
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History
Washington, D.C. (Map, News) - Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell bucked the opinions of his predecessors by voluntarily entangling himself in a religious property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and about a dozen splinter groups, the diocese charged this week.
McDonnell entered the land battle last week by defending the constitutionality of a state law the case likely will hinge on. The law, called the "division statute," governs ownership of church land during religious schisms.
Tens of millions of dollars worth of land is at stake in the case, which is scheduled to head to trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court in October. About a dozen conservative congregations left the diocese in late 2006 and joined with an Anglican bishop in Nigeria, and both sides have laid stake to the property. The case includes the Falls Church in Falls Church and Truro in Fairfax.
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, which is arguing that the "division statute" is unconstitutional, pointed to the writings of Thomas Moncure Jr., senior counsel to a prior attorney general in 2005. Moncure asserted that the statute has "potential constitutional problems" and that "constitutional principles dictate the least possible involvement of the state in church matters."
"The prior attorney general was pretty clear - the government should avoid getting entangled in religious dispute and church matters," said Patrick Getlein, secretary of the diocese. "In sharp contrast, the current attorney general has voluntarily jumped into a religious dispute with both feet."
McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin responded that the attorney general has "a duty to defend the statute." "Our position is simply that regardless of whether the court accepts the Episcopal church's interpretation ... the statute is constitutional," he said. "If the Episcopal church were to drop their constitutional arguments, we would withdraw our motion to intervene."
# 5,980 of 7,093 |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
8:27 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 19, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
4:23 PM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008
re: "Breakaway Episcopal churches win round in property fight"
Report as inappropriate
7:18 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008
re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
6:15 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008
re: "Breakaway Episcopal churches win round in property fight"
Report as inappropriate
6:23 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
7:45 AM MST on Sun., Jan. 20, 2008
re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
6:09 AM MST on Sun., Jan. 20, 2008
re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
2:40 PM MST on Sat., Jan. 19, 2008
re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
11:36 AM MST on Sat., Jan. 19, 2008
re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"
Report as inappropriate
A person who actually reads history said:
None of the seceding parishes have had a continous existence since their founding. All of the parishes fell apart and did not exist after the Revolution. When they were re-established in the early 19th century, they were re-established under the authority of the Diocese of Virginia which they all acknowleged at the time and in fact continued to acknowledge until this dispute. The claims that these congregations have existed since colonial times ignores the facts of the case. In the same way as the claim that a church built on the office of bishop may ignore or reject their bishop whenever they feel like shows blantant hypocracy.
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The national church is walking contrary to God and they do not hearken to His word.He will bring seven times more plagues upon them according to their sins.lev27:21 ref eph 5:3 and coloss 3.5 they refuse to abide in him. They teach the love of the flesh not the love of God.If all mankind practices homosexuality we would no longer exist. rom 1 17:32whom is king God or homosexuals.
3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
liberals have taken over the National church and have perverted the church by promoting, fornication, The national church has not put one thin dime into any of these churches.yet wishes to seize the property of churches want to abide in scripture not the worldly ways of sexual misfits.
10 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
robroy said:
The dio of Va was engaged in amicable negotiations when Jefferts Schori told Bp Lee to break these off and sue. They have spent millions, taking on debt to do this, even selling off land given by people for the church to carry on its gospel mission, not for lawyers' expense accounts. The main argument of these high-priced lawyers? There hasn't really been a division despite the largest parishes of the diocese voting overwhelmingly to leave. Judge Bellows summarily dismissed this nonsense, calling division of the first magnitude. What a tragedy. Bp Lee should tell the national church to take off with their high-priced lawyers and go back to the bargaining table.
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mike@Blueweeds said:
E R's "they started it" comment is factually wrong and, more to the point, is designed to distract from the issue of whether or not the AG has abused his office. TEC and the dissenting congregations had entered into a "status qou" agreement. Under the agreement, TEC agreed to not file suit and the dissenting congregations agreed not to hold a vote to leave the church. The dissenting congregations held their vote and petitioned Fairfax County courts to recognize their vote and allow them to hold the church property. In response to the vote and petetion, TEC filed suit. The "division statute" and church property disputes have been happening in VA since colonial days. AG McDonnell is THE FIRST VA AG to ever attempt to intervene AS A PARTY in a private lawsuit over church property. In the history of VA. McDonnell could have filed an amicus informational brief, or attempted to interven BEFORE the trial. He did neither. The AG is using his office to promote his religious beliefs.
46 agree | 33 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How can the "Wall" be considered sacrosanct when the Diocese of Virginia and the national Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop have deliberately taken their claim for millions of dollars of local church property into the Virginia secular court system? If I remember correctly, Truro Parish owned their property, outright, well before the Protestant Episcopal Church became a legal entity in the United States. Now, TEC is claiming the property as theirs and have taken their claim into the secular system. The AG merely stated, as he should, that the TEC claim is clearly unconstitutional. The AG has entered a legal opinion, as it's evident that whatever the outcome of the trial in the Virginia circuit court system, the judgement will be headed for appeal in Richmond. In the long run, there's little room for the AG to avoid being drawn into the process. The TEC jumped the Wall, not the local parishes.
40 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Does the Attorney General not have enough to do? People got mad and left the church but the pews were bolted down - they could not take them with the dissenters. Just let them go start another church and let the Episcopalians do their thing.
40 agree | 46 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Charles A. Riffee, II said:
As an attorney and lover of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and graduate of the University of Virginia, it not only saddens me, but shocks me that the Attorney General has intervened in the dispute over property in the Episcopal Church with those seeking to leave the Church and take property with them. One does not have to be an attorney to recognize the applicability of the "separation," clause here, much less Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom. The Attorney General has no business using his office, or the tax dollars of the Commonwealth in intervening in this matter. The only possible reason he may have in doing this is for perceived political gain. I believe he will find that such short-sightedness will prove to be his downfall, especially with those who hold our constitution and religious freedom dear.
39 agree | 42 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mike@Blueweeds said:
The main argument of the VA Diocese is the VA "division statute" does not apply, not that it is unconstitutional. A small group of conservative defectors can leave TEC, but their leaving does not divide the entire heirerarchal Episcopal Church. McDonnell's attempted intervention in a private lawsuit is a clumsy attempt to leverage his office to posture for his run for Governor in 2009. In doing so, he has added to the pain of our community trying to deal with a difficult seperation and done a disservice to all people (liberal and conservative) of faith.
46 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree