Virginia Court Rules in Favor of CANA Parishes

Thursday, April 03, 2008

An 88 page ruling was issued on Thursday, April 3, 2008 by Judge Randy I. Bellows. The full text can be downloaded from Stand Firm at:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/ADV_Judge_Bellows_Opinion_Applicability_of_57-9.pdf

The following is text from pages 2 & 3 of Thursday's ruling:

Re: In Re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church Property Litigation (CL 2007-0248724)

Dear Counsel:

Of the several issues now before the Court, the sole issue that is ripe for decision, and the one that therefore shall be decided today, is whether the powers and the authorities of Va. Code §57-9(A) [hereinafter"57-9(A)"] may be invoked in the instant litigation.

That matter requires the resolution of four questions:

First, what are the definitions of "church" and "religious society," as those terms are used in 57-9(A), and do either of these terms apply to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia [hereinafter "Diocese"], the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, [hereinafter "ECUSA"] or to the Anglican Communion?

Second, what is the definition of "attached," as that term is used in 57-9(A), and does the term apply to the congregations that are the plaintiffs in this litigation [hereinafter "CANA Congregations"], in that they are "attached" to the Diocese, the ECUSA, or the Anglican Communion?

Third, what is the definition of "branch," as that term is used in 57-9(A), and are any of the following entities-the Convocation of Anglicans in North America [hereinafter "CANA"] , the American Arm of the Church of Uganda, the Church of Nigeria, or the Anglican District of Virginia [hereinafter "ADV"]" branches" of the Diocese, the ECUSA, or the Anglican Communion?

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, what is the definition of "division," as that term is used in 57-9(A), and has such a "division" occurred in a "church or religious society" to which the CANA Congregations were attached?

For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court finds in the affirmative as to each of these questions. In other words, the Court finds adequate support in the record to conclude that 57-9(A) has been properly invoked. The Court notes that it does not decide today any issue related to the constitutionality of 57-9(A), except in one discrete respect. The Court will hear oral argument on the constitutional issues in accordance with the Order issued today. The obvious advantage to the Court and the parties in bifurcating the issue of statutory interpretation and applicability, on the one hand, and constitutionality, on the other, is that the parties at oral argument on the constitutional issues will not have to engage in speculation regarding the Court's interpretation of the statute but, rather, will know the precise contours of the Court's reasoning.

Second, the Court does not address or decide in this opinion the validity of the various votes taken by the CANA Congregations to disaffiliate from the ECUSA and the Diocese. The Court will reach that decision, as necessary, at a later point in time.

Finally, this opinion does not address the merits of the ECUSA's and the Diocese's declaratory judgment actions, which have been set for trial in October 2008.

Summary

The only way in which this Court could find a "division" not to exist among the pertinent entities in this case is to define the term so narrowly and restrictively as to effectively define the term out of existence. The ECUSA and the Diocese urge upon this Court just such a definition and further assert that any definition other than the one for which they argue would render the statute unconstitutional. The Court rejects this invitation. Whether or not it is true that only the ECUSA's and the Diocese's proposed definition can save 57-9(A) from constitutional infirmity, there is no constitutional principle of which this Court is aware that would permit, let alone require, the Court to adopt a definition for a statutory term that is plainly unwarranted. Rather, the definition of "division" adopted by this Court is a definition which the Court finds to be consistent with the language of the statute, its purpose and history, and the very limited caselaw that exists. Given this definition, the Court finds that the evidence of a "division" within the Diocese, the ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion is not only compelling, but overwhelming. As to the other issues in principal controversy, the Court finds the Anglican Communion to be a "church or religious society." The Court finds each of the CANA Congregations to have been attached to the Anglican Communion. Finally, the Court finds that the term "branch" must be defined far more broadly than the interpretation placed upon that term by ECUSA and the Diocese and that, as properly defined, CANA, ADV, the American Arm of the Church of Uganda, the Church of Nigeria, the ECUSA, and the Diocese, are all branches of the Anglican Communion and, further, CANA and ADV are branches of ECUSA and the Diocese.