EPISCOPAL LAWYERS FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL REMITTITUR

The lawyers for the Episcopal side (the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina) filed a motion with the South Carolina Supreme Court on 27 May 2022 for partial Remittitur (find the Motion on the SCcourts website). That is, the Church side asked the state supreme court to issue a directive to the circuit court. It is for the transfer of the six parishes, among the fourteen to be returned to TEC, that did not file petitions with the SCSC for rehearing. Since the 20 April 2022 judgment is final and these six have not contested it, the Church side wants an expeditious transfer of the six properties. They are:

---Holy Trinity, Charleston

---St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville

---St. David's, Cheraw

---St. James, James Island, Charleston

---St. John's, Johns Island, Charleston

---St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

The TEC motion does not apply to the eight parishes that have asked for rehearing. Since they asked the SCSC for action, the SCSC will have to respond directly to these eight. There is no indication of when this would occur. 

The lawyers say a partial Remittitur is necessary so that the circuit court can act and the six can transfer titles to the Episcopal side. No legal actions concerning these six parishes can be taken until the deeds are moved. In other words, the Episcopal Church cannot reclaim these six until the court orders it.

We know that one parish is awaiting an action of the SCSC, St. John's, of Johns Island. They plan to hand over St. John's buildings by July 4 but will not do so if the court has not directed the transfer. We also know that St. James, on James Island, is moving toward transferring St. James' property. It too needs an action of the court first. 

The point of the 27 May motion is to move along the actual restoration of the parishes that the SCSC has awarded to TEC.

Since this is a formal motion to the SCSC, the court will have to issue a formal response. I will relay it here as soon as possible.

_________________

NOTE. I cannot link to the Motion. Your can find it at sccourts.org/ACMS/     >Accept     >Appellate Case. No. 2020-000986     >Search     >(scroll down to:) Event Information     >05/27/2022  Motion Partial Remittitur

ST. JOHN'S TENTATIVELY SET TO RETURN EPISCOPAL CHURCH SERVICES ON JULY 10, 2022

The senior warden of St. John's Church, on Johns Island, Charleston, announced in church this morning that:

---the attorneys of the two sides met last week.

---June 11 is the "packing day," (presumably those leaving will pack up what they will take with them.)

---the parish will not turn over the property to Episcopal officials until the SC Supreme Court has sent its decision down to the circuit court.

---July 3, 2022, is the "target date" for the last Anglican service in St. John's (pending SCSC action mentioned above.)

Find these remarks HERE @ 5:00.

The SC Supreme Court has had the petitions for rehearing since May 5, 2022. It is expected to issue a response momentarily. There is high expectation that the SCSC will deny the petitions and soon thereafter issue a Remittitur to the circuit court. The senior warden indicated St. John's would formally return the property to the Episcopal Church at that time. This gives a bit more than a  month before the tentative last Anglican service on 3 July. These dates are tentative and could change if for some reason the SCSC delays sending the Remittitur to the lower court.

Therefore, at this time it appears likely that July 10, 2022 will be the first Sunday service conducted by an Episcopal priest in St. John's parish church since the schism of 2012. 

If so, this will be the first of the fourteen wayward parishes to return to the Episcopal Church and this will be the first Episcopal service in a restored parish since the schism. For some this will be a time of sorrow, for others an hour of rejoicing.

Dare we hope that finally, at long last, the healing of the terrible wounds of war will begin? It seems that way now. St. John's is showing how to do it in the best way. For that, everyone should be grateful to the clergy, lay leaders, and communicants of St. John's parish.

A WORD OF CAUTION

An article has just appeared in the Episcopal News Service that I am afraid might give the wrong impression about what is going on in the schism in South Carolina. Find the article HERE . A person reading this could reasonably conclude that the two sides have reached finality and closure in the dispute between them. This is not the case.

In the first place, neither the state court nor the federal court has reached finality. In the state court, the South Carolina Supreme Court has to rule on the eight petitions for rehearing. Even though the probability is very high that the court will deny the petitions, and will do so soon, we still have to wait for this to happen. 

Once SCSC denies the petitions, it will send its "Revised Opinion" with a Remittitur to the circuit court. It will then be up to the circuit judge to actually implement the order. We know this judge. He is Edgar Dickson. The last time he kept the case before him for two years, cast the Remittitur aside and issued an order directly contradictory to the SCSC decision. Unless he is given some sort of time constraint by the SCSC, he will be free to deal with the case as he wishes. The last time, the TEC side tried twice to get the SCSC to make Dickson move to no avail. The point is, even if SCSC denies the petitions for rehearing, it could be years before the transfers of the 14 parishes to the Episcopal Church actually occurs. 

There is also the Anglican side's appeal of Judge Richard Gergel's order of 2019 that recognized the Episcopal diocese as the one and only legal heir of the pre-schsim diocese. This is before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in Richmond. The judges there set aside the appeal pending a judgment of the SC Supreme Court. Once the SCSC denies rehearing and sends the Remittitur to the circuit court, we can expect the Appeals Court to act. Odds are very high the appeals court will deny the appeal and uphold Gergel's opinion. That should finalize the issue of which side was the heir of the old diocese. After that, the Episcopal side would have to take action to repossess the assets and properties of the pre-schism diocese. Separating out the assets of 2012 from those of today will be a monumental task. We know from testimony in court that even before the schism the diocesan leaders were moving money around into various accounts.

In the second place, we have been down the road of finality before. In 2017, the SCSC issued a majority opinion giving three decisions of the court. Both sides assumed this was final. The SCSC denied a rehearing and send a Remittitur to the circuit court to implement the decisions. As we know, the circuit court not only refused but issued a whole new opinion. It was this opinion that the Episcopal side appeal to the SCSC and led to the April 20, 2022 "Revised Opinion." 

