law. That is all that matters. Everything else DSC is throwing up is smokescreen with the ultimate goal of getting the decision unfavorable to them replaced with one favorable to them. 

Even if Judge Dickson ultimately rules in favor of DSC and refuses to implement orders number two and three, his decisions will be appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. It is unimaginable that court would refuse to defend a final decree of the highest court in the state.

ST. HELENA'S SOLICITING MONEY 

FOR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

St. Helena's church, in Beaufort, is one of the twenty-nine parishes the South Carolina Supreme Court has recognized as property of the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church in South Carolina is in court now, in the circuit court, asking the judge to implement the SCSC decision. It is just a matter of time before the Episcopal Church diocese regains the keys.

Today, people claiming to be the rector and wardens of St. Helena's, who, according to the SCSC, are occupying property that belongs to the Episcopal Church, sent an email letter to the congregation asking for donations to the Legal Defense Fund to fight the Episcopal Church (DSC sued TEC on Jan. 4, 2013; 36 parishes joined as plaintiffs in the suit, including St. Helena). They claim they need $75,000 this year to cover legal fees. Unfortunately, they resorted to a misinterpretation to support their legal position:  "...the State Supreme Court refused a petition (a writ of mandamus) by TEC and TECSC to have the properties turned over to them." In fact, the writ was to direct the circuit judge to expedite his actions, that is, to move along after a year and a half of doing nothing. The SCSC has already ordered that twenty-nine parishes are property of TEC (SCSC decision, August 2, 2017, p. 77). This is final law. The ownership of the properties has been settled contrary to what DSC is claiming.

So, St. Helena's, that at one time suspended fund raising for legal expenses, is back at it full-time. 

One should bear in mind that the long-suffering congregants of St. Helena's, and the other thirty-five parishes that sued TEC, are paying twice for lawyers, once to attorneys for the parish, and once for lawyers for the diocese. We cannot know at this point how much has been spent altogether in this six and a half year legal war, but I estimate it is in the neighborhood of ten million dollars. God only knows how much all this unnecessary waste will cost before it is over. 

It is rather sad to see the leaders of St. Helena's pressing their good people to keep throwing good money after bad. To have DSC leaders telling their people the state supreme court decision does not say what it says is, well, to be generous, disappointing. 

Click on image for enlargement.

JUDGE DICKSON TO DENY 
TECSC'S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 

OF BETTERMENTS SUIT

28 August, 1:50 p.m.     The breakaway diocese, the Diocese of South Carolina, announced on their website today that Judge Dickson is set to deny the motion of the Episcopal Church diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, for dismissal of the Betterments suit. In this, DSC is suing TECSC for reimbursement of improvements made on the properties in question. Find the DSC announcement here . The Episcopal Church diocese also posted a news release today. Find it here .

First of all, the timing of this is curious considering that mediation is to begin in one week. Secondly, this reminds us that everything Dickson has done with the six motions before him has been in the interest of the breakaway diocese. He has been dragging all of this out for a year and a half. Just last month, he had the two sides agree to the independence of the seven parishes listed in the state supreme court decision as outside the Dennis Canon while ignoring the other two majority decisions of the SCSC decision, both of which favor TECSC. Dickson has not made the first ruling in favor of TEC.

If Dickson is in fact allowing the Betterments suit to proceed, this is good news and bad news for both sides. For the breakaway side, the bad news is that they are surrendering claim to the 29 parishes in question. The good news is they stand to win award of millions of dollars from the Episcopal Church side for the "improvements." How much is up for question. In the original Betterments suit, only one parish listed a dollar amount for "improvements." St. Luke's of Hilton Head listed $7 million. There are 28 other parishes. One can only guess at the total figure.

In reverse, the good news for the Church side is that the breakaways are accepting the fact that the SCSC granted the 29 parishes to the Episcopal Church. The bad news is that the Church may be hit with a whopping bill for "improvements." If I were the lawyer for the Church side, I would demand rent payment from each of the 29 parishes. Do the math. Even a conservative rent of $2K/mo. for seven years for 29 parishes would likely offset some of the "improvements."

One should recall that TECSC has a motion in before Dickson for a professional auditing firm to make a full audit of each of the 29 parishes. I should think this would be absolutely imperative to determine what, if any, improvements were made to the 29 properties since the moment of the schism, October 15, 2012. 

23 AUGUST --- NOTES

It is Friday, August 23, 2019. We are still awaiting the start of mediation, on September 4; and so, there is nothing new to report today. I am checking in just to let you readers know I am still here. 

As we wait for mediation to begin, it is appropriate to review the state of the 36 parishes that joined in the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church (Jan. 4, 2013). There has been a sort of settlement. In the hearing last month, Judge Dickson and the two sides agreed to the disposal of the seven parishes that were listed in the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017, as being independent of trust control of the Episcopal Church. This gave tacit recognition of the three majority decisions on the last page of the SCSC decision (1-8 parish entities outside Dennis Canon, 2-28 parishes property of TEC under the Dennis Canon, 3-Camp St. Christopher property of TECSC). Let's review these seven that are now independent:

1-Christ the King, of Pawleys Island

2-St. Matthew's, of Darlington

3-St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant

4-St. Paul's, of Conway

5-Prince George Winyah, of Georgetown

6-St. John's, of Florence

7-St. Matthias, of Summerton

This settles once and for all the question about St. Andrew's of West Ashley, aka Old St. Andrew's. Some people claimed that it was listed among the eight independent of TEC. It was not, and that is now clear. The eighth one above actually is the St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant Land Trust, a corporate entity created to avoid the terms of the Dennis Canon. That meant St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant was listed twice. St. Andrew's of West Ashley, in Chalreston, is one of the 28, actually 29, parishes the SCSC recognized as property of TEC.

Removing the eight above, here is the (unofficial) list of the 29 parishes that the SCSC recognized as property of TEC:

BEAUFORT --- St. Helena's

BENNETTSVILLE --- St. Paul's

BLUFFTON --- Church of the Cross

CHARLESTON --- Holy Trinity

                             --- St. James, James Island

                             --- St. Luke and St. Paul

                             --- Good Shepherd

                             --- St. Philip's

                             --- St. Michael's

                             --- St. John's, Johns Island

                             --- St. Andrew's (Old St. Andrew's)

CHERAW --- St. David's

EDISTO  --- Trinity

EUTAWVILLE --- Epiphany

FLORENCE --- All Saints

FORT MOTTE --- St. Matthew's

HARTSVILLE --- St. Bartholomew's

HILTON HEAD --- St. Luke's

JOHNS ISLAND --- Our Saviour

MT. PLEASANT --- Christ Church

MYRTLE BEACH --- Trinity

ORANGEBURG --- Redeemer

PINOPOLIS --- Trinity

STATEBURG --- Holy Cross

SUMMERVILLE --- St. Paul's

SUMTER --- Holy Comforter

SURFSIDE --- Resurrection

WALTERBORO --- St. Jude's

YONGES ISLAND --- Christ/St. Paul's

What will be the status of these 29 in the mediation? No one can say. However, one could argue that the circuit court has already given recognition of the majority decisions in the SCSC Opinion of Aug. 2, 2017. Moreover, we know that the disposal of these parishes was not an issue in the mediation sessions that have already taken place (Oct. 2017-January 2018). Since the negotiations were confidential, we cannot know what was discussed. However, the two sides produced a "Joint Status Report" to Judge Gergel, in January of 2018, that showed the only issue to be whether the Episcopal Church bishop would be allowed to meet with the 29 parishes in question, a point that apparently was summarily rejected by the breakaway side. We can gather from this that the ownership of the 29 was not up for negotiation at that time.

Speaking for myself and no one else, I do not see how the ownership of the 29 parishes could be an issue in the impending  mediation sessions. The legal ownership of the 29 has been settled.

On another note, I recently wondered what had been the most popular entry on this blog in the last three months. It turned out to be the one about eviction. It received more "hits" than any since the first of June. Why is this so? I can only speculate. I think it is because Episcopalians across the diocese of eastern South Carolina are exhausted by the court's refusal to implement the SCSC decision. We are now in our third year of waiting on the SCSC decision to be enacted. There are lots of Church people out there who are past ready to get back into their churches. This is perfectly understandable. However, I think eviction should be only the last resort. It is not something to be desired. Hopefully, this is what the mediation sessions coming up will consider. As I see it, the issue is not who owns the 29. That has been settled. The issue is how the properties will be transferred to their rightful owners. 


(A thought on number discrepancies. Is it 28 or 29 parishes?

The Plaintiffs in the Jan. 4, 2013 lawsuit are officially listed on the "Dorchester County Public Index" website. The Case # is:  2013CP1800013. The list officially names 36 parishes as Plaintiffs (that is, the ones suing TEC) in the Jan. 4, 2013 lawsuit. However, the first page of the Aug. 2, 2017 SCSC decision omits one from the list of the 36 Plaintiffs, St. Matthew's of Ft. Motte. I assume this was a clerical error. This left 35 parishes listed. Removing 7 would leave 28. Since it was an official Plaintiff, St. Matthew's would have be included among the parishes recognized as property of TEC, making a total of 29.)

I am re-posting the July 29 blog entry about eviction:

REPOST ON 23 AUGUST:



29 JULY 2019 --- NOTES

This afternoon, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina posted on its website two items of interest in the ongoing litigation. Find the press release here . The first is that the two parties have agreed on a mediator, attorney Thomas J. Wills IV, of Charleston. He has been a certified mediator since 1993. The first session of mediation will be on 4 September 2019, in Charleston.

The second bit of news is that TECSC lawyers will meet with representatives of the Church Insurance Company of Vermont on 5-6 September 2019, in New York.

___________________________________

Now, turning to another matter. Some people have asked why the Episcopal Church does not evict the illegal occupants of the 29 parishes and repossess the properties that way. After all, the state supreme court recognized the 29 as property of the Episcopal Church.

My usual disclaimer---I am not a lawyer or legal expert and what I offer here is only opinion.

While I am not an attorney, I can read and understand the English language and the South Carolina Code of Laws is freely available for everyone to read on the Internet. So, I looked up the sections on trustees and on eviction. This is what I found:

On trustees, see Section 62-7-706 "Removal of trustee" here .

Under the Dennis Canon, a parish or mission may own its own property but it does so in a trust as long as the local church remains in the Episcopal Church. The beneficiaries of the trust are the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese. If the local congregation leaves TEC, it breaks the trust and the beneficiaries become the property owners. 

In its Aug. 2, 2017 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that 29 parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon. When they left TEC, the Church became the property owner per the trust provision in the Canon. In other words, the local congregation forfeited its role as trustee.

The SC Code, 62-7-706 provides for removal of trustee. Section (a) says that a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee. Part (b) says the court may remove a trustee if (a) the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust. Reading this, it seems to me, as an ordinary layman, that TEC/TECSC, being the beneficiaries, could petition a court for an order removing trustee status of the local congregation that broke the terms of the Dennis Canon. The catch is that TEC would have to go through a court and get an order, I suppose for each of the 29.

As for eviction, it seems to me the relevant part of the SC Code is Section 27-37-10 to 27-37-160. Find it here . This reads as applicable to a landlord-tenant relationship, so I am not sure it would be appropriate for the church case. In this, the landlord has to go to a magistrate and get a "written rule" ordering the tenant to evacuate the property or be ejected in 10 days. The tenant, however, may demand a jury trial. If the finding is against the tenant, the sheriff's deputy will visit the property and serve the tenant an order to vacate withing 24 hours. If the tenant refuses, the deputy may enter the premises by force and eject the tenant.

Can you imagine 29 separate trials? Can you imagine the sheriff's deputy physically removing the rectors of St. Philip's and St. Michael's, and 27 others? Just think of the optics of this on the local TV news.

In my opinion, neither removal of trustee nor ejection of the tenant is a desirable solution, for TEC, of the problem at hand in this circumstance. I expect such heavy-handiness would do TEC more harm than good, at least among the local communicants who might want to return to TEC. It would certainly play into the victimization theme that DSC established before the schism (that it was the innocent local victim of malevolent forces from off). 

I imagine the best approach for TEC at this point is to try mediation (they have to anyway). If that fails, as I expect it will, the matter will go back to Judge Dickson. Presumably he will issue rulings at some point. The losing side is certain to appeal this or these to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. That court will uphold the state supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017, no doubt about it. It is unthinkable that the second highest court in SC would discard a final decision of the highest court in SC. So, the sooner TEC and TECSC get a final order from the Court of Appeals, the better. As I see it, this approach is preferable to forcibly evicting the officers now illegally occupying the 29 parishes.

THE DARK PSYCHIC FORCE

Marianne Williamson is right. In the more than two and a half hours of back and forth on the details of policies and procedures last night, she used her few minutes to summarize our whole national emergency in a few words:  President Trump, she said, has unleashed a "dark psychic force" of "collectivized hatred" based on racism. All the wonky talk of plans, laws and reforms in the world will not matter as long as we allow this dark force of Trumpist racism to consume our civic society. We are in a moral, not a political, emergency. The moment is now for good people to defend righteousness. Those who stand for the most basic principles of religion and democracy have to stand up and reject and stop the dark force that will destroy us as a nation committed to equality, diversity, inclusion, and justice. Our whole future as a nation is at stake. This is a moral crisis.

Watch Williamson at last evening's debate here .

President Trump is a racist. That is the opinion of the majority of Americans. To be sure he denies it. The majority of Republicans deny it. This is not surprising. Denial is a common defense mechanism. However, by any objective standard, Trump's words and actions over many years show very clearly his use of racism as a political tool, to divide up Americans and inflame support among the white racists of various stripes. The immorality of this racism is eating away at the soul of America. Bear in mind this is not just any old racism. This is the deliberate work of the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the nation and the world.  

Christians who stand by silently and allow this racism to grow become complicit in it. Even worse are those Christians who fervently aid and abet Trump's racist MO. Of all people, it should be those of faith who lead the way in condemning this "dark psychic force." The staff of the National Cathedral have spoken up and spoken out. They are leading the way for all of us. Read their official statement condemning Trump's racism: "Mr. Trump's words are dangerous," they wrote. Read the Cathedral's statement here . 

In ways, all of the candidates on the stage last night were right. All had important words to say and ideas to contribute to make a better country and world. However, none got to the core of our national problem as did Marianne Williamson. We ought to take her words to heart.

28 JULY 2019, LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

The Betterments hearing has stirred up a lot of response from this blog's readers. The emails keep coming in, and I appreciate every one. Yesterday's letter elicited a great deal of response as it raised the issue of eviction. Can the Church side forcibly remove the officers illegally occupying the 29 parishes that are property of the Episcopal Church? If so, should the Church use eviction? Here is another thoughtful letter to this editor. This write asked to remain anonymous:

Letter to the editor:

For TEC to keep what is rightfully and legally ours, we are forced to play by the rules within the legal system. As usual, culture and politics play into a system which should be intrinsically neutral, and as always, wealthy conservatives wanting to maintain the status quo control the system. As you have stated many times, this schism has little to do with theology. It has everything to do with the entitlement of the Charlestonian aristocracy. If politics were not involved, this situation would have been legally resolved a long time ago. The DSC never had a strong case to begin with, from any perspective.

Christ would not be proud of this schism. There is no grace in this type of lawsuit, nor in the schism, itself. It is shameful that any Christian group would be destroyed by issues of social justice and self-righteousness. The leaders of TEC have showed nothing but humility and grace in their handling of this situation, but on occasion, uncharacteristic aggressiveness is required in defense of what you are. I have more recently asked myself if the Episcopal Church is how I want to identify as a Christian, and my conclusion is that, as long as I am affiliated with any church, this is where I belong. I keep remembering what brought me back to the Episcopal Church was not being told I needed the church, but that the church needed me.

________________________________

Thank you very much writer, for this heartfelt and thoughtful note. The Episcopal Church in eastern South Carolina is in its greatest crisis since the Civil War. If the Church ever needed its people, it is now, in this dark hour. To paraphrase Churchill, generations from now, people will look back and say this was their finest hour.

We need to stop every so often and remind ourselves of what this schism is all about. The people who led the majority of the old diocese out of the Episcopal Church did so because they opposed equal rights for and inclusion of all homosexuals and women in the life of the church. Thus, the fundamental issue at stake in the war between the two sides today is human rights. The Episcopal Church is fighting for the principles that all people are created in the image of God and that it is the job of the church to protect and promote the dignity and respect of every human being. The independent diocese is fighting to keep homosexuals and women from places of power and influence, that is, to protect the traditional white patriarchy. DSC institutionalized homophobia in a Draconian "Statement of Faith" (drawn up by a panel of white male clergy) of 2015 and sexism by joining the Anglican Church in North America which excludes women from offices of authority. In our weariness, we must not lose sight of the cause for which the Church fights--human rights.    

I am grateful for all of the emails I have received, especially those of the last few days. Now, we want to know what you think. If an Episcopalian in eastern SC, why are you staying with the Church when it might have been easier to go along with the secessionists? Let us hear from you. If you want your note posted, say so. If you want anonymity, let me know. If you just want to vent without publication, feel free. Send to the email address above.

27 JULY 2019, A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

The fallout of the Betterments hearing continues. On yesterday, I posted a letter to the editor concerning the hearing. I continue to receive comments about the session. Here is another letter to this editor that expresses the frustration that so many people feel nowadays in the wake of the betterments hearing:

Letter to the editor:

I for one would love to "not do my job for 18 months!" I wonder how long I would be paid?

Apparently he [Judge Dickson] is NEVER going to do his job.

Mediation has already been tried.

I wonder if money has changed hands.

The SCSC stated he is to move expeditiously; well that hasn't happened.

Again, my opinion, we have spent too much money on attorneys, tried mediation one time, and it deadlocked. It's a vicious cycle.

What has happened to the federal cases?

Can the TEC issue eviction notices for THEIR property to the priests? All they have to do is show SCSC results.

I am a frustrated cradle Episcopalian, and my patience is running out.

Like you, I'm not a lawyer. Why can't that result be all it is? Why get the circuit court involved?

Sincerely yours,

Mary R. Murray,

Charleston

_____________________________

Thank you, Mary Murray for sharing this with us. Bewilderment and fatigue are common on both sides of this long legal war. You are voicing the feelings of a lot of innocent victims caught in this seemingly interminable conflict.

If I may offer a few comments in response to your letter:

---no one knows why Judge Dickson has done nothing for a year and a half. His job is to implement the SCSC decision. The Church lawyers tried to get the state supreme court to intervene and expedite the matter, but the justices refused to step in. Now, there is nothing to do but wait on the judge to act in his own time. 

---judging from what has happened in this long war, it is highly unlikely that mediation will work. The DSC side is still intransigent, even after they suffered a crushing defeat in the state supreme court.

---if (or when) mediation fails, the matter goes back to Judge Dickson. I say the sooner the better, in hopes he will make a decision (or decisions). This or these are bound to be appealed to the state Court of Appeals by the losing party. In all probability that will be the end of this long string of state court actions.

---As for the federal case, to my knowledge, absolutely nothing has happened there in the last six months. As with Dickson, no one knows why Judge Gergel is marking time.

---You raised the eviction idea. Many people have asked about this. Why cannot the Church diocese get the sheriff to evict the occupants from the properties that belong to the Episcopal Church? On this, I cannot say. We would have to get a lawyer to explain this to us. I do know the Church lawyers are trying to get Judge Dickson to implement the SCSC decision. This would actually carry out the physical repossession of the 29 parishes by the Church. But, as we know, nothing is happening on that front.

What are your thoughts about any or all of this? Let us hear from you. Send emails to the address above.

MORE THOUGHTS ON THE BETTERMENTS HEARING

The Betterments hearing of last Tuesday and my post about it have prompted numerous people to share their thoughts with me by email. I appreciate all of them. One of them volunteered to have his message posted here, and I am grateful for that too. I imagine this writer speaks for many people who read this blog.
_______________________________

Letter to this editor:

Thank you for your summary and suggestions of the hearing on July 23. As usual, very thoughtful and well-done...as well as can be, given the hesitancy or ambiguity or confusion of Judge Dickson. I have thought about preparing a mediation proposal for the Bishop and Standing Committee of the ECSC to consider, and I still might do that. However, I, like you, am very doubtful of a mediation agreement from our own ECSC, much less one that would be agreeable to the Lawrence group. I find it inconceivable and extremely perplexing that a judge can take apart a decision of the SCOSC on the grounds that it was "confusing"? To do so flies in the precedence of "common law" and the basis of our legal system. Judge Dickson, with his inaction seems to be saying that any precedent of law with a split decision is "complicated" and "confusing" and should be reviewed, mediated, or arbitrated. Roe v. Wade, Civil Rights legislation, Black/White marriage, and a host of other important legal decisions were not unanimous. Seems to me that a legal decision by SCOSC allowed to stand by the SCOTUS is a legal decision and should be allowed to stand. The Law of the land can certainly be challenged and even be overturned in rare instances, but most rulings, even those by a narrow vote, become Law and are implemented as precedence and the basis for common law. Therefore, I am not in favor of mediation in this case. The Lawrence group has had many chances to moderate, mediate, conciliate, discuss, talk, etc., and they have not shown any good faith to do so. It is time for Judge Dickson to implement the decision made by the legal system of SC. When that decision is made, I am certain that the leadership of ECSC, being led by the love of Christ and the Holy Spirit, will be generous in implementing that decision with the Lawrence group, even though they have not been so kindly in dealing with ECSC and TEC.

Sincerely yours,

the Rev. William L. (Roy) Hills, Jr., Ph.D.
____________________________________

Note. The Rev. Hills is a retired priest in TECSC and author of Divine Glimpses, Church Stories, Vol. I and II. Find my review of these books here .

____________________________________

Other than mediation, the only significant agreement made in the hearing last Tuesday was to give official recognition of the legal independence of 7 of the 36 parishes in question. The lawyers on both sides agreed with the judge that these seven should be officially registered as the property owners (that is, without trust control by TEC). These were listed by Justice Jean Toal in the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 (p. 52), as not having acceded to the Dennis Canon:

1. Christ the king, Waccamaw, of Pawley's Island
2. St. Matthew's, of Darlington
3. St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant
4. St. Paul's, of Conway
5. Prince George Winyah, of Georgetown
6. St. John's, of Florence
7. St. Matthias, of Summerton

The discrepancy between 7 and 8 comes from St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant, which had two corporate entities (parish and land trust) that were listed separately. There were actually 7 parishes.

These seven parishes are now owners of their own properties outright unencumbered by trust. The necessary documents will be filed in the appropriate courthouses.

One of the seven, St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant is in the Anglican Church in North America's Diocese of the Carolinas. Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew's is the bishop of this diocese. The other six are parishes of the Diocese of South Carolina, under Bishop Mark Lawrence.

What Judge Dickson did here for the 7 parishes is far more important than may appear at first glance. I suspect many people in the audience at the hearing did not pick up on the importance of what the judge did. I know it took me awhile to realize what happened. All of the initial reports of the hearing, including mine, glossed over this incident. In fact, what occurred was that Judge Dickson actually took the first step in the implementation of the SCSC decision although he did not say that at the time. Dickson's action for the 7 parishes was a hugely important moment in the hearing. Perhaps it was his low-key demeanor that masked the significance of his action.

