Seven Bishops file amicus brief with Texas Supreme Court
[Editor's Summary: Direct quotes from the brief are in italics. The signers paid all the fees related to the submission of this brief.
Page iv of the brief states, "These amici remain in The Episcopal Church and submit this brief solely because they disagree with the characterization of the governance of The Episcopal Church as submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment that the trial court granted in this case. The amici oppose the decision by the Appellants (“Diocese of Fort Worth”) to leave The Episcopal Church, but in its ruling against them the court has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The Episcopal Church.
The brief continues, "These amici curiae support the traditional polity of The Episcopal Church founded on the autonomy of its constituent dioceses and therefore submit that the trial court erred both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law when it found that The Episcopal Church has a hierarchical authority superior to the diocese and its bishop.
This appeal presents two distinct questions: first, should Texas courts use neutral principles of law or a hierarchical deference standard in adjudicating church property disputes; and second, if the courts use a deference standard, to what church authority should they defer in this dispute.
The ACI/Episcopal Bishops and Clergy take no position on the first question whether Texas should require courts to use neutral principles of law in all cases or permit the use of a deference standard when constitutionally appropriate. On the second question, the ACI/Episcopal Bishops and Clergy submit that if the Court elects to use a deference standard, it is constitutionally required to defer to the diocese and its bishop, who is the highest authority identified in The Episcopal Church’s governing instruments with respect to matters in his or her diocese...."
Is there a body or office within the Episcopal Church higher than the office of bishop of a diocese? The brief supports and states the Constitution and Canons of this Church, which does not support any other authority other than the diocesan bishop. At one point the constitution states that the General Convention is the highest authority in the Church. Therefore, the Court must determine which ecclesiastical authority to defer to. The brief continues to argue that with regard to the First Amendment rights, "[c]hurch polity, structure, and discipline are at the core of First Amendment concern. Choices about forms of church governance have deep theological bases, and they were the subject of warfare and martyrdom during the wars of religion.”
“It is significant that TEC relies most heavily not on the recent First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court discussed above, but on a nineteenth century pre-Erie Railroad case decided as a matter of federal common law, Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). TEC notes that the Supreme Court recently stated (in a case that involved an employment discrimination claim, not a church property dispute)… Watson It emphasized that courts do not defer merely to “a hierarchical church” without further probing but to a “supreme judicatory” with “ultimate power more or less complete” or, put differently, to the “highest of these church judicatories.
“In Watson, the Supreme Court criticized the state court decision in a companion case because “it went into an elaborate examination of the principles of Presbyterian church government, and ended by overruling the decision of the highest judicatory of that church in the United States.”
The brief continues to examine the status of the hierarchical nature of The Episcopal Church, which is the point argued in previous property suits. The First Amendment argument clarifies that this would require, “An impermissible extensive and searching inquiry into church polity…” to determine who has the authority to make decisions.
The brief continues, “In this dispute, both sides do in fact agree that there is no explicit language in The Episcopal Church’s governing constitution identifying in express legal terms of hierarchy or supremacy any central body or office allegedly superior to the diocesan bishop.11 Indeed, none of the following terms routinely used in legal documents to indicate hierarchical priority is found at all in The Episcopal Church constitution: “supreme”; “supremacy”; “highest”; “hierarchical”; “subordinate”; “sole”; “preempt”; and “final.”
The brief also quotes Canon IV.15, revised in 2006, stating that the highest authority is the diocesan bishop.
In reference to the actions of the Presiding Bishop, “…In this certificate, the Presiding Bishop recites that she is acting pursuant to Canon III.12.7 and that she has “accepted” a written renunciation “by” Bishop Iker of his ministry within The Episcopal Church. 24 CR 5113. Canon III.12.7 required that the Presiding Bishop had to find both that Bishop Iker “is acting voluntarily” and also that he “is not subject to” the church’s disciplinary canons….“
Therefore, Section III states that an attempt to name an authority higher than the diocesan bishop, “WOULD REQUIRE AN IMPERMISSIBLE EXTENSIVE AND SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO CHURCH POLITY.”