By the end of 2017, both sides were preparing to move the 29 parishes in question back to the Episcopal Church. The Anglican side circulated a secret plan to move congregations out into new quarters. Both bishops circulated around their dioceses with "town hall" meetings about the transfers. With the denial of SCOTUS for cert in 2018, both sides settled in for a settlement. The Anglicans petitioned the circuit court for betterments, that is reimbursements for the improvements they had made on the properties which the SCSC now said belonged to TEC.

In the third place, there are still highly difficult and contentious issues to be resolved and betterments could be one of them. As I read the law, the occupant of a property who thinks, wrongly, that he is the owner, is entitled reimbursement for the improvements he made on the property. The problem here is deciding on who owns the property and at what time. 

In the Episcopal Church, the parish typically owns the local property; that is, the parish is the deed holder. However, the Dennis Canon says that if a congregation leaves the Episcopal Church it forfeits the property ownership to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal side argued in the past that if the parish is the deed holder, a parish could not claim betterments because it could not sue itself. However, if the parish forfeits ownership to the Church as per the Dennis Canon, the Church would become the owner at some point. It would then hand over the deed to the new and loyal Episcopal congregation and the parish would become the deed holder again. It seems to me the court would have to decide at what point the Episcopal Church became the parish property owner, at the schism of 2012? at the vote of the congregation to secede from TEC? At the SCSC decision of 2017? At the SCSC decision of 2022? At the moment the SCSC sends the Remittitur to the circuit court? If the Anglican side should push for betterments from the Episcopal side, it seems to me the court would first have to rule on when the Episcopal Church became the owner of the property.

Too, there is the question of what to do about the dozen local churches that did not join the lawsuit but went along with the schism and are now in the ADSC. Should the Episcopal Church enter lawsuit(s) to reclaim these wayward churches?

Of course, everyone, (except perhaps the lawyers) wants finality and closure in this long and scandalous civil war between former friends. This is not new. People have wanted this from day one. Exhaustion passed so long ago no one remembers when. This has been a wild roller coaster ride and most people on both sides are past ready to get off of this monster coaster. 

However, the roller coaster ride is not over although the car may be in view of the station. It is premature to declare the end of the ride, the end of the civil war. If I have learned anything at all in these long and agonizing years of legal strife, it is not to count the chickens before they hatch.

I published my history of the schism in August of 2017, right after the SCSC issued its decision, thinking the story was all but over. Well, here we are nearly five years later still waiting on the end. Now, if the good Lord is willing and my eyesight holds up I might have to write a second volume, and it could be as long as the first [!]. The problem is I do not know how many more years I will have to wait for the story to actually end.   

I do not mean to dampen the hope of the hour. There is definitely a new mood of respect between the two sides as new bishops have arrived, ones without baggage. The atmosphere has changed dramatically. There is hope for better relations ahead. I just want everyone to be realistic about what is happening and what is likely to happen. It will be years more before the two sides reach true finality and closure. Another thing we have learned in this decade is that the legal process moves at glacial speed. This will not change. We must be patient. Above all the two sides must conduct themselves as the Christians they claim to be or they have no right to the name they bear.

THE REV. CRAIG SMALLEY CHOSEN AS NEXT DEAN OF THE ADVENT

The dean's search committee of the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the Advent, in Birmingham, unanimously elected the Rev. Craig Smalley, interim dean, as their choice of new dean and rector of the Advent. 

The vestry met and approved the recommendation. The Advent has been without a permanent dean since Andrew Pearson resigned as dean in May of last year. Mr. Smalley had been filling in as dean ever since Mr. Pearson's departure. He has done an admirable job of moving the parish back toward the mainstream of the Episcopal Church after the previous rectors had pushed it to the Evangelical edge, perhaps beyond the edge. Now, the parish should be able to settle down and focus on its mission.

Mr. Smalley also ends the pipeline from the lowcountry. The three deans before him had all come to the Advent directly from the SC lowcountry, mainly St. Helena's, of Beaufort, long a center of conservative criticism of the Episcopal Church.

Find the official announcement of this HERE .

PARISHIONERS OF ST. JOHN'S BLESS THE BUILDINGS

Last weekend, Dr. Russ Parker visited St. John's Church, on Johns Island, Charleston. He is author of Rediscovering the Ministry of Blessing. Following his ideas of "blessings," the congregation "blessed the buildings" as they prepared for the transfer of the property from the Anglican clergy and officials back to the Episcopal diocese. Find pictures HERE .

St. John's is one of the 14 parishes to be returned to the Episcopal Church as per the SC Supreme Court. It is also one of the 6 that did not ask for a rehearing of the SCSC decision of 20 April 2022. While the clergy of the 6 did not contest the decision, they are trying to keep their congregations unified as they move out of the property. It remains to be seen how many parishioners will leave and how many will remain with the buildings once an Episcopal priest reappears for services. So, for those about to leave, the "blessing" would also be a goodbye. We do know that the rector of St. John's, the Rev. Greg Snyder, will soon leave for a new job at the University of Tennessee.

Speaking for myself and no one else, I assume the 6 parishes that did not contest the court ruling will be the first to be restored to the Episcopal diocese and I suppose the first to have Episcopal services, again. Judging from the signs coming from them, it appears to me as if St. John's, of Johns Island, and St. James, on James Island, will be rejoining the Episcopal diocese sooner rather than later. I think we can reasonably expect Episcopal services to resume at St. John's and St. James within the next few months. The other 4 have not made any overt signs of preparing for transfer, at least none that I have seen. However, I expect Episcopal clergy to reappear in these 4 in the foreseeable future. I am sure the nuts and bolts of the transfers will have to be worked out by the diocesan officials and this will take time.

Here are the 6 parishes that did not contest the court order to return to the Episcopal Church:

St. John's, of Johns Island, Charleston.

St. James, James Island, Charleston.

St. David's, Cheraw. There has been an Episcopal worshiping group, a St-David's-in-exile, for years. For their sake, let us hope they get back into their church sooner rather than later.

Holy Trinity, South Windermere, Charleston.

St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville.

St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte.

"IT'S TIME TO STOP CONTENDING FOR THE BUILDINGS"

ST. JAMES FACES TRANSITION

"It's time to stop contending for the buildings," the rector of St. James, on James Island, Charleston, exhorted repeatedly to his congregation this morning. The Rev. Arthur Jenkins, who is retiring in three weeks, told his people today, "We will have to leave this campus." He went on to muse that the move could come in the summer or the fall of this year. He called his group "St. James Anglican Church" as if this is the name they will use after leaving. Find Jenkins's remarks on Facebook.

St. James is one of the six parishes that did not petition the SC Supreme Court for rehearing of the court's decision that fourteen parishes were property of the Episcopal Church. The other five that refused to petition were:  St. John's, of Johns Island, Charleston; St. Bartholomew's, of Hartsville; St. David's, of Cheraw; St. Matthew's, of Ft. Motte; and Holy Trinity, Charleston. Of the six, one, Cheraw, has an Episcopal worshiping group (hi Janet) awaiting return to their church building after meeting in exile for years. Let us hope for their sake the transition there is expeditious.

Of the eight parishes that have petitioned the SCSC for rehearing, only a few have offered remarks about this on the Internet. The rector of Old Saint Andrew's has been most vocal about his resolve to fight to the bitter end. Last week he made an emotional appeal in his homily. In today's services, however, he said not a word about the subject.

At St. Luke's, of Hilton Head, the rector, the Rev. Greg Kronz (who is also retiring) has mentioned the possibility that the parish could "negotiate" for the property. Find his remarks from last week HERE . He gave no source or evidence to support this. The Episcopal diocese has given no indication of any negotiation to alter the property settlement as per the state supreme court ruling. In fact, Bishop Woodliff-Stanley talked recently about "orderly transition" of the properties involved, meaning return of the specified properties to the Episcopal diocese. 

Kronz also said in his video of last week that Alan Runyan, chief attorney for the Anglican side, was slated to meet his Episcopal counterparts for talks this Wednesday, 25 May. I have not been able to corrobrate this. We do know, however, per Bishop W-S, that the representatives of the two sides are holding ongoing meetings about transition of the properties. This transition will happen on two levels: diocesan and parochial. The diocesan will be the transfer of possession of all the assets and properties of the pre-schism diocese. The parochial will be the transfer of the fourteen parishes. The latter, however, is still contingent on the SCSC's denial of rehearing.

Another of the 14, St. John's has seemed resigned to the transfer all along. There, the rector is leaving to become a Lecturer at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

One of the eight that filed for rehearing may be moving toward resolution from the sound of their words online. The rector of Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant, said the parish is moving to contingency plans. Find his remarks HERE .

Considering various remarks coming from the fourteen, it looks as if there is a concerted strategy among them to keep the present congregations together and move them out so that few if any people stay behind when the Episcopal clergy return for services. And so we are seeing a revival of an old demonization of the Episcopal Church, the same sort that was used to prod people to vote for secession back in 2012 and 2013. The main charge being made is that the TEC no longer believes that Jesus Christ is THE way of salvation, only one way. This is not true. TEC has not changed its theology. What it has changed is its stand for human rights, and this is exactly what caused the schism. TEC championed equality and inclusion of non-celibate gays and women in the life of the church. This is not a theological issue; it is a social issue. Nevertheless, both the rector of OSA and the rector of St. James have already begun beating this drum. The purpose, of course, is to give people reason to leave the buildings and go into exile. If anyone wants to know what life is like in exile, just ask anyone in any of the ten Episcopal worshiping communities that formed after the schism. BTW, these people are my heroes but that is the subject for another day.

I expect matters to be picking up speed in the next couple of weeks. The SC Supreme Court can do one of two things now. In one, they can accept or deny the petitions for rehearing. They do not have to give an explanation of their choice. In the other, they can invite the Episcopal side to submit a counter-argument against rehearing. The latter is what they did in 2017. Soon after the TEC side turned in their argument, the SCSC denied rehearing. Rehearing requires a majority vote of the justices, so at least three of them would have to agree on a rehearing now. In 2017, one of the five recused herself leaving four to vote. They voted 2-2 on rehearing. Since there was no majority for rehearing, the court denied the petition for rehearing. This time, there will be 5 justices to vote. It is all but certain the SCSC will deny rehearing; and I expect the court to do so in the next few weeks. This will clear the deck for the transferal of the fourteen parishes.

Soon, I expect the federal appeals court to rule on the ADSC appeal of Judge Gergel's order. As with SCSC, it is highly unlikely the court will accept the appeal. Upon denial of appeal, the deck will be clear for the transferal of all diocesan assets and properties back to the Episcopal diocese.

ACNA BISHOPS HAVE NOT BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE

The Anglican Communion Office has clarified that the Anglican Church in North America is not part of the Anglican Communion and its bishops have not been invited to join the Lambeth Conference that meets 26 July-8 August this year. Find the statement of Gavin Drake, Director of Communications, Anglican Communion Office, London, HERE .

In fact, the ACNA has been invited to send observers to the Conference just as other ecumenical non-Anglican Communion bodies have been invited to send representatives. It is up to the ACNA to accept or decline this invitation.

What brought this subject up was a misleading report in The English Churchman last month that stated the ACNA had been invited to attend the upcoming Lambeth Conference. Then, on 19 May, the magazine posted an article giving ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach's response to this. Find it HERE . Beach said:

As long as the Archbishop of Canterbury is inviting bishops to Lambeth who are living in immorality and continuing to tear the fabric of the Communion, the Anglican Church in North America and other GAFCON provinces will not participate in the Lambeth Conference. We have not agreed to 'walk together'. That narrative is not true; we didn't agree to this. There are some things that we simply cannot agree to disagree on, and the biblical truth about human sexuality is one of those things.

So, what does this tell us?

---Yet again, the Anglican Communion has said the Anglican Church in North America is not in the Anglican Communion.

---The ACNA bishops have not been invited to join the Anglican Communion bishops at the Lambeth Conference. This means Bishop "Chip" Edgar has not been invited.

---The ACNA has been invited to send representatives to observe the Conference.

---Homosexuality is now, as it has always been, the issue dividing the Anglican world. Any claim that the dispute is about theology is nonsense.

---GAFCON, and its proxy the ACNA, are the ones who have rent the fabric of the Anglican world, not the other way around. GAFCON provinces broke off communion with the Episcopal Church and set up a replacement "province" to take the place of TEC. ACNA was created explicitly to prevent both non-celibate homosexuals and women from equality and inclusion the the life of the church.

---The charge that many Anglicans will boycott the Lambeth Conference is an exaggeration. Of the 41 provinces of the Anglican Communion, exactly 3 have announced boycotts. Not surprisingly, Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda have some of the harshest laws regarding homosexuality.

---I think we can safely assume the modern day Pharisees of the ACNA will not be sending representatives to the Lambeth Conference this year.

TALKS UNDERWAY FOR "ORDERLY TRANSITION"

Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley revealed today that talks are underway between the Episcopal and Anglican dioceses of South Carolina. Find her remarks HERE @ 2:05. 

She said one larger meeting has been held following the conversations just of the two bishops. In this, each side brought a "small group" to the table along with the bishops. The purpose of the meeting, she said, was to plan an "orderly transition of properties and of leadership." ("Transition" was the operative word there.) The bishop acknowledged earlier the property settlement of the court. From the sound of her remarks, the actual ownership of the properties was not an issue of discussion. It was the physical transfer of certain properties from Anglican to Episcopal possession.

If the SC Supreme Court denies a rehearing, a probability in the near future, the Anglican side will have to hand over 14 parishes they now occupy. The Anglican diocese will also have to surrender possession of diocesan properties, e.g. Camp St. Christopher and the bishop's residence in Charleston.

From the information we have now, I think we can conclude that the issue of who gets what property is off the table. The problem of the future is the most expeditious ways to transfer possession of the 14 and the diocesan assets and properties to the Episcopal diocese. 

It is good the two sides are meeting and taking this seriously because, after nearly ten years of schism, everything involved is highly complicated and complex and will require a great deal of work to resolve rightfully.

First things first. The next item is the response of the SCSC to the petitions for rehearing. I expect the court to respond within the next few weeks and to deny the petitions. After that, the court will send their 20 April decision back down to the circuit court for implementation. 

TWO BISHOPS TALKING

The two bishops are continuing conversations. Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, and Bishop "Chip" Edgar, of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, have confirmed that they are engaged in open ended conversations. That, however, is all we know about this at the moment. We do not know how many times they have met. We do not know what they discussed. We do not know what they have in mind about meeting in the future.

On May 14, the Anglican Ink website posted an article about the meetings. Find it HERE . However, the article was misleading when it stated the two "have begun to settle the property issues..." No evidence for this assertion was offered. Neither side has said they talked about property. In fact, they have not revealed anything they discussed. For all we know they talked about their kids and the traffic in Charleston. The Canon to the Ordinary at ADSC reported in the article that discussions between the two were "developing." That is all he would say about it. The EDSC office has confirmed to me that the bishops are still in conversation. That is all they would say. So, we should  not jump to conclusions about what the two bishops are discussing. We simply do not know.

I, for one, had hoped that the 20 April 2022 SCSC decision would bring closure to the long legal war between the two sets of former friends. Alas, this has not been the case. On the Episcopal side, there seemed to be acceptance, or at least resignation, of the decision, as disappointing as it was. However, over on the Anglican side, the diocese split apart. The diocesan Standing Committee and Trustees unanimously agreed to accept the decision. Eight of the 14 parishes slated to be returned to TEC refused to accept it and filed for a rehearing before the high court. Six of the 14 did not file. So, the legal war goes on even though it is all but certain the SCSC will deny the requests for rehearing.

The issues between the two dioceses are highly difficult, complicated and complex. The ownership of the properties is virtually settled: EDSC gets the entity of the historic diocese and all its assets and properties, e.g. Camp St. Christopher, plus 14 of the 36 parishes in the original lawsuit. ADSC gets 22 of the 36 parishes. This includes all the large parishes except one. 

There are other issues that have not been settled and one should suppose could be subject to negotiations. There are about 12 local churches (mostly small missions) that were not in the lawsuit and adhered to the new Anglican diocese. TEC could go after these churches on the basis of their having adopted the Dennis Canon. The issue of betterments has also been raised. This is the idea that TEC would owe repayment to any of the 14 local churches that had spent money on improving the properties after the schism. This could also be applied to improvements made on the diocesan properties.

Bottom line---in my view, actual property ownership as per the orders of the court should not be open to negotiation. However, peripheral issues connected to this might be open.

I am sure everyone would agree that it is good for the two bishops to be in conversation, even if it is only about the kids and the traffic. However, I expect we should all tamp down our expectations and hopes about what these conversations could bring. After all, each bishop has to deal with numerous lawyers offering their advice. They would also have to deal with formal diocesan bodies as the Standing Committee and the Trustees. The bishops are not exactly free to make settlements tête-à-tête even if they wanted to do so.

Everyone wants closure. Everyone (except perhaps the lawyers) wants an end to the ugly civil war that has be raging for a decade now. So, we cannot help but long for the talks between the two bishops to continue. 

 

OLD SAINT ANDREW'S AND REALITY

Of all the fourteen parishes to be returned to the Episcopal Church, the one apparently having the hardest time coming to grips with reality is Old Saint Andrew's, in West Ashley, Charleston. I recommend listening to the rector's homily of today. Find it HERE on Facebook, @29.

We all must understand that the Rev. Marshall Huey and his congregation have been on an emotional roller coaster for years, and for that we must have empathy. Although OSA had a large minority of laity who did not want to leave the Episcopal Church, Huey made a major appeal for secession and his view carried the day in the parish vote to leave TEC. Then, in 2015, the circuit court said OSA owned its own property. In 2017, the SC Supreme Court reversed this and said OSA was property of TEC. Back down at the circuit court, the judge gave a special treatment of OSA awarding them the property again, in 2020. Then, on 20 April 2022, the SCSC overruled the circuit court and went back to its 2017 ruling agreeing that OSA was property of TEC. So, OSA has "changed hands" five times in ten years. I suppose anyone at OSA would be emotionally drained by this point.

For whatever reason, the Rev. Huey insists that he and his flock will stay in OSA:  "God willing, I am, we are going to stay here" he said today. We will "persevere as long as it takes...we have to persevere" as he declared, "my heart is in it."

His stated reason for staying was to proclaim Jesus as THE way and not A way. While Huey did not say so directly, no one could miss his meaning. Years before the schism and ever since, the secessionist leaders insisted that the Episcopal Church no longer believed that Jesus was THE way, just another way of salvation. This was to rationalize the schism. It worked. It is now deeply embedded in the talking points of the anti-Episcopal crowd. 

Several points need to be said about the situation at OSA:

---the Rev. Huey and his followers at OSA are obviously emotionally upset. They are deeply saddened and distressed. They need our prayers and love. They have mine.

---the reality is that the SCSC has ruled. It is all but certain this is final. The Episcopal bishop will return to OSA and Episcopal Church services will resume. This is a given. This is reality.

---if Mr. Huey is upset at anyone, he could include his "friends" in the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. They threw him under the bus. Both the Standing Committee and the Trustees of ADSC unanimously refused to petition the SCSC for a rehearing. They abandoned the 14 parishes they "lost". They hung them out to dry. Of these, 6 did not even try to get a rehearing. The big parishes of ADSC got what they wanted, hence the actions of the diocese. End of story.

---No one has to leave OSA when the Episcopal bishop returns. Mr. Huey can return to TEC through a set process. The placement of clergy at OSA would be up to the bishop. No one can speak for her now. The people-in-the-pews do not have to go anywhere. However, the vestry and wardens have to give loyalty to the Episcopal bishop.

---There is no truth whatsoever to the popular myth perpetrated by the schismatics that TEC no longer believes that Jesus Christ is THE way. No where in the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church or in the Prayer Book does it say that Jesus is not the way. Quite the opposite. If Mr. Huey and his congregation want a religion based on Jesus as THE way, hang on. It is returning.

---OSA is indeed an historic parish, the oldest extant church building in SC. It functioned as an Episcopal Church from 1785, except for brief closures, until 2012. TEC is in OSA's DNA. It will be returning home.

So, on the one hand, our hearts have to go out to Mr. Huey and his followers. They are apparently in anguish at what they perceive to be a devastating loss of the property they love.

On the other hand, there is a reality at OSA that is something to be embraced. Isn't life about accepting God's will and receiving the peace and joy that comes with knowing a force far greater than ourselves is in control of the universe?   

PRESIDING BISHOP IN ALABAMA TODAY

Presiding Bishop Michael Curry is in Alabama today. He will be preaching a revival in Birmingham, at the Birmingham Southern College. RevivAL 2022 will be from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CDT and will be livestreamed on Youtube. Find it HERE . The event is open to the public and free tickets are available.

Bill Battle Coliseum, at Birmingham Southern College.

The PB, world renowned for his electric preaching style, has generated quite a stir of interest in the Diocese of Alabama. The diocesan office and many parishes have widely publicized today's revival. Not so with the problematical Cathedral Church of the Advent, in Birmingham, just two miles from the College campus. To my knowledge they have completely ignored the PB's visit. I have found no mention at all on the Cathedral website of today's monumental event. Given the hopes of the recent covenant between the bishop and the vestry of the Advent, this is disappointing. It indicates that little if anything has changed in the Advent's indifferent attitude toward the diocese and the Episcopal Church.

Regardless of the Advent's attitude, there is great excitement in Alabama today in anticipation of the great preacher's appearance in Birmingham. If you cannot attend, you can catch it on Youtube livestream.

__________________________

AFTER NOTE.  The parish banner from the Advent was in the parade of banners at the start of the service, so I assume there were people present from the Cathedral in Birmingham. It was heartening to see that particular banner coming down the aisle.

This "revival" meeting served several purposes, and did it well. It was a chance to display the important ministry programs of the diocese, some unique to this diocese. It helped unify the diocese as well as energizing the attendees. Most of all it was a chance to see the Presiding Bishop at his best, energetically advocating his message that God is love.

When the legal dust settles a bit more in South Carolina, the Diocese of South Carolina would benefit from this sort of event, bringing people together, reminding us of what institutional religion is all about, and energizing people to go out doing God's work in the world. Besides, it would go a long way to counteracting the dark propaganda that the secessionists have promoted about the Episcopal Church for years. The wounds in SC are long and deep. It will take a lot to start the healing, and a "revival" would not be a bad place to start.

PB Michael Curry has always had a soft spot in his heart for lower South Carolina. He did about as much as he could before the schism and after to help. One may recall that he was in that small group of bishops that went to Charleston to visit with Bishop Lawrence before the break, to no avail. After the schism, he visited several times, lifting spirits every time. 

Today's event is on Youtube. Find it HERE  .

ONE ADSC CLERGYMAN DEPARTING

News has broken that one rector in the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is bailing out. In fact, according to his own words, he is leaving the parish, the diocese, and professional church work. Find his announcement HERE .

The Rev. Greg Snyder is rector of St. John's, on  Johns Island, Charleston. He says he has been there for twenty years. He is leaving his post on 1 August.

He also says he made the decision to leave a week before the SCSC ruling of 20 April. The timing is a bit curious. Did he know something the rest of us did not know?

Snyder has also displayed an unusual reaction to the SCSC decision. St. John's on Johns Island is one of the fourteen parishes to be returned to the Episcopal Church. He did not fight the court decision. St. John's was one of the six which did not file for rehearing. In fact, Snyder told his people they would "probably" have to walk away from the property. He seemed resigned to this.

This is a rather drastic life change for the middle-aged Mr. Snyder, whose wife has been on the diocesan office staff for years. The only reason he gave for leaving was "I have led as far as I can go..." Now he is to become a Lecturer in Geology at the Univ. of Tennessee, in Knoxville. This will be quite a change from being rector of a parish in the lowcountry.

Snyder played a significant role in the life of the schism. For instance, he was on the Marriage Task Force committee that drew up the Statement of Faith in 2015 that rigidly institutionalized a diocesan ban on same-sex marriage.

Another long-time rector among the secessionists has also announced his retirement as of 1 September. The Rev. Greg Kronz has been at St. Luke's, of Hilton Head, for thirty years. Students of the schism will know Kronz as the chair of the bishop's search committee that went through as many as fifty candidates to draft one who had not applied, Mark Lawrence, of Bakersfield, California.

Change is certainly in the air of the schism in South Carolina. Both dioceses have new leadership with no baggage from the civil war years of the schism.

Evangelicals like to talk a lot about "God's Will." If it is God's will that fourteen parishes return to the Episcopal Church, should not the faithful person accept that? No one in these fourteen will have to leave. As for the clergy, there is a simple process for returning to the Episcopal Church. It is filing paper work with the bishop. Three clergy who went along with the schism have already returned to the Episcopal diocese. As for the people-in-the-pews, they do not have go anywhere. The prayer book services will continue on as ever. The vestry and wardens, however, must accept the authority of the Episcopal bishop. In spite of the propaganda the Anglican leaders have spread among their followers for years, the Episcopal Church has not changed its religion. It has evolved its social policy, but not the historic truths of the faith. 

One may expect to see quite a bit of dust in the air before all this settles down. It is all but certain the SC Supreme Court will reject the petitions for rehearing. I expect this to come in a week or two. Then, the federal appeals court is almost certainly going to reject the Anglicans' appeal of Judge Gergel's ruling. Then, the two sides can begin in earnest the long and difficult process of settling the nuts and bolts of possession.

There is much more change to come.

REFLECTIONS ON THE EIGHT PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

On yesterday, May 5, 2022, eight of the fourteen parishes that the SC Supreme Court had found to be properties of the Episcopal Church filed petitions for rehearing with the SCSC. The eight:

---St. Luke's, Hilton Head

---Trinity, Myrtle Beach

---Old Saint Andrew's, Charleston

---St. Jude's, Walterboro

---Holy Comforter, Sumter

---Good Shepherd, Charleston

---Holy Cross, Stateburg

---Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant

Six of the fourteen did not file petitions for rehearing:

---St. James, James Island, Charleston

---St. John's, Johns Island, Charleston

---St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville

---St. David's, Cheraw

---St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

---Holy Trinity, Charleston

None of the fifteen parishes that the SCSC recognized as owning their properties asked for rehearing.

The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina did not file a petition for rehearing. Twice, in 2017 and 2022, the SCSC recognized the Episcopal diocese as the heir of the historic diocese and the owner of the pre-schism diocesan properties and assets. The ownership of titles and marks is in federal court, presently awaiting a decision of the U.S. Appeals Court concerning the order of the U.S. District judge, in Charleston, that recognized the Episcopal diocese as the sole owner of the legal entity of the historic diocese. Odds are the appeals court will uphold the district court leaving the Episcopal diocese in undisputed possession of the historic diocese.

The trustees and standing committee of ADSC released a statement hinting that they are resigned to accepting the courts' settlements although they talked about "our summer camp." They know Camp St. Christopher is to be returned to the Episcopal diocese. Find their statement HERE . While the Anglican diocese and all its large parishes seem to be ready to quit the legal war, at least one rector is not. Find the Rev. Huey's statement from OSA HERE .

The Episcopal Church and diocese did not ask for rehearing.

On April 20, 2022, the SCSC issued a unanimous opinion that 14 of the 36 parishes in question were property of the Episcopal side as per the Dennis Canon. Almost all of the eight petitions filed yesterday repeated three common themes, obviously coordinated by the lawyers involved. The themes:

---the parish had no "intent" to create a trust for the Episcopal Church. Under SC law, there must be intent.

---any trust under the Dennis Canon was revocable. When the parishes left TEC, they revoked any trust interest TEC might have had.

---the diocese granted quit claim deeds to all parishes in 2010 and 2011. These surrendered any trust interest in the properties.

This layman's interpretation:

---all of these petitions for rehearing are brief and thin. The longest ones are only ten pages. The arguments are equally thin.

---On the issue of "intent," I wonder how this could be measured other than in the language of the parish documents. The justices went by the words in the documents. What else could they do? "Intent" to set up a trust was clear in the reading of the texts to four of the five justices in 2017 and all five in 2022.

---On whether a parish could revoke a trust, a majority of justices in 2017 said it could not. In 2022, the court did not change this. 

---The quit claim deeds are legally dubious. The Dennis Canon says the trustees of the parish properties are the Episcopal Church and the local diocese. Did the local bishop have the right to surrender trusteeship of the national church? I rather doubt it. At any rate, courts have ruled that the Diocese of South Carolina did not secede from the Episcopal Church. 

All in all, these petitions for rehearing are not impressive.

 

If the SCSC does as it did in 2017, it will ask the Episcopal side to submit a counter-argument concerning these petitions for rehearing. Then, in my view, the SCSC will deny across the board the petitions for rehearing as lacking substance. If so, the SCSC will send its "Revised Opinion" to the circuit court for implementation. Meanwhile, the road will be clear for the federal appeals court to uphold Judge Gergel's order. The Episcopal diocese can then begin the process of repossessing the fourteen parishes as well as the diocesan properties and assets.

 

EIGHT PARISHES PETITION FOR REHEARING TODAY, 5 MAY 2022

Eight of the fourteen parishes the SC Supreme Court determined to be property of the Episcopal Church filed separate petitions with the SC Supreme Court today, May 5, 2022. Today was the last day to file for rehearing. The eight:

---St. Luke's, Hilton Head

---Trinity, Myrtle Beach

---Old Saint Andrew's, Charleston

---St. Jude's, Walterboro

---Holy Comforter, Sumter

---Good Shepherd, Charleston

---Holy Cross, Stateburg

---Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant

I have read only one, that of OSA. It is a three-page paper making two arguments: 1-that TEC had previously admitted OSA did not create an express trust, and 2-that OSA had the legal right to revoke a trust. It did not argue the merits of the SC opinion, that OSA's parish documents had created an express trust. The first argument is irrelevant. As for the second, a majority of the court, in 2017, ruled that parishes could not unilaterally revoke a trust. The court did not disagree with this in its 2022 decision. In short, OSA's arguments are weak and are highly unlikely to impress the present court.

I will return with remarks on the other seven petitions after I have had time to review them.

Interesting to note that six parishes among the fourteen did not file petitions today or at least none was posted on the SC courts' website.

DEADLINE FOR FILING PETITION FOR REHEARING TOMORROW, 5 MAY 2022

May 4, 2022; 5:15 EDT.  According to my UNOFFICIAL reading of the SC Code of Laws, the deadline for the Episcopal and Anglican sides to petition the SC Supreme Court for a rehearing is tomorrow, May 5, 2022. The SCSC published its "Revised Opinion" on April 20, 2022. The fifteenth day afterwards would be Thursday, May 5, 2022.

Although the stated deadline is the fifteenth day after the publication of a supreme court decision, a party may request an extension of time. This is what happened the last time around, in 2017. The SCSC issued its opinion of August 2. The secessionists asked for a fifteen day extension before submitting its petition; and the court granted this. On the thirtieth day, the secessionist side requested a second extension. This time, the SCSC denied the request and the secessionists immediately filed their petition for rehearing on the thirtieth day. Shortly afterwards, the SCSC asked the Episcopal side to submit a counter-petition in response to the secessionists'. The Church side complied. Two months later, on Nov. 17, 2017, the SCSC denied the secessionists' petition for rehearing and sent the decision and Remittitur down to the court of origin, the circuit court.

To my knowledge, the only party to announce publicly that it will file for rehearing is Old Saint Andrew's parish, of Charleston.

Papers officially lodged with the court are typically uploaded on the SC courts website, usually at the end of the day. To find the court papers on the church case go to www.sccourts.org/ACMS/  >Accept  >Appellate Case No.:  2020-000986  >Search  >"Event Information" [most recent first].

Here is what to look for tomorrow:

---Will Old Saint Andrew's actually file a petition for rehearing?

---Will any other parish in the Anglican Diocese of SC file? If so, will they join the OSA appeal or file separately?

---If other parishes of ADSC file, are they in the 14 to be returned to TEC or the 15 not to be returned?

---Will the ADSC diocesan entity file for rehearing? (ADSC has two sets of lawyers, one for the diocese and one for the individual parishes since both the diocese and 36 individual parishes jointly filed the lawsuit against TEC in 2013.)

---Will the Episcopal Church and diocese file for rehearing?

---Will one or more parties request a time extension?

If OSA does follow through and file, it will be interesting to see on what grounds they seek a rehearing. They would need to produce strong arguments or some evidence that the SCSC decision was in error. We shall have to wait and see what that might be.

As I have said before, I think there is virtually no chance of a rehearing. The Apr. 20, 2022 decision was unanimous and explicitly "final." The justices have made it very clear they are through with this case.

I expect OSA's last gasp is a Hail Mary. It is bound to fail because there will be no one at the other end of the field to catch the ball.

So, apparently we will have a clearer picture by tomorrow evening, or perhaps the next day, of whether one or both sides of this legal war wants an Overtime in the SCSC. 

I shall return here when I have something to report about the filing(s) for rehearing, probably tomorrow evening.

THE COURTS AND THE LAW

News broke today that the U.S. Supreme Court is about to issue a decision overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly a half-century when it was the law of the land. This will remove the constitutional protection of a woman's right to control her own body and will turn over to the states the control over abortion. Most states have signaled that they will, in effect,  end abortion rights.

In the big picture, this is a major victory for the anti-democratic reactionary forces in the counter-revolution against the Great Democratic Revolution of the Twentieth Century. It is a huge blow against human rights for women.

What is going on in Washington is not disconnected to what is happening in South Carolina. In SC, a national religious institution has been blocked in its effort to govern itself. In SC, state property laws take precedence over the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment. It just so happens that the church in question is also a highly visible champion of equality and inclusion of homosexuals and women. These court cases all boil down to human rights.

SCOTUS is upending settled law (Roe v. Wade) in order to remove rights from women. The South Carolina Supreme Court revoked settled law (the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017) and found that 15 more parishes were beyond ownership of the Episcopal Church. The only significant difference between the SCSC opinion of 2017 and that of April 20, 2022 is that most of the large parishes are excused from the governance of the denomination of which they had been a part. Twenty-nine parishes as property of TEC suddenly became 14. Coincidence that the big parishes got off the hook? I wonder.

So, both the U.S. and the SC supreme courts have overturned settled law and in so doing are potentially weakening human rights. For years, Republican presidents and Senates have been packing federal courts with young ideological conservatives. No one can be surprised at what SCOTUS is now doing. In South Carolina, all state judges and justices are elected by the state legislature for terms. This makes them in a way political. SC is virtually a one-party state controlled by conservatives.

Here, we are primarily concerned about the schism in South Carolina. In 2017, the SCSC ruled by three majority (3-2) decisions that 29 of the 36 parishes in question belonged to the Episcopal Church. In 2022, the SCSC ruled that 14 of the 36 parishes in question belonged to TEC. The SCSC replaced a final law with a new one that just happened to be a boon to the anti-human rights side.

Replacing one majority opinion with a new one, and in just five years, could portend tremendous danger for the rule of law in South Carolina. Here is what it could mean: 

---A majority decision is not final law, not even one in which rehearing was denied and appeal to SCOTUS failed.

---A Remittitur is not a Remittitur. It is only a suggestion to the lower court. It can be treated as a Remand at the discretion of the lower court.

