WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has been dealt a major setback in its legal battle to retain church properties across Northern Virginia after about a dozen conservative congregations seceded a year ago.

Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows ruled Thursday that a century-and-a-half-old state law governing the ownership of church lands during religious schisms, called the “division statute,” applies in the suit.

The diocese, which is seeking to reclaim eight properties estimated in value as high as $40 million, including the Falls Church in Falls Church and Truro Church in Fairfax, had argued against applying the code.

The ruling sets a course for the lawsuit widely seen as favoring the side of the dissident church groups, which voted to leave the diocese in late 2006 after decades of growing disagreement over doctrine. The leadership of the orthodox local congregations was especially rankled by the Episcopal Church’s 2004 decision to ordain a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

Now these churches are affiliated with a Nigerian archbishop and his church’s American wing, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

“We would say [the ruling] is a step forward for us,” said Jim Oakes, vice chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia, a subset of CANA.

The judge has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the “division statute,” which the diocese also is disputing, as well as on the larger question of which side is entitled to the properties.

“This fall the court will consider our property claims against those who have left the Episcopal Church and yet continue to occupy Episcopal Church property while loyal Episcopalians are forced to worship elsewhere,” the diocese said Friday. “That is simply wrong.”

Though 11 congregations are involved in the suit, only eight own property the diocese is seeking to reclaim.

“The people in the CANA congregations were free to leave, but they cannot take Episcopal property with them,” the diocese said.

wflook@dcexaminer.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

8:27 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 19, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

4:23 PM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008 re: "Breakaway Episcopal churches win round in property fight"

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 | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:18 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

9 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:15 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008 re: "Breakaway Episcopal churches win round in property fight"

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.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:23 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

34 agree | 32 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:45 AM MST on Sun., Jan. 20, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

32 agree | 31 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:09 AM MST on Sun., Jan. 20, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

31 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:40 PM MST on Sat., Jan. 19, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

31 agree | 34 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:36 AM MST on Sat., Jan. 19, 2008 re: "Diocese: Va. AG crossed sacrosanct wall"

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.

38 agree | 31 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate