I offer all this tenatively, but I think what has happened is that the VA Supremes have ruled that the lower court misapplied the existing law, but either upheld the constitutionality of that law, or did not rule on it. So the case returns to the Fairfax County Court. I don't think this decision can be appealed to the US Supreme Court because it involves a state court ruling on state law and no constitutional question is at issue.

I certainly hope that these congregations take Bp. Johnston's invitation to prayer and discussion. Jim is right that we need to see exactly what they did, but the loss to CANA must be a shock.

Thanks to the VA Supremes, though for refuting whatever they refuted.

Okay, had a chance to read the ruling. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the statute, as John makes clear in our item about by citing footnote 11.

Unfortunately as I read the ruling, with a lawyer by my side, the VA Supremes have set this up to continue for many years to come. All the CANA congregations have to do is drop CANA entirely and directly join ACNA, with no Nigerian intervention, and they will have met the 2nd criteria the VA Supremes have said that they failed to meet, namely that they have joined a branch that directly split from from and so was formerly a part of TEC & Dio VA.

One is not a lawyer, but one talks to some. Here is why people whom I trust tell me that today’s ruling is a big, big victory for the Diocese of Virginia. Let me emphasize again: I am not a lawyer. Nor a fortune teller:
The case must now be reheard in county court, where CANA prevailed, but the interpretation of Statute 57.9 on which the lower court judge hung his ruling has been invalidated.
Under the “neutral principles” jurisprudence that prevails in Virginia on these matters, the case will be decided on an examination of four types of information: the statute in question (statute 57, but not 57.9); the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church; the parishes’ deeds; and the parties dealings with one another.
I’m told that in order to prevail, CANA must demonstrate that the Diocese has neither a contractual interest, a proprietary interest nor a trust interest in the property. CANA may choose to challenge the validity of the Dennis Canon and argue that the property of Truro, the Falls Church and others is not held in trust for the wider church, but even if they prevail in that argument—which they shouldn’t—it probably won’t be enough to swing a verdict in their favor. The existing case law in Virginia overwhelmingly favors the position of hierarchical churches in these cases. That includes the case of an Episcopal Church in the southern part of the state that attempted to breakaway over the ordination of women. That case was heard before General Convention adopted the Dennis Canon, but the Episcopal Church still won.

I have to agree with David. This is a partial victory for the Diocese of Va. I don't know how an after-the-fact affiliation with ACNA could affect the next trial in the lower court.

The VA Supremes did not reach the constitutionality of the statute, though they will undoubtedly get another opportunity if the Diocese loses again in the trial court. SCOTUS could get a shot after all the state appeals have been heard.

Roy Murphy

I don't agree with Roy or David's reading on this.

CANA is part of ACNA as both a founding and constituent member of the group, they are only two separate entities in a very limited way that gives Bishop Minn some autonomy from Bishop Duncan. In their polity, CANA is a diocese of ACNA.

Simply rearranging the letters doesn't change the fact that the breakaway groups are already part of ACNA. Dispensing with the name "CANA" won't change anything as far as this ruling goes.

Andrew Gerns

Remember the time line Andrew. When these cases went to trial the facts that you state were not the facts. What you state are facts that have materialized apart from the court case.

The VA Supremes have now stated the criteria which in their opinion must be met to make a claim under the statute, 57.9. What prevents a new claim under the statute that meets both criteria with new facts on the ground that have materialized since the original petitions?

Not a lawyer, but this line from the quotation of opinion jumps out at me: "While the branch joined may operate as a separate polity from the branch to which the congregation formerly was attached, the statute requires that each branch proceed from the same polity, and not merely a shared tradition of faith."

Notice that "polity" as used here is the government of the denomination. What does "proceed from" mean? In corporate lingo it sounds to me like TEC would have had to be the creator of the spinoff. Or in government terms, TEC would have had to grant independence.

For example, 57-9 has applied in the late 19th century in cases where the Methodist denomination had before the Civil War formally agreed to split itself into independent North and South entities. Those polities "proceeded from the polity" of the mother denomination.

But my bottom line is: let's let some dust settle before we decide what this all means.

After having a second, more leisurely reading of the ruling, I'm going to disagree with my earlier post. This ruling is dispositive on the applicability of the Va statute. It does not apply and may not be raised again at the trial court. The ADV have clearly lost big with this ruling. They will have to try to find other property law reasons to maintain their control.

Roy Murphy

WOW! That is some spin Mr Oakes of CANA is giving this.

My bottom line comes from a confrontation scene in the movie Hoosiers: it’s when Coach Norman Dale walks into the gym for his first practice only to find out that George, in an attempt to take over the team, has already started practice.

When Coach Dale tells him his coaching days are over, George mutters all kinds of threats:

George: I don't know why Cletus drug your tired old bones in here, he musta owed you somethin' fierce. Fact is, mister, you start screwin' up this team, I'll personally hide-strap your ass to a pine rail and send you up the Monon Line!

[George angrily turns and storms out of the gym]

Coach Norman Dale: Leave the ball, will you, George?

Coach Dale’s handling of the situation is, and should remain, the Diocese’s and TEC’s --

1) calmly assert our rightful ownership of the space in question,
2) when threatened, do not return threat for threat or insult for insult,
3) if people want to storm out in anger, let them, but
4) insist the ball is not theirs to take.

John Ohmer

BTW Andrew, if you read the linked statement from the Anglican District of VA, they make no claims at present to being part of ACNA, they state that they are in relation to the Anglican Communion because they are part of CANA which is part of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.

While I don't agree with David's emphasis on ACNA v. CANA, he does point us towards something Secretary General Kearon should find highly interesting. Boundary crossing by Nigeria anyone??

"The Anglican District of Virginia (www.anglicandistrictofvirginia.org) is an association of Anglican congregations in Virginia. Its members are in full communion with constituent members of the Anglican Communion through its affiliation with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a missionary branch of the Church of Nigeria and other Anglican Archbishops. ADV members are a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, a community of 77 million people."

John, from Kearon's press conference in Canada, he is not sure that ADV/CANA is a formal act by Nigeria's HoB or Synod, but instead the renegade actions of a lone wolf bishop.

The man is either playing us the fool, or is but another disingenuous Christian leader in the AC among a host of many.

I'm simply trying to provide a public service for Kearon in his inquiry.

At the new conference you cite he said, "I simply do not know whether Nigeria or Rwanda have formally through
their Synod or through a resolution in their House of Bishops have decided [to break the moratorium regarding cross-border
interventions]."

So thievery only has consequences if it has been done after a "formal" vote?

And people wonder why Christianity is dying...

Paige Baker

There seems to be come confusion about the ruling where “division” is concerned. It says:
“….a proper construction of Code § 57-9(A) requires a petitioning congregation to establish both that there has been a division within the church or religious society to which it is attached and that subsequent to that division the congregation seeks to affiliate with a branch derived from that same church or religious society…….The record in these cases shows that the CANA Congregations satisfied the first of these requirements in that there was a division within TEC and the Diocese, but not the second, as CANA clearly is not a branch of either TEC or the Diocese. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred”

What The Court says here is that the statute has two tests, not one. Division is the first requirement. That is present - the vote of the congregations met the standards for a division.

But this is only the first of two requirements. The second requirement is that the new entity, divided off, has to be a “branch of either TEC or the diocese”, and “clearly”, the court says, they are “not” (nor, incidentally, would ACNA be so considered).

That’s why the case fails – the statue was not correctly applied in it’s entirety. Hence, “we hold that the circuit court erred” – because the circuit court judge failed to apply the whole statute. Had the judge applied the whole statute he should naturally, the ruling implies, have realized it did not fully apply and so could not be used to rule in favor of CANA.

I think this is a huge big deal because it makes the statute virtually impossible to apply to any CANA parish – they can never be viewed as or claim to be “a branch of either TEC or the diocese”.

Also highly relevant is that the VA Supreme Court directed that the case now be settled “under principles of real property and contract law. See, e.g., Code § 57-7.1” p. 31/2 . Hopefully the lawyers out there will rush to 57-7.1 and tell us about the referenced decisions!(I note that some above are already doing so).
Nigel.

Canon Kearon does need to get his head out from whatever rock he is hiding under.

Didn't he read the press releases about AMiA withdrawing from ACNA on the express orders of the Rwandan House of Bishops?

David, as to the ADV churches trying for another kick at the can through affiliation with ACNA (which might fit the Va. Supreme's definition of a branch of TEC, though with the inclusion of REC and AMiA that's a bit cloudy), I think first they'd have to suck up, go back to the TEC Diocese of Virginia, then split again.

"as to the ADV churches trying for another kick at the can through affiliation with ACNA (which might fit the Va. Supreme's definition of a branch of TEC, though with the inclusion of REC and AMiA that's a bit cloudy), I think first they'd have to suck up, go back to the TEC Diocese of Virginia, then split again."

Jim, that's a hell of a thought.

The CANA congregations can't go back and unring the bell they've rung. They left the Episcopal Church. They no longer act as Episcopalians, so deciding to join or form some other religious organization would be a separation from the Church of Nigeria, not a mulligan on their separation from the Episcopal Church. For any future votes to be relevant, the individuals in the churches would have to rejoin the Episcopal Church and then vote to separate once again. (Jim Pratt is right about this.) The likelihood of that happening--or of that being allowed to happen--is pretty slim.