Updated 8:27 a. m.
The ruling is here. The Diocese of Virginia’s response is here. At least one newspaper has erroneously reported that in making this ruling, the court has awarded the breakaway congregations the property. That is not the case, and the diocesan release clears that up well.
We will be updating throughout the day.
Judge Randy Bellows writes:
The Court finds that the evidence presented at trial establishes that the definition of “division” as that term is used in 57-9(A) is in fact that assigned to it by the CANA Congregations, which is “[a] split … or rupture in a religious denomination that involve[s] the separation of a group of congregations, clergy, or members from the church, and the formation of an alternative polity that disaffiliating members could join.”81 (CANA Congregations Opening Post-Trial Mem.7.) In so concluding, the Court first looks to the language of the statute.
And:
Finally, ECUSAjDiocese argue that the CANA Congregations’ definition of division would permit a division to be “foisted upon [a hierarchical church] by the acts of a few disgruntled individuals.” See Post-Trial Reply Br. for the Episcopal Church and the Diocese 5 n.3. The CANA Congregations’ definition, argues ECUSAjDiocese, would make the division statute too “easily applicable.” The Court finds no merit in this position. The CANA Congregations’ definition requires three major and coordinated occurrences: 1.} a “split” or “rupture” in a religious denomination; 2.} “the separation of a group of congregations, clergy, or members from the church;” and 3.} the formation of an “alternative polity that disaffiliating members could join.” The ECUSAjDiocese is correct that division, under 57-9(A}, ought not be “easy.” Under the CANA Congregations’ definition, it is not.
And:
it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude, especially given the involvement of numerous churches in states across the country, the participation of hundreds of church leaders, both lay and pastoral, who have found themselves “taking sides” against their brethren, the determination by thousands of church members in Virginia and elsewhere to “walk apart” in the language of the Church, the creation of new and substantial religious entities, such as CANA, with their own structures and disciplines, the rapidity with which the ECUSA’s problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact-in some cases the extraordinary impact-on its provinces around the world, and, perhaps most importantly, the creation of a level of distress among many church members so profound and wrenching as to lead them to cast votes in an attempt to disaffiliate from a church which has been their home and heritage throughout their lives, and often back for generations. Whatever may be the precise threshold for a dispute to constitute a division under 57-9(A), what occurred here qualifies.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the CANA Congregations have properly invoked 57-9(A). Further proceedings will take place in accordance with the Order issued today.
What next?
For the reasons stated in the Letter Opinion issued today, hereby incorporated by reference, the Court finds that the Plaintiff Congregations in the above-entitled matters have properly invoked Va. Code § 57-9(A). The Court further ORDERS and schedules the following:
The Court hereby schedules oral argument for lOam on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, on the following three issues:
1.) Whether 57-9(A), as interpreted by this Court, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
2.) Whether 57-9(A), as interpreted by this Court, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3.) Whether 57-9(A), as interpreted by this Court, violates the religious freedom provisions of the Virginia Constitution.
On May 28th, 2008, the Court will hear from the Diocese, ECUSA, the CANA Congregations, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia (amicus).
In its response, the diocese said:
In its opinion, the Court explicitly acknowledged that constitutional issues remain and there will be a hearing on those issues on May 28, 2008. At issue is the government’s ability to intrude into the freedom of the Episcopal Church and other churches to organize and govern themselves according to their faith and doctrine. We strongly believe that, while we may have theological disagreements within the Episcopal Church, those disagreements are ours to resolve according to our faith and governance.
Background on the case is here.
Updated 10:25 a.m.
Thinking Anglicans has a roundup of links including press releases from the Anglican District of Virginia and CANA.
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.
Update 10:45 a.m.
AP reports at WTOPnews:
In an opinion released late Thursday, Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows ruled that Virginia’s Civil War-era “division statute” applies to the lawsuit. The language in that law is favorable to the departing congregations.
The judge still has to decide whether the state law is constitutional and whether the departing congregations properly conducted their votes to realign.
Update 2:45 p.m.
AP reports at Richmond Times Dispatch, “The judge is still a long way from deciding who ultimately controls church property.”
Scott Ward, an attorney for several of the congregations, noted that the state statute calls itself “conclusive” and said that might ultimately render a fall trial unnecessary.
But Henry Burt, a spokesman for the diocese, said his side believes that ownership of church property is determined by other things, including a denomination’s laws and deeds and the history of how the property has been managed and controlled over time.
Some faith groups said the ruling could impact other religious organizations in Virginia. The Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy called it “chilling.”
Update: 3:15 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Concerning the Virginia Court Ruling
From the Office of the Presiding Bishop
“We are obviously disappointed in yesterday’s ruling by the trial judge against the Episcopal Church and the Diocese that involved one Virginia statutory issue in the case. While we believe that the Court’s conclusion that Virginia’s unusual “division” statute applies to the current situation in the Diocese, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is incorrect, there will time enough in the future to seek review of that decision if it becomes necessary. In the meantime, we shall present to the Court at the scheduled argument in May our contention that if the statute means what the Court has held, it plainly deprives the Episcopal Church and the Diocese, as well as all hierarchical churches, of their historic constitutional rights to structure their polity free from governmental interference and thus violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced.
“We also note that this decision does not bar the contentions of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese regarding control over the property of the departing congregations that will be presented to the Court in the fall.”
Neva Rae Fox
Program Officer, Public Affairs
The Episcopal Church
212-716-6080
Mobile: 917-478-5659
ENS analysis here.
TIME has a story.
UPDATE: April 4, 6 p.m.
Letter from The Rt Rev Peter J Lee of the Diocese of Virginia follows below (link):
UPDATE: April 5, 9 a.m.
The New York Times reports here.
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
In this Easter season, we celebrate the power, hope and joy of our Lord’s resurrection and the diversity of the gifts we share as one.
Life in the Diocese of Virginia is vibrant. Churches are gearing up for summer mission trips. Shrine Mont is preparing for another session of campers. Clergy and lay employees will soon gather at Shrine Mont for our annual Clergy and Lay Employee Retreat. Your bishops are witnessing the essential mission of the Church by visiting our sisters and brothers in the Episcopal Church in Sudan. I returned today from Sudan where I officiated at the opening of a new secondary school funded by members of the Diocese, and preached to a congregation of 1,400 in the outdoor cathedral in the Diocese of Rumbek. Bishop Johnston will be there for the enthronement of long-time diocesan mission partner Bishop Daniel Deng Bul as Archbishop and Primate later this month. I spent two days with Bishop Daniel, who continues to be grateful for his partnership with the Diocese of Virginia. The Virginia Theological Seminary will award an honorary degree to Archbishop Daniel in May of this year.
In the midst of living out this mission, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County issued an opinion in our case involving departing congregations who are wrongfully occupying Episcopal Church property. While the Court decided it was appropriate for the CANA congregations to file their claims under Virginia’s division statute, it recognized the importance of the constitutional questions surrounding that statute, and will consider our position at a hearing set for May. It is essential for all of us to recognize that this was not a final decision, and the Court did not award any property or assets. We remain hopeful that the Court will recognize the right of the Episcopal Church–and all churches–to govern ourselves according to our own faith and doctrine.
The Diocese is proceeding with its efforts to preserve Episcopal Church property. Beyond May, the Court has scheduled the second part of the trial concerning property rights and an additional constitutional issue for October of this year. And while it is with regret that we continue these legal proceedings, it is also with the conviction that we are ensuring an Episcopal legacy for years to come. Four Episcopal congregations continue to worship in exile from their home church buildings, and we remain fully committed to offer continued support during these lengthy proceedings. Particularly on this day, please hold the clergy and congregations of Epiphany, Oak Hill; The Falls Church, Falls Church; St. Margaret’s, Woodbridge; and St. Stephen’s, Heathsville in your prayers.
The legal proceedings can be confusing, lengthy and frustrating, but your prayers and messages of hope provide the vital support needed by those most affected by this regrettable controversy.
Faithfully Yours,
Peter James Lee