TOWARD A RESOLUTION
Part XI
(First posted on Jan. 25, 2018).
This is the eleventh part of the series of blog posts I started on Jan. 5 entitled "Toward a Resolution". In this series, we are looking at some important questions around the schism as a way of arriving at the truth of what has happened and what will happen to the people of the old diocese of South Carolina. Today we take up Question # 10 on out list:
This is the eleventh part of the series of blog posts I started on Jan. 5 entitled "Toward a Resolution". In this series, we are looking at some important questions around the schism as a way of arriving at the truth of what has happened and what will happen to the people of the old diocese of South Carolina. Today we take up Question # 10 on out list:
WHEN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA EXHAUSTS ITS LEGAL AVENUES, WHAT ARE THE CHOICES OF ITS COMMUNICANTS?
This question really has two parts: the exhaustion of litigation, and the choices of the DSC communicants.
First, on the litigation.
As of this writing (Jan. 25, 2018), the DSC lawyers (Alan Runyan is the chancellor of DSC) are engaged on four legal fronts:
1-mediation,
2-lawsuit in circuit court on "betterments",
3-plan of an appeal of the SC supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and
4-the case in the U.S. District Court in Charleston called vonRosenberg v. Lawrence.
1-mediation,
2-lawsuit in circuit court on "betterments",
3-plan of an appeal of the SC supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and
4-the case in the U.S. District Court in Charleston called vonRosenberg v. Lawrence.
All four of these will become exhausted in time. On the first, mediation, the federal judge, Richard Gergel, ordered this on Aug. 30, 2017. The two sides have met three times (most recently on Jan. 12). Everyone involved is under a gag order, but there is absolutley no overt sign of progress. After the third meeting, the two sides did not announce the date for another meeting. It is obvious that mediation has failed to settle the legal issues between the two dioceses; and there is no apparent reason to expect any difference in the future. Mediation appears to be a dead issue.
[Judging from the few signs we have had about the mediation, it appears TEC/TECSC is proposing a settlement enacting the SCSC decision while DSC is holding out for the status quo before the SCSC decision. In short, DSC wants the Church to recognize the loss of the 35 parishes while TEC wants DSC to hand over the 29 parishes. At least, this is my best guess on why the mediation has failed and is likely to end soon.]
[Judging from the few signs we have had about the mediation, it appears TEC/TECSC is proposing a settlement enacting the SCSC decision while DSC is holding out for the status quo before the SCSC decision. In short, DSC wants the Church to recognize the loss of the 35 parishes while TEC wants DSC to hand over the 29 parishes. At least, this is my best guess on why the mediation has failed and is likely to end soon.]
On the second point, DSC entered a lawsuit against the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Church diocese (TECSC) claiming payments under the "Betterments Statute" in which occupants of property belonging to someone else are due payment for improvements they (the occupants) made on the property. TEC/TECSC has filed a motion for dismissal of this suit. This is a frivolous lawsuit that is likely to fail, and sooner rather than later. I expect circuit court judge Edgar Dickson to dismiss the suit promptly.
On the third point, DSC can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take an appeal. SCOTUS accepts 1% of the requests made to it every year. It is highly unlikely the high court will take this case. It is reasonable to expect this to be rejected within a few months after the request is made.
Of all four issues, the fourth is by far the most important. The federal court in Charleston will proceed with a trial. The longer DSC uses mediation, the longer the delay in the start of the trial. The federal case is on "stay" during mediation. DSC has already stalled it for several months. Eventually, however, the federal judge will proceed. This judge, Gergel, is one well-known for efficiency and expediency. He will move it along no doubt within the next few months. Historically, federal courts almost always side with the institutional church over the local breakaway groups. It is reasonable to assume the federal court will rule for the Episcopal Church. If so, there is the real possibility that DSC will lose everything in court including the seven parishes SCSC left outside TEC/TECSC trust control.
The fundamental issue of property ownership has been settled. The Episcopal Church has regained the bulk of the property in question. What we have now is DSC using a set of delaying tactics to put off the turnover of the property as long as possible. It is no longer a question of who legally controls the property. It is a question of when DSC will turn over control of the property to the Episcopal Church and its diocese. It is just a matter of time. It is all but certain DSC will exhaust its legal avenues without changing what has been determined, and probably sooner rather than later.
There are approximately 15,000 communicants (active members) in the DSC local churches. About 13,000 of these are in the 29 parishes that SCSC has returned to TEC/TECSC. The question now is, What is to happen to these 13,000? Another issue, of course, is the clergy. After the schism, 104 priests and deacons of the old diocese left the Episcopal Church and were officially released by the bishop. There is a simple process for their return. Several priests who left have already rejoined the Church through this reconciliation process.
Second, on the choices.
The 13,000 communicants have choices. Basically, they can stay with the buildings or they can leave the buildings. If they stay with the buildings, they return to the Episcopal Church. On leaving the buildings, the people may make any number of choices. They could drop out of religion altogether. They could join another denomination. They could stay with the breakaway diocese and form a parish/mission in exile. This last choice is full of problems not the least of which is finding a suitable meeting place. In the non-existent new space in peninsular Charleston, this will be a major problem. The 29 parishes to be returned include all of the DSC parishes in the Charleston metro area.
So, essentially, what the 13,000 communicants have to decide is whether to return to the Episcopal Church or not. That is the stark and unavoidable reality. The point of this "Toward a Resolution" blog series is to help these 13,000 make their own best informed choices.
To you among the 13,000, my suggestion is to gather all the information you can about the what happened to you before, during, and after the schism. Decide for yourself the best course of action. Life is a series of choices. We all have to make them every day. As Christians, we should hope we are making the right ones.
Short answer:
13,000 communicants of DSC will soon have to choose between staying in their church buildings and returning to the Episcopal Church, or leaving the buildings. The SCSC has ruled. The DSC leaders' present delaying tactics are only extending the pain of the schism.
Second, on the choices.
The 13,000 communicants have choices. Basically, they can stay with the buildings or they can leave the buildings. If they stay with the buildings, they return to the Episcopal Church. On leaving the buildings, the people may make any number of choices. They could drop out of religion altogether. They could join another denomination. They could stay with the breakaway diocese and form a parish/mission in exile. This last choice is full of problems not the least of which is finding a suitable meeting place. In the non-existent new space in peninsular Charleston, this will be a major problem. The 29 parishes to be returned include all of the DSC parishes in the Charleston metro area.
So, essentially, what the 13,000 communicants have to decide is whether to return to the Episcopal Church or not. That is the stark and unavoidable reality. The point of this "Toward a Resolution" blog series is to help these 13,000 make their own best informed choices.
To you among the 13,000, my suggestion is to gather all the information you can about the what happened to you before, during, and after the schism. Decide for yourself the best course of action. Life is a series of choices. We all have to make them every day. As Christians, we should hope we are making the right ones.
Short answer:
13,000 communicants of DSC will soon have to choose between staying in their church buildings and returning to the Episcopal Church, or leaving the buildings. The SCSC has ruled. The DSC leaders' present delaying tactics are only extending the pain of the schism.