The First Amendment clause denies the courts the right to engage in such a search.
Has TEC assumed an alleged authority it does not have? These bishops and the three priest of the Anglican Communion Institute claim that they have. This is an important amicus brief because it is so much more detailed and refutes the TEC claims more expertly than any previously stated amicus brief.
We should know within the next 15 months if this has changed the situation of TEC winning every property dispute except All Saints Pawley’s Island, in South Carolina. That case was determined based on legally filed documents with the State including the articles of incorporation and the 501 (c) (3) application for tax-free status. Since Christ Church Georgia has filed for review with the Supreme Court of the USA, this is an important amicus and we will watch it carefully. Cheryl M. Wetzel]
press release by the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
April 24, 2012
Suzanne Gill, Director of Communications
2900 Alemeda Street
Fort Worth, TX 76108
Seven bishops of The Episcopal Church, along with the Anglican Communion Institute, have submitted a brief to the Texas Supreme Court on a matter of significance to the appeal of the Diocese and Corporation. The bishops include four active and two retired episcopal leaders. They are the Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida; the Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert, suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt. Rev. William H. Love, Bishop of Albany; the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield; and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas. The leaders of the ACI are the Rev. Christopher R. Seitz, the Rev. Philip W. Turner, and the Rev. Ephraim Radner.
The 29-page brief, filed Monday, April 23, seeks to clarify TEC polity, which the ACI and the seven bishops believe was misunderstood by the Fort Worth trial court when it issued its summary judgment ruling.
Specifically, the brief states that attorneys for The Episcopal Church parties sought “to establish an alternative authority to that of the diocesan bishop” in their pleadings, which is contrary to TEC’s structure, as expressed in its Constitution and Canons. A correct understanding will necessitate the reversal of the summary judgment against the Diocese and Corporation, the brief argues, since TEC is hierarchical at the level of the diocese.
Page iv of the brief states, "These amici remain in The Episcopal Church and submit this brief solely because they disagree with the characterization of the governance of The Episcopal Church as submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment that the trial court granted in this case. The amici oppose the decision by the Appellants (“Diocese of Fort Worth”) to leave The Episcopal Church, but in its ruling against them the court has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The Episcopal Church.
The brief continues, "These amici curiae support the traditional polity of The Episcopal Church founded on the autonomy of its constituent dioceses and therefore submit that the trial court erred both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law when it found that The Episcopal Church has a hierarchical authority superior to the diocese and its bishop.
This appeal presents two distinct questions: first, should Texas courts use neutral principles of law or a hierarchical deference standard in adjudicating church property disputes; and second, if the courts use a deference standard, to what church authority should they defer in this dispute.
The ACI/Episcopal Bishops and Clergy take no position on the first question whether Texas should require courts to use neutral principles of law in all cases or permit the use of a deference standard when constitutionally appropriate. On the second question, the ACI/Episcopal Bishops and Clergy submit that if the Court elects to use a deference standard, it is constitutionally required to defer to the diocese and its bishop, who is the highest authority identified in The Episcopal Church’s governing instruments with respect to matters in his or her diocese...."
Is there a body or office within the Episcopal Church higher than the office of bishop of a diocese? The brief supports and states the Constitution and Canons of this Church, which does not support any other authority other than the diocesan bishop. At one point the constitution states that the General Convention is the highest authority in the Church. Therefore, the Court must determine which ecclesiastical authority to defer to. The brief continues to argue that with regard to the First Amendment rights, "[c]hurch polity, structure, and discipline are at the core of First Amendment concern. Choices about forms of church governance have deep theological bases, and they were the subject of warfare and martyrdom during the wars of religion.”
“It is significant that TEC relies most heavily not on the recent First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court discussed above, but on a nineteenth century pre-Erie Railroad case decided as a matter of federal common law, Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). TEC notes that the Supreme Court recently stated (in a case that involved an employment discrimination claim, not a church property dispute)… Watson It emphasized that courts do not defer merely to “a hierarchical church” without further probing but to a “supreme judicatory” with “ultimate power more or less complete” or, put differently, to the “highest of these church judicatories.
“In Watson, the Supreme Court criticized the state court decision in a companion case because “it went into an elaborate examination of the principles of Presbyterian church government, and ended by overruling the decision of the highest judicatory of that church in the United States.”
The brief continues to examine the status of the hierarchical nature of The Episcopal Church, which is the point argued in previous property suits. The First Amendment argument clarifies that this would require, “An impermissible extensive and searching inquiry into church polity…” to determine who has the authority to make decisions.
The brief continues, “In this dispute, both sides do in fact agree that there is no explicit language in The Episcopal Church’s governing constitution identifying in express legal terms of hierarchy or supremacy any central body or office allegedly superior to the diocesan bishop.11 Indeed, none of the following terms routinely used in legal documents to indicate hierarchical priority is found at all in The Episcopal Church constitution: “supreme”; “supremacy”; “highest”; “hierarchical”; “subordinate”; “sole”; “preempt”; and “final.”
The brief also quotes Canon IV.15, revised in 2006, stating that the highest authority is the diocesan bishop.
In reference to the actions of the Presiding Bishop, “…In this certificate, the Presiding Bishop recites that she is acting pursuant to Canon III.12.7 and that she has “accepted” a written renunciation “by” Bishop Iker of his ministry within The Episcopal Church. 24 CR 5113. Canon III.12.7 required that the Presiding Bishop had to find both that Bishop Iker “is acting voluntarily” and also that he “is not subject to” the church’s disciplinary canons….“
Therefore, Section III states that an attempt to name an authority higher than the diocesan bishop, “WOULD REQUIRE AN IMPERMISSIBLE EXTENSIVE AND SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO CHURCH POLITY.”
The First Amendment clause denies the courts the right to engage in such a search.
Has TEC assumed an alleged authority it does not have? These bishops and the three priest of the Anglican Communion Institute claim that they have. This is an important amicus brief because it is so much more detailed and refutes the TEC claims more expertly than any previously stated amicus brief.
We should know within the next 15 months if this has changed the situation of TEC winning every property dispute except All Saints Pawley’s Island, in South Carolina. That case was determined based on legally filed documents with the State including the articles of incorporation and the 501 (c) (3) application for tax-free status. Since Christ Church Georgia has filed for review with the Supreme Court of the USA, this is an important amicus and we will watch it carefully. Cheryl M. Wetzel]
press release by the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
April 24, 2012
Suzanne Gill, Director of Communications
2900 Alemeda Street
Fort Worth, TX 76108
817-244-2885
Seven bishops of The Episcopal Church, along with the Anglican Communion Institute, have submitted a brief to the Texas Supreme Court on a matter of significance to the appeal of the Diocese and Corporation. The bishops include four active and two retired episcopal leaders. They are the Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, retired Bishop of Central Florida; the Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert, suffragan Bishop of Dallas, the Rt. Rev. William H. Love, Bishop of Albany; the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, the Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins, Bishop of Springfield; and the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas. The leaders of the ACI are the Rev. Christopher R. Seitz, the Rev. Philip W. Turner, and the Rev. Ephraim Radner.
The 29-page brief, filed Monday, April 23, seeks to clarify TEC polity, which the ACI and the seven bishops believe was misunderstood by the Fort Worth trial court when it issued its summary judgment ruling.
Specifically, the brief states that attorneys for The Episcopal Church parties sought “to establish an alternative authority to that of the diocesan bishop” in their pleadings, which is contrary to TEC’s structure, as expressed in its Constitution and Canons. A correct understanding will necessitate the reversal of the summary judgment against the Diocese and Corporation, the brief argues, since TEC is hierarchical at the level of the diocese.
the 36 page brief can be read in full at http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/ACIamicusbrief.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment