This is a big wake up call for those, some with great innocense, who have never-the-less indulged in several seasons of unfortunate Episcopal ¨permissive prejudice¨ and encouraged to play unhealthy spiritual pretend...the self-deceiving will come to an end for those who have the courage to Love Thy Neighbor (the one that is sitting next to you in the pew) instead.

Lord hear my prayer

Obviously there remains the appeal process, but I wonder what TEC and the Diocese of Pittsburgh will do with all those churches????

That's the challenge in this probable victory.

At this juncture, the most effect use for these assets and property would be to liquidate them. The proceeds could then be used to underwrite litigation in other jurisdictions.

Having a large inventory of properties that it is unlikely could ever be filled with sufficient parishioners to pay the upkeep would be costly. Any other opinions?

Steve

(Editor's note: Thanks. We need your full name next time.)

Regarding an appeal, I am wondering how the process wil work. This wasn't a trial. It was an interpretation of a "stipulation" into which both parties entered willingly. I don't know what sort of difference that makes. Some, I imagine.

Regardless of what name defendants now call themselves, they are not the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

Thats the problem. There is a defect of parties. The judgment binds no one.

Justice served. A firm "hands off" to liars and thieves.

For purposes of this paragraph, Property as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish of the Diocese shall not be deemed Property held or administered by the Diocese.

Ahem - this only applies to DIOCESAN property. Those churches that have deeds to their property are not affected by this ruling.

Joe is right that the stipulation does not explicitly say that the real diocese of Pittsburgh can now take over parish property and toss people out.

That doesn't necessarily mean that parishes that have deeds to their property will be allowed to keep it. That is precisely what would be at issue if there is further litigation, and there is no way of knowing what the court will decide. So far, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has been swayed by this "we have a deed" argument, but all other jurisdictions have sided with TEC.

In the current case, those parishes will be working against language in the stipulation which, as Lionel Deimel points out, " requires congregations attempting to leave the diocese to negotiate the status of parish property. The decision that the Episcopal Church diocese is the “Diocese” of the stipulation, means that the congregations now claiming to be (at least for the moment) in the Southern Cone are going to have to negotiate with what is likely to be an unsympathetic group of folks who just won a long and expensive court fight."

@Joe above quotes "for the purposes of this paragraph". That's a significant qualifier, and it's in there for a reason. The parties to the 2005 Stipulation were silent on the question of parish property ownership.

It's not silent on what happens on what happens to it when a majority of parish members leave to form a parish outside of the Episcopal Church. That's addressed in para 2 of the stipulation,
http://www.deimel.org/commentary/b_pages/stipulation.pdf

Lionel Deimel makes a crucial point as @Jim points out above. These parishes are now in the same position as any other parish that leaves a diocese of the Episcopal Church.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published the following today in its "corrections&clarifications"section:

A decision issued Tuesday by Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James did not deal directly with property that is held in the name of the parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. A headline on yesterday's story was incorrect. The question of who will keep parish property remains to be resolved. A 2005 legal stipulation provides a process for parishes to apply to the diocese and negotiate to keep their property. The Episcopal diocese has said that it intends to follow the process outlined in that 2005 stipulation.

The diocese has so far given no indication of how strict it intends to be in dealing with the issue of parish properties, although my reading of the tea leaves is that it will not want to be as extreme as the Presiding Bishop's recent statement on the matter (which would effectively prevent the use of the properties by the re-aligners even if they pay us for them). At any rate, not much is likely to happen until after our new provisional bishop is in office.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh (TEC) has released the following statement (this was received in an email and has not yet been posted online, so I do not have a link).

Statement Concerning the Court Ruling on Diocesan Assets

We are grateful that Judge Joseph James has ruled that the 2005 Stipulation and Order concerning diocesan property is "clear and unambiguous" in requiring that those assets be held and administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States, and that we are that diocese.

The Judge has ordered that a process for an orderly transition of diocesan property begin within 30 days. We look forward to that transition and will cooperate in the process. We are hopeful that the former leaders of the diocese who sought to retain control of diocesan assets after they themselves separated from the Episcopal Church will also cooperate in the transition and not seek to delay implementation of the Court's order.

Questions have been raised in a number of quarters, including the news media, about the meaning and effect of this decision on the issues of parish property.

The Court's order encompasses the "real and personal property that is subject to Paragraph One of the Stipulation of October 14, 2005," and the parties have been directed to meet with the Special Master previously appointed by the Court to identify all of the property that falls within that paragraph of the Stipulation. In general, that will include all of the real and personal property held by the diocese (or the Board of Trustees of the diocese) except real or personal property "as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish" of the diocese.

The Stipulation of October 14, 2005, includes a separate section (Paragraph Two) that provides a procedural process applicable to the real and personal property of parishes falling outside the scope of Paragraph One - in other words, the property "as to which title is legitimately held in the name of a parish." The decision by Judge James did not address Paragraph Two of the Stipulation directly, but the decision does affirm that our diocese is the "Diocese" referred to in that portion of the Stipulation.

Paragraph Two of the 2005 Stipulation requires that there be a dialogue between the diocese and any parish seeking to disaffiliate from the diocese regarding the disposition of property specifically held for or in the name of the parish, followed by mediation (where a neutral third party helps the parties resolve any disputes between them), before the diocese or the parish may resort to the courts to decide the dispute.

The diocese intends to follow this procedural mechanism, now that the Court has made it clear that we are the "Diocese" referred to in the Stipulation.

It needs to be understood, however, that Paragraph Two is procedural only. It does not alter the legal or ecclesiastical principles surrounding the questions of whether a parish can disaffiliate from the diocese or whether a disaffiliating congregation may retain parish property.

To everyone in parishes where members have separated from the Episcopal Church, we say that despite our different views, we sincerely invite you to be reconciled with us and return to active participation in the diocese, so that no disputes over property are necessary. We pledge to you that we do not seek to punish but rather only to be reconciled with you.

Some media reports have incorrectly suggested that we will now begin simply to transfer buildings and land to parishes that do not want to be active in the Episcopal Church. Our fiduciary duties as trustees and stewards, as well as the terms of the Stipulation, do not permit that to be the case. (See "P-G Offers Correction" in left column)

But it remains our desire, within the constraints of the Stipulation and the canons and legal principles which govern our stewardship of these matters, to find a means to use these sacred spaces to the greatest glory of God.

A PDF of the judge's ruling is available on the diocesan website at: http://www.episcopalpgh.org/docs/courtorder100609.pdf