A county judge has ordered the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican) to surrender diocesan property and assets to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, filed the lawsuit against the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, then the Episcopal Church’s Bishop of Pittsburgh, and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in October 2003.
Pittsburgh’s diocesan convention voted in 2008 to leave the Episcopal Church and join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina. The Episcopal Church has reconstituted the diocese, which consists of approximately 40 percent of its previous membership.
Judge Joseph M. James of the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County ruled on Oct. 6 that a court-approved agreement from 2005 requires that property remain with a diocese of the Episcopal Church.
“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,” the judge wrote.
“The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America did not cease to exist when the defendants chose to withdraw,” the judge added. “The defendants could not extinguish an entity that was created and recognized by the intervenors.”
The judge’s order does not include buildings among congregations that followed Bishop Duncan out of the Episcopal Church.
Get the next 52 weeks of The Living Church Online, plus convenient access to more than a year of archived issues, all for just $25. Click here to start your subscription to the TLC Online Edition today.
3 Comments
Yes! Perhaps David Schofield, et. al., will take note... and cease with spending the Church's money on a lost cause. The process of reconciliation ought to be made their priority. Certainly the people in the congregations ought to be considered.
Though I have never read the documents through which "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburg of the Episcopal Church of the United State of America" was created, I suspect that she was formed in much the same way that my diocese was, through the efforts of men and women living in Pittsburg that desired to organize themselves into a family of Christians and thereafter seek affiliation with The General Convention (of The Episcopal Church of the United States). If I am correct in that premise, then it was not "the intervenors" (that is, not The Episcopal Church of the United States) that formed the diocese and, at most, the involvement of The Episcopal Church, through The General Convention, was to accept the self-organized Diocese of Pittsburg" as a member diocese. Thus, did not Judge James fall into legal error? That said, he may nonetheless be correct in his ultimate decision in that it is based solely upon a 2005 court stipulation through which +Duncan and others in control of the then Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburg (and as a member of General Convention) agreed that diocesan property would remain with a diocese of "The Episcopal Church", a description that no longer pertains to +Duncan's former diocese that withdrew from General Convention and The Episcopal Church.
The other interesting question of course is whether the so-called reconstituted diocese has been validly formed such that it can properly be called "a diocese of The Episcopal Church."
Saint Paul was so very right in 1 Corinthians 6:7 in saying, "To have lawsuits at all with one another is a defeat for you."
God's peace. <><
A clear picture is emerging here after two crucial court decisions within three months, one from the first breakaway case, San Joaquin, and one from Pittsburgh. Both judges said virtually the same thing: once a diocese votes to leave TEC then by self-definition it is no longer the Episcopal diocese, it is a new entity. After severing ties with TEC it cannot claim the rights and assets of the Episcopal diocese because it is no longer the Episcopal diocese. This is not rocket science.
We are now awaiting the court rulings in Ft. Worth and in time, Quincy. Can anyone imagine a rational judge delivering a different judgment?