---A lower court can ignore a majority opinion and a Remittitur, relitigate the issues and issue a new decision contradicting a SCSC majority opinion.

---If an SCSC decision contains more than one majority opinion, the lower court can pick and choose which ones it will recognize and implement.

---Using the same evidence in the same case, the SCSC can reverse an earlier majority decision after it had become settled law.

Moreover, having set these precedents, what is to keep the circuit court from doing the same again? Even if the SCSC gives an explicit Remittitur, why could not the lower judge regard it the same, or at the least kill it by shelving it indefinitely?

American society is bound by a social contract. This rests on rules, or laws. The laws that bind us require definition and enforcement. Courts exist to interpret the law and order enforcement. Reversing, or even changing "final" court decisions in order to reduce freedom and democratic rights is dangerous to the rather precarious equilibrium upon which our social compact rests. This is flirting with chaos and anarchy.

For years, the anti-democratic reactionaries tried to use our institutions to fight back against the reforms of the Great Democratic Revolution. On the whole, they failed. Recently they have moved to attacking the institutions that produced the democratic revolution. In the Episcopal Church, the backlash against rights led to five schisms. The politicization of the courts will remove the last neutral institutions that might have kept the social equilibrium. The attempted coup of Jan. 6, 2021 should have been a walk-up call that there are lots of people out there who are willing to overthrow our institutions to get their way. 

The reactionaries have a long agenda which they will no doubt try to enact on the heels of overturning abortion rights. Among others, they are out to overthrow marriage equality, voting rights for minorities, rights of the transgendered, and rights of immigrants. Overturning Roe v. Wade will open the flood gate for a sea of anti-democratic and anti-human rights legislation. And, if we are overturning settled law, what about overturning Brown v. Board and return to segregated schools? Just think about what could happen in this fury of reaction against democracy. 

In the long run, democracy and rights will prevail but only after a very difficult and bitter fight. That is the story of what is happening in the federal and state supreme courts today. And, in a way, this is the story of the schism in South Carolina.

This is my opinion. What is yours? Share with us at the email address above.

OLD SAINT ANDREW'S TO FILE FOR REHEARING

The Rev. Marshall Huey, rector of Old Saint Andrew's parish church, in West Ashley, Charleston, announced this morning that OSA will file a petition with the state supreme court on Thursday, May 5, for a rehearing. Find this HERE , on Facebook @48.

Old Saint Andrew's is one of the 14 local churches to be returned to the Episcopal Church by decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court of April 20, 2022.

In my opinion, there is no chance the SCSC will agree to a rehearing. Their decision was unanimous and explicitly "final." Mr. Huey used to be a lawyer. He must know his chances. 

Huey did not indicate whether anyone else would join in the petition for rehearing. One cannot imagine the 15 churches which gained their properties would dare risk this gain with a rehearing. After all, the court reversed, for them, the SCSC decision of 2017. As for the rest of of the 14,  I have not heard from any about their plans.

At least this tells us whether the Anglican side will accept the inevitable or continue to deny and delay. Now we know. It is more of the same we have seen for nearly ten years now. The litigation goes on and on.

Deny and delay have been the chief tactics of the Anglican side for years. This may be the motive here. The last time around, the SCSC issued its opinion on Aug. 2, 2017. The ADSC petitioned for rehearing on Sept. 1 (after extensions). The SCSC then asked the EDSC to file a counter-petition concerning rehearing. The EDSC did on Sept. 18. Two months later, on Nov. 17, the SCSC issued its decision denying rehearing; and on the same day sent its decision and Remittitur to the circuit court. So, ADSC's attempt at rehearing failed, but succeeded in devouring two and a half months of time.

The 2017 SCSC decision listed 8 parishes that were judged to be outside the bounds of the Dennis Canon. Two of the 8 dealt with the same parish which was identified as St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant. Old Saint Andrew's claimed that this was an error, that the St. Andrew's named was actually Old Saint Andrew's (the colonial parish church of Saint Andrew's). Under state law, a person who believes the court made a clerical error has a year to file for a correction. OSA did not do this. However, the circuit court judge, Edgar Dickson, went out of his way to include OSA in his decision of 2020 and to give the church clear ownership of the property. The SCSC has now reversed this. So, first TEC owned OSA, then it did not, and now it does again. 

At any rate, the justices who recently studied the local church documents relating to accession to the Dennis Canon deemed OSA's to be in compliance with the trust laws. OSA was placed in the group of 14 parishes that had clearly adopted the Dennis Canon and therefore set up a trust for the Episcopal Church. This is in the 2022 SCSC decision.

It is fitting for OSA to return to the Episcopal Church. According to both state and federal courts, the Episcopal diocese is the historic diocese that was set up in 1785. The old part of the OSA church building is the oldest church structure in South Carolina. The historic church returns to the historic diocese. Justice.

I will get a copy of the petition for rehearing asap and relay it here. Apparently this will be on Thursday of this week. Since this is the deadline for requests for hearing, we will know then whether any of the others in the 14 will file for rehearing.

Note. I also watched the homily of the Rev. Elizabeth Bumpas, at St. James, James Island. Find it HERE @40 when she says, "This legal verdict may be rooted in evil but the permissive will of God is allowing it" [so that the people of St. James can go out on James Island spreading the Gospel]. She did not explain what she meant by "rooted in evil," even as she inexplicably juxtaposed evil with God's will. I trust she did not mean to demonize the Episcopal side or the court. That sort of unfortunate and disappointing attitude would poison the well as the two sides work their ways laboriously to legal finality.

The reactions that I have seen among the 14 have been hither and yon. There is no unanimity. The rector of St. Luke's, Hilton Head, said there may be a possibility of negotiation (to keep the property away from TEC). He offered no evidence. However, the rector of St. John's, on Johns Island, was more resigned as he said they would "probably" have to walk away from the property. At any rate, we will have a much clearer view by the end of this week of the legal reactions of the 14.