Thus, it may be that the early reports of the hearing were wrong to say the big news was mediation. It may well be that the major story was the judge's unannounced implementation of the first part of the state supreme court decision. In the long run, this could prove to be far more consequential than an order of mediation.

The last page of the SCSC decision  of Aug. 2, 2017, listed three majority opinions. The first one was for the 7 parishes:

1) with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I[Justice Toal] would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizations;

It was Judge Dickson himself who brought up the disposition of these parishes in the hearing and it was he who got the opposing lawyers to agree to enact this provision. There was no disagreement in the room because it was plain law in the SCSC decision.

Interesting to note too that, by settling the issue of the 7 parishes, Dickson in effect removed that from mediation that he brought up later. Although the judge did not mention the disposition of the other 29 parishes at the time, one may argue that, by default, he gave tacit recognition of their status in the SCSC decision. It would be inconsistent to implement the first of the SCSC decisions and disregard the other two (TEC ownership of 28 [29] parishes and Camp. St. Christopher).

There were 29 parishes SCSC recognized as property of the Episcopal Church by virtue of their having acceded to the Dennis Canon. TECSC now claims these as property of the Episcopal Church and has asked Judge Dickson to implement the SCSC decision regarding them. Since he enacted the first of the three decisions of the SCSC, it is reasonable to assume he may well move on to the other two at some time. When the second order of the SCSC decision is implemented, possession of these properties will move back to the Episcopal Church diocese:

1. All Saints, of Florence
2. Christ/St. Paul's, of Yonges Island
3. Church of the Cross, of Bluffton
4. Holy Comforter, of Sumter
5. Reedemer, of Pineville
6. Holy Trinity, of Charleston
7. St. Luke's, of Hilton Head
8. St. Matthew's, of Ft. Motte
9. St. Bartholomew's, of Hartsville
10. St. David's, of Cheraw
11. St. James, James Island, Charleston
12. St. Paul's, of Bennettsville
13. St. Luke and St. Paul, of Charleston
14. Our Saviour, Johns Island
15. Epiphany, Eutawville
16. Good Shepherd, of Charleston
17. Holy Cross, of Stateburg
18. Resurrection, of Surfside
19. St. Philip's, of Charleston
20. St. Michael's, of Charleston
21. St. Jude's, of Walterboro
22. St. Helena's, of Beaufort
23. St. Paul's, of Summerville
24. Trinity, of Myrtle Beach
25. Trinity, of Edisto
26. Trinity, of Pinopolis
27. Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant
28. St. John's, Johns Island, Charleston
29. St. Andrew's, West Ashley, Charleston

Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying Dickson has recognized the 29 as property of TEC. All I am saying is that, by deed, he recognized and enacted the first of the three orders in the SCSC decision. This has set the precedent for him to move on to the second and third. The 29 are in the second and the Camp in the third.
_______________________________

I welcome letters to the editor, particularly ones with thoughts about what a mediated settlement might be. What would you suggest as a compromise settlement between the two sides?

It seems to me that the possession of the 29 parishes is not negotiable because this is final law per the SCSC decision. Same for Camp St. Christopher. Recognition of the Episcopal Church diocese as the heir of the pre-schism diocese was also a majority agreement in the decision although it was not listed as one of the three orders on the last page. I would say ownership of the old diocese by the Episcopal Church is not negotiable too. As I see it, three points are off the table: ownership of the 29 parishes, of the Camp, and of the old diocese. These belong to the Episcopal Church. This would mean everything else could be up for negotiation in mediation. 

In your opinion, what should be off the table and on the table in mediation? Send me your thoughts, and let me know if you would like them to be posted on this blog. I welcome all comments whether you want them posted or not. We all would like to know what you think about this too. Your input is just as important as anyone's. Send remarks to the email address above.